Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26778760›Full record

ArticleDrug and alcohol dependence2016

Effect of a "pill mill" law on opioid prescribing and utilization: The case of Texas.

Tatyana Lyapustina, Lainie Rutkow, Hsien-Yen Chang, Matthew Daubresse, Alim F Ramji, Mark Faul, Elizabeth A Stuart, G Caleb Alexander

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug and alcohol dependence, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. The effect of pill mill legislation on suicides.Health services research · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Tatyana LyapustinaJohns Hopkins School of Medicine, 733 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States. Electronic address: tlyapus1@jhmi.edu.
Lainie RutkowJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, 624 N. Broadway St., Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.
Hsien-Yen ChangJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, 624 N. Broadway St., Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.
Matthew DaubresseJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, 615 N Wolfe St. W6027, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, 615 N Wolfe St. W6035, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.
Alim F RamjiJohns Hopkins School of Medicine, 733 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.
Mark FaulCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 4770 Buford Hwy, NE Mail Stop MS F-63 Atlanta, GA 30341-3717, United States.
Elizabeth A StuartJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, 624 N. Broadway St., Baltimore, MD 21205, United States; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Mental Health, Hampton House, 624 N. Broadway, 8th Floor, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, 615 N. Wolfe St., Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.
G Caleb AlexanderJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, 615 N Wolfe St. W6027, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, 615 N Wolfe St. W6035, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States; Johns Hopkins Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, 1800 Orleans St., Baltimore, MD 21287, United States.

Funding

Institute for Clinical and Translational ResearchTL1TR001078 · NCATS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI FORD, DANIEL ERNEST · 2013 to 2017
$1.9M
IMPACT OF "PILL MILL" LAWS ON OPIOID PRESCRIBING, DISPENSING AND UTILIZATIONU01CE002499 · CE · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI ALEXANDER, G. CALEB · 2014 to 2015
$400k
Intramural CDC HHS CC999999NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR001078NCATS NIH HHS TL1TR001078NCIPC CDC HHS U01 CE002499NCIPC CDC HHS U01CE002499
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStates have attempted to reduce prescription opioid abuse through strengthening the regulation of pain management clinics; however, the effect of such measures remains unclear. We quantified the impact of Texas's September 2010 "pill mill" law on opioid prescribing and utilization.

methodsWe used the IMS Health LRx LifeLink database to examine anonymized, patient-level pharmacy claims for a closed cohort of individuals filling prescription opioids in Texas between September 2009 and August 2011. Our primary outcomes were derived at a monthly level and included: (1) average morphine equivalent dose (MED) per transaction; (2) aggregate opioid volume; (3) number of opioid prescriptions; and (4) quantity of opioid pills dispensed. We compared observed values with the counterfactual, which we estimated from pre-intervention levels and trends.

resultsTexas's pill mill law was associated with declines in average MED per transaction (-0.57 mg/month, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.09, -0.057), monthly opioid volume (-9.99 kg/month, CI -12.86, -7.11), monthly number of opioid prescriptions (-12,200 prescriptions/month, CI -15,300, -9,150) and monthly quantity of opioid pills dispensed (-714,000 pills/month, CI -877,000, -550,000). These reductions reflected decreases of 8.1-24.3% across the outcomes at one year compared with the counterfactual, and they were concentrated among prescribers and patients with the highest opioid prescribing and utilization at baseline.

conclusionsFollowing the implementation of Texas's 2010 pill mill law, there were clinically significant reductions in opioid dose, volume, prescriptions and pills dispensed within the state, which were limited to individuals with higher levels of baseline opioid prescribing and utilization.

Indexed as

AdultAnalgesics, OpioidDatabases, FactualDrug UtilizationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrescription Drug MisusePrescriptionsTexasAnalgesics, OpioidPill mill lawPrescription drug monitoringPrescription pain medicationTime series analysis

Identifiers

PMID26778760
PMCPMC4976392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.