Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Subst Abus. 2017 Jul 19;38(4):407–413. doi: 10.1080/08897077.2017.1356791

Age of Initiation, Psychopathology and Other Substance Use Are Associated with Time to Use Disorder Diagnosis in Persons using Opioids Nonmedically

Ty S Schepis 1, Jahn K Hakes 2
PMCID: PMC6130196  NIHMSID: NIHMS1501229  PMID: 28723266

Abstract

Background:

Nonmedical use of prescription opioids (NMUPO) is an ongoing public health challenge, as NMUPO is associated with psychopathology, other drug use and fatal overdose. These concomitant risks are greatest in those with opioid use disorder (OUD), but the development of NMUPO-related use disorder is poorly understood. The primary aim of this study was to establish factors associated with the development of and time to OUD among persons engaged in NMUPO.

Methods:

Data were from Wave 1 of the National Epidemiologic Study on Alcohol and Related Conditions, with 1,755 participants endorsing lifetime NMUPO. Analyses used sequential design-based logistic regression for DSM-IV opioid dependence correlates, followed by Cox regression of proportional hazards for correlates (e.g., sociodemographics, age of NMUPO initiation and psychopathology) of time to dependence in those who developed DSM-IV dependence.

Results:

Earlier age of NMUPO initiation increased OUD odds (AOR= 0.95, 95%CI= 0.94–0.96) but slowed OUD development (AHR= 1.05, 95%CI= 1.04–1.06) in those who developed OUD (n= 118), after controlling for sociodemographics, psychopathology and ages of other drug use initiation. Psychopathology and earlier other drug use initiation were associated with higher OUD odds, but only having an alcohol use disorder was associated with shorter time to OUD.

Conclusions:

Earlier NMUPO initiation is associated with increased odds of OUD, though those with early initiation had a slower progression to OUD. Programs that prevent early NMUPO initiation, which might lower rates of OUD, and/or identify the later initiators at highest risk for rapid OUD development could have great public health benefits.

Keywords: Opioid, misuse, nonmedical use, dependence, course

INTRODUCTION

Nonmedical use of prescription opioids (NMUPO) continues to be a significant public health issue in the United States.1 In 2013, over 1.5 million residents initiated NMUPO,2 and in 2014, nearly four million adults engaged in NMUPO.3 Estimates from 2006 and 2007 indicated that NMUPO cost US society over $50 billion,4,5 and NMUPO is associated with numerous behavioral health risks, including psychopathology,6 other substance use,7 and fatal overdose.8 More recent reports have highlighted the elevated risk of heroin initiation among those engaged in NMUPO,9 though this may be largely in those with frequent NMUPO and/or NMUPO-related opioid use disorders (OUDs).10

Indeed, the evidence indicates that the costs and personal risks are greatest in those engaged in frequent NMUPO and/or with OUDs from NMUPO.6,911 Past work using cross-sectional, nationally representative or large insurance database samples has uncovered consistent sociodemographic correlates of a NMUPO-related OUD diagnosis: male sex, young adult age, unmarried status, lower educational attainment and uninsured status.1214 In addition, OUD is associated with current psychopathology, trauma exposure, poor self-endorsed health and younger age of NMUPO initiation.12,1519 Work using longitudinal data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) added evidence that many health conditions (e.g., arthritis) at wave 1 were risk factors for an OUD diagnosis at wave 2.14

Thus, many correlates of an OUD diagnosis have been found, often in repeated investigations. What is unclear, however, is which factors are associated with the course of OUD. Parker and Anthony20 investigated transitions from NMUPO initiation to DSM-IV opioid dependence in individuals aged 12 to 21 years, finding that one of every 11 to 16 initiators transitioned to dependence within 12 months. They also found a peak incidence of opioid dependence at younger ages, suggesting the importance of earlier NMUPO initiation for the speed of transition to such dependence.20 Otherwise, the sociodemographic and psychiatric factors that influence the time from NMUPO initiation to OUD remain uninvestigated. Establishing these characteristics could allow for treatment that matches those at highest risk for rapid OUD development with more intensive interventions, limiting the morbidity and mortality associated with NMUPO.

Aims and Hypotheses

Using data from wave 1 of the NESARC, the primary aim of this work was to evaluate potential sociodemographic, psychiatric and substance use characteristics associated with a shorter time to DSM-IV prescription opioid dependence (described as opioid use disorder in the Results and Discussion to be more consistent with DSM-5 standards), conditional upon NMUPO initiation. In order to develop these models, initial models examined the association of the above factors with development of dependence. Models were constructed in four steps: initial models examined associations between sociodemographic factors and either opioid dependence or time to dependence; a second set included age of NMUPO initiation; a third set added a set of DSM-IV Axis I and II diagnoses; and, the fourth set examined ages of alcohol and other drug use initiation. Given their association with more rapid development of use disorder with other substances and their association with opioid us disorder, we hypothesized that earlier ages of NMUPO17, alcohol and other drug initiation15 and that having a DSM-IV psychiatric diagnosis18,19 would be associated with shorter times to DSM-IV opioid dependence.

METHODS

The NESARC is a longitudinal, nationally representative survey funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). The survey targets the US non-instutionalized adult population, including military personnel living off-base and those in group housing (e.g., shelters). The NESARC used the Census 2000–2001 Supplementary Survey to structure sampling, and each wave included weights to create nationally representative data. Weighting also adjusted for selection procedures, the need to oversample young adults and non-response at either wave 1 or 2. Participants were asked all sensitive questions (including those on NMUPO) using computer-assisted personal interviewing methods. The US Census Bureau and the US Office of Budget and Management approved the NESARC protocol, and the first author’s IRB exempted this work from review. More comprehensive accounts of the NESARC are available elsewhere.21,22

This investigation only used data from wave 1 (conducted in 2001–2002), with 43,093 participants and a response rate of 81.2%.21,22 After weighting, the sample is 52% female, 71% Caucasian, 12% Hispanic/Latino, 11% African-American; 13% of the sample was under 25 years of age.

Measures

Nonmedical use of prescription opioids is defined in the NESARC as opioid use “without a prescription, in greater amounts, more often, or longer than prescribed, or for a reason other than a doctor said you should use them.” Here, only wave 1 NMUPO data were used because of concerns about the inclusion of non-opioid medications (i.e., Cox II inhibitors) in wave 2.23,24

Age of NMUPO initiation was assessed in all individuals who endorsed lifetime NMUPO via “How old were you when you FIRST used painkillers?”, with similar questions for age of initiation of alcohol or non-opioid drug use. Ages of alcohol and other (non-opioid) drug use initiation were assessed in all individuals endorsing lifetime alcohol or drug use, respectively. Also, we used an investigator-created variable capturing lifetime non-opioid drug use. A similar variable for lifetime alcohol use was excluded because all but one individual with lifetime NMUPO initiated alcohol use.

Psychiatric diagnoses were obtained through the NIAAA Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule – DSM-IV Edition (AUDADIS-IV).25,26 The AUDADIS-IV is a structured diagnostic interview that assesses DSM-IV27 Axis I and II disorders. Here, psychiatric outcomes included alcohol use disorders (AUD; abuse or dependence), substance use disorders (SUD; abuse or dependence), depressive disorders (major depression or dysthymia), bipolar disorders (bipolar I or II) and anxiety disorders (panic disorder with and without agoraphobia, social phobia, specific phobia or generalized anxiety disorder). Seven of ten Axis II personality disorder (PD) diagnoses were included. These are antisocial, avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive, paranoid, schizoid, and histrionic PD (the remaining PDs were not assessed at wave 1). The AUDADIS-IV has good reliability and validity in assessing the psychiatric disorders of interest.25,26

Age of onset of DSM-IV opioid dependence was assessed in all individuals endorsing the presence of at least three opioid dependence symptoms in the AUDADIS-IV interview. In those individuals, the following questions were asked to assess age of opioid dependence onset: “You just mentioned some other experiences you had with painkillers in the past, that is, before 12 months ago. Before last (Month one year ago) was there ever a period when SOME of these experiences with painkillers were happening around the same time most days for at least a month, on and off for a few months or longer or within the same 1-year period?” and “About how old were you the FIRST time SOME of these experiences with painkillers BEGAN to happen around the same time?”

Assessed sociodemographic control variables were age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, education level, household income, employment/full-time student status, and region of participant residence.

Participants

Only individuals who endorsed lifetime NMUPO at the wave 1 interview were included in analyses (unweighted n= 1,755). These individuals were most likely to be male (61.9%), between ages 36 and 50, inclusive (39.7%; ages 18 to 25: 25.5%; ages 26 to 35: 21.5%; ages 51 and older: 13.3%) and Caucasian (79.6%; Hispanic/Latino: 7.7%; African-American: 5.7%). Individuals endorsing lifetime NMUPO at wave 1 were also most likely to be either married (44.0%) or never married (31.0%), with a high school degree (29.2%) or some college (37.3%) and currently employed (71.9%; 10.4% are current students).

Of the 1,755 individuals engaged in lifetime NMUPO, 131 developed DSM-IV opioid dependence. The mean age of opioid initiation was 20.4 years and mean age of dependence was 23.1 years. Analyses of weighted cases indicated that individuals with dependence were slightly more likely to be male (54.2%), between ages 36 and 50, inclusive (45.4%; ages 18 to 25: 22.2%; ages 26 to 35: 17.9%; ages 51 and older: 14.4%) and Caucasian (75.1%; Hispanic/Latino: 4.5%; African-American: 5.6%). Also, those individuals were most likely to be married (41.1%), followed by never married (26.0%) or divorced (19.1%) individuals, have completed some college (36.9%; 28.0% had not completed high school and 27.1% completed high school), and currently employed (57.6%; 6.2% are current students). Finally, of those with a lifetime dependence diagnosis, 14 had a lifetime history of heroin use (10.7%) and only one had used heroin in the past year (0.8%).

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics for all characteristics were analyzed using SAS SURVEYMEANS. Then, the three models (below) used a sequential strategy of design-based logistic regression, followed by Cox regression of proportional hazards. Model 1 included sociodemographic variables and age of NMUPO initiation. Model 2 added psychiatric disorders to the variables in model 1. Finally, model 3 added variables for age of alcohol use initiation, age of other (non-NMUPO) drug use initiation or a variable capturing whether an individual initiated other, non-NMUPO, drug use. These variables were entered as independent variables in the models, with DSM-IV opioid dependence diagnosis (presence or absence) as the dependent variable in the logistic regressions and time to DSM-IV opioid dependence as the dependent variable in the Cox regressions. To allow unbiased estimation of regression parameters, missing values for age of substance initiation were recoded at the conditional mean, with an indicator variable used to estimate the effect of the missing value. The logistic regressions identified the correlates of dependence among persons engaged in lifetime NMUPO; inclusion in the Cox models was condition upon both a known initiation age and age of initiation of dependence (n= 118). Models censored follow-up time to DSM-IV opioid dependence at 10 years to prevent the influence of extreme outliers from biasing the parameter estimates.28 All analyses controlled for the 8 sociodemographic variables listed above.

For the logistic regressions, we reported adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), and for the Cox regressions, we reported adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) with 95% confidence intervals. Also, we weighted the data, clustered it on primary sampling units, and stratified it appropriately. We used Fischer’s scoring algorithm to iteratively estimate regression parameters for logistic regression and employed the Taylor Series approximation, with adjusted degrees of freedom, to estimate variance. We included models only if they evidenced adequate fit and had a significant omnibus regression chi-square value. Analyses were performed in SAS, version 9.4 (Cary, NC).

RESULTS

Effects of Sociodemographics and Age of NMUPO Initiation on Development of and Time to OUD

All results on odds of developing OUD are in the online-only Supplemental Table 4. For sociodemographic factors, older adults (36 to 50-year-old AOR= 1.56, 95%CI= 1.13–2.17; 51 years and older AOR= 2.06, 95%CI= 1.41–3.01), as compared to those aged 18 to 25, and Asian-American or Native American adults (Native American AOR= 2.72, 95%CI= 1.57–4.71; Asian-American AOR= 2.68, 95%CI= 1.53–4.69), as compared to Caucasian adults, were more likely to develop OUD. Widowed individuals were more likely than married participants to develop OUD (AOR= 2.20, 95%CI= 1.40–3.47). Also, individuals who dropped out of high school were more likely to become dependent than those with a high school education (AOR= 1.95, 95%CI=1.33–2.85), and those living in either the southern US (AOR= 1.66, 95%CI= 1.23–2.26) or Midwest (AOR= 1.69, 95%CI= 1.22–2.33) were more likely to develop OUD than those in the northeastern US.

Protective factors (i.e., those associated with lower OUD odds) included completing at least some postgraduate work (AOR= 0.25, 95%CI= 0.11–0.57), current employment (AOR= 0.54, 95% CI= 0.41–0.72), current student status (AOR= 0.45, 95%CI=0.24–0.85) and household incomes at or above US$ 40,000 ($40,000–69,999 AOR= 0.55, 95%CI= 0.40–0.76; $70,000–99,999 AOR= 0.41, 95%CI= 0.21–0.81; $150,000 or more AOR= 0.68, 95%CI= 0.54–0.86), except those with incomes between $100,000 and $149,999.

The outcomes for time to OUD are summarized in Table 1. The following sociodemographic characteristics were associated with more rapid development of OUD: Asian-American or multiracial ethnicity (Asian-American AHR= 1.56, 95%CI= 1.17–2.12; multiracial AHR= 3.15, 95%CI= 1.85–5.33), those who were separated, widowed or co-habitating (versus married adults; separated AHR= 1.67, 95%CI= 1.20–2.33; widowed AHR= 2.36, 95%CI= 1.54–3.63; co-habitating AHR= 1.52, 95%CI= 1.40–1.64), those with household incomes above US$ 100,000 (as compared to those with incomes below $40,000; $100,000–149,999 AHR= 1.19, 95%CI= 1.00–1.42; $150,000 or more AHR= 4.71, 95%CI= 3.01–7.35), and those living in the southern US (as compared to northeastern US residents; AHR= 1.54, 95%CI= 1.13–2.11).

Table 1:

Cox Regression Model for Time to Opioid Dependence using Sociodemographics and Age of Opioid Initiation (n = 118)

Characteristic B SE t-value p-value HRs 95% CIs

Age of Opioid Initiation 0.047 0.003 16.94 < 0.001 1.05 1.04–1.06
Young Adults (18–25) ***Reference Group***
Ages 26–35 −0.014 0.103 −0.14 0.90 0.99 0.74–1.31
Ages 36–50 −0.758 0.012 −4.4 0.011 0.47 0.29–0.76
Ages 51 and older −0.671 0.127 −5.27 0.006 0.51 0.36–0.73
Male ***Reference Group***
Female −0.304 0.057 −5.32 0.006 0.74 0.63–0.86
Caucasian ***Reference Group***
Hispanic/Latino −0.975 0.120 −8.12 0.001 0.38 0.27–0.53
Native American −0.755 0.108 −7.03 0.002 0.47 0.35–0.63
Asian-American 0.454 0.106 4.27 0.013 1.58 1.17–2.12
African-American −0.096 0.067 −1.43 0.22 0.91 0.75–1.09
Multiracial 1.146 0.190 6.02 0.004 3.15 1.85–5.33
Married ***Reference Group***
Co-Habitating 0.416 0.029 14.29 0.0001 1.52 1.40–1.64
Widowed 0.859 0.154 5.57 0.005 2.36 1.54–3.63
Divorced −0.142 0.064 −2.21 0.09 0.87 0.73–1.04
Separated 0.515 0.119 4.32 0.013 1.67 1.20–2.33
Never Married −0.243 0.077 −3.14 0.035 0.78 0.63–0.97
HS Graduate ***Reference Group***
HS Dropout −0.162 0.068 −2.39 0.08 0.85 0.70–1.03
Some College 0.300 0.120 2.50 0.07 1.35 0.97–1.89
College Graduate −0.045 0.105 −0.43 0.69 0.96 0.71–1.28
Postgraduate Work −0.121 0.522 −0.23 0.28 0.83 0.21–3.77
Less than 40,000 USD ***Reference Group***
40,000–69,999 USD 0.174 0.106 1.65 0.18 1.19 0.89–1.60
70,000–99,999 USD −0.362 0.322 −1.12 0.32 0.70 0.29–1.70
100,000–149,999 USD 0.175 0.062 2.82 0.048 1.19 1.00–1.42
150,000 or more USD 1.549 0.161 9.64 0.0006 4.71 3.01–7.35
Currently Employed −0.304 0.072 −4.22 0.014 0.74 0.60–0.90
Current Student 0.125 0.180 0.69 0.53 1.13 0.69–1.87
Northeastern US ***Reference Group***
Midwest −0.291 0.064 −4.57 0.01 0.75 0.63–0.89
Southern US 0.283 0.096 2.94 0.042 1.33 1.02–1.73
Western US 0.032 0.072 0.44 0.68 1.03 0.85–1.26

In contrast, these factors were associated with significantly slower OUDdevelopment: older adulthood (as compared to those aged 18 to 25; 36 to 50-year-old AHR= 0.47, 95%CI= 0.29–0.76; 51 years and older AHR= 0.51, 95%CI= 0.36–0.73), Hispanic/Latino or Native American ethnicity (as compared to Caucasians; Hispanic/Latino AHR= 0.38, 95%CI= 0.27–0.53; Native American AHR= 0.47, 95%CI= 0.35–0.63), never married status (as compared to married adults; AHR= 0.78, 95%CI= 0.63–0.97), current employment (AHR= 0.74, 95%CI=0.60–0.90) and residence in the Midwest (as compared to the northeastern US; AHR= 0.74, 95%CI= 0.63–0.89).

Earlier age of NMUPO initiation was associated with increased odds of OUD (AOR= 0.95, 95%CI= 0.94–0.96) but also with slower development of OUD (AHR= 1.05, 95%CI= 1.04–1.06), after controlling for sociodemographic factors.

Effects of Psychiatric Diagnosis and Age of NMUPO Initiation on Development of and Time to OUD

Models of psychiatric and age of initiation variables related OUD odds are summarized in the online-only Supplemental Table 5. After controlling for sociodemographic factors, having a bipolar (AOR= 2.12, 95%CI= 1.53–2.92), anxiety (AOR= 1.80, 95% CI= 1.29–2.52), depressive (AOR= 1.66, 95%CI= 1.14–2.41) or alcohol use disorder (AOR= 3.81, 95%CI= 2.88–5.04) significantly increased the odds of developing OUD among those with a lifetime history of NMUPO. In contrast, those with a non-opioid substance use disorder did not have significantly higher odds of developing OUD (AOR= 1.01, 95%CI= 0.76–1.35). Those with one or more of the seven examined personality disorders also had greater odds of developing OUD (AOR= 1.72, 95%CI= 1.33–2.25). Earlier age of NMUPO initiation also remained a significant predictor of OUD development in this model (AOR= 0.96, 95%CI= 0.95–0.97).

The results for time to OUD in these models are summarized (below) in Table 2. Having an alcohol use or a depressive disorder significantly altered time to OUD. While having an alcohol use disorder was associated with more rapid development of OUD (AHR= 1.97, 95%CI= 1.71–2.28), having a depressive disorder (AHR= 0.77, 95%CI= 0.66–0.90) was associated with significantly slower development of OUD. Having a drug use, anxiety, bipolar or personality disorder did not significantly affect time to OUD. Earlier age of NMUPO initiation remained significantly associated with slower development of OUD in this model (AHR= 1.05, 95%CI= 1.04–1.06).

Table 2:

Cox Regression Model for Time to Opioid Dependence using Sociodemographics, Age of Nonmedical Opioid Use Initiation and Psychopathology (n = 118)

Characteristic B SE t−value p−value HRs 95% CIs

Age of Opioid Initiation 0.048 0.004 12.87 0.0002 1.05 1.04–1.06
Alcohol Use Disorder 0.679 0.05 13.06 0.0002 1.97 1.71–2.28
Drug Use Disorder 0.078 0.08 1.01 0.37 1.08 0.87–1.34
Depressive Disorder −0.266 0.06 −4.73 0.01 0.77 0.66–0.90
Anxiety Disorder −0.059 0.05 −1.09 0.34 0.94 0.81–1.10
Bipolar Disorder −0.181 0.09 −2.13 0.10 0.83 0.66–1.06
Personality Disorder 0.057 0.06 0.91 0.42 1.06 0.89–1.26
Ages 18–25 ***Reference Group***
Ages 26–35 −0.137 0.11 −1.22 0.29 0.87 0.64–1.19
Ages 36–50 −0.842 0.16 −4.96 0.008 0.44 0.28–0.70
Ages 51 and older −0.808 0.14 −5.61 0.005 0.45 0.30–0.67
Males ***Reference Group***
Female −0.138 0.05 −2.95 0.04 0.87 0.76–0.99
Caucasian ***Reference Group***
Hispanic/Latino −0.556 0.12 −4.52 0.01 0.57 0.41–0.81
Native American −0.744 0.11 −6.81 0.002 0.48 0.35–0.64
Asian-American 0.342 0.13 2.64 0.06 1.41 0.98–2.02
African-American −0.088 0.07 −1.27 0.27 0.92 0.76–1.11
Multiracial 1.208 0.18 6.68 0.003 3.35 2.03–5.53
Married ***Reference Group***
Co-Habitating 0.368 0.03 13.86 0.0002 1.44 1.34–1.56
Widowed 1.567 0.19 8.37 0.001 4.79 2.85–8.06
Divorced −0.102 0.08 −1.36 0.25 0.90 0.73–1.11
Separated 0.518 0.13 4.00 0.02 1.68 1.17–2.41
Never Married −0.358 0.08 −4.72 0.009 0.70 0.57–0.86
HS Graduate ***Reference Group***
HS Dropout −0.222 0.07 −3.22 0.03 0.80 0.66–0.97
Some College 0.217 0.12 1.84 0.14 1.24 0.90–1.73
College Graduate 0.011 0.12 0.09 0.93 1.01 0.73–1.41
Postgraduate Work −0.027 0.56 −0.05 0.96 0.97 0.20–4.64
Less than 40,000 USD ***Reference Group***
40,000–69,999 USD 0.111 0.08 1.38 0.24 1.12 0.89–1.40
70,000–99,999 USD −0.489 0.39 −1.25 0.28 0.61 0.21–1.82
100,000–149,999 USD 0.176 0.08 2.35 0.08 1.19 0.97–1.47
150,000 or more USD 1.580 0.21 7.37 0.002 4.85 2.68–8.80
Currently Employed −0.270 0.08 −3.28 0.03 0.76 0.61–0.96
Current Student 0.086 0.18 0.49 0.65 1.09 0.67–1.78
Northeastern US ***Reference Group***
Midwest −0.419 0.09 −4.71 0.01 0.66 0.51–0.84
Southern US 0.194 0.10 1.98 0.12 1.21 0.93–1.59
Western US 0.009 0.09 0.1 0.92 1.01 0.79–1.28

Effects of Age of Alcohol Use and Other Drug Use Initiation and Age of NMUPO Initiation on Development of and Time to OUD

All results on models evaluating other drug use and age of NMUPO initiation are summarized in the online-only Supplemental Table 6, for odds of OUD, or Table 3, for time to OUD. Earlier age of initiation of other drug use (among initiators; AOR= 0.93, 95%CI= 0.91–0.96) was associated with higher odds of OUD among those engaged in lifetime NMUPO, after controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. Neither age of alcohol use initiation among persons engaged in lifetime alcohol use (AOR= 0.97, 95%CI= 0.93–1.02) nor non-initiation of drug use (AOR= 0.78, 95%CI= 0.56–1.09) were associated with OUD. Earlier age of NMUPO initiation remained significant in this model (AOR= 0.96, 95%CI= 0.95–0.97).

Table 3:

Cox Regression Model for Time to Opioid Dependence using Sociodemographics, Never Drug Use and Ages of Alcohol Use, Other Drug Use and Nonmedical Opioid Use Initiation (n = 118)

Characteristic B SE t−value p−value HRs 95% CIs

Age of Opioid Initiation 0.047 0.003 15.89 <.0001 1.05 1.04–1.06
Age of Alcohol Initiation −0.012 0.009 −1.41 0.23 0.99 0.96–1.01
Age of Other Drug Initiation 0.029 0.016 1.83 0.14 1.03 0.99–1.08
Never Other Drug Use −0.794 0.06 −14.17 0.0001 0.45 0.39–0.53
Ages 18–25 ***Reference Group***
Ages 26–35 −0.074 0.11 −0.65 0.55 0.93 0.68–1.27
Ages 36–50 −0.788 0.19 −4.21 0.014 0.46 0.27–0.76
Ages 51 and older −0.770 0.12 −6.3 0.003 0.46 0.33–0.65
Males ***Reference Group***
Female −0.186 0.06 −3.27 0.03 0.83 0.71–0.97
Caucasian ***Reference Group***
Hispanic/Latino −0.619 0.14 −4.55 0.01 0.54 0.37–0.79
Native American −0.771 0.10 −7.55 0.002 0.46 0.35–0.61
Asian-American 0.432 0.15 2.88 0.045 1.54 1.02–2.33
African-American −0.006 0.07 −0.08 0.94 0.99 0.83–1.20
Multiracial 1.044 0.19 5.55 0.005 2.84 1.69–4.79
Married ***Reference Group***
Co-Habitating 0.338 0.04 9.36 0.0007 1.40 1.27–1.55
Widowed 1.427 0.19 7.63 0.002 4.17 2.48–7.01
Divorced −0.256 0.07 −3.63 0.02 0.77 0.64–0.94
Separated 0.742 0.11 6.71 0.003 2.10 1.55–2.85
Never Married −0.294 0.07 −4.03 0.02 0.75 0.61–0.91
HS Graduate ***Reference Group***
HS Dropout −0.133 0.09 −1.43 0.23 0.88 0.68–1.13
Some College 0.323 0.13 2.5 0.07 1.38 0.97–1.98
College Graduate −0.123 0.15 −0.84 0.45 0.88 0.59–1.33
Postgraduate Work 0.195 0.50 0.39 0.72 1.22 0.30–4.86
Less than 40,000 USD ***Reference Group***
40,000–69,999 USD 0.207 0.13 1.59 0.19 1.23 0.86–1.76
70,000–99,999 USD −0.418 0.33 −1.25 0.28 0.66 0.26–1.67
100,000–149,999 USD 0.191 0.07 2.83 0.047 1.21 1.00–1.46
150,000 or more USD 1.393 0.14 9.86 0.0006 4.03 2.72–5.96
Currently Employed −0.303 0.09 −3.21 0.033 0.74 0.57–0.96
Current Student −0.010 0.20 −0.05 0.96 0.99 0.57–1.72
Northeastern US ***Reference Group***
Midwest −0.291 0.08 −3.45 0.03 0.75 0.59–0.95
Southern US 0.299 0.08 3.84 0.02 1.35 1.09–1.67
Western US 0.055 0.07 0.81 0.46 1.06 0.88–1.28

For time to OUD in Table 3, never initiating other drug use was significantly associated with slower development of OUD (AHR= 0.45, 95%CI= 0.39–0.53), and earlier age of NMUPO initiation remained significantly associated with slower development of OUD (AHR= 1.05, 95%CI= 1.04–1.06). Age of alcohol use initiation (AHR= 0.99, 95%CI= 0.96–1.01) and age of drug use initiation (AHR= 1.03, 95%CI= 0.99–1.08) were not associated with time to OUD.

DISCUSSION

Across models, earlier NMUPO initiation was associated with higher odds of OUD, but it was also associated with a slower transition to OUD. These associations were significant even when including sociodemographic characteristics, psychopathology and age of alcohol or drug use initiation in models. Thus, earlier initiation of NMUPO is a robust risk factor for OUD, with a 4 to 5% decrease in odds for every year NMUPO is delayed, but development of OUD somewhat later in life may predispose individuals to develop consequences (i.e., OUD symptoms) more rapidly than younger initiators.

This is consistent with findings in those who use alcohol or marijuana, where those who initiate use earlier are at greater risk for heavy later adolescent and adult use, development of a use disorder and poorer psychosocial outcomes.2936 Most saliently, earlier NMUPO initiation is associated with greater odds of later OUD and initiation of heroin use in adolescence.17,37,38 Our findings lend further weight to the importance of early initiation of use as a key risk factor for the development of later substance use problems. Less research has examined the relationship between age of initiation and time to OUD, with some work finding earlier age of initiation is related to more rapid dependence,39 and other work finding the opposite.40 Sex40,41 and race/ethnicity39,42 were likely to influence the inconsistent findings, and further work is needed to clarify if these characteristics influence time to OUD in NMUPO.

Many of the significant correlates of OUD were similar to those found in previous work, including lower educational achievement and socioeconomic status and the presence of other psychopathology. Earlier other drug use initiation, while not specifically examined in other work, was associated with greater odds of OUD, as anticipated. One somewhat discrepant finding was that older adults, aged 36 and older, were more likely to have developed OUD. This, however, was likely to be the result of methodological differences: this work examined lifetime OUD, whereas other studies examined much shorter windows for OUD development.

Interestingly, while psychopathology was a robust correlate of the development of OUD, only having an alcohol use disorder predicted a shorter time to OUD. Conversely, a lifetime depressive disorder diagnosis was associated with longer time to OUD, even while it was associated with increased odds of OUD. Also, higher incomes, while predictive of lower OUD odds, were associated with a more rapid development of OUD among those engaged in NMUPO. The final sociodemographic characteristics to note were that persons of either Native American or Asian-American ethnicity had higher odds of OUD. Notably, though, those of Native American descent had slower transitions to OUD, while those of Asian descent had more rapid transitions to OUD. Further investigation is needed for both findings, as both run contrary to recent US epidemiological data,43 but our combination of Hawaiian Natives and Pacific Islanders in the Asian-American category may have impacted that outcome, as Hawaiian Natives and Pacific Islanders may have higher rates of NMUPO-related OUD.43 Nonetheless, these findings may highlight both members of ethnic groups as particularly vulnerable to and NMUPO-related OUD.

Limitations

The most important limitation is the potential for retrospective bias, as participants recalled ages of initiation and DSM-IV opioid dependence onset that may have occurred many years prior. Reliability estimates from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, which uses a similar measurement for initiation, found good to excellent test-retest reliabilities when ages could have one year of discrepancy.44 While some misreporting of age of initiation or onset is probable, we believe it is limited in degree and impact. Furthermore, by controlling for current age in the analyses, systematic bias those with longer times since initiation or onset should be mitigated. A second limitation was the use of self-report data, which could lead to inaccurate reporting of psychiatric symptoms. A second limitation is that there is not a consensus definition of NMUPO,23,4547 impacting the ability to compare these results with those of other studies with alternative definitions of NMUPO. Also, this was a secondary analysis of previously collected data, so the measures were not specifically designed to meet the aims of this work. Finally, although the response rate of the NESARC is excellent and statistical methods corrected for non-response, bias could have resulted from selective drop-out. Such bias should be minimal, though.48

Clinical Implications and Conclusions

These results highlight the importance of earlier age of NMUPO initiation for the development of OUD and the potential for development of more rapid OUD in later NMUPO initiators. With other work linking earlier NMUPO initiation to OUD and a greater likelihood of heroin initiation,17,37 this work corroborates a need to identify early NMUPO initiators in order to prevent these problematic outcomes; similarly, work that identifies the subgroups of older initiators at risk for rapid development of OUD is also needed. Also echoing previous work, psychopathology was a robust correlate of lifetime OUD, though only having an alcohol use disorder predicted more rapid OUD onset. Intervention programs in school49 and community settings should consider screening for earlier initiation of NMUPO, with consideration of a more intensive intervention in younger initiators. Screening in college/university or medical settings may need to concentrate on preventing rapid development of use and consequences. Universal prevention programs49 may be most efficacious, as they would potentially limit both early NMUPO initiation and the consequent higher odds of OUD, and other drug use and development of other substance use disorders. Such early prevention and intervention could be crucial in limiting the morbidity and mortality associated with the ongoing public health challenge of nonmedical opioid use.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental Table 4
Supplemental Table 5
Supplemental Table 6

Acknowledgments

FUNDING

Funding provided by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Grant number R03 DA041584. Any views expressed on statistical and technical issues are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the U.S. Census Bureau. None of the funding organizations had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; preparation, review or approval of the manuscript; or, the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Footnotes

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Nelson LS, Juurlink DN, Perrone J. Addressing the Opioid Epidemic. JAMA. 2015;314(14):1453–1454. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings, NSDUH Series H-48, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14–4863. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. Behavioral health trends in the United States: Results from the 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication No. SMA 15–4927, NSDUH Series H-50). 2015.
  • 4.Hansen RN, Oster G, Edelsberg J, Woody GE, Sullivan SD. Economic costs of nonmedical use of prescription opioids. Clin J Pain. 2011;27(3):194–202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Birnbaum HG, White AG, Schiller M, Waldman T, Cleveland JM, Roland CL. Societal costs of prescription opioid abuse, dependence, and misuse in the United States. Pain Med. 2011;12(4):657–667. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kerridge BT, Saha TD, Chou SP, et al. Gender and nonmedical prescription opioid use and DSM-5 nonmedical prescription opioid use disorder: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions - III. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;156:47–56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wang KH, Becker WC, Fiellin DA. Prevalence and correlates for nonmedical use of prescription opioids among urban and rural residents. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013;127(1–3):156–162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Han B, Compton WM, Jones CM, Cai R. Nonmedical Prescription Opioid Use and Use Disorders Among Adults Aged 18 Through 64 Years in the United States, 2003–2013. JAMA. 2015;314(14):1468–1478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Martins SS, Santaella-Tenorio J, Marshall BD, Maldonado A, Cerda M. Racial/ethnic differences in trends in heroin use and heroin-related risk behaviors among nonmedical prescription opioid users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;151:278–283. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Compton WM, Jones CM, Baldwin GT. Relationship between Nonmedical Prescription-Opioid Use and Heroin Use. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(2):154–163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Oderda GM, Lake J, Rudell K, Roland CL, Masters ET. Economic Burden of Prescription Opioid Misuse and Abuse: A Systematic Review. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2015;29(4):388–400. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Salas J, Scherrer JF, Lustman PJ, Schneider FD. Racial Differences in the Association between Non-Medical Prescription Opioid Use, Abuse/Dependence and Major Depression. Subst Abus. 2015:0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Cochran BN, Flentje A, Heck NC, et al. Factors predicting development of opioid use disorders among individuals who receive an initial opioid prescription: mathematical modeling using a database of commercially-insured individuals. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;138:202–208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Katz C, El-Gabalawy R, Keyes KM, Martins SS, Sareen J. Risk factors for incident nonmedical prescription opioid use and abuse and dependence: results from a longitudinal nationally representative sample. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013;132(1–2):107–113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Becker WC, Sullivan LE, Tetrault JM, Desai RA, Fiellin DA. Non-medical use, abuse and dependence on prescription opioids among U.S. adults: psychiatric, medical and substance use correlates. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008;94(1–3):38–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lawson KM, Back SE, Hartwell KJ, Moran-Santa Maria M, Brady KT. A comparison of trauma profiles among individuals with prescription opioid, nicotine, or cocaine dependence. Am J Addict. 2013;22(2):127–131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.McCabe SE, West BT, Morales M, Cranford JA, Boyd CJ. Does early onset of non-medical use of prescription drugs predict subsequent prescription drug abuse and dependence? Results from a national study. Addiction. 2007;102(12):1920–1930. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Huang B, Dawson DA, Stinson FS, et al. Prevalence, correlates, and comorbidity of nonmedical prescription drug use and drug use disorders in the United States: Results of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. J Clin Psychiatry. 2006;67(7):1062–1073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Saha TD, Kerridge BT, Goldstein RB, et al. Nonmedical Prescription Opioid Use and DSM-5 Nonmedical Prescription Opioid Use Disorder in the United States. J Clin Psychiatry. 2016;77(6):772–780. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Parker MA, Anthony JC. Epidemiological evidence on extra-medical use of prescription pain relievers: transitions from newly incident use to dependence among 12–21 year olds in the United States using meta-analysis, 2002–13. PeerJ. 2015;3:e1340. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Grant BF, Kaplan KD. Source and Accuracy Statement for the Wave 2 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) Rockville, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Grant BF, Kaplan K, Shepard J, Moore T. Source and accuracy statement for wave 1 of the 2001–2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Boyd CJ, McCabe SE. Coming to terms with the nonmedical use of prescription medications. Substance Abuse Treatment , Prevention, and Policy. 2008;3:22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Boyd CJ, Teter CJ, West BT, Morales M, McCabe SE. Non-medical use of prescription analgesics: A three-year national longitudinal study. J Addict Dis. 2009;28(3):232–242. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Grant BF, Dawson DA, Stinson FS, Chou PS, Kay W, Pickering R. The Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-IV (AUDADIS-IV): reliability of alcohol consumption, tobacco use, family history of depression and psychiatric diagnostic modules in a general population sample. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2003;71(1):7–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Grant BF, Harford TC, Dawson DA, Chou PS, Pickering RP. The alcohol use disorder and associated disabilities interview schedule (AUDADIS): Reliability of alcohol and drug modules in a general population sample. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 1995;39:37–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Klein JP, Moeschberger ML. Survival Analysis: Techniques for Censored and Truncated Regression. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bolland KA, Bolland JM, Tomek S, Devereaux RS, Mrug S, Wimberly JC. Trajectories of Adolescent Alcohol Use by Gender and Early Initiation Status. Youth & Society. 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.DeWit DJ, Adlaf EM, Offord DR, Ogborne AC. Age at first alcohol use: a risk factor for the development of alcohol disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2000;157(5):745–750. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hingson RW, Heeren T, Winter MR. Age at drinking onset and alcohol dependence: Age at onset, duration, and severity. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 2006;160(7):739–746. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Stueve A, O’Donnell LN. Early Alcohol Initiation and Subsequent Sexual and Alcohol Risk Behaviors Among Urban Youths. American Journal of Public Health. 2005;95(5):887–893. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Lynskey MT, Heath AC, Bucholz KK, et al. Escalation of drug use in early-onset cannabis users vs co-twin controls. JAMA. 2003;289(4):427–433. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Sagar KA, Dahlgren MK, Gönenç A, Racine MT, Dreman MW, Gruber SA. The impact of initiation: Early onset marijuana smokers demonstrate altered Stroop performance and brain activation. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience. 2015;16:84–92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Horwood LJ, Fergusson DM, Hayatbakhsh MR, et al. Cannabis use and educational achievement: findings from three Australasian cohort studies. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010;110(3):247–253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ellickson PL, Tucker JS, Klein DJ, Saner H. Antecedents and outcomes of marijuana use initiation during adolescence. Preventive medicine. 2004;39(5):976–984. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Cerdá M, Santaella J, Marshall BDL, Kim JH, Martins SS. Nonmedical Prescription Opioid Use in Childhood and Early Adolescence Predicts Transitions to Heroin Use in Young Adulthood: A National Study.The Journal of Pediatrics. 2015;167(3):605–612.e602. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Carlson RG, Nahhas RW, Martins SS, Daniulaityte R. Predictors of transition to heroin use among initially non-opioid dependent illicit pharmaceutical opioid users: A natural history study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016;160:127–134. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Alvanzo AA, Storr CL, La Flair L, Green KM, Wagner FA, Crum RM. Race/ethnicity and sex differences in progression from drinking initiation to the development of alcohol dependence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011;118(2–3):375–382. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Khan SS, Secades-Villa R, Okuda M, et al. Gender differences in cannabis use disorders: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey of Alcohol and Related Conditions. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013;130(1–3):101–108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Greenfield SF, Back SE, Lawson K, Brady KT. Substance abuse in women. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2010;33(2):339–355. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Stoltman JJ, Woodcock EA, Lister JJ, Greenwald MK, Lundahl LH. Exploration of the telescoping effect among not-in-treatment, intensive heroin-using research volunteers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;148:217–220. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Hughes A, Williams MR, Lipari RN, Bose J, Copello EAP, Kroutil LA. Prescription drug use and misuse in the United States: Results from the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. NSDUH Data Review 2016; https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-FFR2-2015/NSDUH-FFR2-2015.htm.
  • 44.Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Reliability of Key Measures in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (Office of Applied Studies, Methodology Series M-8, HHS Publication No. SMA 09–4425). Rockville, MD2010. [PubMed]
  • 45.Cochran G, Woo B, Lo-Ciganic WH, Gordon AJ, Donohue JM, Gellad WF. Defining Nonmedical Use of Prescription Opioids Within Health Care Claims: A Systematic Review. Subst Abus. 2015;36(2):192–202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Compton WM, Volkow ND. Abuse of prescription drugs and the risk of addiction. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006;83 Supplement 1:S4–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Barrett SP, Meisner JR, Stewart SH. What constitutes prescription drug misuse? Problems and pitfalls of current conceptualizations. Current Drug Abuse Reviews. 2008;1(3):255–262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kristman V, Manno M, Cote P. Loss to follow-up in cohort studies: how much is too much? European journal of epidemiology. 2004;19(8):751–760. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Crowley DM, Jones DE, Coffman DL, Greenberg MT. Can we build an efficient response to the prescription drug abuse epidemic? Assessing the cost effectiveness of universal prevention in the PROSPER trial. Preventive medicine. 2014;62C:71–77. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental Table 4
Supplemental Table 5
Supplemental Table 6

RESOURCES