Dean T. Eurich

Purpose Reducing initial exposure of “opioid naïve” patients to opioids is a public health priority. Identifying opioid naïve patients is difficult, as numerous definitions are used. The objective is to summarize current definitions and evaluate their impact on opioid naïve measures in Alberta. Methods An exploratory data analysis of the literature was conducted over the last 10 years to identify definitions commonly used in the literature to define opioid naïve. Then, using these definitions as a guide, we descriptively report the proportion of patients in Alberta between 2017 and 2021 who would be considered as opioid naïve using these definitions and all opioid dispensing data. Results Three categories of definitions were broadly identified: (1) no opioid use within the previous 30 days/6 months/1 year, based on dispensation date; (2) no opioid use based on dispensation date plus days of supply; and, (3) exclusion of codeine from Definitions 1 and 2. Applying these definitions to the Alberta population showed a very wide range in the proportion who would be considered as opioid naïve. Overall, 36.4% of Albertans ( n = 1 551 075) had an opioid dispensation in 2017–2021. The average age was 46.6 ± 18.8 and 52.8% were female. The proportion of opioid naïve were most affected by the “opioid free” period, with 97.4%, 83.2%, and 65.6% being classified as opioid naïve using time windows from Definition 1 (30 days, 6 months, 1 year of no prior opioid use). Definitions 2 and 3 did not materially change the results. Further extending the “opioid free” period to 2 years showed only 35% were opioid naïve. Conclusions The most convenient definition for “opioid naïve” was the use of an “opioid free” period. The choice of window would depend on how the information may be used to assistant in clinical decisions with longer windows more likely to reflect true opioid naïve patients. Irrespective of definition used, a large proportion of opioid users would be considered opioid naïve in Alberta.