Want to take quizzes and track your credits?
Are opioid prescriptions from dental clinicians that are written for pain management of third molar extractions from adolescents and young adults associated with subsequent opioid use and abuse?
In this cohort analysis of claims data, index opioid prescriptions in opioid-naive adolescents and young adults compared with age- and sex-matched controls were associated with a statistically significant 6.8% absolute risk increase in persistent opioid use and a 5.4% increase in the subsequent diagnosis of opioid abuse.
The findings suggest that dental opioid prescriptions, which may be driven by third molar extractions in this age group, may be associated with subsequent opioid use and opioid abuse.
Through prescription writing, dental clinicians are a potential source of initial opioid exposure and subsequent abuse for adolescents and young adults.
To examine the association between index dental opioid prescriptions from dental clinicians for opioid-naive adolescents and young adults in 2015 and new persistent use and subsequent diagnoses of abuse in this population.
Design, Setting, and Participants
This retrospective cohort study examined outpatient opioid prescriptions for patients aged 16 to 25 years in the Optum Research Database in 2015. Prescriptions were linked by National Provider Identifier number to a clinician category.
Individuals were included in the index dental opioid (opioid-exposed) cohort if they filled an opioid prescription from a dental clinician in 2015, had continuous health plan coverage and no record of opioid prescriptions for 12 months before receiving the prescription, and had 12 months of health plan coverage after receiving the prescription. Two age- and sex-matched opioid-nonexposed control individuals were selected for each opioid-exposed individual and were assigned a corresponding phantom prescription date.
Main Outcomes and Measures
Receipt of an opioid prescription within 90 to 365 days, a health care encounter diagnosis associated with opioid abuse within 365 days, and all-cause mortality within 365 days of the index opioid or phantom prescription date.
Among 754 002 individuals with continuous enrollment in 2015, 97 462 patients (12.9%) received 1 or more opioid prescriptions, of whom 29 791 (30.6%) received prescriptions supplied by a dental clinician. The opioid-exposed cohort included 14 888 participants (7882 women [52.9%], 11 273 white [75.7%], with mean [SD] age, 21.8 [2.4] years), and the randomly selected opioid-nonexposed cohort included 29 776 participants (15 764 women [52.9%], 20 078 [67.4%] white, with mean [SD] age, 21.8 [2.4] years). Among the 14 888 individuals in the index dental opioid cohort, 1021 (6.9%) received another opioid prescription 90 to 365 days later compared with 30 of 29 776 (0.1%) opioid-nonexposed controls (adjusted absolute risk difference, 6.8%; 95% CI, 6.3%-7.2%), and 866 opioid-exposed individuals (5.8%) experienced 1 or more subsequent health care encounters with an opioid abuse–related diagnosis compared with 115 opioid-nonexposed controls (0.4%) (adjusted absolute risk difference, 5.3%; 95% CI, 5.0%-5.7%). There was only 1 death in each cohort.
Conclusions and Relevance
The findings suggest that a substantial proportion of adolescents and young adults are exposed to opioids through dental clinicians. Use of these prescriptions may be associated with an increased risk of subsequent opioid use and abuse.
Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates
Accepted for Publication: August 15, 2018.
Correction: This article was corrected on May 20, 2019, to fix a data reporting error in the Limitations section.
Corresponding Author: Alan R. Schroeder, MD, Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Dr, MC 5776, Stanford, CA 94305 (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Published Online: December 3, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.5419
Author Contributions: Ms Dehghan and Dr Bentley had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Concept and design: Schroeder, Bentley, Park.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
Drafting of the manuscript: Schroeder, Dehghan.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Dehghan, Newman, Bentley, Park.
Statistical analysis: Schroeder, Dehghan, Bentley, Park.
Obtained funding: Park.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Dehghan, Park.
Supervision: Bentley, Park.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
Funding/Support: Dr Bentley received funding for biostatistical support and Ms Dehghan received analytic support from the Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine.
Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding organization had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Additional Contributions: Trinh Nguyen, MHA; Jay Friedman, DDS, MPH; Mark Cullen, MD; John Greenspan, BDS, PhD; and Sabine Girod, MD, DDS, PhD, contributed to the formulation of this investigation and did not receive financial compensation.
You currently have no searches saved.