TY - JOUR
T1 - Kentucky pharmacists’ experiences in dispensing abuse-deterrent opioid analgesics
AU - Oyler, Douglas R.
AU - Slavova, Svetla
AU - Brown, John R.
AU - Dasgupta, Nabarun
AU - Freeman, Patricia R.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 American Pharmacists Association®
PY - 2022/11/1
Y1 - 2022/11/1
N2 - Background: Despite pharmaceutical industry promise and enthusiasm, abuse-deterrent formulation (ADF) opioid use is relatively low. While some barriers to use have been addressed through state laws and policy, pharmacists’ experiences with and opinions of ADF opioids are unclear. Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate pharmacists’ perceptions of dispensing ADFs. Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey of community pharmacists licensed and practicing in Kentucky conducted in late 2019. The survey asked about perception, experience dispensing, and insurance coverage of 5 ADF opioids available at the time. Results: Most respondents (421/629, 67.9%) were familiar or very familiar with ADFs, and 63.1% agreed that all opioids should meet U.S. Food and Drug Administration standards for abuse deterrence. Aside from OxyContin, most ADF opioid formations were not stocked (range: 46.7%–73.6%). Third-party payer claims were occasionally or almost always rejected for most ADFs (range: 56.3%–75.4%). Contrary to intended mechanism of deterrence, ADFs were rated as the least effective strategy to reduce opioid misuse/abuse, with over half (51.2%) of respondents believing ADFs were not effective or somewhat effective. ADFs were rated as effective or very effective at reducing opioid abuse by swallowing intact by 37.4% of respondents. Conclusion: Pharmacists are familiar with ADFs but do not dispense them frequently. Pharmacists appear skeptical about the effectiveness of ADFs but support policies that could increase ADF uptake.
AB - Background: Despite pharmaceutical industry promise and enthusiasm, abuse-deterrent formulation (ADF) opioid use is relatively low. While some barriers to use have been addressed through state laws and policy, pharmacists’ experiences with and opinions of ADF opioids are unclear. Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate pharmacists’ perceptions of dispensing ADFs. Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey of community pharmacists licensed and practicing in Kentucky conducted in late 2019. The survey asked about perception, experience dispensing, and insurance coverage of 5 ADF opioids available at the time. Results: Most respondents (421/629, 67.9%) were familiar or very familiar with ADFs, and 63.1% agreed that all opioids should meet U.S. Food and Drug Administration standards for abuse deterrence. Aside from OxyContin, most ADF opioid formations were not stocked (range: 46.7%–73.6%). Third-party payer claims were occasionally or almost always rejected for most ADFs (range: 56.3%–75.4%). Contrary to intended mechanism of deterrence, ADFs were rated as the least effective strategy to reduce opioid misuse/abuse, with over half (51.2%) of respondents believing ADFs were not effective or somewhat effective. ADFs were rated as effective or very effective at reducing opioid abuse by swallowing intact by 37.4% of respondents. Conclusion: Pharmacists are familiar with ADFs but do not dispense them frequently. Pharmacists appear skeptical about the effectiveness of ADFs but support policies that could increase ADF uptake.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85136622904&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85136622904&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.japh.2022.07.017
DO - 10.1016/j.japh.2022.07.017
M3 - Article
C2 - 36031547
AN - SCOPUS:85136622904
SN - 1544-3191
VL - 62
SP - 1836
EP - 1842
JO - Journal of the American Pharmacists Association
JF - Journal of the American Pharmacists Association
IS - 6
ER -