Predicting opioid use disorder before and after the opioid prescribing peak in the United States: A machine learning tool using electronic healthcare records

Abstract

Existing predictive models of opioid use disorder (OUD) may change as the rate of opioid prescribing decreases. Using Veterans Administration’s EHR data, we developed machine-learning predictive models of new OUD diagnoses and ranked the importance of patient features based on their ability to predict a new OUD diagnosis in 2000–2012 and 2013–2021. Using patient characteristics, the three separate machine learning techniques were comparable in predicting OUD, achieving an accuracy of >80%. Using the random forest classifier, opioid prescription features such as early refills and length of prescription consistently ranked among the top five factors that predict new OUD. Younger age was positively associated with new OUD, and older age inversely associated with new OUD. Age stratification revealed prior substance abuse and alcohol dependency as more impactful in predicting OUD for younger patients. There was no significant difference in the set of factors associated with new OUD in 2000–2012 compared to 2013–2021. Characteristics of opioid prescriptions are the most impactful variables that predict new OUD both before and after the peak in opioid prescribing rates. Predictive models should be tailored to age groups. Further research is warranted to determine if machine learning models perform better when tailored to other patient subgroups.

Keywords

opioid abuse opioid dependence OUD EHR machine learning feature importance

Introduction

Opioid prescription rates and doses have declined since 2012.^1,2 However, a large number of patients remain on long-term opioid therapy, which increases the risk for opioid use/dependence (OUD). One out of four patients receiving long-term opioid therapy in primary care have OUD,³ and 4.7% of all pain patients prescribed an opioid will develop prescription OUD.⁴ About 6 to seven million persons in the United States suffer from OUD, not limited to prescription opioids,⁵ Among the commercially insured, the annual rate of OUD is approximately 0.4%.⁶

Screening tools and urine drug screens (UDS) can be used to identify patients with OUD.^7,8 However, these tools are not perfect and patients who are seeking opioids can provide inaccurate reports of their opioid use and UDS screens miss many positive cases when obtained without a visual witness.⁹ Thus, the likelihood of a significant number of patients with undetected OUD is high. Left undetected and untreated, patients have an increased risk for opioid overdose and other adverse outcomes.

Machine learning using electronic health record (EHR) data has the potential to predict OUD and accurate models can be incorporated into the EHRs to aid OUD detection in the clinical setting. The models that have used machine learning have typically used either EHR data or data related to medical claims. A study by Che et al.¹⁰ used a large sample of medical records and generated an AUC = 0.80 in a model predicting OUD. Medical claims data have a comparatively lesser level of individual patient detail but have been successfully used to develop machine learning models to predict opioid use disorder. Commercial medical claims data have been utilized to develop a machine learning algorithm to predict opioid use disorder, with a c-statistic of 0.96,¹¹ and major contributing factors included duration of opioid use, overlapping opioid prescriptions, benzodiazepine prescriptions, and specific pain conditions. A recent study utilized the Canadian administrative health records billing data to achieve a balanced accuracy score of 86%, and found opioid-related poisoning, sedative hypnotic-related disorders, and polysubstance-related disorders to be predictive of OUD.¹² Their billing data did not include prescription/refill variables. EHR data contains more patient level variables (e.g., pain scores, laboratory results), and may out-perform models developed using medical claims data.

We are aware of two existing studies using EHR data in a machine learning model of new OUD. The first used Veterans Health Affairs (VHA) data from 829,827 patients with encounters from 2006 to 2016.¹³ Using 10,292 inpatient and 13,512 outpatient diagnoses as independent variables, this study developed a model that predicted cross-validated opioid use well for both inpatient (AUC = 0.822), and outpatient (AUC = 0.817) cases.¹³ Similarly, EHR measures of laboratory values, pharmacy data and clinical characteristics from 716,533 patients were used to develop a machine learning classifier which produced an excellent predictive value for substance use disorder, not specific to OUD, with an AUC of 0.92.¹³ Dong and colleagues,¹⁴ used Cerner inpatient and outpatient EHR records between 2008 to 2017 in a deep-learning model that had excellent precision in predicting OUD (AUC = 0.937).

Because the literature is sparse and opioid prescribing has declined over the past decade, further research is needed to determine if the same set of factors predict OUD in the time period when opioid prescribing was increasing (2000–2012) compared to when it was decreasing (2013–2021). Because greater exposure to opioids should result in a higher rate of OUD, we expect a stronger association between prescription opioid characteristics and OUD from 2000–2012. In contrast, as access to opioids became more restricted, factors such as depression and past substance use disorder diagnosis which are associated with drug seeking and more severe and chronic pain, may be stronger predictors of OUD between 2013 and 2021. In addition, studies are needed that report on the predictive importance of individual variables. We used VHA EHR data to develop a predictive machine learning model of diagnosed OUD and determined if the set of important predictors of OUD differed between patients receiving opioids from 2000–2012 compared to those treated from 2013–2021. We used a pre-processing algorithm to re-structure the large datasets prior to developing the machine learning models. Second, we stratified analyses by three age groups. Third, we determined the relative importance of each predictor variable in predicting OUD.

Methods

Variables were created from VHA administrative EHR data. Because data was de-identified, this work was reviewed and approved by the VA and academic affiliates IRBs as expedited. This data includes International Classification of Disease, 9^th and 10^th Revisions, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM) diagnostic codes, laboratory results, prescription records, vital signs, and demographic information (Table 1). Detailed variable definitions are shown in the appendix, e-Table 1.

Table 1.

Variables used for the models, grouped into three clusters.

Variable	Description
Demographics variables (5; scrssn only for index)
scrssn	Scrambled social security number for index
is_Male	1 = Male, 0 = Female
age	Age of patient
is_White	Race, 1 = Yes, 0 = No
is_Married	Currently married, 1 = Yes, 0 = No
va_Ins	Has and uses VA insurance, 1 = Yes, 0 = No
Patient-condition variables (24 + 1 output)
adhdb4depend	Had ADHD before opioid dependence
adjustmentreactb4depend	Adjustment reaction before opioid dependence
alcoholb4depend	Alcohol use before opioid dependence
amphetamineb4depend	Amphetamine use/dependence before opioid dependence
anxietyb4depend	Anxiety before opioid dependence
arthritisb4depend	Arthropathies before opioid dependence
backpainb4depend	Had back pain before opioid dependence
bipolarb4depend	Had bipolar disorder before opioid dependence
cannabisb4depend	Used cannabis before opioid dependence
cerebrovascularb4depend	Cerebrovascular disease before opioid dependence
cocaineb4depend	Cocaine use/dependence before opioid dependence
depressionb4depend	Depression before opioid dependence
hallucinogenb4depend	Hallucinogen use/dependence before opioid dependence
musculoskelpainb4depend	Musculoskeletal pain before opioid dependence
neuropathyb4depend	Neuropathy before opioid dependence
obesityb4depend	Obese before opioid dependence
othersubstb4depend	Other substance use/dependence before opioid dependence
overweightb4depend	Overweight before opioid dependence
schizophreniab4depend	Schizophrenia before opioid dependence
smokingb4depend	Smoker before opioid dependence
ptsdb4depend	PTSD before opioid dependence
personalitydisb4depend	Personality disorder before opioid dependence
tbib4depend	Traumatic brain injury before opioid dependence
unspecifieddrugb4depend	Unspecified drug use/dependence before opioid dependence
opioid_Dep	Target indicator, OUD, op_dep and/or op_use; MODEL OUTPUT
Prescription-fill variables (6)
total_op_days_early	Total number of days patient was early in picking up prescriptions before last rx end date
total_op_days_late	Total number of days patient was late in picking up prescription after last rx end date
max_op_days_early	Maximum days early for prescription refill
max_morph_dose	Maximum morphine equivalent dosage use
op_use_length	Opioid use length in days
op_dose_x_change	Change multiplier from beginning of opioid use to end (before possible dependence)

Eligible patients had to be free of HIV and cancer pain, be regular VHA users (defined as having at least two annual visits) and starting a new period of prescription opioid use. New opioid use was defined by excluding patients with opioid fills for 2 years prior to 1/1/2002. Patients must have been without diagnosed OUD prior to 1/1/2002 for the pre-2012 cohort and for 2 years prior to 1/1/2015 for the post-2012 cohort. This allowed us to model risk factors for new onset OUD following the start of a new period of prescription opioid use. The 2-years look-back period has been shown to improve classification of new medication users and reduce the number of ineligible subjects.¹⁵ Patients with missing demographic data were excluded. In patients with OUD, an individual’s conditions that occurred after OUD diagnosis were censored. Figure 1 illustrates the sampling approach for the two time periods.

Figure 1.

Eligibility criteria for veterans hospital administration patient population. Each dataset was subject to the selection criteria outlined. For each dataset and at each stage, patients were removed, and the counts were noted.

Cohort eligibility

Dataset-1 comprised of 602,394 patients from 2000–2012, with 24,117 patients diagnosed with OUD. Age groups in this cohort were 18–34 years (n = 40,480), 35–64 years (n = 408,871), and >64 years (n = 153,043).

Dataset-2 had 141,734 patients from 2013–2021, with 4,221 patients diagnosed with OUD. Also, the 2013-2021 dataset did not include new patients enrolled during 2013–2021. Based on the selection criteria (Figure 1), this dataset shared 84,603 patients from dataset-1 and 57,131 new patients from the entire dataset. For dataset 2, the sample size by age group was 18–34 years (n = 387), 35–64 years (n = 93,515), and >64 years (n = 47,835). These age groups were selected because risk for opioid use disorder decreases with age across similar age groups.¹⁶

Variable definitions

Opioid use, dose, and dose change

New opioid prescriptions included the following opioids, in immediate and long-term release formulations at any dose and duration: codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, levorphanol, meperidine, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, and pentazocine. Morphine milligram equivalent (MME) dose was computed https://agencymeddirectors.wa.gov/mobile.html using standard online resources, e.g. https://www.mdcalc.com/calc/10170/morphine-milligram-equivalents-mme-calculator. We used the maximum MME received as a predictor variable. Continuous usage in days was defined as the use from the original opioid fill to the first occurrence of a gap in fills greater than 30 days or study end date. Dosage change is defined as the final opioid dosage divided by first opioid dosage. Methods to define dose and duration of prescription opioid use in this cohort have been reported previously.¹⁷

Predictor variables

Predictor variable domains were selected because they have been associated with OUD,^18,19 Demographics included sex, age (at the beginning of the study Jan 1, 2000, and Jan 1, 2013, respectively, for dataset-1 and dataset-2), race, marital status, and insurance. Insurance was defined as a binary variable (VHA vs. other types of health insurance). We used ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM codes to define psychiatric conditions which included: depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, personality disorder, adjustment reaction, and any anxiety disorder which was the presence of any of the following conditions: panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, obsessive compulsive disorder or any other anxiety disorder not specified. We modeled alcohol use disorder, any non-opioid drug use disorder (including amphetamines, cannabis, hallucinogens, or unspecified), and nicotine dependence or a history of smoking. Physical comorbidities included overweight, and obesity defined by ICD-9-CM or ICD-10-CM code or body mass index. Painful conditions included arthritis, traumatic brain injury, neuropathy, musculoskeletal pain, and back pain. These conditions were created by combining groups of ICD-9-CM or ICD-10-CM codes from over 900 conditions for which an opioid may be prescribed.^20,21

Prescription characteristics included the total number of days early a patient refilled their prescription, duration of opioid use in days, the maximum number of days a patient refilled early considering all refills, and the total number of days a prescription was refilled late. For a more consistent comparison of variables between decades, we scaled summed variables (such as the total number of days early an individual was to refill their opioid prescription) by the individual’s overall duration of opioid use.

All covariates had to occur prior to new OUD. In total, thirty-five possible predictor variables were selected. Table 1 lists the variables and their definitions.

Outcome variable

OUD diagnosis (defined by ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes) was defined by diagnoses for opioid abuse only (ICD-9305.5 and ICD-10 F11.10), or opioid dependence only (ICD-9304.0 or 304.7 and ICD-10 F11.20 or F19.20) or both.

Improved data pre-processing

In machine learning techniques that use large datasets, the issue of pre-processing data becomes significant. This is because databases typically have a very large number of dissimilar variables, including of multi-modal types as in patient health data. To address this pre-processing challenge, an algorithm was recently proposed to normalize the variables and was found to enhance performance compared to existing techniques such as Principal Components Analysis (PCA) and MinMax.^22–24 This algorithm was used to normalize the variables for the datasets in this study prior to the development of the different machine learning models. Specifically, the algorithm uses a unit-consistent (UC) matrix completion (MC) approach to rigorously estimate unknown quantities based on the information available. The UC matrix completion approach presumes the existence of unknown units on relevant state variables and then estimates unknown values in a manner that preserves those units, i.e., changing of units will produce the same UC completion but in the new units.^22–24 Briefly, from an original matrix A of patient data, the UC-transformed matrix TA = DAE, for positive diagonal matrices D and E, is uniquely determined with the product of known elements in each row or column equal to 1. The completed matrix, A’, is then obtained by filling the unknown entries of TA with 1, i.e., preserving the product of elements in each row and column, and transforming back by pre-multiplying by inverse (D) and post-multiplying by inverse (E). This is the matrix completion (MC) process.

For our application, UC presumes that information contained in patient evaluations is implicitly derived from a set of incommensurate variables defining the state of a system, i.e., the health state of each patient. The UC algorithm determines imputed values in a way that provably ensures that the new values are consistent with the unknown units. For example, if the measurement process were to scale some subset of the units by arbitrary values, the imputed values from the UC algorithm will be the same up to the scaled values. This natural constraint is not preserved by other methods, e.g., that minimize an arbitrary norm such as squared error. This UC guarantee ensures that prediction results are consistent and robust in the sense that they are not sensitive to arbitrary choices of units applied during acquisition of patient data.

Experiments were carried out to test the robustness of this approach by removing a random set of variables for each training run, and comparing results with those from MinMax, PCA and UC-MC techniques. Figure 2 shows how the method exhibits smoother results, which shows robust exploitation of information as it becomes available. More importantly, it plateaus at a level above that of PCA, which indicates that UC-MC can extract more of the available information. Furthermore, the relative score of UC-MC after removing one variable was consistently higher and displays how it maintains robust prediction compared to the other two methods. Testing for the significance of results given differing pre-processing methods, we found that the results with UC-MC were significantly better than those with PCA (p < .001). However, no significance was found for the UC-MC versus MinMax case (p∼.25) although the results remained consistently better (Figure 2). In summary, the UC-MC method was used consistently to pre-process the datasets including imputing values for three variables

Figure 2.

Relative AUC score using a subset of dataset-1 on the deep neural network classifier. Features were randomly removed sequentially from a subset of dataset-1 that consisted of 100,000 patients (remove 1 feature, remove 2 features, etc.— x-axis) and performance of three preprocessing methods were compared. The UC-MC approach showed consistently better performance compared to PCA and MinMax schemes (p < .001 and p∼.25 respectively).

Machine learning techniques

Before training each model, variables were scaled between 0 and 1 using the UC-MC scaler. Datasets were first split (80:20; by patient) for training/validation and holdout. Of the training/validation data, K-fold cross validation of models (K = 5) was used to systematically repeat the train and validation split procedure (70:30; by patient) five times to obtain a more accurate representation of the model’s ability to learn the dataset. The holdout dataset, that the model had not seen, was then used to judge the performance of the trained network. Area Under the Curve (AUC) was the primary metric chosen for quantifying the accuracy of the models. Logistic regression provided a baseline score for comparison with the deep neural network and random forest classifiers which are popular models with deep neural networks typically providing higher accuracy. Of these, the random forest classifier has an inbuilt feature to perform sensitivity analysis while the others require user-developed code for sensitivity analyses. All OUD cases were used during this process and a randomly selected subset of non-OUD were used to keep classification classes balanced such that the number of dependent patients matched the number of non-dependent patients to not bias the algorithm in any direction. Similarly, classification weighting is a viable and available alternative to achieve similar results.

Cross-tabulation tables, mean and standard deviation for all covariates were calculated for correctly classified, false positive and false negative entries in the datasets. To improve model results, principal component analysis (PCA) was computed which revealed 31 out of 35 variables were necessary to explain 95% of the data. The use of PCA improved the deep neural network results above the MinMax scaler but UC-MC outperformed PCA, by an average of 0.025 AUC. We also explored the use of a convolutional input layer in the deep neural network model but found no difference.

Statistical tools

Statistical significance of variables across subgroups were determined using the StatsModels python package. Significance (p-value) was computed using a generalized linear model with a binomial distribution.²⁵ or t-test as appropriate (e.g., for the same patient in some tables) and is indicated with the specific test. The logistic regression model was implemented using ScikitLearn. The solver was lbfgs with a max iteration of 200 and a square error loss function. For our deep neural network model, a four-layer network (input, dense relu, dense relu, sigmoid output) was chosen. Optimal hyperparameter tuning was provided by ScikitLearn’s GridSearchCV. The random forest model utilized ScikitLearn and consisted of 100 estimators with a max depth of 40.

Software tools developed for data retrieval, processing, and analyses, are available upon request.

Results

The overall characteristics of datasets 1 and 2, including the patient variables were determined and are listed first, followed by results from the machine learning models.

Characteristics of patient data across two time periods 2002–2012 and 2013–2021

Among the 602,394 patients with clinic encounters between 2000 and 2012, 24,117 had OUD and 578,277 were non-OUD. Of the patients with OUD, the mean age was 45.30 years (range 18–80), with 91.93% (22,127) being male and 8.1% (1945) female. Of these, 40.01% (9,675) had prior non-opioid substance use disorder recorded (compared to 7.79% in non-opioid dependent patients), and 75.26% (18,150) had reported depression before OUD (compared to 47.22% in non-OUD patients). Among the 141,734 patients with clinic encounters between 2013 and 2021, 4,221 had OUD and 137,513 were non-OUD. Of the OUD patients, the mean age was 57.25 years (range 31–80), with 89.5% (3,776) male and 10.5% (445) female. Of these 40.42% (1,706) had prior drug use recorded (compared to 12.2% in non-OUD patients), and 84.32% (3,559) had reported depression before OUD (compared to 65.42% in non-opioid dependent patients). A full report of overall patient characteristics can be found in Table 2.

Table 2.

Patient characteristics, overall and by time period.

	Overall/total sample (n = 659,525)	Time period 1 2000–2012 (n = 602,394)	Time period 2 2013–2021 (n = 141,734)
Age
18–34 years	4.78% (n = 31,551)	6.72% (n = 40,480)	0.27% n = 387
35–64 years	65.13% (n = 429,576)	67.87% (n = 408,871)	65.98% n = 93,513
65+ years	30.08% (n = 198,398)	25.41% (n = 153,043)	33.75% n = 47,834
Male gender	91.68% (n = 604,660)	91.9% (n = 553,610)	88.41% (n = 125,313)
Race
White	58.23% (n = 384,023)	58.82% (n = 354,312)	55.22% (n = 78,260)
Other	17.26% (n = 113,832)	17.28% (n = 104,081)	19.9% (n = 28,199)
Not reported	24.51% (n = 161,670)	23.9% (n = 144,001)	24.89% (n = 35,275)
Currently married	47.89% (n = 315,829)	48.2% (n = 290,332)	42.09% (n = 59,652)
Not reported	3.56% (n = 23,462)	3.41% (n = 20,553)	5.39% (n = 7640)
Only VA insurance	86.88% (n = 572,965)	86.17% (n = 519,091)	95.44% (n = 135,273)
Comorbidities prior to opioid use/dependence
Pain diagnoses
Arthropathies	85.00% (n = 560,571)	84.13% (n = 506,824)	92.96% (n = 131,759)
Back pain	71.64% (n = 472,482)	69.65% (n = 419,547)	87.21% (n = 123,605)
Musculoskeletal	69.04% (n = 455,354)	66.73% (n = 401,978)	85.57% (n = 121,278)
Neuropathic	38.36% (n = 252,970)	36.04% (n = 217,101)	51.85% (n = 73,492)
Psychiatric disorders
ADHD	0.99% (n = 6552)	0.8% (n = 4819)	2.05% (n = 2907)
Anxiety disorder	39.68% (n = 261,709)	37.18% (n = 223,960)	56.42% (n = 79,964)
Adjustment disorder	19.85% (n = 130,895)	17.71% (n = 106,703)	32.44% (n = 45,978)
PTSD	25.88% (n = 170,678)	24.06% (n = 144,928)	40.32% (n = 57,149)
Bipolar disorder	14.96% (n = 98,650)	13.22% (n = 79,616)	25.55% (n = 36,208)
Schizophrenia	8.13% (n = 53,608)	7.92% (n = 47,683)	10.44% (n = 14,798)
Personality disorder	9.07% (n = 59,809)	8.05% (n = 48,511)	15.74% (n = 22,314)
Depression	50.25% (n = 331,385)	48.34% (n = 291,194)	65.98% (n = 93,523)
Alcohol use disorder	24.34% (n = 160,529)	23.3% (n = 140,341)	31.37% (n = 44,467)
Amphetamine use disorder	1.45% (n = 9571)	1.25% (n = 7507)	2.54% (n = 3598)
Cannabis use disorder	7.3% (n = 48,152)	6.53% (n = 39,366)	12.25% (n = 17,358)
Cocaine use disorder	6.77% (n = 44,644)	6.54% (n = 39,403)	9.5% (n = 13,459)
Hallucinogen use disorder	0.16% (n = 1076)	0.15% (n = 908)	0.25% (n = 353)
Unspecified drug use disorder	3.79% (n = 25,013)	3.7% (n = 22,287)	5.03% (n = 7130)
Other drug use disorder	9.43% (n = 62,179)	9.08% (n = 54,723)	12.99% (n = 18,413)
Nicotine dependence/smoking	46.12% (n = 304,143)	44.74% (n = 269,538)	55.59% (n = 78,797)
Physical disorders
Cerebrovascular disease	22.75% (n = 150,010)	21.84% (n = 131,545)	23.05% (n = 32,675)
Overweight	7.29% (n = 48,065)	5.3% (n = 31,909)	16.26% (n = 23,039)
Obesity	43.05% (n = 283,954)	40.93% (n = 246,571)	58.02% (n = 82,239)
Traumatic brain injury	1.54% (n = 10,138)	1.15% (n = 6956)	3.16% (n = 4483)
Prescription opioid characteristics [mean (±SD)]
Total days early fill	69.79 (±295.51)	84.26 (±342.16)	74.90 (±317.65)
Maximum days early fill	7.87 (±12.18)	8.76 (±12.93)	7.33 (±11.12)
Total days late fill	842.22 (±1064.89)	1024.24 (±1190.59)	579.61 (±771.27)
Maximum morphine equivalent dose	147.45 (±222.63)	163.04 (±232.22)	115.08 (±197.98)
Duration in days -opioid use	1181.65 (±1309.36)	1407.37 (±1468.33)	974.96 (±1058.91)

Table 3 provides the sample sizes used for each model. Of the three modeling approaches, logistic regression, random forest, and deep neural network models, the random forest classifier was found to perform the best, with AUC measures in the range of 0.75–0.82 for all the cases. In general, the other classifiers also performed reasonably well, indicating that the dataset was self-consistent.

Table 3.

AUC, precision (P), recall (R), and F1 performance scores of trained machine learning algorithms for the two datasets. Holdout scores presented.

Classifier	Dataset-1		Dataset-2
Size (OUD patients)	602,394 (24,117)		141,734 (4221)
Logistic regression	AUC: 0.7794F1: 0.7740	P: 0.7692R: 0.7789	AUC: 0.7612F1: 0.7601	P: 0.7795R: 0.7416
Random forest	AUC: 0.7911	P: 0.7862	AUC: 0.8118	P: 0.7901
Random forest	F1: 0.7985	R: 0.8112	F1: 0.8181	R: 0.8482
Deep neural network	AUC: 0.7723	P: 0.7304	AUC: 0.758	P: 0.7350
Deep neural network	F1: 0.7966	R: 0.8760	F1: 0.7704	R: 0.8096

For each dataset the demographics and patient numbers with OUD diagnoses are listed. For example, column 2 (dataset-1) in Table 3 lists the total number of patients and the subset with OUD diagnoses, 602,394 and 24,117 respectively. Precision (P) measured how accurate the positive predictions were, i.e., what percentage of positive predictions were correct, while recall (R) measured how well the classifier found the actual positives, i.e., which percentage of actual positive samples were correctly classified. For all of our models, we balanced the dataset (see Methods). In general, our models had a higher recall, compared to precision. We tried to minimize the risk of not warning a patient who may be at risk by minimizing the Miss Rate/False Negative Rate FNR = FN/P = 1—Recall. F1 score is the harmonic mean of precision and recall, thus the F1 score shows the model’s balanced ability to both capture positive cases (recall) and be accurate with the cases it does capture (precision). In our case it’s just another validation, similar to AUC.

Stratification by age reveals differences in variable importance numbers

Because the random forest classifier provided the best performance, we used this scheme to develop individual models for each of the age stratified subgroups of dataset-1 and dataset-2.

The random forest classifier provides a utility to calculate Gini feature importance for each of the inputs by ranking its importance in predicting the output,^26,27 similar to ranking schemes used previously.^28–30 The relative importance of each variable is provided by its ranking which sum to 100 for all the variables. That is, all the relative importance numbers in the figure for the 35 variables in each of the three age categories add up individually to 100. For this reason, the higher the importance number of a variable, the more its relative importance in predicting the output. This was performed for both datasets 1 and 2, with results shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. Such an analysis provides important insights for the user and adds the attribute of ‘explainablity’ that is sought from machine learning models.³¹ The relative importance of the various variables in predicting OUD was explored for each of the models developed when stratifying the datasets by age (Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 3.

Variable importance stratified by age, using random forest classifier. For dataset-1, we determined the feature importance for three distinct age groups: 18–34, 35–64, and >64 years (ordered by importance number for the 18–34 age group). The x axis is the relative feature importance determined by random forest while the y axis denotes each feature.

The results of random forest modeling to rank the importance of the variables in predicting OUD in dataset-1 are shown in Figure 3, for the three age categories 18–34, 35–64, and >64 years. Interestingly, four out of the top five features as far as importance were related to prescriptions, with the feature of age in the fifth place. The prescription features included the total number of days of early refills, duration of opioid use, the maximum duration of early refills, and the total duration of late refills. The order was largely the same in all three age groups. The predictive importance for these five variables were significantly higher compared to those of the next five in the group listed in Figure 3 (p < .001). Age within each stratified group, which was fifth in rankings, was itself an important predictor of OUD. This prediction with age had a positive correlation for patients 18–34 years and a positive correlation for those >64 years. Furthermore, we found that the prescription-fill features of opioid use length, total opioid days late, and maximum opioid days early were significantly more important for the >64 age group compared to younger groups (p < .001 and p < .001 respectively). While maximum morphine dose was not a top 5 predictor, it was significantly more important for patients >64 years and had a 1.23 times higher importance number, compared to those younger (p < .001). The model revealed that prior substance use disorder diagnoses (othersubstb4depend variable) was significantly more important in predicting opioid use disorder for younger (18–34) and mid-age (35–64) groups, compared to the older >64 years patient group (5.91x; p < .001 and 8.04x; p < .001, respectively). The same was true for cocaine use disorder as it was significantly more important in predicting OUD for younger (18–34) and mid-age (35–64) groups, compared to the older >64 years patient group (8.24x; p < .001 and 8.84x; p < .001, respectively). Another insight from the model was that alcohol use disorder was significantly more important for the younger age group compared to the older groups (18–34 vs 35–64: 2.59x, and 35–64 vs > 64: 2.01x; p-values of 0.001 and 0.001, respectively).

For dataset-2, we determined the feature importance for three distinct age groups: 18–34, 35–64, and >64 years (ordered by importance number for the 18–34 age group) in Figure 4. The x axis is the relative feature importance determined by random forest while the y axis denotes each feature.

Figure 4.

Feature importance stratified by age, using random forest classifier for dataset 2.

Predictor variable importance numbers were largely consistent across decades

Datasets-1 and 2 enabled comparisons of variables as they relate to OUD prediction performance to determine if indicators may have changed between 2001–2012 and 2013–2021. Dataset-2 had 84,603 patients that were shared with dataset-1, with 3,120 OUD cases. Note that OUD cases from 2000–2012 were excluded from dataset-2 (see Figure 1 and methods). Similar to the analysis in the previous dataset, we stratified dataset-2 by age, and trained the random forest classifier for each of the stratified datasets separately, and then generated variable importance numbers for the age stratified categories as shown in Figure 4. Prescription-fill variables were again the top variables in all stratified subsets of dataset-2. As noted earlier, dataset-2 shared 59% of the patients with dataset-1 which accounts for lower numbers of patients in the 18–34 category and the >64 category. Nevertheless, prescription-fill variables clearly dominated the importance number rankings in datasets 1 and 2, confirming their overall importance in predicting future OUD.

Raw prescription-related variables for each decade were extracted for OUD diagnosed patients, and non-OUD diagnosed patients. The values shown are changes in prescription variables across decades (datasets 1 and 2 for decades 1 and 2, respectively). Percent change was calculated for each group OUD and non-OUD for each case [(mean value in dataset 1—mean value in dataset 2)/(mean value in dataset 1)]. Paired sample t-test was used to assess changes in the same patient.

Given the importance of prescription-fill variables in predicting OUD, we explored how the raw measures of these variables compared across decades 2000–2012 (dataset 1; decade-1) vs 2013–2021 (dataset 2; decade-2). Table 4 lists the results of this analysis. Changes in the raw measures of the prescription-fill variables indicated an increased urgency in obtaining prescriptions in 2013–2021 compared to 2000–2012, i.e., patients came earlier or delayed less.

Table 4.

Change in prescription variables across decades.

Percent change in mean values from decade 1 to decade 2	OUD diagnosed patients^a	Non-OUD patients^a
Total opioid pickup days early	37.19%	13.09%
Total opioid pickup days late	−38.16%	−15.86%
Maximum opioid pickup days early	−13.78%	−15.54%
Maximum morphine dose	−40.62%	−28.53%
Opioid use length	−48.80%	−29.55%
Opioid dose change	−53.05%	−28.78%

^athe differences were significant (p < .001) for all variables listed.

An investigation of the changes in characteristics for the same patient between time periods when they did not have OUD (2000–2012; decade-1) vs when they did (2013–2021; decade-2) revealed that for the same patient, the means of the raw prescription-fill variable related to total opioid days late was significantly lower in decade-2 compared to decade-1 (0.3098 vs 0.5275, −41.3%, p < .0001; t-test). Similarly, the total number of early refills days was significantly higher in decade-2 compared to decade-1 (0.1982 vs 0.1472; +34%, p < .0001; t-test); (ii) the difference in means for depression was significantly higher in decade-2 compared to decade-1 (normalized means—1 = observed, 0 = not observed; 0.8455 vs 0.7862, +7.5%, p < .0001); (iii) Other substance use disorder was also higher in decade-2 compared to decade-1 (0.3897 vs 0.3356; +16.1%, p = .0001; t-test). In addition to yielding further insights, these longitudinal changes in the raw measures for four of the variables deemed important in predicting OUD (Figure 3), and similar findings in Table 4, provide validation for the ranking of predictor variables in their ability to forecast OUD (Figures 3 and 4).

Discussion

Machine learning models using EHR data were found to be viable in predicting OUD. Duration of opioid use, total days from early opioid fills, and total number of late opioid fill days were the most important predictors of OUD. These findings were consistent for both the period when the opioid epidemic was worsening (2000–2012) and during the period of declining opioid prescription rates and doses (2013–2021).

Unexpectedly, other forms of substance use disorders and common psychiatric disorders, e.g., depression, did not have the same magnitude of contribution to OUD as the prescription characteristics. However, the present findings are consistent with prior studies demonstrating that after the publication of the CDC guideline, more potent and high dose opioids continue to be prescribed to patients at greatest risk for OUD.¹⁷ This indicates that modifiable factors, (e.g., duration of opioid prescriptions) are key contributors to OUD. Because early fills and long duration prescriptions continue to predict OUD following decreases in opioid prescribing^1,2 and the release of the 2016 CDC’s opioid prescribing guideline³² further interventions designed to reduce long duration opioid prescribing and early refills to patients at risk for adverse opioid outcomes is warranted.³³

Our results are consistent with a machine learning algorithm which identified that opioid use duration and overlapping opioid prescriptions distinguished OUD in a large cohort of medical claims data from 2006 to 2018.¹¹ Our findings are largely consistent with an analyses of private sector EHR data which observed opioid medications were the 4^th most important measurement predicting OUD (Dong et al.). Direct comparisons between our findings and this prior study is limited because we modeled multiple opioid medication measures, including early refills while Dong and colleagues modeled any opioid prescription. In addition, VHA patients tend to stay within the VHA system as compared to private sector patients who are more likely to change providers as their source of health insurance varies over time. Using VHA data should reduce misclassification of outcome and predictor diagnoses relative to data from private sector health care systems where fragmented health care could generate more missed diagnoses when patients move from one healthcare system to another. Including the duration of an opioid prescription and early refills in our predictive model better captures risk factors for OUD, specifically long-term opioid use and using more than prescribed leading to early fills are indicators of the development of problem opioid use. These are stronger predictors of OUD as compared to exposure to any opioid medication.

Our findings differ from a predictive model using commercial EHR data, which observed mood disorder to be the most important predictor of diagnosed substance use disorder, not specific to OUD.¹³ This suggests machine learning algorithms should be tailored to the type of substance use disorder (SUD), and factors contributing to OUD may not be the same as those which predict other types of substance use disorder.

Additional research is needed to establish the accuracy of predicting OUD in different patient populations. Predictive models should be validated by determining how well the model predicts undiagnosed OUD. By administering diagnostic interviews to patients with and without a medical record diagnosis for OUD a true gold standard can be obtained. The model should be re-calibrated after predicting OUD cases confirmed by diagnostic interview.

Because the strongest predictors of OUD are characteristics of the opioid prescription, the clinical utility could be very high. EHR best practice alerts could caution prescribers when the combination of opioid dose, duration and other factors found to predict OUD indicate high risk.

Limitations

It was not determined if the opioids were taken as prescribed, taken with other prescriptions obtained outside the VA or supplemented with illicit opioids. Retrospective medical record data is vulnerable to misclassification and the contribution of some diagnoses may be decreased to the degree that patients with a condition (e.g., depression) are misclassified as unaffected. The VHA patient population is predominately male and has a high rate of comorbidity, therefore results may not generalize to non-VHA patients. It is possible that the results from Veterans Health Administration data may not generalize to private sector health care systems. However, numerous studies using VHA data on topics ranging from the association between long-term opioid use and new onset depression,¹⁷ to the link between metformin and dementia,³⁴ and vaccinations and dementia^35–37 have been replicated in private sector medical record and medical claims data.

Compared to manual chart abstraction, the validity of OUD diagnoses in the medical record ranges from fair to good^38–41 and depending on which elements of the medical chart are used to count toward an OUD diagnosis, the agreement between medical record and diagnoses is 80% or better. However, this does not distinguish between primary prescription OUD versus other OUD types such as heroin use disorder.

Our study did not use a pure data mining approach. We selected potential predictors of OUD based on theory or previous literature. Further research is needed to compare the utility of predictive algorithms that are completely data driven and those that are developed with user input.

Conclusions

Our results point to modifiable prescribing behavior as the key contributor to OUD. Replication in other healthcare systems is needed and comparisons to data driven models warranted. Overall, results hold promise that machine learning models can reasonably predict OUD and could be incorporated in the electronic health record as a clinical decision aid.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Predicting opioid use disorder before and after the opioid prescribing peak in the United States: A machine learning tool using electronic healthcare records

Supplemental Material for Predicting Opioid Use Disorder before and after the Opioid Prescribing Peak in the United States: A Machine Learning Tool using Electronic Healthcare Records by Tyler J. Banks, Jeffrey F. Scherrer, Tung D. Nguyen, Jeffery K. Uhlmann, and Satish S. Nair in Health Informatics Journal

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank Joanne Salas for her help with navigating the VA data extraction process and the personnel at Harry S. Truman Memorial Veterans’ Hospital.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the Veterans Administration. This work was supported in part by NIMH grant MH122023 to SSN. This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the Harry S. Truman Memorial Veterans’ Hospital. Because data was de-identified, this work was reviewed and approved by the VA and academic affiliates IRBs as expedited (Veteran’s Administration and University of Missouri # 1212854; St Louis University # 24,172)

Data availability sharing statement

This data is available upon request for 36 months after publication provided the requester has been IRB approved. Interested persons may obtain data following appropriate VA IRB and data access request approvals. The authors may not share data without VA approval.

ORCID iD

Satish S. Nair

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Bohnert

ASB

Guy

GP,

Jr Losby

. Opioid prescribing in the united states before and after the centers for disease control and prevention’s 2016 opioid guideline. Annals of Internal Medicine 2018; 169: 367–375.

Guy

GP,

Jr Zhang

Schieber

, et al. County-level opioid prescribing in the united states, 2015 and 2017. JAMA Internal Medicine 2019; 179: 574–576.

Centers for

disease control and prevention. Opioid basics, US Government. https://www.Cdc.Gov/drugoverdose/opioids/prescribed.Html (Accessed 9 august 2022.)

Higgins

Smith

Matthews

. Incidence of iatrogenic opioid dependence or abuse in patients with pain who were exposed to opioid analgesic therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2018; 120: 1335–1344.

Keyes

Rutherford

Hamilton

, et al. What is the prevalence of and trend in opioid use disorder in the united states from 2010 to 2019? using multiplier approaches to estimate prevalence for an unknown population size. Drug and Alcohol Dependence Reports 2022; 3: 100052.

Kirson

Shei

Rice

, et al. The burden of undiagnosed opioid abuse among commercially insured individuals. Pain Medication 2015; 16: 1325–1332.

Katz

Sherburne

Beach

, et al. Behavioral monitoring and urine toxicology testing in patients receiving long-term opioid therapy. Anesthesia & Analgesia 2003; 97: 1097–1102.

Heit

Gourlay

. Urine drug testing in pain medicine. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 2004; 27: 260–267.

Mallya

Purnell

Svrakic

, et al. Witnessed versus unwitnessed random urine tests in the treatment of opioid dependence. The American Journal on Addictions 2013; 22: 175–177.

10.

Che

St Sauver

Liu

, et al. Deep learning solutions for classifying patients on opioid use, AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings 2017; 2017, 525–534.

11.

Segal

Radinsky

Elad

, et al. Development of a machine learning algorithm for early detection of opioid use disorder. Pharmacology Research & Perspectives 2020; 8: e00669.

12.

Liu

Kiyang

Hayward

, et al. Individualized prospective prediction of opioid use disorder. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 2023; 68: 54–63.

13.

Ellis

Wang

Genes

et al. Predicting opioid dependence from electronic health records with machine learning. BioData Mining 2019; 12(3): 1–19.

14.

Dong

Deng

Rashidian

, et al. Identifying risk of opioid use disorder for patients taking opioid medications with deep learning. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2021; 28: 1683–1693.

15.

Roberts

Dusetzina

Farley

. Revisiting the washout period in the incident user study design: why 6–12 months may not be sufficient. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research 2015; 4: 27–35.

16.

Han

Compton

Blanco

, et al. Prescription opioid use, misuse, and use disorders in u.S. adults: 2015 national survey on drug use and health. Annals of Internal Medicine 2017; 167: 293–301.

17.

Scherrer

Salas

Copeland

, et al. Prescription opioid duration, dose, and increased risk of depression in 3 large patient populations. Annals of Family Medicine 2016; 14: 54–62.

18.

Webster

. Risk factors for opioid-use disorder and overdose. Anesthesia & Analgesia 2017; 125: 1741–1748.

19.

Peltier

Sofuoglu

Petrakis

, et al. Sex differences in opioid use disorder prevalence and multimorbidity nationally in the veterans health administration. Journal of Dual Diagnosis 2021; 17: 124–134.

20.

Scherrer

Svrakic

Freedland

, et al. Prescription opioid analgesics increase the risk of depression. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2014; 29: 491–499.

21.

Seal

Shi

Cohen

, et al. Association of mental health disorders with prescription opioids and high-risk opioid use in us veterans of iraq and afghanistan. JAMA 2012; 307: 940–947.

22.

Nguyen

Uhlmann

. Tensor completion with provable consistency and fairness guarantees for recommender systems. arXiv:2204.01815 2022.

23.

Nguyen

Uhlmann

. Canonical tensor scaling. Journal of Science and Engineering 2021; 13: 13–21.

24.

Zhang

Uhlmann

. Applying a unit-consistent generalized matrix inverse for stable control of robotic systems. Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics 2019; 11.

25.

Nelder

Wedderburn

RWM

. Generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A 1972; 135: 370–384.

26.

Breiman

. Random forests. Machine Learning 2001; 45: 5–32.

27.

Hastie

Tibshirani

Friedman

. The elements of statistical learning. New York, NY, USA: Springer New York Inc., 2001.

28.

Swamidass

Nair

Mistry

. The use of a neural factory to investigate the effect of product line width on manufacturing performance. Management Science 1999; 45: 1524–1538.

29.

Reid

Nair

Mistry

, et al. Effectiveness of stages of change and adinazolam sr in panic disorder: a neural network analysis. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 1996; 10: 331–345.

30.

Kashani

Nair

Rao

, et al. Relationship of personality, environmental, and dica variables to adolescent hopelessness: a neural network sensitivity approach. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 1996; 35: 640–645.

31.

Burkart

Huber

. A survey on the explainability of supervised machine learning. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 2021; 70: 245–317.

32.

Dowell

Haegerich

Chou

. Cdc guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain-united states, 2016. JAMA 2016; 315: 1624–1645.

33.

Scherrer

Salas

Schnurr

. Repeated assessment of posttraumatic stress disorder severity and the risk of mortality. JAMA New Open 2020; 3: e1920493.

34.

Scherrer

Salas

Floyd

, et al. Metformin and sulfonylurea use and risk of incident dementia. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2019; 94: 1444–1456.

35.

Scherrer

Salas

Wiemken

, et al. Lower risk for dementia following adult tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (tdap) vaccination. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences 2021; 76: 1436–1443.

36.

Scherrer

Salas

Wiemken

, et al. Impact of herpes zoster vaccination on incident dementia: a retrospective study in two patient cohorts. PLoS One 2021; 16: e0257405

37.

Wiemken

Salas

Morley

, et al. Comparison of rates of dementia among older adult recipients of two, one, or no vaccinations. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2022; 70: 1157–1168.

38.

Palumbo

Adamson

Krishnamurthy

, et al. (2020) Assessment of probable opioid use disorder using electronic health record documentation, JAMA Netw Open 3, e2015909.

39.

Howell

Abel

Park

, et al. Validity of incident opioid use disorder (oud) diagnoses in administrative data: achart verification study. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2021; 36: 1264–1270.

40.

Ranapurwala

Alam

Clark

, et al. 0108 limitations of opioid use disorder (oud) icd codes: development and validation of a new oud identification algorithm in electronic medical records. Injury Prevention 2021; 27: A31–A32.

41.

Lagisetty

Garpestad

Larkin

, et al. Identifying individuals with opioid use disorder: validity of international classification of diseases diagnostic codes for opioid use, dependence and abuse. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2021; 221: 108583.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.26 MB