Abstract
Objective Understanding opioid use and distribution trends by geographic area is critical in addressing the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States. This study is a county level analysis of oxycodone and hydrocodone use in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia between 2006-2014.
Materials and Methods A retrospective analysis of oxycodone and hydrocodone distributed as collected by the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) Washington Post Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System (ARCOS) in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Raw drug weights in each county were adjusted to “daily average dose” (grams/county population/365). Purchasing data collected from ARCOS was used to compare distribution trends during this period.
Results There was a 57.59% in the weight of oxycodone and hydrocodone between 2006-2014. Oxycodone prescriptions increased by 75.50% and hydrocodone by 11.05%. Oxycodone increased across all three states between 2006-2010 and declined until 2014. Hydrocodone also increased but to a lesser extent than oxycodone. There was substantial variability in daily average dose of both opioids at the county level in all states. Pharmacies accounted for largest portion of oxycodone (69.17%) and hydrocodone (75.27%) purchased in the region. Hospitals accounted for 26.67% of oxycodone and 22.76% hydrocodone purchased. Practitioners and mid-level providers did not significantly contribute to this increase.
Conclusion In the states of Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia, the distribution of the prescription opioids oxycodone and hydrocodone increased by 57.59%. Daily average dose increased between 2006-2010 in all three states followed by a decline until 2014. Variability in daily average dose by county highlights the relationship between geography and likelihood of receiving high dose opioids. It may further allude to effects of targeted distribution by pharmaceutical manufacturers and prescribing habits of geographically distinct healthcare entities. Relationships between location and opioid usage should continue to be investigated to promote rational use of controlled substances.
Competing Interest Statement
BJP was part of an osteoarthritis research team from 2019 to 2021 supported by Pfizer and Eli Lilly. The other authors do not have conflicts of interest to declare.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
JHagedorn{at}som.geisinger.edu
kmccall{at}binghamton.edu
psy391{at}gmail.com
Data Availability
All data present in the study are available upon request of the authors. All data produced in the present work is contained in the manuscript. All referenced data is from pubmed indexed sources
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/arcos/retail_drug_summary/index.html