Next Article in Journal
Direct Oral Anticoagulants’ Consumption and Expenditure in the COVID-19 Pandemic in Russia and Clinical Practice Guidelines for Their Use
Next Article in Special Issue
“My Addiction Doesn’t Define Me”—Experiences of Stigma among Mothers with Opioid Use Disorder
Previous Article in Journal
Literature Review of Safety Event Reporting in Observational Studies: Challenges Extrapolating across Comparable Products
Previous Article in Special Issue
Analyzing Black Market Sales of the Second-Line ADHD Medication Atomoxetine
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pharmacoepidemiology
Volume 2
Issue 4
10.3390/pharma2040030
pharmacoepidemiology-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Helpful, Unnecessary, or Harmful: A Systematic Review of the Effects of Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Use on Opioid Prescriptions

by
Nina Z. Y. Smith
1,*,
J. Douglas Thornton
1,
Susan H. Fenton
2,
Debora Simmons
2 and
Tiffany Champagne-Langabeer
2
1
Prescription Drug Misuse Education and Research (PREMIER) Center, College of Pharmacy, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204, USA
2
McWilliams School of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pharmacoepidemiology 2023, 2(4), 350-365; https://doi.org/10.3390/pharma2040030
Submission received: 10 November 2023 / Revised: 8 December 2023 / Accepted: 12 December 2023 / Published: 15 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Pharmacoepidemiology and Addiction)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Prescription drug misuse is a global problem, especially in the United States (US). Clinician involvement is necessary in this crisis, and prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are a recommended tool for the prevention, recognition, and management of prescription opioid misuse. However, because of the plethora of differences between different PDMPs, research on their effects is mixed. Yet, despite varied evidence, policy on PDMP use is trending stricter and more comprehensive. We aimed to identify patterns in the research to inform clinicians and policy. Through a systematic review of four literature databases (CINAHL, Cochrane Database, Embase, and Medline/OVID), we found 56 experimental and quasi-experimental studies published between 2016 and 2023 evaluating PDMP effects on clinician behavior. To address study heterogeneity, we categorized studies by type of intervention and study outcome. The review suggests that more comprehensive PDMP legislation is associated with decreases in the number of opioid prescriptions overall and the number of risky prescriptions prescribed or dispensed. However, this review shows that much is still unknown, encourages improvements to PDMPs and policies, and suggests further research.

1. Introduction

Opioids are considered the strongest medications for addressing pain but can also result in adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The global pharmacovigilance system, VigiBase, and national systems such as the United Kingdom’s Prescription Event Monitoring System (PEMS) have tracked and documented opioid-related ADRs such as constipation; nausea; sedation and respiratory depression; tolerance; and dizziness and falls [1,2]. Opioids are also among the substances at the highest risk for addiction and misuse, leading to unintentional overdose [3,4]. Despite these concerns, opioid prescriptions continue to rise worldwide and have been accompanied by a global increase in prescription opioid misuse [5,6,7]. Prescription opioid misuse is especially a problem in the United States (US), which has 3.5 times more drug-related deaths than 17 other developed nations, primarily because of opioid misuse [8]. There was a nearly five-fold increase in overdose deaths involving prescription opioids in the US between 1999 to 2020 [9]. The United Nations Office on Drug and Crime (UNODC) and the World Health Organization’s International Standards on Drug Use Prevention encourage clinician involvement in the prevention, identification, and treatment of prescription drug misuse [7]. In the US, clinicians are advised to use prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), which are databases that solely track controlled substance prescriptions, such as opioids; they contain data about the patient to whom the controlled substance is prescribed, the prescribing physician, the dispensing pharmacy, the medication name, and the dose [10]. At the population level, PDMP data are supposed to help identify patterns of inappropriate and/or illegal use of controlled substance prescriptions such as “pill mills” or drug diversion rings that enable large quantities of prescriptions for misuse purposes [11,12,13]. At the patient level, PDMPs are supposed to assist clinicians in making appropriate prescribing and dispensing decisions by identifying (a) potentially inappropriate prescriptions, such as very high doses or the co-prescribing of medicines that could harm the patient; (b) prescription drug misuse, where the medication is taken for a reason other than the one prescribed; (c) drug-seeking behaviors such as “doctor/pharmacy shopping”, where patients seek multiple, overlapping prescriptions for the same or similar medications; and (d) drug diversion, where prescriptions are given to others for whom the prescription was not made [10,14].
In the US, there is no national PDMP. While PDMPs receive federal funding [11,15,16], they are administered and regulated at the state level. In total, 49 out of 50 US states maintain and administer their own PDMPs. State regulations differ in the entity that manages the PDMP (law enforcement department, public health agency, medical or pharmacy board), who can access the PDMP data, how access can be requested, and under what clinical circumstances the database should be used [17,18,19,20]. Each state also makes its own decisions on PDMP software, so PDMPs differ in report structures and notification capabilities. PDMP access and policies also differ between healthcare facilities and systems, with each having its own training and organizational policies concerning PDMP use [21,22,23] and with some clinicians having access to clinical decision support and/or integration of the PDMP into their employers’ electronic health record systems (EHRs) [24,25,26,27].
Researching PDMP effects is challenging given the myriad of differences between PDMPs. Another difficulty is accounting for how PDMP functions and legislation constantly change, potentially impacting the applicability of prior PDMP research. PDMP regulations may also be implemented at the same time as other opioid misuse mitigation efforts, such as greater law enforcement efforts; the existence of multiple independent variables confounds findings [28,29,30,31,32]. There have also been consequential initiatives at the professional level that likely confound research findings, such as the 2016 publication of the CDC’s Guidelines for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain [33].
Given these complexities in PDMP research, it is not surprising that research results have been mixed about PDMP effects on prescribing and dispensing behavior [34,35]. However, despite the murky picture of PDMP effects, there is a policy trend toward stricter and more comprehensive PDMP mandates [36]. Given this legal pattern, it is important to provide guidance on the effects of these policies to avoid unintended consequences. This literature review provides a synthesis of research on the effect of PDMP use on the prescribing and dispensing decisions of clinicians [37].

2. Results

A PRISMA diagram illustrating the search process is provided below. It is formatted per the latest guidance from Page et al., 2021. In this latest PRISMA 2020 statement, individual citations and databases are jointly referred to as “records” [38]. This is the terminology that is used. In total, 2659 records were identified from the library databases; 30 were identified from other sources; and 1094 duplicates were removed. The remaining 1595 records were screened by title and abstract, and 1418 were excluded because they did not meet review criteria; 177 records were retrieved and assessed for eligibility, and 121 were excluded because of the following: 93 records did not meet inclusion criteria; 23 records did not meet the quality criteria; and 5 were earlier publications about the same research (see Figure 1).
In total, 56 articles were included in the review. There were 3 articles that described experimental studies and 51 that described quasi-experimental, observational studies [39,40]. The final two articles described mixed methods studies. These final two Underwood et al. studies paired an observational cohort analysis with a document review [41,42]. Data used in the 56 studies spanned the years 2000–2021 (see Figure S1; counts not mutually exclusive). Data from all 50 states were used in the analyses. In total, 11 studies used data from multiple states as they compared outcomes between multiple states (see Figure S2; counts not mutually exclusive); 19 studies involved single-state data analyses; 15 studies studied national trends; and 11 studies looked at changes at the healthcare facility level (see Figure S3). The 56 studies in this review also varied in the data sources used in their analyses; data came from the AHRQ Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), the Census National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS), DEA ARCOS (Automation of Reports and Consolidated Order System), facility EHR systems, Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance claims, retail pharmacy sales, state PDMPs, and Veterans Health Administration (VHA) (see Figure S4).
It was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis to determine the size of the effects of PDMP use because of study design heterogeneity. There were variations in measures for studying outcomes, how study variables were defined, covariate adjustments, analytic approaches, study scopes, and data sources. Our analysis instead relied on counts of studies that looked at similar interventions and analyzed similar outcomes (see Table S1). Per the principle of triangulation, the more research with a given outcome, the stronger the evidence. Of the 32 studies that evaluated the effect of more comprehensive PDMP legislation (mandated PDMP use) on the number of opioids dispensed or prescribed overall, 29 studies found that the number of opioids overall decreased after the legislation went into effect, whereas only 3 studies [39,43,44] found no change. Less comprehensive PDMP legislation (allowing clinicians access to electronic PDMP data or mandating PDMP registration but not use) did not have as strong of an effect on the number of opioids prescribed or dispensed overall. Seven studies [45,46,47,48,49,50,51] found that less comprehensive PDMP legislation was associated with a decrease in the number of opioids prescribed or dispensed overall, whereas eight found no change [44,52,53,54,55,56,57,58].
There were fewer studies on the effect of PDMP use (whether mandated or not) on the number of potentially risky prescriptions. Four studies evaluated the effect of non-mandated PDMP use; two found that non-mandated PDMP use was associated with a decrease in the number of risky prescriptions [47,59], and two others found no change [54,60]. However, there appeared to be stronger effects of mandated PDMP use on the number of risky prescriptions. All six studies that evaluated mandated PDMP use found that the legislation was associated with a decrease in the number of risky prescriptions [54,61,62,63,64,65].
Other studies looked at PDMP-use-related interventions. Six studies evaluated outcomes following proactive clinician notification of potentially inappropriate prescriptions. Five of these studies showed a decrease in the number of opioid prescriptions overall [42,66,67,68,69] versus one that showed no change [70]. Proactive notification also appeared to have an effect on the number of risky prescriptions. Five studies showed a decrease in the number of risky prescriptions following notification [41,66,67,68,69] versus one that showed no change [71].
One study evaluated the effect of PDMP data-sharing between states and found that there was no significant difference in the number of opioids prescribed overall in states that had data-sharing arrangements and those that did not [40]. Another study examined the effect of delegates on the number of risky prescriptions and found that the number of risky prescriptions decreased following legislation allowing clinicians to use delegates to access PDMP data on their behalf [62]. It is important to note, however, that PDMP data-sharing arrangements and permission for delegate access may have been present in other studies, but only these two studies highlighted these interventions. Other studies did not specifically mention these capabilities.
This review also included studies about the association between PDMP and the number of non-opioid medications. The evidence is mixed on whether PDMP use is associated with the number of benzodiazepines, non-opioid analgesics, and stimulants [40,43,44,68,72,73,74,75]. Only one study evaluated the effect of mandated PDMP use on the length of chronic opioid treatment and found no change [76].

3. Discussion

Despite the diversity of research on the effect of PDMPs, this review drew insights about the effects of use, clinician experiences, and research gaps.

3.1. More Comprehensive PDMP Legislation Can Reduce the Number of Opioid Prescriptions Overall and the Number of Risky Opioid Prescriptions

This review suggests that more comprehensive PDMP legislation is associated with decreases in the number of opioid prescriptions prescribed or dispensed overall. More importantly, PDMPs are associated with decreases in the number of risky prescriptions—those prescriptions that may result in patient harm or point to drug misuse, doctor/pharmacy shopping, or diversion. Studies in this review also suggest that decreases in risky prescriptions and opioid prescriptions overall may be aided by proactive clinician notifications. However, it also shows that less comprehensive PDMP legislation has—at best—a weak association with the number of opioid prescriptions overall and risky prescriptions. One potential reason for the mixed results is that studies have found that registering to use the PDMP did not always translate to using the PDMP [77,78,79]. Not surprisingly, clinicians were more likely to use the PDMP if it was mandated by their state [80,81].
Also of note is that studies have found that there are differences in how PDMP mandates affect distinct groups of providers [53,72,82,83,84]. For example, a review conducted by Alogaili, Ghani, and Shah (2020) noted that PDMP implementation barriers were particularly pronounced among rural clinicians [85]. Ultimately, any of the outcomes in these studies are made up of the behaviors of individual clinicians. Researchers have noted a need for more research on how and why clinicians act or do not act following PDMP use [34]. Studies have found that, after viewing patient data on the PDMP, while some physicians reported reducing or eliminating controlled substance prescriptions or changing from a controlled substance prescription to a non-opioid or non-pharmacological treatment [86,87], PDMP use was not always associated with behavior change [59,80,88,89]. This suggests the need for more targeted interventions such as mandatory education and guidance through provider groups and professional organizations [90,91,92].

3.2. Clinicians Desire Improvements to PDMPs

Even if clinicians already use PDMPs, they desire changes with these PDMPs. They desire more user-friendly navigation and data formats and improvements to login processes such as fewer required password changes and delayed timing out [93,94,95]. There were also concerns about the timeliness, correctness, and/or completeness of patients’ PDMP profiles (e.g., misspelled patient names) and data [96,97,98]. Clinicians also desired more clinical decision support tools [99] and EHR-embedded alert systems for patient risk factors [100]. A recent survey study also found that pharmacists desired greater access to patient health information like patient diagnosis, prior treatments, past medical history, and previous treatment trials with opioids [101]. Clinicians were also interested in inter-state data to monitor patients who cross state lines to obtain their prescriptions [62,83,102], even though there is currently a mechanism through which US states share PDMP data. The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) developed and administers a platform, PMP InterConnect, through which PDMP data can be securely transferred across state lines [103]. However, clinicians may not know how to access PMP InterConnect or about its existence entirely. This may explain the results of Lin et al. (2019)’s study which found that the presence of an inter-state data-sharing agreement was not associated with reductions in the number of opioids and other pain medications prescribed [40].
Besides noting technical and data-related issues, clinicians have criticized how PDMP use impacts their workload and workflow. Studies and reviews have noted clinician dissatisfaction with the amount of time it takes to use PDMPs [77,87,99,104,105,106,107]. Alpert et al. (2020) suggested that this “hassle factor” discourages some clinicians from prescribing controlled substances because they think that they do not have or want to take the extra time and energy to check the PDMP [108]. In the literature, PDMP integration with facility electronic health records (EHRs) is recommended as a way to better include PDMP use in clinicians’ workflows [31,83,96,104,109,110]. Furthermore, there is clinician interest in allowing non-clinician delegates access to PDMP data on behalf of providers [62,97,102,109]. This review included one study that found that states that allowed delegates experienced a greater decrease in the number of risky prescriptions [62]. A final policy recommendation is the enactment of exemptions for mandated PDMP use.

3.3. More Research Is Needed on PDMP Effects on Patients

When asked about how PDMPs have been used in their practices, clinicians mentioned how using a PDMP has challenged their biases on the types of patients with multiple prescriptions [97,111], helped them communicate with and educate patients [95,112], identified potential instances of misuse [106,113,114,115], and assisted with prescription verification and proper prescribing [77,99]. However, there were also perceptions of PDMP use leading to patient harm. In interviews, PDMP stakeholders mentioned the possibility of PDMPs causing a “chilling effect.” This term refers to patients facing barriers to appropriate opioid analgesic treatment because physicians are hesitant to prescribe opioids; discontinue ongoing treatment; or drop/refuse to see patients whose health history includes an opioid prescription. Several studies have noted a belief that PDMPs are associated with decreases in clinically appropriate opioid prescriptions [96,105,116,117]. Other articles have noted that PDMP data are used to refuse care to patients [111,114,116]. Clinicians are also concerned that their prescribing controlled substances could potentially result in them losing their licenses [10]. This review could not find clear evidence of potential chilling effects, nor could it discount the possibility of its existence. Worryingly, some studies have found associations between PDMP use and decreases in clinically appropriate opioid treatment, like treatments for cancer- or sickle cell-related pain [48,118,119]. Rhodes et al. (2019) conducted a review of studies on PDMPs and population-level patient opioid-related mortality, morbidity, and societal issues. The authors concluded that there was not enough evidence to determine an association between PDMPs and opioid-related harms and consequences to patients [120]. Moride et al. (2019) likewise concluded that there was not enough evidence of associations between PDMP use, levels of appropriate prescribing, and decreases in patient harm [121]. Some studies have found that must-access PDMPs might actually be associated with negative outcomes. Wetzel et al. (2021) evaluated data from the National Health Interview Survey from 2006 to 2015 and found that, for respondents with a recent injury or surgery, PDMP use (whether mandatory or not) was associated with more bedridden days [122].
Furthermore, while the primary focus of PDMP research has been on opioid misuse, this review found research on the associations of PDMP use with prescriptions for non-opioid medications: non-opioid analgesics, benzodiazepines, and stimulants. However, the results are mixed, and more research needs to be conducted to more clearly determine any effect [123]. This may point to PDMPs leading to a “substitution effect” where clinicians transition from prescriptions of monitored medications such as opioid analgesics to prescriptions of unmonitored medications or off-label prescriptions, such as sedatives [96,124,125,126,127,128]. This review echoes the call for more research on the potential effects of PDMPs on patients and especially on negative unintended consequences [29,120,129,130,131].

3.4. PDMP Policy Must Be Considered in the Larger Discussion of Opioid Risk Mitigation and Patient Safety

Two studies in this review found associations between PDMPs and opioid prescriptions but only if paired with another opioid misuse risk mitigation effort [42,55]. Furthermore, studies have tracked rising opioid overdose deaths despite changes in prescribing behavior [132,133,134,135,136]. This supports the prevalent view among clinical and policy experts that PDMPs are just one of the opioid misuse mitigation efforts necessary to address the opioid crisis. In the updated (2022) CDC clinical practice guidelines for the prescribing of opioids for pain management, PDMP use is encouraged along with other recommendations to help improve patient–provider communication and the safety and effectiveness of opioid pain treatment [137]. Clinicians have also noted the importance of access to pain management specialists and substance abuse treatment [95,138] and greater communication and collaboration between clinicians and different disciplines to proactively monitor and address prescription drug misuse [31,96,112,117,139]. As explained by Fink et al. (2018), more research is needed on how the combination of PDMPs and complementary drug prevention programs can improve population health [129].

3.5. Limitations

Because this review only includes PDMP policies enacted through administrative action or legislation, it does not include information on likely consequential interventions at the organizational level or through professional organizations. These interventions could provide more evidence of potential PDMP effects and information about aspects of PDMPs that are more impactful. Machine learning studies, which methodologically were not included in this review, have been conducted to explore this area, and we encourage and look forward to more research [140,141].
Furthermore, while we used the Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals Toolkit [142] to assess the quality of publications in this review, we are aware of potential publication bias for studies showing positive effects. However, we surmised that the robust amount of research conducted on PDMP effects would lower this effect. Bias could also have been introduced by the inclusion/exclusion of articles and the abstraction and analysis of article content primarily being conducted by one researcher. The research team sought to counter this potential with guidance and oversight by three other researchers.
Finally, we opted to include only studies about US-based PDMPs because the literature is heavily US-centric [123], and given the uniqueness of the US healthcare system, we surmised that this geographic limit would allow for more apt triangulation of research results. As such, there is a need for more PDMP research outside the US [35,121].

4. Materials and Methods

A Systematic Search and Review was conducted to answer the question, “What are the effects on prescribers and pharmacists of PDMP use?” We have registered the review with Open Science Framework Registries (osf.io/q62jz). A Systematic Search and Review is a literature review method for comprehensively exploring the literature to ascertain what is known on a topic and provide policy recommendations [143]. This review only included English-language publications that described research on PDMP use within the US. This was decided because the literature is heavily US-centric [123], and given the uniqueness of the American healthcare environment, research findings may not be applicable outside of the US. Because of this review’s interest in providing policy recommendations, it only includes research on legislative or public administrative actions surrounding PDMP use. As such, we excluded studies about PDMP policies and tools that were not implemented through government authorities, like internal/organizational or insurer policies or guidelines issued by professional organizations. However, taking into account the consequential nature of such policies, this literature search only includes articles published between January 2016 and June 2023. We chose 2016 as the initial cut-off date because this was when the CDC published its National Guidelines for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain [33]. Furthermore, given the intertwined nature of opioid misuse mitigation efforts, it was decided that the literature search would include research where the independent variable was PDMP use paired with/“bundled” with another opioid risk mitigation effort, such as mandated continuing medical education. It was also decided that research on inpatient or veterinary treatment with controlled substances would be excluded because PDMP use mandates generally focus on outpatient prescribing and dispensing to human patients.
The literature search was conducted in four online biomedical literature databases, CINAHL, Cochrane Database, Embase, and Medline/OVID, in consultation with a Texas Medical Center librarian. The librarian helped develop detailed and exhaustive search terms derived from the indexing of related Cochrane reviews (topics: “pharmacist”, “controlled substance”, “database”) and by creating search logic that would be inclusive of the names of all US PDMPs. Search terms are provided in Supplementary Material S1. Furthermore, this research only includes the most recent publication on a research project, as sometimes, articles describe the same project but at different points in the research. Only experimental and quasi-experimental studies or mixed-method studies that included an experimental or quasi-experimental component were considered for this review. Once articles were determined to meet inclusion criteria, their citations were reviewed to see if there were any other relevant peer-reviewed articles that had not been previously identified. This was also performed for citations in reviews evaluated by Tay et al. (2023) [123].
The Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals Toolkit (the Toolkit) was used to assess the quality and rigor of the literature and to abstract evidence. The Toolkit’s Research Evidence Appraisal Tool is provided in Supplementary Material S3. Only those publications assessed as “high” or “good” quality were retained. If in doubt, the publication was included in the review. The Toolkit’s template for abstracting information from the literature was used to compile the evidence [142]. The Rayyan QCRI tool was used to organize the literature review. The tool assisted the research team in cataloging and de-duplicating citations and annotating and tracking decisions to include or exclude records [144]. One researcher (NZYS) worked with a medical librarian to develop the search strategy and conduct the preliminary search for articles. NZYS screened the titles and abstracts; retrieved full articles; evaluated the articles for inclusion; and consulted with a panel of three other investigators (JDT, SHF, DS, TCL) for questions about whether to include or exclude certain articles. NZYS also extracted information from the articles and synthesized the findings from the review. All data abstracted from the articles is provided in Supplementary Material S2. No automation tools were used in the selection or data collection processes. Quality criteria applied to included articles resulted in no study investigators needing to be contacted to clarify or provide study information. It was hypothesized that, despite the diversity of the research conducted on PDMPs, findings in common between studies could be triangulated to determine PDMP effects on clinician prescribing and dispensing behavior [145].
To account for the variation in studying PDMPs, some research teams have developed their own PDMP categories based on the comprehensiveness of their capabilities and mandates [39,146,147]. Following this precedent, we categorized studies by type of intervention and outcome. Interventions were categorized into the following categories: (1) less comprehensive PDMP mandates, which capture regulations opening PDMP electronic access to clinicians and mandated registration but not use; (2) more comprehensive PDMP mandates, where prescribers are required to check PDMP data and the PDMP is administered by a health agency, updated at least weekly, and/or includes Schedule II-IV data; (3) permission for a non-clinician delegate to check PDMP data; (4) ability to share PDMP data with other states; and (5) proactive notification of risky prescriptions. The first two categories (less and more comprehensive PDMP mandates) follow definitions from Haffajee et al. (2018) [146] (see Table 1).
The remaining three categories (delegate access, data sharing, and notifications) were created to capture the remaining research that did not fit into the first two categories. Study outcomes were divided into (A) the number of opioid prescriptions overall; (B) the number of risky opioid prescriptions where “risky prescriptions” were defined as any combination of the following: large number of prescription days, overlapping opioid prescriptions, co-prescriptions of opioids and benzodiazepines, several different controlled substance prescribers and/or dispensers, cash payment for opioid prescriptions, and number of new patient visits resulting in opioid prescriptions; and (C) other outcomes. We defined “risky opioid prescriptions” as per Bachhuber et al. (2019) and Bao et al. (2018) [61,62]. Outcomes were then categorized by “direction” (increase/decrease/no change); this categorization emulated the review methodology of Picco, et al. (2021) [34]. If an outcome was measured through several study measures, a significant change in one measure would be noted even if there were no significant results in the other outcome measures (see Table 2).

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/pharma2040030/s1, Table S1: Summary of study results. Figure S1: Years of data used by number of studies. Figure S2: Number of studies that utilized data from that state. Figure S3: Data sources used by number of studies. Figure S4: Scope of the study by number of studies. Supplementary Material S1: Systematic search and review search terms. Supplementary Material S2: Systematic search and review abstraction [148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161]. Supplementary Material S3: Johns Hopkins Evidence-based Practice Model for Nursing and Healthcare Professionals Toolkit’s Research Appraisal Tool.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.Z.Y.S., J.D.T., S.H.F., D.S. and T.C.-L.; methodology, N.Z.Y.S., J.D.T., S.H.F., D.S. and T.C.-L.; validation, J.D.T., S.H.F., D.S. and T.C.-L.; investigation, N.Z.Y.S.; writing—original draft preparation, N.Z.Y.S.; writing—review and editing, J.D.T., S.H.F., D.S. and T.C.-L.; supervision, J.D.T., S.H.F., D.S. and T.C.-L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the medical librarians from the Texas Medical Center Library for their help.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Garashi, H.Y.; Steinke, D.T.; Schafheutle, E.I. A Systematic Review of Pharmacovigilance Systems in Developing Countries Using the WHO Pharmacovigilance Indicators. Ther. Innov. Regul. Sci. 2022, 56, 717–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Khan, M.A.A.; Hamid, S.; Babar, Z.-U.-D. Pharmacovigilance in High-Income Countries: Current Developments and a Review of Literature. Pharmacy 2023, 11, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Benyamin, R.; Trescot, A.M.; Datta, S.; Buenaventura, R.; Adlaka, R.; Sehgal, N.; Glaser, S.E.; Vallejo, R. Opioid Complications and Side Effects. Pain Physician 2008, 11, S105–S120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Gustafsson, M.; Matos, C.; Joaquim, J.; Scholl, J.; van Hunsel, F. Adverse Drug Reactions to Opioids: A Study in a National Pharmacovigilance Database. Drug Saf. 2023, 46, 1133–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Cragg, A.; Hau, J.P.; Woo, S.A.; Kitchen, S.A.; Liu, C.; Doyle-Waters, M.M.; Hohl, C.M. Risk Factors for Misuse of Prescribed Opioids: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Ann. Emerg. Med. 2019, 74, 634–646. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kalkman, G.A.; Kramers, C.; van Dongen, R.T.; van den Brink, W.; Schellekens, A. Trends in Use and Misuse of Opioids in the Netherlands: A Retrospective, Multi-Source Database Study. Lancet Public Health 2019, 4, e498–e505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. United Nations Office on Drug and Crime; World Health Organization. International Standards on Drug Use Prevention; Second Updated Version; United Nations: Vienna, Austria, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ho, J.Y. The Contemporary American Drug Overdose Epidemic in International Perspective. Popul. Dev. Rev. 2019, 45, 7–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. CDC. Prescription Opioids. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/deaths/prescription/overview.html (accessed on 27 July 2023).
  10. Holmgren, A.J.; Botelho, A.; Brandt, A.M. A History of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs in the United States: Political Appeal and Public Health Efficacy. Am. J. Public Health 2020, 110, 1191–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bureau of Justice Assistance Department Of Justice. FY 2023 Harold Rogers Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP). Available online: https://bja.ojp.gov/funding/opportunities/o-bja-2023-171768 (accessed on 27 July 2023).
  12. Gugelmann, H.; Perrone, J.; Nelson, L. Windmills and Pill Mills: Can PDMPs Tilt the Prescription Drug Epidemic? J. Med. Toxicol. 2012, 8, 378–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. University of Houston Hobby School of Public Affairs. The Opioid Epidemic in Texas: Current Policies and Possible Policy Reforms; In support of the Texas House Select Committee on Opioids and Substance Abuse; University of Houston: Houston, TX, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  14. D’Souza, R.S.; Lang, M.; Eldrige, J.S. Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  15. CDC. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control About OD2A. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/od2a/about.html (accessed on 27 July 2023).
  16. 115th US Congress (2017–2018). H.R.6-SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act. Available online: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6 (accessed on 28 July 2023).
  17. Knopf, A. AATOD: PDMP Input Will Be State by State. Alcohol. Drug Abus. Wkly. 2020, 32, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Training and Technical Assistance Center (PDMP TTAC). Available online: https://www.pdmpassist.org/ (accessed on 27 July 2023).
  19. National Governors Association. State Strategies to Improve the Use of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs to Address Opioid and Other Substance Use Disorders. Available online: https://www.nga.org/publications/strategies-prescription-drug-monitoring (accessed on 28 July 2023).
  20. SAMHSA. Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs: A Guide for Healthcare Providers. In Brief; Winter 2017, Issue 1. Available online: https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/sma16-4997.pdf (accessed on 28 July 2023).
  21. Elder, J.W.; DePalma, G.; Pines, J.M. Optimal Implementation of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs in the Emergency Department. West. J. Emerg. Med. 2018, 19, 387–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Greenwood-Ericksen, M.B.; Poon, S.J.; Nelson, L.S.; Weiner, S.G.; Schuur, J.D. Best Practices for Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs in the Emergency Department Setting: Results of an Expert Panel. Ann. Emerg. Med. 2016, 67, 755–764.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Sandbrink, F.; Oliva, E.M.; McMullen, T.L.; Aylor, A.R.; Harvey, M.A.; Christopher, M.L.; Cunningham, F.; Minegishi, T.; Emmendorfer, T.; Perry, J.M. Opioid Prescribing and Opioid Risk Mitigation Strategies in the Veterans Health Administration. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2020, 35, 927–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Calcaterra, S.L.; Butler, M.; Olson, K.; Blum, J. The Impact of a PDMP-EHR Data Integration Combined With Clinical Decision Support on Opioid and Benzodiazepine Prescribing Across Clinicians in a Metropolitan Area. J. Addict. Med. 2022, 16, 324–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Neprash, H.T.; Vock, D.M.; Hanson, A.; Elert, B.; Short, S.; Karaca-Mandic, P.; Rothman, A.J.; Melton, G.B.; Satin, D.; Markowitz, R.; et al. Effect of Integrating Access to a Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Within the Electronic Health Record on the Frequency of Queries by Primary Care Clinicians: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Health Forum 2022, 3, e221852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Weiner, S.G.; Kobayashi, K.; Reynolds, J.; Chan, K.; Kelly, R.; Wakeman, S.; Reddy, P.; Young, L.D. Opioid Prescribing After Implementation of Single Click Access to a State Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Database in a Health System’s Electronic Health Record. Pain Med. 2021, 22, 2218–2223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Witry, M.; Marie, B.S.; Reist, J. Provider Perspectives and Experiences Following the Integration of the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program into the Electronic Health Record. Health Inform. J. 2022, 28, 14604582221113435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kim, D.D.; Sibai, N. The Current State of Opioid Prescribing and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Action against Physicians: An Analysis of DEA Database 2004–2017. Pain Physician 2020, 23, E297–E304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mauri, A.I.; Townsend, T.N.; Haffajee, R.L. The Association of State Opioid Misuse Prevention Policies With Patient- and Provider-Related Outcomes: A Scoping Review. Milbank Q. 2020, 98, 57–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Soelberg, C.D.; Brown, R.E., Jr.; Du Vivier, D.; Meyer, J.E.; Ramachandran, B.K. The US Opioid Crisis: Current Federal and State Legal Issues. Anesth. Analg. 2017, 125, 1675–1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Stone, E.M.; Rutkow, L.; Bicket, M.C.; Barry, C.L.; Alexander, G.C.; McGinty, E.E. Implementation and Enforcement of State Opioid Prescribing Laws. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020, 213, 108107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Andraka-Christou, B.; McAvoy, E.; Ohama, M.; Smart, R.; Vaiana, M.E.; Taylor, E.; Stein, B.D. Systematic Identification and Categorization of Opioid Prescribing and Dispensing Policies in 16 States and Washington, DC. Pain Med. 2023, 24, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Dowell, D.; Haegerich, T.M.; Chou, R. CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain—United States, 2016. JAMA 2016, 315, 1624–1645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Picco, L.; Lam, T.; Haines, S.; Nielsen, S. How Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs Influence Clinical Decision-Making: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021, 228, 109090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Wilson, M.N.; Hayden, J.A.; Rhodes, E.; Robinson, A.; Asbridge, M. Effectiveness of Prescription Monitoring Programs in Reducing Opioid Prescribing, Dispensing, and Use Outcomes: A Systematic Review. J. Pain 2019, 20, 1383–1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Smith, N.; Martins, S.S.; Kim, J.; Rivera-Aguirre, A.; Fink, D.S.; Castillo-Carniglia, A.; Henry, S.G.; Mooney, S.J.; Marshall, B.D.L.; Davis, C.; et al. A Typology of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs: A Latent Transition Analysis of the Evolution of Programs from 1999 to 2016. Addiction 2019, 114, 248–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Finley, E.P.; Garcia, A.; Rosen, K.; McGeary, D.; Pugh, M.J.; Potter, J.S. Evaluating the Impact of Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Implementation: A Scoping Review. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2017, 17, 420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lin, H.-C.; Wang, Z.; Boyd, C.; Simoni-Wastila, L.; Buu, A. Associations between Statewide Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) Requirement and Physician Patterns of Prescribing Opioid Analgesics for Patients with Non-Cancer Chronic Pain. Addict. Behav. 2018, 76, 348–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lin, H.-C.; Wang, Z.; Simoni-Wastila, L.; Boyd, C.; Buu, A. Interstate Data Sharing of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs and Associated Opioid Prescriptions among Patients with Non-Cancer Chronic Pain. Prev. Med. 2019, 118, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Underwood, N.; Cremer, L.; Cance, J.D.; Williams, J.; Guy, G.P., Jr.; Zule, W. The Impact of Community-Level Prevention Strategies on High-Dose Opioid Dispensing Rates: 2014–2019. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021, 227, 108988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Underwood, N.L.; Kane, H.; Cance, J.; Emery, K.; Elek, E.; Zule, W.; Rooks-Peck, C.; Sargent, W.; Mells, J. Achieving Reductions in Opioid Dispensing: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of State-Level Efforts to Improve Prescribing. J. Public Health Manag. Pract. 2023, 29, 262–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Khobrani, M.; Perona, S.; Patanwala, A.E. Effect of a Legislative Mandate on Opioid Prescribing for Back Pain in the Emergency Department. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2019, 37, 2035–2038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. McGinty, E.E.; Bicket, M.C.; Seewald, N.J.; Stuart, E.A.; Alexander, G.C.; Barry, C.L.; McCourt, A.D.; Rutkow, L. Effects of State Opioid Prescribing Laws on Use of Opioid and Other Pain Treatments Among Commercially Insured U.S. Adults. Ann. Intern. Med. 2022, 175, 617–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Bao, Y.; Pan, Y.; Taylor, A.; Radakrishnan, S.; Luo, F.; Pincus, H.A.; Schackman, B.R. Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs Are Associated With Sustained Reductions In Opioid Prescribing By Physicians. Health Aff. 2016, 35, 1045–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Gupta, R.; Boehmer, S.; Giampetro, D.; Gupta, A.; DeFlitch, C.J. Effect of a Prescription Drug Monitoring Program on Emergency Department Opioid Prescribing. West. J. Emerg. Med. 2021, 22, 756–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Henry, S.G.; Shev, A.B.; Crow, D.; Stewart, S.L.; Wintemute, G.J.; Fenlon, C.; Wirtz, S.J. Impacts of Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Policy Changes and County Opioid Safety Coalitions on Prescribing and Overdose Outcomes in California, 2015–2018. Prev. Med. 2021, 153, 106861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Le, T.T.; Fleming, S.P.; Kuzucan, A.; Dizik, A.; Simoni-Wastila, L. Query Mandates in Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs Reduce Opioid Use among Commercially Insured Patients with Cancer. J. Am. Pharm. Assoc. 2022, 62, 363–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sahebi-Fakhrabad, A.; Sadeghi, A.H.; Handfield, R. Evaluating State-Level Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) and Pill Mill Effects on Opioid Consumption in Pharmaceutical Supply Chain. Healthcare 2023, 11, 437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wen, H.; Schackman, B.R.; Aden, B.; Bao, Y. States With Prescription Drug Monitoring Mandates Saw A Reduction In Opioids Prescribed To Medicaid Enrollees. Health Aff. 2017, 36, 733–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Yarbrough, C.R. Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs Produce a Limited Impact on Painkiller Prescribing in Medicare Part D. Health Serv. Res. 2018, 53, 671–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Arnold, J.; Zhao, X.; Cashy, J.P.; Sileanu, F.E.; Mor, M.K.; Moyo, P.; Thorpe, C.T.; Good, C.B.; Radomski, T.R.; Fine, M.J.; et al. An Interrupted Time-Series Evaluation of the Association Between State Laws Mandating Prescriber Use of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs and Discontinuation of Chronic Opioid Therapy in US Veterans. Med. Care 2021, 59, 1042–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Ayres, I.; Jalal, A. The Impact of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs on U.S. Opioid Prescriptions. J. Law Med. Ethics 2018, 46, 387–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Buchmueller, T.C.; Carey, C. The Effect of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs on Opioid Utilization in Medicare. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 2018, 10, 77–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Maierhofer, C.N.; Ranapurwala, S.I.; DiPrete, B.L.; Fulcher, N.; Ringwalt, C.L.; Chelminski, P.R.; Ives, T.J.; Dasgupta, N.; Go, V.F.; Pence, B.W. Association Between Statewide Opioid Prescribing Interventions and Opioid Prescribing Patterns in North Carolina, 2006–2018. Pain Med. 2021, 22, 2931–2940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Meinhofer, A. Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs: The Role of Asymmetric Information on Drug Availability and Abuse. Am. J. Health Econ. 2018, 4, 504–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Moyo, P.; Simoni-Wastila, L.; Griffin, B.A.; Onukwugha, E.; Harrington, D.; Alexander, G.C.; Palumbo, F. Impact of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) on Opioid Utilization among Medicare Beneficiaries in 10 US States. Addiction 2017, 112, 1784–1796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Ozturk, O.; Hong, Y.; McDermott, S.; Turk, M. Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs and Opioid Prescriptions for Disability Conditions. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2021, 19, 415–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Deyo, R.A.; Hallvik, S.E.; Hildebran, C.; Marino, M.; Springer, R.; Irvine, J.M.; O’Kane, N.; Van Otterloo, J.; Wright, D.A.; Leichtling, G.; et al. Association of Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Use With Opioid Prescribing and Health Outcomes: A Comparison of Program Users and Nonusers. J. Pain 2018, 19, 166–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Meara, E.; Horwitz, J.R.; Powell, W.; McClelland, L.; Zhou, W.; O’Malley, A.J.; Morden, N.E. State Legal Restrictions and Prescription-Opioid Use among Disabled Adults. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 375, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bachhuber, M.A.; Tuazon, E.; Nolan, M.L.; Kunins, H.V.; Paone, D. Impact of a Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Use Mandate on Potentially Problematic Patterns of Opioid Analgesic Prescriptions in New York City. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2019, 28, 734–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Bao, Y.; Wen, K.; Johnson, P.; Jeng, P.J.; Meisel, Z.F.; Schackman, B.R. Assessing the Impact Of State Policies for Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs on High-Risk Opioid Prescriptions. Health Aff. 2018, 37, 1596–1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Nguyen, T.; Meillec, G.; Buchmueller, T. Mandatory Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs and Overlapping Prescriptions of Opioids and Benzodiazepines: Evidence from Kentucky. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2023, 243, 109759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Strickler, G.K.; Zhang, K.; Halpin, J.F.; Bohnert, A.S.B.; Baldwin, G.T.; Kreiner, P.W. Effects of Mandatory Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) Use Laws on Prescriber Registration and Use and on Risky Prescribing. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019, 199, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Townsend, T.N.; Bohnert, A.S.B.; Lagisetty, P.; Haffajee, R.L. Did Prescribing Laws Disproportionately Affect Opioid Dispensing to Black Patients? Health Serv. Res. 2022, 57, 482–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Castillo-Carniglia, A.; González-Santa Cruz, A.; Cerdá, M.; Delcher, C.; Shev, A.B.; Wintemute, G.J.; Henry, S.G. Changes in Opioid Prescribing after Implementation of Mandatory Registration and Proactive Reports within California’s Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021, 218, 108405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. McDonald, D.C.; Carlson, K.E.; Jalbert, S.K. An Experimental Test of the Effectiveness of Unsolicited Reporting by a Prescription Drug Monitoring Program in Reducing Inappropriate Acquisition of Opioids. Pain Med. 2019, 20, 944–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Winstanley, E.L.; Zhang, Y.; Mashni, R.; Schnee, S.; Penm, J.; Boone, J.; McNamee, C.; MacKinnon, N.J. Mandatory Review of a Prescription Drug Monitoring Program and Impact on Opioid and Benzodiazepine Dispensing. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018, 188, 169–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Young, L.D.; Kreiner, P.W.; Panas, L. Unsolicited Reporting to Prescribers of Opioid Analgesics by a State Prescription Drug Monitoring Program: An Observational Study with Matched Comparison Group. Pain Med. 2018, 19, 1396–1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sun, B.C.; Lupulescu-Mann, N.; Charlesworth, C.J.; Kim, H.; Hartung, D.M.; Deyo, R.A.; John McConnell, K. Variations in Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Use by Prescriber Specialty. J. Subst. Abuse Treat. 2018, 94, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sacarny, A.; Avilova, T.; Powell, D.; Williamson, I.; Merrick, W.; Jacobson, M. A Randomized Trial Of Letters To Encourage Prescription Monitoring Program Use And Safe Opioid Prescribing. Health Aff. 2023, 42, 140–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Danagoulian, S.; King, A.; Mangan, K.; Tarchick, J.; Dolcourt, B. Fewer Opioids but More Benzodiazepines? Prescription Trends by Specialty in Response to the Implementation of Michigan’s Opioid Laws. Pain Med. 2021, 23, 403–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Liang, D.; Guo, H.; Shi, Y. Mandatory Use of Prescription Drug Monitoring Program and Benzodiazepine Prescribing among U.S. Medicaid Enrollees. Subst. Abus. 2021, 42, 294–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Manders, L.; Abd-Elsayed, A. Mandatory Review of Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Before Issuance of a Controlled Substance Results in Overall Reduction of Prescriptions Including Opioids and Benzodiazepines. Pain Physician 2020, 23, 299–304. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  75. Toce, M.S.; Michelson, K.A.; Hudgins, J.D.; Olson, K.L.; Monuteaux, M.C.; Bourgeois, F.T. Association of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs with Benzodiazepine Prescription Dispensation and Overdose in Adolescents and Young Adults. Clin. Toxicol. 2023, 61, 234–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Arnold, A.; Bentley, J.P.; Patel, A.; Holmes, E. Predictors of Pharmacists’ Likelihood to Query Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Databases. J. Am. Pharm. Assoc. 2021, 61, 614–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Goodin, A.; Bae, J.; Delcher, C.; Brown, J.; Roussos-Ross, D. Obstetrician-Gynecologist Perceptions and Utilization of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs: A Survey Study. Medicine 2021, 100, e24268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Shev, A.B.; Wintemute, G.J.; Cerdá, M.; Crawford, A.; Stewart, S.L.; Henry, S.G. Prescription Drug Monitoring Program: Registration and Use by Prescribers and Pharmacists Before and After Legal Mandatory Registration, California, 2010–2017. Am. J. Public Health 2018, 108, 1669–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Thornton, J.D.; Varisco, T.J.; Downs, C.G. Factors Associated with the Use of the Prescription Monitoring Program by Prescribers and Pharmacists in Texas. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2021, 30, 492–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. McCauley, J.L.; Gilbert, G.H.; Cochran, D.L.; Gordan, V.V.; Leite, R.S.; Fillingim, R.B.; Brady, K.T.; National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group. Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Use: National Dental PBRN Results. JDR Clin. Trans. Res. 2019, 4, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Williams, K.S.; Magalotti, S.; Schrouder, K.; Knox, M.; Feldman, L.; Ujwal, D.; Lynch, D. Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs: Relationships Among Program Awareness, Use, and State Mandates. J. Pain Palliat. Care Pharmacother. 2018, 32, 129–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Chang, H.-Y.; Lyapustina, T.; Rutkow, L.; Daubresse, M.; Richey, M.; Faul, M.; Stuart, E.A.; Alexander, G.C. Impact of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs and Pill Mill Laws on High-Risk Opioid Prescribers: A Comparative Interrupted Time Series Analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016, 165, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Freeman, P.R.; Curran, G.M.; Drummond, K.L.; Martin, B.C.; Teeter, B.S.; Bradley, K.; Schoenberg, N.; Edlund, M.J. Utilization of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs for Prescribing and Dispensing Decisions: Results from a Multi-Site Qualitative Study. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2019, 15, 754–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Suffoletto, B.; Lynch, M.; Pacella, C.B.; Yealy, D.M.; Callaway, C.W. The Effect of a Statewide Mandatory Prescription Drug Monitoring Program on Opioid Prescribing by Emergency Medicine Providers Across 15 Hospitals in a Single Health System. J. Pain 2018, 19, 430–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Alogaili, F.; Abdul Ghani, N.; Ahmad Kharman Shah, N. Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs in the US: A Systematic Literature Review on Its Strength and Weakness. J. Infect. Public Health 2020, 13, 1456–1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Mehta, S.; Brown, W., III; Ferguson, E.; Najera, J.; Pantell, M.S. The Association between Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs and Controlled Substance Prescribing: A Cross-Sectional Study Using Data from 2019 National Electronic Health Records Survey. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2023, 30, 1042–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Ovadia, S.A.; Garcia, O., Jr.; Thaller, S.R. Changes in Opioid Prescribing Patterns: A Survey of the Florida Society of Plastic Surgeons. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2020, 85, e54–e58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Landau, A.; Lynch, M.; Callaway, C.; Suffoletto, B. How Are Real-Time Opioid Prescribing Cognitions by Emergency Providers Influenced by Reviewing the State Prescription Drug Monitoring Program? Pain Med. 2019, 20, 955–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Pomerleau, A.C.; Nelson, L.S.; Hoppe, J.A.; Salzman, M.; Weiss, P.S.; Perrone, J. The Impact of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs and Prescribing Guidelines on Emergency Department Opioid Prescribing: A Multi-Center Survey. Pain Med. 2017, 18, 889–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Johnston, K.; Alley, L.; Novak, K.; Haverly, S.; Irwin, A.; Hartung, D. Pharmacists’ Attitudes, Knowledge, Utilization, and Outcomes Involving Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs: A Brief Scoping Review. J. Am. Pharm. Assoc. 2018, 58, 568–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Lozada, M.J.; Raji, M.A.; Goodwin, J.S.; Kuo, Y.-F. Opioid Prescribing by Primary Care Providers: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Nurse Practitioner, Physician Assistant, and Physician Prescribing Patterns. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2020, 35, 2584–2592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Robinson, A.; Wilson, M.N.; Hayden, J.A.; Rhodes, E.; Campbell, S.; MacDougall, P.; Asbridge, M. Health Care Provider Utilization of Prescription Monitoring Programs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Pain Med. 2021, 22, 1570–1582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Hoang, E.; Keith, D.A.; Kulich, R. Controlled Substance Misuse Risk Assessment and Prescription Monitoring Database Use by Dentists. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2019, 150, 383–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Mastarone, G.L.; Wyse, J.J.; Wilbur, E.R.; Morasco, B.J.; Saha, S.; Carlson, K.F. Barriers to Utilization of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs among Prescribing Physicians and Advanced Practice Registered Nurses at Veterans Health Administration Facilities in Oregon. Pain Med. 2020, 21, 695–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Young, H.W., 2nd; Tyndall, J.A.; Cottler, L.B. The Current Utilization and Perceptions of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs among Emergency Medicine Providers in Florida. Int. J. Emerg. Med. 2017, 10, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Carnes, N.A.; Wright, E.R.; Norwood, C.W. A Qualitative Analysis of Prescribers’ and Dispensers’ Views on Improving Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2017, 13, 1167–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Radomski, T.R.; Bixler, F.R.; Zickmund, S.L.; Roman, K.L.M.; Thorpe, C.T.; Hale, J.A.; Sileanu, F.E.; Hausmann, L.R.M.; Thorpe, J.M.; Suda, K.J.; et al. Physicians’ Perspectives Regarding Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Use Within the Department of Veterans Affairs: A Multi-State Qualitative Study. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2018, 33, 1253–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. St Marie, B.J.; Witry, M.J.; Reist, J.C. Barriers to Increasing Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Use: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Comput. Inform. Nurs. 2023, 41, 556–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Hong, M.; Seymour, S.; Stopka, T.J.; Bandanza, L.; Crocker, E.; Morgan, A.; Beletsky, L. “Nobody Knows How You’re Supposed to Interpret It:” End-User Perspectives on Prescription Drug Monitoring Program in Massachusetts. J. Addict. Med. 2021, 16, e171–e176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Leas, D.; Seymour, R.B.; Wally, M.K.; Hsu, J.R.; Beuhler, M.; Bosse, M.J.; Gibbs, M.; Griggs, C.; Jarrett, S.; Runyon, M.; et al. Use of a Prescription Drug-Monitoring Program by Emergency and Surgical Prescribers: Results of a Hospital Survey. HSS J. 2019, 15, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Herndon, C.M.; Riley, A.M.; Gattas, N.M.; Tiemeier, A.M. Pharmacist Opioid Dispensing Confidence in an Evolving Practice Landscape. J. Pain Palliat. Care Pharmacother. 2022, 36, 187–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Bachhuber, M.A.; Saloner, B.; Larochelle, M.; Merlin, J.S.; Maughan, B.C.; Polsky, D.; Shaparin, N.; Murphy, S.M. Physician Time Burden Associated with Querying Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs. Pain Med. 2018, 19, 1952–1960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. NABP. PMP InterConnect. Available online: https://nabp.pharmacy/initiatives/pmp-interconnect/ (accessed on 27 July 2023).
  104. Blum, C.J.; Nelson, L.S.; Hoffman, R.S. A Survey of Physicians’ Perspectives on the New York State Mandatory Prescription Monitoring Program (ISTOP). J. Subst. Abuse Treat. 2016, 70, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Goodin, A.; Hincapie-Castillo, J.M.; Brown, J.D.; Roussos-Ross, D. A Survey Assessment of Clinician Perceptions of Opioid Supply and Monitoring Requirement Policy Changes. J. Opioid Manag. 2021, 17, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Hernandez-Meier, J.L.; Muscott, R.; Zosel, A. The Use of a Statewide Prescription Drug Monitoring Program by Emergency Department Physicians. WMJ 2017, 116, 64–68. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  107. Upton, C.; Gernant, S.A.; Rickles, N.M. Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs in Community Pharmacy: An Exploration of Pharmacist Time Requirements and Labor Cost. J. Am. Pharm. Assoc. 2020, 60, 943–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Alpert, A.E.; Dykstra, S.E.; Jacobson, M. How Do Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs Reduce Opioid Prescribing? The Role of Hassle Costs versus Information; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; Available online: https://www.nber.org/papers/w27584 (accessed on 27 July 2023).
  109. Martin, H.D.; Modi, S.S.; Feldman, S.S. Barriers and Facilitators to PDMP IS Success in the US: A Systematic Review. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020, 219, 108460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Richwine, C.; Everson, J. National Estimates and Physician-Reported Impacts of Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Use. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2023, 38, 881–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Chernick, R.; Allen, B.; Harocopos, A. Primary Care Implementation of a Mandatory Prescription Drug Monitoring Program in New York City. J. Behav. Health Serv. Res. 2021, 49, 122–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Fendrich, M.; Bryan, J.K.; Hooyer, K. Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs and Pharmacist Orientation Toward Dispensing Controlled Substances. Subst. Use Misuse 2018, 53, 1324–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Babu, M.A.; Nahed, B.V.; Heary, R.F. Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs and the Neurosurgeon: Impact on Workflow and Overall Perceptions. Clin. Neurosurg. 2018, 65, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Leichtling, G.J.; Irvine, J.M.; Hildebran, C.; Cohen, D.J.; Hallvik, S.E.; Deyo, R.A. Clinicians’ Use of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs in Clinical Practice and Decision-Making. Pain Med. 2017, 18, 1063–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Pett, R.G.; Mancl, L.; Revere, D.; Stergachis, A. Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Use and Utility by Washington State Pharmacists: A Mixed-Methods Study. J. Am. Pharm. Assoc. 2020, 60, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Dickson-Gomez, J.; Christenson, E.; Weeks, M.; Galletly, C.; Wogen, J.; Spector, A.; McDonald, M.; Ohlrich, J. Effects of Implementation and Enforcement Differences in Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs in 3 States: Connecticut, Kentucky, and Wisconsin. Subst. Abuse 2021, 15, 1178221821992349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Yuanhong Lai, A.; Smith, K.C.; Vernick, J.S.; Davis, C.S.; Caleb Alexander, G.; Rutkow, L. Perceived Unintended Consequences of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs. Subst. Use Misuse 2019, 54, 345–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Graetz, I.; Hu, X.; Ji, X.; Wetzel, M.; Yarbrough, C.R. The Effect of Cancer Exemption in Mandatory-Access Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs among Oncologists. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2023, 7, pkad006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Zhang, H.; Kilaru, A.S.; Meisel, Z.F.; Bao, Y. Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Mandates and Opioids Dispensed Following Emergency Department Encounters for Patients With Sickle Cell Disease or Cancer With Bone Metastasis. JAMA 2021, 326, 274–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Rhodes, E.; Wilson, M.; Robinson, A.; Hayden, J.A.; Asbridge, M. The Effectiveness of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs at Reducing Opioid-Related Harms and Consequences: A Systematic Review. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2019, 19, 784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Moride, Y.; Lemieux-Uresandi, D.; Castillon, G.; de Moura, C.S.; Pilote, L.; Faure, M.; Bernartsky, S. A Systematic Review of Interventions and Programs Targeting Appropriate Prescribing of Opioids. Pain Physician 2019, 22, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Wetzel, M.; Yarbrough, C.R.; von Esenwein, S.A.; Hockenberry, J.M. Association of Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Laws with Bedridden and Missed Work Days. Health Serv. Res. 2021, 56, 1215–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Tay, E.; Makeham, M.; Laba, T.-L.; Baysari, M. Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs Evaluation: A Systematic Review of Reviews. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2023, 247, 109887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Deyo, R.A.; Irvine, J.M.; Millet, L.M.; Beran, T.; O’Kane, N.; Wright, D.A.; McCarty, D. Measures such as Interstate Cooperation Would Improve the Efficacy of Programs to Track Controlled Drug Prescriptions. Health Aff. 2013, 32, 603–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Gavaza, P.; Fleming, M.; Barner, J.C. Examination of Psychosocial Predictors of Virginia Pharmacists’ Intention to Utilize a Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Using the Theory of Planned Behavior. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2014, 10, 448–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. LeMire, S.D.; Martner, S.G.; Rising, C. Advanced Practice Nurses’ Use of Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Information. J. Nurse Pract. 2012, 8, 383–388+405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Manchikanti, L.; Sanapati, J.; Benyamin, R.M.; Atluri, S.; Kaye, A.D.; Hirsch, J.A. Reframing the Prevention Strategies of the Opioid Crisis: Focusing on Prescription Opioids, Fentanyl, and Heroin Epidemic. Pain Physician 2018, 21, 309–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Oldenhof, E.; Anderson-Wurf, J.; Hall, K.; Staiger, P.K. Beyond Prescriptions Monitoring Programs: The Importance of Having the Conversation about Benzodiazepine Use. J. Clin. Med. Res. 2019, 8, 2143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Fink, D.S.; Schleimer, J.P.; Sarvet, A.; Grover, K.K.; Delcher, C.; Castillo-Carniglia, A.; Kim, J.H.; Rivera-Aguirre, A.E.; Henry, S.G.; Martins, S.S.; et al. Association Between Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs and Nonfatal and Fatal Drug Overdoses: A Systematic Review. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 168, 783–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Hoppe, D.; Karimi, L.; Khalil, H. Mapping the Research Addressing Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs: A Scoping Review. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2022, 41, 803–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Puac-Polanco, V.; Chihuri, S.; Fink, D.S.; Cerdá, M.; Keyes, K.M.; Li, G. Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs and Prescription Opioid-Related Outcomes in the United States. Epidemiol. Rev. 2020, 42, 134–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Champagne-Langabeer, T.; Madu, R.; Giri, S.; Stotts, A.L.; Langabeer, J.R. Opioid Prescribing Patterns and Overdose Deaths in Texas. Subst. Abus. 2021, 42, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Langabeer, J.R.; Chambers, K.A.; Cardenas-Turanzas, M.; Champagne-Langabeer, T. County-Level Factors Underlying Opioid Mortality in the United States. Subst. Abus. 2020, 43, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Ostling, P.S.; Davidson, K.S.; Anyama, B.O.; Helander, E.M.; Wyche, M.Q.; Kaye, A.D. America’s Opioid Epidemic: A Comprehensive Review and Look into the Rising Crisis. Curr. Pain Headache Rep. 2018, 22, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Rudd, R.A.; Seth, P.; David, F.; Scholl, L. Increases in Drug and Opioid-Involved Overdose Deaths—United States, 2010–2015. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2016, 65, 1445–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Schuchat, A.; Houry, D.; Guy, G.P., Jr. New Data on Opioid Use and Prescribing in the United States. JAMA 2017, 318, 425–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Dowell, D.; Ragan, K.R.; Jones, C.M.; Baldwin, G.T.; Chou, R. CDC Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain—United States, 2022. MMWR Recomm. Rep. 2022, 71, 1–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Strawser, J.D.; Block, L. Impact of the New York State Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (IStop) on Chronic Pain Management by Primary Care Providers. J. Opioid Manag. 2021, 17, 39–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Santelices, C.; Pustz, J.; Chase, C.; Kim, J.Y.; Stopka, T.J. Perspectives of Opioid Prescribers in Overdose Hotspots and Coldspots, Massachusetts, 2019. Subst. Use Misuse 2023, 58, 1069–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Martins, S.S.; Bruzelius, E.; Stingone, J.A.; Wheeler-Martin, K.; Akbarnejad, H.; Mauro, C.M.; Marziali, M.E.; Samples, H.; Crystal, S.; Davis, C.S.; et al. Prescription Opioid Laws and Opioid Dispensing in U.S. Counties: Identifying Salient Law Provisions with Machine Learning. Epidemiology 2021, 32, 868–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Lin, H.-C.; Wang, Z.; Hu, Y.-H.; Simon, K.; Buu, A. Characteristics of Statewide Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs and Potentially Inappropriate Opioid Prescribing to Patients with Non-Cancer Chronic Pain: A Machine Learning Application. Prev. Med. 2022, 161, 107116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Dang, D.; Dearholt, S.; Bissett, K.; Ascenzi, J.; Whalen, M. Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals: Model and Guidelines, 4th ed.; Sigma Theta Tau International: Indianapolis, IN, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  143. Grant, M.J.; Booth, A. A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies. Health Inf. Libr. J. 2009, 26, 91–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Ouzzani, M.; Hammady, H.; Fedorowicz, Z.; Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan—A Web and Mobile App for Systematic Reviews. Syst. Rev. 2016, 5, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Thurmond, V.A. The Point of Triangulation. J. Nurs. Scholarsh. 2001, 33, 253–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Haffajee, R.L.; Mello, M.M.; Zhang, F.; Zaslavsky, A.M.; Larochelle, M.R.; Wharam, J.F. Four States With Robust Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs Reduced Opioid Dosages. Health Aff. 2018, 37, 964–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Wen, H.; Hockenberry, J.M.; Jeng, P.J.; Bao, Y. Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Mandates: Impact On Opioid Prescribing And Related Hospital Use. Health Aff. 2019, 38, 1550–1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Al Achkar, M.; Grannis, S.; Revere, D.; MacKie, P.; Howard, M.; Gupta, S. The effects of state rules on opioid prescribing in Indiana. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2018, 18, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Aulet, R.M.; Trieu, V.; Landrigan, G.P.; Millay, D.J. Changes in Opioid Prescribing Habits for Patients Undergoing Rhinoplasty and Septoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast. Surg. 2019, 21, 487–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Buchmueller, T.C.; Carey, C.M.; Meille, G. How well do doctors know their patients? Evidence from a mandatory access prescription drug monitoring program. Health Econ. 2020, 29, 957–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Chang, H.-Y.; Murimi, I.; Faul, M.; Rutkow, L.; Alexander, G.C. Impact of Florida’s prescription drug monitoring program and pill mill law on high-risk patients: A comparative interrupted time series analysis. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2018, 27, 422–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Derleth, B.M.; Dexter, D.D.; Arndt, R.; Lea, C.M.; Dierkhising, R.A.; Dow, J.F. Effect of a Statewide Controlled-Substance Monitoring Requirement on the Opioid Prescribing Practice for Treatment of Acute Pain. WMJ 2020, 119, 33–36. [Google Scholar]
  153. Dowell, D.; Zhang, K.; Noonan, R.K.; Hockenberry, J.M. Mandatory Provider Review And Pain Clinic Laws Reduce The Amounts Of Opioids Prescribed And Overdose Death Rates. Health Aff. 2016, 35, 1876–1883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Myrga, J.M.; Macleod, L.C.; Bandari, J.; Jacobs, B.L.; Davies, B.J. Decrease in Urologic Discharge Opioid Prescribing after Mandatory Query of Statewide Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. Urology 2020, 139, 84–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Rubin, S.J.; Wang, J.J.; Nodoushani, A.Y.; Yarlagadda, B.B.; Wulu, J.A.; Edwards, H.A. The effect of a statewide prescription drug monitoring program on opioid prescribing patterns. Am. J. Otolaryngol. 2022, 43, 103262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Sacks, D.W.; Hollingsworth, A.; Nguyen, T.; Simon, K. Can policy affect initiation of addictive substance use? Evidence from opioid prescribing. J. Health Econ. 2021, 76, 102397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Sun, B.C.; Charlesworth, C.J.; Lupulescu-Mann, N.; Young, J.I.; Kim, H.; Hartung, D.M.; Deyo, R.A.; McConnell, K.J. Effect of Automated Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Queries on Emergency Department Opioid Prescribing. Ann. Emerg. Med. 2018, 71, 337–347.e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Toce, M.S.; Michelson, K.A.; Hudgins, J.D.; Hadland, S.E.; Olson, K.L.; Monuteaux, M.C.; Bourgeois, F.T. Association of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs With Opioid Prescribing and Overdose in Adolescents and Young Adults. Ann. Emerg. Med. 2023, 81, 429–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Wang, T.T.; Tong, J.; Hersh, E.V.; Chuang, S.-K.; Panchal, N. Does prescription drug monitoring program usage affect opioid analgesic prescriptions by oral and maxillofacial surgeons after third molar surgery? Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 2021, 132, 26–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Watson, C.J.; Ganetsky, M.; Burke, R.C.; Dizitzer, Y.; Leventhal, E.L.; Boyle, K.L. Impact of a Mandatory Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Check on Emergency Department Opioid Prescribing Rates. J. Med. Toxicol. 2021, 17, 265–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Zeiner, A.L.; Burak, M.A.; O’Sullivan, D.M.; Laskey, D. Effect of a Law Requiring Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Use on Emergency Department Opioid Prescribing: A Single-Center Analysis. J. Pharm. Pract. 2021, 34, 774–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pharmacoepidemiology 02 00030 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA diagram for PDMP effects on clinician prescribing and dispensing behavior.
Figure 1. PRISMA diagram for PDMP effects on clinician prescribing and dispensing behavior.
Pharmacoepidemiology 02 00030 g001
Table 1. Outcome categories.
Table 1. Outcome categories.
OutcomeDefinition
Number of opioidsRate of prescribing/dispensing or average, total amount, or volume of the following for new patients or patients overall:
  • Number of opioid prescriptions;
  • Number of opioid prescription refills;
  • MEDs/MMEs of opioids;
  • Number of days supplied through prescription;
  • Overall spending on opioid prescriptions.
Number of risky prescriptionsTotal number or % of patients with any combination of the following elements in their prescription history:
  • ≥Number of prescription days;
  • Overlapping opioid prescriptions;
  • Co-prescriptions of opioids and benzodiazepines;
  • ≥Number of prescribers;
  • ≥Number of pharmacies;
  • Cash payment for opioid prescriptions;
  • ≥Number of new patient visits resulting in opioid prescriptions.
Other outcomes
  • Number of benzodiazepine prescriptions;
  • Number of non-opioid analgesics (e.g., NSAIDs);
  • Length of chronic opioid therapy;
  • Number of stimulant prescriptions.
Table 2. Intervention categories.
Table 2. Intervention categories.
InterventionDefinition
PDMP implementation and mandated registration
  • Prescriber obtained electronic access to the PDMP;
  • Prescribers were required to register to use the PDMP or were automatically registered for use but were not mandated to use it.
Mandated PDMP use and stronger PDMP lawsPrescribers are required to check PDMP data under certain conditions and the following PDMP characteristics:
  • Administered by a health agency;
  • Data updated at least weekly;
  • Includes Schedule II-IV data;
  • No prescriber immunity for failure to check the PDMP.
Proactive notification of risky prescriptionsPDMPs produce proactive reports of potentially risky prescribing or dispensing.
Delegate accessPDMP reports can be accessed by delegates on behalf of clinicians.
Data sharingPatient-controlled substance prescription information is shared between bordering states to identify patients who cross state borders for drug-seeking behavior.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Smith, N.Z.Y.; Thornton, J.D.; Fenton, S.H.; Simmons, D.; Champagne-Langabeer, T. Helpful, Unnecessary, or Harmful: A Systematic Review of the Effects of Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Use on Opioid Prescriptions. Pharmacoepidemiology 2023, 2, 350-365. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharma2040030

AMA Style

Smith NZY, Thornton JD, Fenton SH, Simmons D, Champagne-Langabeer T. Helpful, Unnecessary, or Harmful: A Systematic Review of the Effects of Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Use on Opioid Prescriptions. Pharmacoepidemiology. 2023; 2(4):350-365. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharma2040030

Chicago/Turabian Style

Smith, Nina Z. Y., J. Douglas Thornton, Susan H. Fenton, Debora Simmons, and Tiffany Champagne-Langabeer. 2023. "Helpful, Unnecessary, or Harmful: A Systematic Review of the Effects of Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Use on Opioid Prescriptions" Pharmacoepidemiology 2, no. 4: 350-365. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharma2040030

APA Style

Smith, N. Z. Y., Thornton, J. D., Fenton, S. H., Simmons, D., & Champagne-Langabeer, T. (2023). Helpful, Unnecessary, or Harmful: A Systematic Review of the Effects of Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Use on Opioid Prescriptions. Pharmacoepidemiology, 2(4), 350-365. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharma2040030

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop