U.S. law imposes strict recording and reporting requirements on all entities that manufacture and distribute controlled substances. As a result, the prescription opioid crisis has unfolded in a data-saturated environment. This article asks why the systematic documentation of opioid transactions failed to prevent or mitigate the crisis. Drawing on a recently disclosed trove of 1.4 million internal records from Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, a leading manufacturer of prescription opioids, we highlight a phenomenon we propose to call data diversion, whereby data ostensibly generated or collected for the purpose of regulating the distribution of controlled substances were repurposed by the industry for the opposite aim of increasing sales at all costs. Systematic data diversion, we argue, contributed substantially to the scale of drug diversion seen with opioids and should become a focus of policy intervention.

Diversion of controlled substances in the perioperative setting is an ongoing challenge, with consequences for patients, anesthesiologists, perioperative staff, and health care facilities alike. Perioperative environments are at high risk for diversion, since controlled substances are frequently handled in these settings, with varying levels of oversight. In this narrative review, we summarize strategies for preventing diversion of controlled substances in perioperative settings (i.e., operating rooms, endoscopy suites, and postanesthesia recovery units).
We performed a targeted literature search in PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Register of Controlled trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, as well as a manual search for additional references. We used terminology related to drug diversion, drug abuse, anesthesiologists, pharmacists, physicians, operating room personnel, and controlled substances.
Many strategies have been described for preventing diversion in perioperative settings, and these are broadly categorized into: education, distribution, auditing, or provider screening. Some of these approaches may be time- and resource-intensive. There is limited evidence to inform anesthesia departments\' choice of which strategies to adopt.
Although awareness of perioperative controlled substance diversion has been improving, there are too few data to suggest an optimal approach. Anesthesia departments will need to work collaboratively with hospital pharmacies and actively select strategies that are reasonable given local resources.
RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Le détournement des substances contrôlées en milieu périopératoire constitue un défi permanent qui a des conséquences pour la patientèle, les anesthésiologistes, le personnel périopératoire et les établissements de soins de santé. Les environnements périopératoires courent un risque élevé de détournement, car les substances contrôlées sont fréquemment manipulées dans ces milieux, avec divers niveaux de surveillance. Dans ce compte rendu narratif, nous résumons les stratégies de prévention du détournement des substances contrôlées dans les milieux périopératoires (c.-à-d. salles d’opération, salles d’endoscopie et salles de réveil).
Nous avons réalisé une recherche documentaire ciblée dans les bases de données PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, le registre Cochrane des essais contrôlés et la base de données Cochrane des revues systématiques, ainsi qu’une recherche manuelle de références supplémentaires. Nous avons utilisé une terminologie liée au détournement de médicaments, à l’abus de substances, aux anesthésiologistes, aux pharmacien·nes, aux médecins, au personnel de salle d’opération et aux substances contrôlées.
De nombreuses stratégies ont été décrites pour prévenir le détournement dans les milieux périopératoires, et celles-ci sont généralement classées en éducation, distribution, audit ou dépistage des fournisseurs et fournisseuses de soin. Certaines de ces approches peuvent exiger beaucoup de temps et de ressources. Il existe peu de données probantes pour éclairer le choix des départements d’anesthésie quant aux stratégies à adopter.
Bien que la sensibilisation au détournement périopératoire de substances contrôlées se soit améliorée, il y a trop peu de données pour suggérer une approche optimale. Les départements d’anesthésie devront travailler en collaboration avec les pharmacies hospitalières et choisir activement des stratégies raisonnables qui tiennent compte des ressources locales.

New psychoactive substances (NPS) are not controlled under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 or the 1971 Convention, but they may pose a public health threat. Knowledge of the main properties and toxicological effects of these substances is lacking. According to the current Drugs Law (Law n. 11.343/2006), the Brazilian Surveillance Agency issues directives for forbidden substances in Brazil, and structural classes of synthetic cannabinoids, cathinones, and phenylethylamines are considered illicit drugs. Considering that data on these controlled substances are scattered, the main objective of this work was to collect and organize data to generate relevant information on the toxicological properties of NPS.
We carried out a literature review collecting information on the acute, chronic, and post-mortem toxicity of these classes of NSP. We searched info in five scientific databases considering works from 2017 to 2021 and performed a statistical evaluation of the data.
Results have shown a general lack of studies in this field given that many NPS have not had their toxicity evaluated. We observed a significant difference in the volume of data concerning acute and chronic/post-mortem toxicity. Moreover, studies on the adverse effects of polydrug use are scarce.
More in-depth information about the main threats involving NPS use are needed.

BACKGROUND: 911 Good Samaritan Laws (GSLs) confer limited legal immunity to bystanders in possession of controlled substances who report emergency overdoses. While these laws may decrease opioid overdose mortality, current literature reduces GSLs to a small number of variables, overlooking substantial differences in implementation and statutory context which dramatically alter their applicability.
METHODS: We identified all state GSLs and their legislative history, characterizing features into four categories using a novel framework: breadth of protected activities, burden placed on Good Samaritans, strength of protection, and exemption in coverage. When protections depended on the nature of the controlled substance, heroin served as a common point of comparison.
RESULTS: GSLs vary substantially across states and time. Protections depend on the quantity of substances involved and may extend to the person experiencing the overdose or persons reporting their own overdose. Protected offenses range from possession of controlled substances to drug-induced homicide. In some states, Good Samaritans must complete substance use treatment or administer naloxone to retain protections. Immunity ranges from protection from arrest to merely procedural protections at trial, and may even exclude persons in possession of opioids. Exemptions target persons engaging in chronic substance use, such as persons invoking protection multiple times or previously reporting an overdose.
CONCLUSIONS: States offer Good Samaritans substantially different protections even when the statutes confer nominally comparable immunities. Accommodating this heterogeneity will enhance the validity of future studies into these laws and their efficacy.

\"Doctor shopping\" typically refers to patients that seek controlled substance prescriptions from multiple providers with the presumed intent to obtain these medications for non-medical use and/or diversion. The purpose of this scoping review is to document and examine the criteria used to identify \"doctor shopping\" from dispensing data in the United States.
A scoping review was conducted on \"doctor shopping\" or analogous terminology from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2020, using the Web of Science Core Collection (seven citation indexes). Our search was limited to the United States only, English-language, peer-reviewed and US federal government studies. Studies without explicit \"doctor shopping\" criteria were excluded. Key components of these criteria included the number of prescribers and dispensers, dispensing period, and drug class (e.g., opioids).
Of 9,845 records identified, 95 articles met the inclusion criteria and our pool of studies ranged from years 2003 to 2020. The most common threshold-based or count definition was (≥4 Prescribers [P] AND ≥4 Dispensers [D]) (n = 12). Thirty-three studies used a 365-day detection window. Opioids alone were studied most commonly (n = 69), followed by benzodiazepines and stimulants (n = 5 and n = 2, respectively). Only 39 (41%) studies provided specific drug lists with active ingredients.
Relatively simple P x D criteria for identifying \"doctor shopping\" are still the dominant paradigm with the need for ongoing validation. The value of P x D criteria may change through time with more diverse methods applied to dispensing data emerging.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to review the literature regarding the use of an in-home opioid disposal product on unused opioids after surgery.
BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic in the United States is a major cause of concern for healthcare facilities. The misuse and diversion of retained opioids after a surgical procedure continues to contribute to this problem.
METHODS: A comprehensive search of the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, OVID, and PubMed databases with keywords including opioid, analgesics, narcotics, medical waste disposal, medical disposal, refuse disposal, and opioid disposal resulted in 286 articles. Articles were screened based on strict inclusion and exclusion criteria.
RESULTS: Eight studies determined that an in-home opioid disposal product provided by a healthcare facility produced rates of opioid disposal between 19% and 71%.
CONCLUSIONS: The provision of an in-home opioid disposal product by a healthcare facility is likely to increase the disposal of unused opioid medications in the postoperative surgical patient population.

OBJECTIVE: Therapeutic use, misuse, abuse, and diversion of controlled substances in managing chronic non-cancer pain remain a major concern for physicians, the government, payers, and patients. The challenge remains finding effective diagnostic tools that can be clinically validated to eliminate or substantially reduce the abuse of controlled prescription drugs, while still assuring the proper treatment of those patients in pain. Urine drug testing still remains an important means of adherence monitoring, but questions arise as to its relevance and effectiveness. This review examines the role of UDT, determines its utility in current clinical practice, and investigates its relevance in current chronic pain management.
RESULTS: A review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Literature was searched from year 2000 to present examining the relevance and role of UDT in monitoring chronic opioid therapy along with reliability and accuracy, appropriate use, overuse, misuse, and abuse. There are only a limited number of reviews and investigations on UDT, despite the fact that clinicians who prescribe controlled medications for chronic states commonly are expected to utilize UDT. Therefore, despite highly prevalent use, there is a limited publication base from which to draw in this present study. Regardless of experience or training background, physicians and healthcare providers can much more adequately assess opioid therapy with the aid of UDT, which often requires confirmatory testing by a laboratory for clinical and therapeutic prescribing decisions. It has become a strongly recommended aspect of pain care with controlled substances locally, regionally, and nationally. Incorporating UDT for all patients in whom chronic opioid therapy is undertaken is consistent with state and national guidelines and best practice strategies. Practice standards vary as to the frequency of UDT locally, regionally, and nationally, however.

This review paper covers the forensic-relevant literature in controlled substances from 2016 to 2019 as a part of the 19th Interpol International Forensic Science Managers Symposium. The review papers are also available at the Interpol website at: https://www.interpol.int/content/download/14458/file/Interpol%20Review%20Papers%202019.pdf.

To evaluate opioid prescribing, dispensing, and use in relation to hydrocodone-containing product (HCP) rescheduling.
Seven biomedical databases and grey literature sources were searched with keywords and database-specific controlled vocabulary relevant to HCP rescheduling for items published between January 2014 and July 2019. We included English-language quasi-experimental studies that assessed changes in HCP and other opioid prescribing, dispensing, utilization, and opioid-related health outcomes before and after HCP rescheduling. A data extraction sheet was created for this review. Two authors evaluated risk of bias for each included study. Two of 4 authors each independently extracted patient demographics and opioid-related outcomes from the included studies. Conflicts were resolved by a third author.
All studies identified (n = 44) were quasi-experimental in design with 10 using an interrupted time series approach. A total of 24 studies reported a decrease in HCP prescribing by 3.1%-66.0%. Six studies reported a decrease in HCP days\' supply or doses by 14.0%-80.8%. There was increased prescribing of oxycodone-containing products by 4.5%-13.9% in 5 studies, tramadol by 2.7%-53.0% in 9 studies, codeine-containing products by 0.8%-1352.9% in 8 studies). Five studies reported a decrease in morphine equivalents by at least 10%, whereas 2 studies reported an increase in morphine equivalents. Differences in populations, sample sizes, and approaches did not allow for a meta-analysis. Details regarding approach and findings were limited in published conference abstracts (n = 16).
Hydrocodone rescheduling was associated with reductions in prescribing and use of HCPs but was also associated with increased prescribing and use of other opioids, both schedule II and nonschedule II.

Opioids are essential medicines. Despite international and national laws permitting availability, opioid access remains inadequate, particularly in South, Southeast, East and Central Asia.
To review evidence of perceptions and experiences of regulatory enablers and barriers to opioid access in South, Southeast, East and Central Asia.
Systematic review of post-2000 research according to PRISMA guidelines. Data were subjected to critical interpretive synthesis. International, national and sub-national barriers were organised developing a conceptual framework of opioid availability.
PsycINFO, Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library. CINAHL, Complete and ASSIA from 2000 until 20th May 2019.
21/14097 studies included: quantitative n = 15, qualitative n = 3 and mixed-methods n = 3. Four barrier/enabler themes were developed: Legal, regulatory, socio-political; lack of laws explicitly enabling opioid access, restrictive international controls and clinician prescribing concerns. Opioid availability; limited availability, poor policymaker and clinician education regarding opioid benefits, poor continuity of supply. Opioid Accessibility; medicine costs, distance to prescribing centres. Prescribing; extensive bureaucratic barriers, lack of human resources for prescribing. We present a novel framework of a self-perpetuating model of inadequate opioid provision. The Single Convention on Narcotics provides the context of restrictive laws and negative attitudes amongst policymakers. A consequent lack of prescribers and clinicians\' negative attitudes at sub-national levels, results in inadequate access to and use of opioids. Data of inadequate consumption informs annual requirement estimates used by the International Narcotics Control Board to determine future opioid availability.
Regulatory and socio-political actions unintentionally limit opioid access. International and national laws explicitly enabling opioid access are required, to assuage concerns, promote training and appropriate prescribing.