Initial opioid prescription patterns and the risk of ongoing use and adverse outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: As clinical practice moves towards more judicious opioid prescribing, physicians require information on how to safely initiate opioids. The objective of this study was to examine the association between initial opioid prescription characteristics and risks of harm and long-term use. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study among Ontario residents newly dispensed an opioid for pain between July 2013 and March 2016. The primary exposure was the average daily opioid dose dispensed at initiation (in milligram morphine equivalents; MME), with secondary exposures including the initial prescription's duration and formulation. The primary outcome was fatal or non-fatal opioid overdose. A secondary analysis studied continued opioid use for at least 1 year. RESULTS: Among the 2 021 371 individuals meeting our inclusion criteria, 1121 (0.56 per 1000 person-years) experienced an opioid overdose within 1 year and 64 013 (3.17%) continued treatment for at least 1 year. Higher initial daily dose, longer prescription duration, and receipt of a long-acting formulation at initiation were significantly associated with higher hazard of overdose. Compared to daily doses of 20 MME or lower, initial doses exceeding 200 MME daily were associated with a particularly high hazard of overdose (aHR 2.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.62 to 5.44). In the secondary analysis, there were similar associations between initial dose, duration, and formulation and long-term use. CONCLUSIONS: Although the absolute risk of an opioid overdose within the first year of prescription opioid use is low, better alignment of opioid initiation practices with guidelines may reduce opioid-related harm.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".