Skip to main content
Open access
Reviews and Overviews
Published Online: 4 September 2015

Prescription Opioid Misuse, Abuse, and Treatment in the United States: An Update

Abstract

Objective:

Prescription opioid abuse and dependence have escalated rapidly in the United States over the past 20 years, leading to high rates of overdose deaths and a dramatic increase in the number of people seeking treatment for opioid dependence. The authors review the scope of the abuse and overdose epidemic, prescription practices, and the assessment, treatment, and prevention of prescription opioid misuse and dependence.

Method:

The authors provide an overview of the literature from 2006 to the present, with the twin goals of highlighting advances in prevention and treatment and identifying remaining gaps in the science.

Results:

A number of policy and educational initiatives at the state and federal government level have been undertaken in the past 5 years to help providers and consumers, respectively, prescribe and use opioids more responsibly. Initial reports suggest that diversion and abuse levels have begun to plateau, likely as a result of these initiatives. While there is a large body of research suggesting that opioid substitution coupled with psychosocial interventions is the best treatment option for heroin dependence, there is limited research focusing specifically on the treatment of prescription opioid dependence. In particular, the treatment of chronic pain in individuals with prescription opioid use disorders is underexplored.

Conclusions:

While policy and educational initiatives appear to be effective in decreasing prescription opioid abuse and misuse, research focusing on the development and evaluation of treatments specific to prescription opioid dependence and its common comorbidities (e.g., chronic pain, depression) is critically needed.

Definitions

Several terms are commonly used in the literature to describe prescription opioid use patterns. Regular opioid use, including opioids used in a therapeutic context, is associated with physical dependence, characterized by a set of signs and symptoms when drug taking is stopped, and tolerance, in which more of the drug is needed to achieve the same intensity of effect. The amount and duration of use associated with physical dependence is variable, but daily use for more than 2–3 weeks is often accompanied by some withdrawal. Being physically dependent does not necessarily mean that an individual has an opioid use disorder, if the individual is taking the medications as prescribed.
Definitions of abuse and misuse vary, but generally misuse of opioids is a broad term that captures any use outside of prescription parameters, including misunderstanding of instructions, self-medication of sleep, mood, or anxiety symptoms, and compulsive use driven by an opioid use disorder. It is important to distinguish between different causes of misuse in order to appropriately address it. Abuse is a nonspecific term that can refer to use without a prescription, in a way other than prescribed, or for the experience or feelings elicited. Diversion refers to “the transfer of a controlled substance from a lawful to an unlawful channel of distribution or use” (Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 1994, Section 309) and includes both selling and giving to family members or friends for their use. Pseudoaddiction is a term applied to situations in which a patient exhibits distress and engages in medication seeking because pain treatment is inadequate. It is best addressed by improving pain control, with or without opioids (1). Patients who are physically dependent on an opioid that was prescribed for pain may continue to use the medication after pain resolution to avoid withdrawal symptoms. This can generally be managed by tapering the opioid.
Thus, the use of DSM criteria in the diagnosis of substance use disorders in individuals receiving opioid analgesics for pain conditions can be complicated because many of the criteria cannot be strictly applied (Table 1). Clinicians must be vigilant in monitoring behavioral criteria specifically associated with opioid use disorders and aberrant use (Table 2) and assessing these criteria within the clinical context.
TABLE 1. Applicability of DSM-5 Criteria to Patients Receiving Opioids for Pain
DSM-5 Criteria for DependenceMedical Use of Opioids for Chronic Pain
ToleranceExpected with prolonged use
WithdrawalExpected with prolonged use
Using larger amounts for longer timePain may last longer than expected
Wants to quit, not ablePain can interfere with dose tapering
Lots of time getting, using, recovering from substance useCriterion can be applied: if opioids are prescribed, should not be spending excessive time procuring
Cravings or urges to useDistinguish from pain-related urges
Not managing at work, etc.Distinguish problems related to pain from problems related to opioid use
Continuing to use despite problems in relationshipsCriterion can be applied: if pain is adequately treated, relationships should improve
Giving up important activitiesCriterion can be applied: if pain is adequately treated, ability to engage in activities should improve
Continuing to use despite dangerCriterion can be applied: if opioids are used as prescribed, should be minimal danger
Using despite physical or psychological problemsMust distinguish from problems related to pain
TABLE 2. Aberrant Drug-Taking Behaviors in Patients Receiving Opioids for Pain
Clearly ProblematicPotentially Problematic
SellingHoarding
Forging prescriptionsSpecific type of drug requested
Stealing drugs from others 
Using by nonprescribed route (e.g., injecting or crushing and snorting) 
Doctor shopping 
Repeated losing, running out earlySingle loss, running out early
Multiple dosage increasesSingle dosage increase

Scope of the Problem

Since the late 1990s, the prevalence of prescription opioid misuse and abuse has escalated rapidly in the United States (2). Prescription opioids are now one of the most commonly initiated drugs, second only to marijuana, with approximately 1.9 million new initiates per year (3, 4). Epidemiologic data from the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health indicate that 12.5 million Americans reported the abuse of prescription opioids, a significant increase from 4.9 million in 1992 (4). From 2000 to 2010, rates of accidental prescription opioid overdose increased almost fourfold (5) and treatment admissions for prescription opioid dependence increased more than fivefold (6).
In the decades before 1990, physicians were criticized for undertreating pain. In the late 1990s, however, there was a paradigm shift. Pain came to be referred to as the “fifth vital sign,” and physicians were encouraged to address and aggressively treat pain. In 2012, the number of prescriptions written for opioids (259 million) equaled the adult population of the United States (4). Pain management is now front and center in the United States as health care providers and policy makers attempt to minimize the negative effects of increased access to prescription opioids while simultaneously ensuring that pain is adequately treated.

Prescription Opioid Overdose

As noted, rates of unintentional overdose on prescription opioids increased almost fourfold from 2000 to 2010, accounting for more than half of all overdose deaths and exceeding overdose deaths attributed to all other illicit drug categories combined (7). Concomitant use of multiple prescribed and illicit substances is implicated in the majority of overdose deaths (8). Of note, concomitant use of benzodiazepines is the most common factor in prescription opioid-related overdose deaths (9). Male gender, nicotine use, higher prescribed opioid dosages, inappropriate prescribing procedures, and a substance abuse history are associated with risk of opioid-related overdose (8). Methadone use is also linked with a high proportion of overdose deaths (10).
Death from prescription opioid overdose most often results from loss of consciousness and respiratory suppression. Naloxone largely reverses the effects of opioid overdose, including respiratory depression. When administered intramuscularly or intravenously, naloxone has a rapid effect on respiratory depression, within 1 to 2 minutes of administration. Although initial investigations of intranasal naloxone did not support its effectiveness, a recent randomized clinical trial of an intranasal reformulation found that it was as effective as intravenous naloxone in reversing opioid overdose-induced respiratory and CNS depression (11). Intranasal naloxone has the advantage of reducing the risks of needle-stick injury and transmission of blood-borne illnesses, as well as the potential for peer administration of naloxone (12). Many overdose deaths are preventable if symptom-reversing treatment is delivered within an acute time frame; to this end, recent policy efforts extend naloxone access to law enforcement personnel, emergency medical technicians, and other first responders (13).

Prescription Practices

Opioids include natural opioids and man-made congeners that act primarily on three receptors types in the nervous system: mu, kappa, and delta receptors. The mu receptor is primarily responsible for the analgesic and euphoric properties of opioids, and efforts to develop an agent that can produce analgesia without abuse potential have been unsuccessful. Many of the opioid analgesics in use today are full mu agonists (morphine, oxycodone, hydrocodone). Buprenorphine is a partial mu agonist that was approved in 2002 as an office-based treatment for opioid dependence. Because it is a partial agonist, there is less risk of overdose and long-term use is associated with less severe withdrawal symptoms. Opioid antagonists, including naloxone, naltrexone, and nalmefene, bind to opioid receptors without activity and can be used to block or reverse the effects of opioids (for a review, see reference 14).
Opioids comprise many specific agents available in a wide range of formulations. Short-acting orally administered opioids (e.g., immediate-release morphine, hydromorphone, codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, and oxycodone) typically have a rapid onset of action (10–60 minutes) and a relatively short duration of action (2–4 hours) and are generally used for acute or breakthrough pain. Extended-release or long-acting opioids have a slower onset of action (30–90 minutes) and a longer duration of action (4–72 hours) and are typically used for chronic pain conditions (15). Providers should not prescribe more than one short-acting opioid concurrently without documented medical justification. Combination products containing an opioid and a nonopioid analgesic are generally used in patients with moderate pain. Using a combination product when dosage escalation is required increases the risk of adverse effects from the nonopioid coanalgesic (e.g., liver damage from acetaminophen), even if an increase of the opioid dosage is appropriate (16). In such cases, using a pure opioid may be preferable. Single-agent formulations are available for codeine, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, hydrocodone, and hydromorphone.
As concern about opioid misuse and abuse has risen, efforts have focused on creating abuse-deterrent and tamper-resistant opioid formulations. A 4:1 formulation of buprenorphine and naloxone designed for sublingual administration, marketed under the name Suboxone, is the most commonly used buprenorphine formulation. Sublingual naloxone will not precipitate withdrawal; however, if Suboxone is taken intravenously, the naloxone will block the euphorigenic effects of buprenorphine and may precipitate withdrawal. Another deterrent formulation incorporates an opioid antagonist into a separate compartment deep within a single capsule, so that crushing the capsule would release the antagonist and neutralize the opioid effect. Another strategy is to modify the physical structure of tablets or incorporate compounds that make it difficult to liquefy, concentrate, or otherwise transform the tablets. In 2014, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a new extended-release oxycodone/naloxone formulation (Targiniq ER) with abuse-deterrent properties. Transdermal opioid formulations have been perceived in the past as less vulnerable to misuse, but such formulations can be abused.

Efforts to Prevent Opioid Misuse and Abuse

The Office of National Drug Control Policy recently expanded the National Drug Control Strategy to include specific recommendations to enhance efforts to prevent opioid abuse. Recommendations include 1) educating patients and providers about the risks associated with misuse and abuse (e.g., patient-provider treatment agreements); 2) enhancing Prescription Drug Monitoring Program utility and use; 3) increasing proper disposal of prescription drugs to prevent diversion; and 4) addressing key sources of diversion (doctor shopping and “pill mills”) through enforcement. In addition, best-practice recommendations from a variety of professional societies recognize the need to balance the benefits of opioids in managing pain with the potential risks conferred, particularly by chronic use. Recommendations support the universal application of risk mitigation strategies such as screening and monitoring assessments, mental health screening, treatment agreements, dosing guidelines, and urine drug screens at regular intervals (17). Continuing medical education, academic detailing, and consultations show promise in supporting risk mitigation strategy implementation (18).
Federal and state legislative efforts also have a significant role in stemming the opioid abuse epidemic. The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the FDA are the primary federal agencies charged with overseeing the execution of prescription opioid misuse prevention efforts. The DEA imposes penalties for inappropriate prescribing practices, such as jail time, fines, and revocation of licensure, while the FDA requires Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) from drug manufacturers. Although REMS are intended to help balance the risk-benefit profile of opioid medications by requiring manufacturers to provide training and education to physicians regarding universal precautions in opioid prescribing, their effectiveness has not been systematically evaluated.
Much of the legislative effort focusing on prescription opioid misuse has been at the state government level, and it varies widely from state to state. Common themes include expansion and mandated use of state-run Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs; extending naloxone access for overdose treatment to law enforcement and emergency first responders; immunity for individuals receiving treatment for overdose; expansion of substance abuse screening and treatment; mandating prescriber education and training in pain management, opioid prescribing, and substance abuse assessment; and increasing “prescription drug take-back” resources (19). Implementation of many of these policies is recent, and few rigorous evaluations have been conducted to examine the effects of these statewide policies. However, increasing evidence supports the effectiveness of several specific policies, including expansion of drug take-back and Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (20, 21). More broadly, policy changes show promise in enacting and enforcing evidence-supported prescribing practices that reduce risk for abuse and diversion while maintaining or improving the clinical management of pain.

Screening and Assessment

Because it is difficult to predict who will abuse opioid medications, universal risk evaluation is strongly encouraged, which means that all patients, including opioid-naive patients, should be screened for potential risk of abuse using a validated instrument before starting opioid therapy. Positive results from screening should be followed up with a more extensive assessment to gather additional information. All patients receiving opioid therapy, regardless of risk level, should receive education regarding the safe use, storage, and disposal of opioid medications (e.g., take them only as directed, get them from only one provider, do not borrow them from others, do not combine them with alcohol).
Factors associated with increased risk of prescription opioid abuse in cross-sectional studies include younger age (18–25 years old), male gender, psychiatric disorders (e.g., depression, bipolar disorder), exposure to violence or sexual assault, a history of substance use disorders (in particular illegal drug use), and a family history of substance use disorder (2, 22). Men are more likely than women to use prescription opioids via alternative routes (e.g., crushing and snorting pills), and women are more likely than men to receive prescriptions for opioids combined with sedatives, an important risk factor for inadvertent overdose (23).
There are several validated screening tools to help providers assess the risk of possible opioid misuse (Table 3). It is critical that all patients be screened prior to initiating opioid therapy. Validated screening measures include the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients With Pain (24) and the Opioid Risk Tool (25). The Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients With Pain is a self-report measure, available in 5-, 14-, or 24-item versions. The 14- and 24-item versions have the strongest sensitivity, specificity, and predictive validity. The Opioid Risk Tool is also a self-report measure, which is brief and easy to use and demonstrates good sensitivity and specificity. Thus, both of these instruments are useful to help identify patients being considered for opioid therapy who may be at risk for misuse or abuse of opioid medications. Positive screening alone is insufficient to rule out opioid therapy, and a positive screening result should be followed up with a more comprehensive assessment, including urine drug screen tests and a clinical evaluation to determine the safety and risk-benefit ratio of opioid therapy.
TABLE 3. Standardized Screening and Assessment Measures for Use in Opioid Therapy
MeasureFormat/Purpose
Screening 
Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients With Pain (24)Self-report; used to facilitate assessment and planning for patients being considered for long-term opioid treatment
Opioid Risk Tool (25)Self-report; used to assess risk of opioid abuse in primary care settings for patients being considered for opioid treatment
Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (26)Self-report; used to identify hazardous and harmful patterns of alcohol consumption
Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (27)Self-report; used to detect substance use and related problems in primary and general medical care settings
Drug Abuse Screening Test (28)Self-report; used to help identify individuals who are abusing drugs
Diagnosis 
Alcohol Use Disorders and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule (29)Clinician administered; diagnostic interview
Composite International Diagnostic Interview (30)Clinician administered; diagnostic interview
Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (31)Clinician administered; diagnostic interview
Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (32)Clinician administered; diagnostic interview
Symptom monitoring 
Current Opioid Misuse Measure (33)Self-report; used to identify whether a patient currently on long-term opioid treatment is exhibiting aberrant behaviors associated with misuse
Addiction Severity Index (34)Clinician administered; used to assess areas of functioning often affected by substance abuse (e.g., medical, legal, psychiatric, alcohol, drug, social)
Timeline follow-back (35)Clinician administered; used to monitor amount and frequency of substance use
Once opioid therapy has been started, it is important to monitor the patient during treatment. The Current Opioid Misuse Measure (33) is a self-report measure that can facilitate the monitoring of patients on opioid therapy. It takes less than 10 minutes to complete and includes 17 items that evaluate six key issues: signs and symptoms of intoxication, emotional volatility, poor response to medications, substance use disorders, health care use patterns, and problematic medication behavior. For patients with a prior history of opioid use but no history of misuse or abuse, providers should screen for factors suggesting an increase in risk, especially since the last time the patient received a prescription for an opioid (e.g., recent alcohol or drug use disorders, mental health problems), before reinstating opioid therapy.
For patients with a history of opioid misuse, thoughtful assessment and planning are necessary. Assessment should include a thorough history of prescription opioid use (e.g., age at onset, reasons for use, source, route of administration, reasons for escalation), other opioid use (e.g., heroin, injection), treatment history and outcome, other substance use including other prescription medications (e.g., benzodiazepines), psychiatric illnesses, and medical conditions. Evaluation of other substance use is critical given the increased risks of overdose and death associated with concomitant substance use, in particular benzodiazepines and alcohol (5). Assessment of family members and caretakers, as well as consultations with mental health professionals and substance use disorder specialists, may also be needed. A thorough evaluation will help providers and patients determine the best approach to treatment, which may involve other forms of treatment or interventions (e.g., nonpharmacologic treatment approaches for pain, cognitive-behavioral therapy for a psychiatric disorder) prior to considering reinstating opioid therapy. If the patient does resume opioid therapy, consider more frequent monitoring, pill counts, checking the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program at each visit and with each refill, using a decreased amount and supply of medication, regular engagement of mental health professionals or social workers, and incorporation of family members.
All patients who are started on opioid therapy should be monitored on a regular basis. Particular attention should be given to the escalation of opioid use and any negative impact on the patient’s ability to function across multiple domains of life (e.g., occupational, social, family). See Table 3 for examples of standardized assessments that may be helpful in monitoring for aberrant behaviors during ongoing opioid therapy (2435).

Treatment of Prescription Opioid Use Disorders

Although prescription opioid use disorders are approximately four times more prevalent than heroin use disorders, treatment outcome research specific to prescription opioid use disorders is limited, and the extent to which treatments developed for heroin dependence can be successfully generalized to prescription opioid dependence remains unclear (36). In the absence of protocols specific to prescription opioid use disorders, most treatment facilities defer to the evidence base amassed regarding treatment options for opioid use disorders more broadly. Evidence-based treatment of opioid use disorders has been reviewed at length elsewhere (e.g., 37) and will be discussed only briefly here, allowing for more in-depth focus on treatment outcome trials specific to prescription opioid use disorders.
Treatment for opioid use disorders typically involves medically supervised detoxification (38) followed by maintenance with opioid substitution therapies (39). Opioid substitution therapy involves administration of controlled amounts of longer-acting opioids with less euphoric effects in an effort to reduce craving and prevent withdrawal symptoms. Opioid substitution therapy often involves long-term, or even lifetime, use of medication (40). The two most common substitution therapies are methadone and buprenorphine. Approximately one-quarter of individuals with opioid use disorders have received methadone maintenance therapy, making it the most commonly used replacement therapy for opioid use disorders.
Effectiveness rates for methadone maintenance therapy range from 20% to 70%, and outcomes are dose related, with individual variability in the effective dose. Lower dosages (20–40 mg/day) are effective at suppressing opioid withdrawal but may not sufficiently decrease craving or block the effects of other opioids. Maintenance dosages are generally in the range of 70–120 mg/day, although some patients may require more than 120 mg/day for optimal therapeutic response. Methadone is useful for suppressing withdrawal and blocking the effects of other opioids, and methadone maintenance therapy provides a context in which prosocial activities and health issues can be addressed. Studies have shown that methadone maintenance therapy enhances treatment retention, decreases illicit opioid and other drug use, and is associated with decreased criminal activity (14), although other studies have not reported any impact of methadone on criminal activity (37).
In 2002, the FDA approved office-based administration of buprenorphine, and by 2012, 51% of opioid treatment programs (www.buprenorphine.samhsa.gov) offered buprenorphine (4). Because it is a partial mu agonist, buprenorphine is associated with less euphoria and sedating effects than methadone and has been shown to decrease withdrawal, hospital admissions, morbidity, and mortality among patients with opioid use disorders (41). Studies suggest that buprenorphine outcomes (at 8 mg/day sublingually) are superior to placebo, and similar to daily doses of 50–60 mg per day of methadone (42). Similar to methadone maintenance therapy, buprenorphine therapy can be maintained for years.
Long-term (or lifetime) replacement therapy is not an attractive option for some individuals with opioid use disorders. In these cases, a substitution therapy (usually buprenorphine or Suboxone) is gradually tapered and eventually replaced with naltrexone to promote sustained opioid abstinence (43). Naltrexone is an opioid antagonist that blocks the euphorigenic effects of opioids. Whereas the effectiveness of naltrexone has been historically hampered by low adherence rates, injection and implant options, recently approved by the FDA, showed promising results in a recent trial (44). Naltrexone is easy to administer, does not induce tolerance, and is not addictive. However, because naltrexone diminishes opioid tolerance, it can increase the risk of overdose in individuals who return to illicit drug use. Overdose deaths associated with oral naltrexone are 3–7 times higher than those associated with methadone maintenance therapy (45).

Treatment Outcomes Specific to Prescription Opioid Use Disorders

Recent results from the Starting Treatment With Agonist Replacement Therapies (START) study, a multisite trial that included individuals with both intravenous and prescription opioid use disorders (46), suggested that prescription opioid analgesic-only users may be more likely to stay in treatment longer and achieve better outcomes than their counterparts with histories of heroin or other injection use. The availability of buprenorphine through office-based practice rather than specialized clinics, coupled with the ability to prescribe a 30-day supply as opposed to daily clinic administration, led to the hypothesis that buprenorphine may be the more attractive treatment for patients. Contrary to this initial hypothesis, START study results indicated no significant advantage for Suboxone over methadone maintenance therapy with respect to opioid use outcomes at up to 24 weeks of active treatment, suggesting that either approach presents a viable treatment option for prescription opioid use disorders.
Preliminary evidence also suggests that individuals with prescription opioid use disorders may initiate and maintain abstinence with a brief but intensive outpatient Suboxone taper, followed by adherence to long-term naltrexone (47). Although this option for tapered outpatient management may be particularly appealing in rural areas where access to methadone maintenance therapy programs is limited (48), evidence supporting the effectiveness of this approach is inconclusive, and further evaluation is needed (49).
The Prescription Opioid Addiction Treatment Study (50), the largest existing randomized controlled trial of treatment for prescription opioid use disorders, examined differential intensities and combinations of counseling and buprenorphine-naloxone treatment for patients with DSM-IV dependence on opioid analgesics. Phase 1 of this multisite trial consisted of induction, a 2-week medication stabilization period, a 2-week medication taper, and an 8-week postmedication follow-up. Individuals who relapsed during phase 1 were transitioned to phase 2, which consisted of a 12-week medication stabilization period, a 4-week medication taper, and an 8-week posttreatment follow-up. Across each phase, participants were randomized to either standard medical management or standard medical management plus individual opioid drug counseling. The primary outcome was abstinence from opioids during the final 4 weeks of buprenorphine-naloxone stabilization (weeks 9–12), based on urine drug screening and self-report.
Overall, treatment success rates were 7% in phase 1 and 49% in phase 2, suggesting that longer medication treatment and a slower medication taper were associated with better outcomes (50). Treatment outcomes were predicted by medication response at 2 weeks: abstinence during the initial 2 weeks of treatment was moderately predictive of successful treatment outcomes, and opioid use during the initial 2 weeks of treatment was a strong predictor of unsuccessful treatment outcomes (51). Furthermore, heterogeneity in response to stabilization and taper predicted time to first use, such that the following groups evinced the shortest to longest period of abstinence: 1) high levels of craving and withdrawal, 2) intermediate levels of craving and withdrawal, 3) high initial craving with low craving and withdrawal trajectories, and 4) low initial craving with low craving and withdrawal trajectories (52).
Treatment outcomes for the Prescription Opioid Addiction Treatment Study have been reported for 18 months (53) and 42 month (54), and were notably improved in comparison to initial 12-week outcomes. Nearly one-third (31.7%) of treatment completers were abstinent and no longer on agonist treatment, and 29.4% continued to receive agonist therapy but met no criteria for a current prescription opioid use disorder. Conversely, nearly one-third (31.4%) reported illicit opioid use in the absence of agonist therapy and 7.5% were using opioids illicitly while still receiving agonist therapy. A small but important subsegment of individuals got worse during the course of treatment and follow-up: 8% reported first-time heroin use and 10% reported first-time injection use. Heroin use and pain severity at baseline were associated with poorer treatment outcomes. Engagement with agonist therapy was associated with better long-term outcomes.

Critical Evidence Gaps in Treatment of Prescription Opioid Use Disorders

The literature pertaining to the treatment of patients presenting with a primary prescription opioid use disorder, particularly those with a chronic pain condition that led to initial use of opioids, is sparse, preventing concrete conclusions regarding the comparative effectiveness of existing treatment options beyond those drawn from research with broader opioid use disorder samples. The development or adaptation of treatment protocols addressing patients with prescription opioid use disorders is a critical need in reducing the public health burden associated with the current epidemic.
Additionally, further research is warranted on treatment tailored for special populations of individuals with prescription opioid use disorders previously identified in the broader opioid use disorder population, including polysubstance abusers, pregnant women, and HIV-positive individuals. Consistent with treatment approaches to opioid use disorders, patients with active use of other sedative-hypnotics (alcohol, benzodiazepines, and barbiturates) are typically detoxified and required to discontinue substance use prior to initiation of treatment. Because of potential medication interactions, buprenorphine is used with caution and monitored closely in patients with HIV on antiretroviral therapy. Although Suboxone is not recommended for pregnant women, buprenorphine monotherapy is typically recommended and has demonstrated better short-term and potentially long-term outcomes than methadone maintenance therapy for this population (55). No studies to date have addressed the general application of these clinical approaches to individuals with only a prescription opioid use disorder.
Finally, the treatment literature on opioid use disorders has traditionally indicated that integrated, multifaceted treatments incorporating both pharmacotherapy and psychosocial interventions have a higher likelihood of success than pharmacotherapy alone (39). Specifically, contingency management protocols have shown promise in enhancing retention and compliance among patients with opioid use disorders (56). However, recent research specific to prescription opioid use disorders suggested no overall additional benefit from counseling (50), although subpopulations with more severe opioid use that included heroin may receive added benefit when engaged in counseling coupled with medical management (57). At present, the data are insufficient to provide guidance on the type (or inclusion) of psychosocial treatment—contingency management, relapse prevention, support groups like Narcotics Anonymous—that might be most effectively partnered with opioid substitution therapy. Identification of treatment combinations that work best for specific patient subgroups is an important area for future research.

Treatment of Pain in Substance-Dependent Individuals

The treatment of pain in individuals with addiction disorders does not differ significantly from the treatment of pain in nonaddicted individuals. Individuals with substance use disorders are at greater risk than the general public for accidents and injuries associated with pain (58), and untreated pain can be a significant trigger for relapse (59). The goals of treatment are the reduction of pain and restoration of function. In the management of moderate to severe acute pain, opioids are generally the mainstay of treatment in addicted or nonaddicted individuals. Scheduled administration of opioids is preferred to as-needed administration in individuals with addictive disorders, as it provides several advantages. If the patient needs to ask for pain medication, this may be misconstrued as drug-seeking behavior. In addition, when drug administration is time rather than symptom dependent, reinforcement of pain symptoms is minimized. Individuals on methadone maintenance therapy or those who are physically dependent on other opioids should have their baseline opioid requirements met in addition to the medication provided for pain treatment. When possible, patients on methadone maintenance therapy should receive a different opioid medication for the control of acute pain or have additional methadone prescribed on a three- or four-times-daily basis. The management of patients on buprenorphine who develop an acute pain condition is somewhat more complex, with less data and clinical experience available for guidance. Although buprenorphine is an effective analgesic, it does not have the potency of a full-agonist opioid. Options include increasing the dosage of buprenorphine and giving it in divided doses throughout the day or adding a full-agonist opioid to the regimen for the period of acute pain, although the efficacy of a full agonist in the face of receptor occupancy by buprenorphine is not clear. A third option is to discontinue buprenorphine and switch temporarily to a full-agonist opioid while acute pain treatment is needed. When the acute pain subsides, the patient can be reinducted on buprenorphine.
In the treatment of chronic pain, treatment goals are approached initially through the use of nonpharmacological strategies, such as a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) unit, peripheral nerve blocks, or trigger point injections. The mainstay of medication treatment for chronic, nonmalignant pain includes nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, tricyclic antidepressants, and anticonvulsants. Anticonvulsants (pregabalin) and antidepressant agents (duloxetine) have recently received FDA approval for specific pain syndromes. There is no nationally accepted consensus concerning chronic pain management, but published consensus statements emphasize the importance of using a standardized approach so that decisions about the use of opioids and dosage increases can be clearly justified. Clinicians should be aware that long-term opioid use may be associated with the development of abnormal sensitivity to pain (i.e., hyperalgesia), which manifests clinically as needing increasing dosages of opioids to maintain the same level of analgesia. However, dosage escalation should be approached with caution, and ongoing assessment to determine whether the increased dosing is meeting the goals of treatment (decreased pain, improved functionality) is essential. Failure to meet goals requires re-evaluation and change in treatment plan.
Medication agreements, written statements that reinforce the patient’s responsibility and clarify the boundaries of treatment, may be useful in the management of pain, as they can help in avoiding misunderstandings and clarifying decision points related to opioid prescribing (16). Even when medications, including opioids, are deemed necessary in the treatment of chronic pain syndromes, the treatment plan should be multidimensional. Specifically, it should include a careful history of the pain problem, factors that contribute to the patient’s pain and distress, and a plan for dealing with each of these contributing factors. The treatment plan may include the physical treatments of pain mentioned previously (i.e., a TENS unit, nerve blocks), as well as behavioral interventions, such as relaxation training and biofeedback. While the majority of chronic pain patients achieve relief through multimodal approaches that do not include opioids, the use of long-term opioids as one component in the treatment of chronic pain is considered a reasonable approach when other treatment regimens have failed. For most patients, a trial period with the use of coordinated alternative treatments should be tried before long-term opioid therapy is used. When opioids are used, it is important to document their benefit by improvement in functional status.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The prevalence of prescription opioid abuse and misuse has escalated rapidly in the United States over the past 20 years, leading to dramatic increases in overdose deaths and individuals seeking treatment for opioid use disorders. In response to this public health crisis, a number of policy and educational initiatives have been implemented to help providers and patients, respectively, prescribe and use opioids more responsibly. While the effectiveness of these initiatives is currently under evaluation, initial reports suggest that diversion and abuse rates have plateaued, likely a result of these initiatives as well as a shift in FDA and best-practice recommendations indicating that extended-release or long-acting opioids should be reserved for the treatment of severe pain (60). Treatment research on opioid use disorders was largely focused on intravenous heroin use until 5–10 years ago, so studies focusing specifically on prescription opioid use disorders remain limited. Studies focusing primarily on heroin suggest that replacement therapies, coupled with psychosocial treatment, are the best treatment option, although treatment access remains an issue and treatment utilization rates are low. Additional research focusing on the development and evaluation of treatments specific to prescription opioid use disorders and their common comorbidities (e.g., chronic pain, depression) are critically needed.

Supplementary Material

File (jan2016_opioids.mp3)

References

1.
Weissman DE, Haddox JD: Opioid pseudoaddiction: an iatrogenic syndrome. Pain 1989; 36:363–366
2.
McHugh RK, Nielsen S, Weiss RD: Prescription drug abuse: from epidemiology to public policy. J Subst Abuse Treat 2015; 48:1–7
3.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality: The N-SSATS Report: Trends in the use of methadone and buprenorphine at substance abuse treatment facilities: 2003–2011. Rockville, Md, 2013
4.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality: Results from the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings (NSDUH Series H-46, HHS Publication No (SMA) 13-4795). Rockville, Md, 2013
5.
Calcaterra S, Glanz J, Binswanger IA: National trends in pharmaceutical opioid related overdose deaths compared to other substance related overdose deaths: 1999–2009. Drug Alcohol Depend 2013; 131:263–270
6.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality: Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS), 2000–2012: National Admissions to Substance Abuse Treatment Services (DASIS Series S-61, HHS Publication No (SMA) 12-4701). Rockville, Md, 2014.
7.
Department of Health and Human Services, Behavioral Health Coordinating Committee, Prescription Drug Abuse Subcommittee: Addressing Prescription Drug Abuse in the United States: Current Activities and Future Opportunities. http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/hhs_prescription_drug_abuse_report_09.2013.pdf
8.
Jones CM, Lurie P, Woodcock J: Addressing prescription opioid overdose: data support a comprehensive policy approach. JAMA 2014; 312:1733–1734
9.
Jann M, Kennedy WK, Lopez G: Benzodiazepines: a major component in unintentional prescription drug overdoses with opioid analgesics. J Pharm Pract 2014; 27:5–16
10.
Bohnert AS, Ilgen MA, Trafton JA, et al: Trends and regional variation in opioid overdose mortality among Veterans Health Administration patients, fiscal year 2001 to 2009. Clin J Pain 2014; 30:605–612
11.
Sabzghabaee AM, Eizadi-Mood N, Yaraghi A, et al: Naloxone therapy in opioid overdose patients: intranasal or intravenous? A randomized clinical trial. Arch Med Sci 2014; 10:309–314
12.
Kerr D, Dietze P, Kelly AM: Intranasal naloxone for the treatment of suspected heroin overdose. Addiction 2008; 103:379–386
13.
Clark AK, Wilder CM, Winstanley EL: A systematic review of community opioid overdose prevention and naloxone distribution programs. J Addict Med 2014; 8:153–163
14.
Veilleux JC, Colvin PJ, Anderson J, et al: A review of opioid dependence treatment: pharmacological and psychosocial interventions to treat opioid addiction. Clin Psychol Rev 2010; 30:155–166
15.
Zacharoff KL, McCarberg BH, Reisner L, et al: Managing Chronic Pain With Opioids in Primary Care, 2nd ed. Newton, Mass, Inflexxion, 2010
16.
Fishman SM: Responsible Opioid Prescribing: A Clinician’s Guide, 2nd ed. Washington, DC, Waterford Life Sciences, 2012
17.
Nuckols TK, Anderson L, Popescu I, et al: Opioid prescribing: a systematic review and critical appraisal of guidelines for chronic pain. Ann Intern Med 2014; 160:38–47
18.
Executive Office of the President of the United States, Office of National Control Policy: Epidemic: Responding to America’s Prescription Drug Abuse Crisis. Washington, DC, 2011. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/issues-content/prescription-drugs/rx_abuse_plan_0.pdf
19.
National Conference of State Legislatures: Prevention of Prescription Drug Overdose and Abuse. Washington, DC, July 28, 2014. http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/prevention-of-prescription-drug-ovrdose-and-abuse.aspx
20.
Kuehn BM: CDC: Major disparities in opioid prescribing among states: some states crack down on excess prescribing. JAMA 2014; 312:684–686
21.
Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) Center of Excellence: Briefing on PDMP. Waltham, Mass, Brandeis University, April 2013
22.
Barclay JS, Owens JE, Blackhall LJ: Screening for substance abuse risk in cancer patients using the Opioid Risk Tool and urine drug screen. Support Care Cancer 2014; 22:1883–1888
23.
Back SE, Payne RL, Simpson AN, et al: Gender and prescription opioids: findings from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Addict Behav 2010; 35:1001–1007
24.
Passik SD, Kirsh KL, Casper D: Addiction-related assessment tools and pain management: instruments for screening, treatment planning, and monitoring compliance. Pain Med 2008; 9(suppl S2):S145–S166
25.
Webster LR, Webster RM: Predicting aberrant behaviors in opioid-treated patients: preliminary validation of the Opioid Risk Tool. Pain Med 2005; 6:432–442
26.
Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, et al: Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO Collaborative Project on Early Detection of Persons With Harmful Alcohol Consumption–II. Addiction 1993; 88:791–804
27.
Humeniuk R, Ali R, Babor TF, et al: Validation of the Alcohol, Smoking, And Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). Addiction 2008; 103:1039–1047
28.
Gavin DR, Ross HE, Skinner HA: Diagnostic validity of the drug abuse screening test in the assessment of DSM-III drug disorders. Br J Addict 1989; 84:301–307
29.
Grant BF, Hasin DS: The Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule (AUDADIS). Rockville, Md, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 1992
30.
Robins LN: Diagnostic grammar and assessment: translating criteria into questions, in The Validity of Diagnosis. Edited by Robins LN, Barrett J. New York, Raven Press, 1989, pp 263–278
31.
First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, et al: Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders, Clinical Version (SCID-CV). Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Press, 2002
32.
Sheehan DV, Lecrubier Y, Sheehan KH, et al: The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry 1998; 59(suppl 20):22–33
33.
Butler SF, Budman SH, Fanciullo GJ, et al: Cross validation of the current opioid misuse measure to monitor chronic pain patients on opioid therapy. Clin J Pain 2010; 26:770–776
34.
McLellan AT, Kushner H, Metzger D, et al: The fifth edition of the Addiction Severity Index. J Subst Abuse Treat 1992; 9:199–213
35.
Sobell LC, Sobell MB: Timeline follow-back: a technique for assessing self-reported ethanol consumption, in Measuring Alcohol Consumption: Psychosocial and Biological Methods. Edited by Litten RZ, Allen J. Totowa, NJ, Humana Press, 1992, pp 41–72
36.
Holmes D: Prescription drug addiction: the treatment challenge. Lancet 2012; 379:17–18
37.
Mattick RP, Breen C, Kimber J, et al: Buprenorphine maintenance versus placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 2:CD002207
38.
Brady KT, McCauley JL, Back SE: Opiate misuse and dependence, in Clinical Textbook of Addictive Disorders, 4th ed. Edited by Mack AH, Brady KT, Miller SI, Frances RJ. New York, Guilford, 2014
39.
Amato L, Minozzi S, Davoli M, et al: Psychosocial and pharmacological treatments versus pharmacological treatments for opioid detoxification. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; (9):CD005031
40.
World Health Organization: Guidelines for the Psychosocially Assisted Pharmacological Treatment of Opioid Dependence. Geneva, 2009
41.
Bell J, Trinh L, Butler B, et al: Comparing retention in treatment and mortality in people after initial entry to methadone and buprenorphine treatment. Addiction 2009; 104:1193–1200
42.
Ling W, Charuvastra C, Collins JF, et al: Buprenorphine maintenance treatment of opiate dependence: a multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Addiction 1998; 93:475–486
43.
Sigmon SC, Bisaga A, Nunes EV, et al: Opioid detoxification and naltrexone induction strategies: recommendations for clinical practice. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 2012; 38:187–199
44.
Sullivan MA, Bisaga A, Mariani JJ, et al: Naltrexone treatment for opioid dependence: does its effectiveness depend on testing the blockade? Drug Alcohol Depend 2013; 133:80–85
45.
Gibson AE, Degenhardt LJ: Mortality related to pharmacotherapies for opioid dependence: a comparative analysis of coronial records. Drug Alcohol Rev 2007; 26:405–410
46.
Potter JS, Marino EN, Hillhouse MP, et al: Buprenorphine/naloxone and methadone maintenance treatment outcomes for opioid analgesic, heroin, and combined users: findings from Starting Treatment With Agonist Replacement Therapies (START). J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2013; 74:605–613
47.
Sigmon SC, Dunn KE, Saulsgiver K, et al: A randomized, double-blind evaluation of buprenorphine taper duration in primary prescription opioid abusers. JAMA Psychiatry 2013; 70:1347–1354
48.
Sigmon SC: The untapped potential of office-based buprenorphine treatment. JAMA Psychiatry 2015; 72:395–396
49.
Fiellin DA, Schottenfeld RS, Cutter CJ, et al: Primary care-based buprenorphine taper vs maintenance therapy for prescription opioid dependence: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174:1947–1954
50.
Weiss RD, Potter JS, Fiellin DA, et al: Adjunctive counseling during brief and extended buprenorphine-naloxone treatment for prescription opioid dependence: a 2-phase randomized controlled trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2011; 68:1238–1246
51.
McDermott KA, Griffin ML, Connery HS, et al: Initial response as a predictor of 12-week buprenorphine-naloxone treatment response in a prescription opioid-dependent population. J Clin Psychiatry 2015; 76:189–194
52.
Northrup TF, Stotts AL, Green C, et al: Opioid withdrawal, craving, and use during and after outpatient buprenorphine stabilization and taper: a discrete survival and growth mixture model. Addict Behav 2015; 41:20–28
53.
Potter JS, Dreifuss JA, Marino EN, et al: The multi-site prescription opioid addiction treatment study: 18-month outcomes. J Subst Abuse Treat 2015; 48:62–69
54.
Weiss RD, Potter JS, Griffin ML, et al: Long-term outcomes from the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network Prescription Opioid Addiction Treatment Study. Drug Alcohol Depend 2015; 150:112–119
55.
Jones HE, Kaltenbach K, Heil SH, et al: Neonatal abstinence syndrome after methadone or buprenorphine exposure. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:2320–2331
56.
Prendergast M, Podus D, Finney J, et al: Contingency management for treatment of substance use disorders: a meta-analysis. Addiction 2006; 101:1546–1560
57.
Weiss RD, Griffin ML, Potter JS, et al: Who benefits from additional drug counseling among prescription opioid-dependent patients receiving buprenorphine-naloxone and standard medical management? Drug Alcohol Depend 2014; 140:118–122
58.
Bogstrand ST, Normann PT, Rossow I, et al: Prevalence of alcohol and other substances of abuse among injured patients in a Norwegian emergency department. Drug Alcohol Depend 2011; 117:132–138
59.
Gardner EL: Pain management and the so-called “risk” of addiction: a neurobiological perspective, in Pain and Chemical Dependency. Edited by Smith PS. New York, Oxford University Press, 2008, pp 427–435
60.
Dart RC, Surratt HL, Cicero TJ, et al: Trends in opioid analgesic abuse and mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2015; 372:241–248

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to American Journal of Psychiatry
Go to American Journal of Psychiatry
American Journal of Psychiatry
Pages: 18 - 26
PubMed: 26337039

History

Received: 27 February 2015
Revision received: 6 May 2015
Accepted: 12 May 2015
Published online: 4 September 2015
Published in print: January 01, 2016

Authors

Details

Kathleen T. Brady, M.D., Ph.D.
From the Addiction Sciences Division, Institute of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; and the Ralph H. Johnson Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Charleston.
Jenna L. McCauley, Ph.D.
From the Addiction Sciences Division, Institute of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; and the Ralph H. Johnson Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Charleston.
Sudie E. Back, Ph.D.
From the Addiction Sciences Division, Institute of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; and the Ralph H. Johnson Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Charleston.

Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Brady ([email protected]).

Competing Interests

The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.

Funding Information

National Institute on Drug Abuse10.13039/100000026: 1 K23 DA036566, 5 U10 DA013727
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases10.13039/100000069: 2 P50 DA016511
Supported by National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases grant 2 P50 DA016511 and NIDA grants 5 U10 DA013727 and 1 K23 DA036566.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.

Format
Citation style
Style
Copy to clipboard

View Options

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/EPUB

Login options

Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.

Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens login
Purchase Options

Purchase this article to access the full text.

PPV Articles - American Journal of Psychiatry

PPV Articles - American Journal of Psychiatry

Not a subscriber?

Subscribe Now / Learn More

PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.

Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share