Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
    • Podcast: NC Health Policy Forum
    • Upcoming Scientific Articles
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Subscribers
  • About Us
    • About the North Carolina Medical Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • RSS
  • Other Publications
    • North Carolina Medical Journal

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
North Carolina Medical Journal
  • Other Publications
    • North Carolina Medical Journal
  • My alerts
  • Log in
North Carolina Medical Journal

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
    • Podcast: NC Health Policy Forum
    • Upcoming Scientific Articles
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Subscribers
  • About Us
    • About the North Carolina Medical Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • RSS
  • Follow ncmj on Twitter
  • Visit ncmj on Facebook
Research ArticlePolicy Forum

Running the Numbers

County Level Dynamics of Heroin Mortality in North Carolina

Alexander H Gunn, Bryce Bartlett, Grace Feng, Matthew Gayed, Katie Kanter, Erica Onuoha, Madeline Thornton, Andrew Muzyk and Nicole Schramm-Sapyta
North Carolina Medical Journal May 2018, 79 (3) 195-200; DOI: https://doi.org/10.18043/ncm.79.3.195
Alexander H Gunn
project manager, Duke Institute for Brain Sciences; research assistant, Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bryce Bartlett
PhD candidate graduate student, Department of Sociology and Duke Population Research Institute; fellow and statistical consultant, Program for Advanced Research in Social Sciences, Duke University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Grace Feng
undergraduate student, Duke Institute for Brain Sciences
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthew Gayed
undergraduate student, Duke Institute for Brain Sciences
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Katie Kanter
undergraduate student, Duke Institute for Brain Sciences
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Erica Onuoha
undergraduate student, Duke Institute for Brain Sciences
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Madeline Thornton
undergraduate student, Duke Institute for Brain Sciences
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew Muzyk
clinical pharmacist, Department of Pharmacy, Duke University Hospital; associate professor, Department of Pharmacy Practice, Campbell University College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Campbell University, Buies Creek, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicole Schramm-Sapyta
assistant professor of the Practice and chief operating officer, Duke Institute for Brain Sciences; adjunct assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

In North Carolina, the number of opioid overdose deaths has increased by nearly 800% between 1999 and 2016 [1]. Prior to 2010, over two-thirds of opioid deaths were the result of prescription opioids, but since 2013, prescription opioids have been responsible for less than 45% of opioid overdose deaths, and opioid deaths by illicit drug use have increased dramatically [1].

One goal of North Carolina's Opioid Action Plan from June 2017 is to reduce the number of deaths from opioid overdose by 20% by 2021 [1]. County level mortality trends must be examined to effectively deploy resources to achieve this goal. This analysis characterizes the dynamics of the opioid epidemic with regard to heroin overdose deaths in North Carolina. The purpose of our analysis is to investigate whether there is variation in the pattern of heroin mortality among counties and identify counties within North Carolina that may be used to inform both potential solutions and areas of greatest need.

Calculating Opioid Overdose Mortality

We calculate and report the crude rate of death per 100,000 persons. Opioid poisoning deaths from 1999 to 2016 were obtained from the North Carolina Division of Public Health Injury and Violence Prevention Branch's county level poisoning data [2]. Our analysis primarily focuses on ICD-10 code T40.1 (heroin), but we include a comparison in some models to ICD codes T40.0-T40.4 (which includes methadone, opium, opioids, and other synthetics). Only unintentional deaths were included, which used the code X40—X44. Deaths were counted in county yearly totals with any mention of the above codes, thus it is possible that a single death could be counted multiple times if the medical examiner recorded the presence of multiple opioids.

We use intercensal population estimates from 1999 to 2015 as reported by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) [3]. For 2016, we use population estimates from the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management [4]. For our measure of rurality, we use the proportion of the population in a county identified as living in a rural area in 2010 by the US Census Bureau [5]. The US Census Bureau does not report this figure in non-census years. We use annually reported opioid prescriptions per person for each county from 2006 to 2016 obtained from the QuintilesIMS Transactional Data Warehouse [6]. Prescribing rates average 0.94 per person per year, with a range of 0 to 2.25.

Counties categorized as High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) are designated by the federal Drug Enforcement Agency due to significant illegal drug productivity, manufacturing, importation, or distribution [7]. All analyses were conducted using R. First, we use logistic models with random county effects (see Table 2). The models adjust for both the reported effects and allow rates in counties to correlate over time. We model trajectories with a discontinuity in 2010. In supplementary analyses, we found associations with certain demographic characteristics for opioid mortality rate (but not heroin mortality rate). We do not include these covariates in reported models because of the risk of ecological fallacy and collider bias [8].

Second, we use finite mixture models to classify counties based on different trajectories of heroin death rates. These models assign counties to classes of similar trajectories. We model crude heroin rates assuming a log-normal distribution with a cubic function for the year effect. Based on the Bayesian Information Criterion method, a 5-class solution is preferred. Differences in county level trajectories of heroin rates are identified in Figure 1b and the most probable class assignment by county is depicted in Figure 1a.

FIGURE 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1.

Classification of Counties by Changes in Unintentional Heroin Overdose Rate

Changes in Heroin Mortality Rate

Figure 1 shows the 5-class solution from a latent class mixture analysis. Counties are matched to classes with the most similar trajectories of heroin death rates between 1999 and 2016. Four counties (Brunswick, Gaston, New Hanover, and Vance) have the highest and most quickly increasing heroin rates. These counties, while geographically varied, display distinct patterns in the changes in heroin mortality rate from 2010 to 2016. Conversely, 29 counties (29%) have stable and low rates of heroin death. The rest of the counties have experienced increasing numbers of heroin death rates beginning in 2010 (see Figure 1). Refer to Table 1 for the descriptive statistics for each classification group and to the Supplementary Table for the names of counties listed in each group.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 1.

Descriptive Statistics for County Classifications

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 2.

Multivariable Associations of County-Level Characteristics with Heroin and Opioid Mortality Rates

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE.

Descriptive Statistics for County Classifications

Unlike commonly prescribed opioids, which are available and legal in every county, heroin and other illicit drugs may not be present in every county. Figure 2 shows the relative change in the heroin death rate by county in North Carolina. While the overall heroin death rate in the state has increased over 1000% since 2010, there are 29 counties where the rate of heroin deaths remained constant or decreased. On the other hand, there are 15 counties where the rate of heroin deaths increased by over 10 per 100,000 persons during this same time period.

FIGURE 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2.

Unintentional Heroin Mortality Rates by County in 2010 and 2016

In multivariate analysis, the county level increase in heroin mortality rate is significantly and inversely associated with rural population proportions (OR=0.23, CI=0.12-0.42). In other words, heroin mortality rate is growing fastest in the most urban areas of our state. The results from our logistic model with random effects are reported in Table 2. In contrast to the statistically significant association with rural population proportions, we do not find evidence of a relationship with prescription opioids per person or High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. This contrasts with the broader category of opioid death rates, where there is no association with rurality, and a positive association with prescription rates (OR=1.22, 95% CI=1.01 – 1.47).

Results

Across North Carolina, heroin death rates have increased 10-fold, but our analysis shows that the temporal dynamics and composition of these heroin death rates vary significantly from county to county. In addition, county level variation in unintentional heroin mortality rate is different from trends associated with other opioids. Unintentional heroin mortality rates show a significant relationship with areas of high population density, and an extremely rapid increase in rate.

The rapid increase in unintentional heroin mortality is consistent with national trends and reported through other data sources in North Carolina [9, 10]. Further, Dasgupta and colleagues analyzed the growing number of deaths from heroin overdose from 2007 to 2013 in North Carolina and found similar associations with urbanity as well as with age and race [10]. Identifying the causes for the increase in heroin mortality and geographic distribution requires further analysis. Previous research shows that during this time period, heroin supply has increased nationally and price is at an all-time low [11]. These factors, along with the increase of fentanyl and fentanyl analogues in the heroin supply, could be strong contributors to the observed increase in mortality. Since 2013, the CDC reported that half of the increase in heroin-involved deaths is attributable to increases in deaths involving use of both heroin and fentanyl [12].

The results of our study should be read in light of a few limitations. First, the data are aggregated from death certificates and are not mutually exclusive. Both individual-level data and data regarding burdens of the opioid crisis other than death (such as variations in emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and secondary problems from unsafe injection practices) could provide a more comprehensive picture of county level differences.

Despite these limitations, our analysis demonstrates the variation in the dynamics of unintentional heroin mortality patterns and suggests that interventions should be tailored to areas of need throughout the state. For example, in areas of high heroin mortality, resources related to safe injection practices and needle exchanges could help alleviate the spread of infections from Hepatitis C virus, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and from bacterial infections like endocarditis [13]. In all counties, however, there are treatment and harm reduction interventions that can be implemented regardless of the cause of the opioid overdose, such as increasing access to naloxone and evidence-based addiction treatment.

Conclusion

As a state, North Carolina has observed a 10-fold increase in unintentional heroin deaths from 2010 to 2016. Within this same time period, there were 4 counties in which the number of heroin deaths increased 13-fold. On the other end of the spectrum, however, more than a quarter of the counties showed close to 0 unintentional heroin deaths and no increases throughout the time period. We hope these findings spur future conversations about the factors that contribute to variation in county level mortality rates in order to identify the most appropriate protective interventions.

Acknowledgments

We thank the NC Injury and Violence Prevention Branch of the Division of Public Health for sharing data.

Financial support. Funding was provided through Duke University's Bass Connections in Brain & Society.

Potential conflicts of interest. All authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

  • ©2018 by the North Carolina Institute of Medicine and The Duke Endowment. All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
    North Carolina's Opioid Action Plan: 2017-2021, Version 1. Raleigh, NC. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services; 2017. https://www.ncdhhs.gov/opioids. Accessed February 15, 2018.
  2. ↵
    1. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
    Injury and Violence Prevention Branch: Poisoning Data. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services website. http://www.injuryfreenc.ncdhhs.gov/DataSurveillance/Poisoning.htm. Accessed February 10, 2018.
  3. ↵
    About Compressed Mortality, 1999-2016 Database. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2017; http://wonder.cdc.gov/cmf-icd10.html. Accessed January 20, 2018.
  4. ↵
    North Carolina County Estimates. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management; 2016; https://www.osbm.nc.gov/demog/county-estimates. Accessed February 10, 2018.
  5. ↵
    1. United States Census Bureau
    Urban and Rural, 2010 Census. United States Census Bureau website. https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/urban-rural.html. Accessed February 10, 2018.
  6. ↵
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    Prescribing Data-Drug Overdose. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/prescribing.html. Accessed February 10, 2018.
  7. ↵
    1. United States Drug Enforcement Agency
    High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. United States Drug Enforcement Agency website. https://www.dea.gov/ops/hidta.shtml. Accessed February 10, 2018.
  8. ↵
    1. Schisterman EF,
    2. Cole SR,
    3. Platt RW
    Overadjustment bias and unnecessary adjustment in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology. 2009;20(4):488-495.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Miller A,
    2. Winecker R
    Fentanyl and Heroin-Related Deaths in North Carolina. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Medical Examiner, Office of the Chief Medical Examiner; 2017.
  10. ↵
    1. Dasgupta N,
    2. Creppage K,
    3. Austin A,
    4. Ringwalt C,
    5. Sanford C,
    6. Proescholdbell SK
    Observed transition from opioid analgesic deaths toward heroin. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;145:238-241.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Ciccarone D
    Fentanyl in the US heroin supply: A rapidly changing risk environment. Int J Drug Policy. 2017;46:107-111.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. O'Donnell JK,
    2. Gladden RM,
    3. Seth P
    Trends in deaths involving heroin and synthetic opioids excluding methadone, and law enforcement drug product reports, by census region—United States, 2006–2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66(34):897-903.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Fleischauer AT,
    2. Ruhl L,
    3. Rhea S,
    4. Barnes E
    Hospitalizations for endocarditis and associated health care costs among persons with diagnosed drug dependence—North Carolina, 2010–2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66(22):569-573.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

North Carolina Medical Journal: 79 (3)
North Carolina Medical Journal
Vol. 79, Issue 3
May-June 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on North Carolina Medical Journal.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Running the Numbers
(Your Name) has sent you a message from North Carolina Medical Journal
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the North Carolina Medical Journal web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Running the Numbers
Alexander H Gunn, Bryce Bartlett, Grace Feng, Matthew Gayed, Katie Kanter, Erica Onuoha, Madeline Thornton, Andrew Muzyk, Nicole Schramm-Sapyta
North Carolina Medical Journal May 2018, 79 (3) 195-200; DOI: 10.18043/ncm.79.3.195

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Running the Numbers
Alexander H Gunn, Bryce Bartlett, Grace Feng, Matthew Gayed, Katie Kanter, Erica Onuoha, Madeline Thornton, Andrew Muzyk, Nicole Schramm-Sapyta
North Carolina Medical Journal May 2018, 79 (3) 195-200; DOI: 10.18043/ncm.79.3.195
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Calculating Opioid Overdose Mortality
    • Changes in Heroin Mortality Rate
    • Results
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgments
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • The Opioid Epidemic in NC: Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Policy Forum

  • Health Policy Gets Personal
  • Breaking the Cycle
  • Breaking the Cycle
Show more Policy Forum

DEPARTMENT

  • Spotlight on the Safety Net
  • Spotlight on the Safety Net
  • Spotlight on the Safety Net
Show more DEPARTMENT

Similar Articles

About & Contact

  • About the NCMJ
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback

Info for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers

Articles & Alerts

  • Archive
  • Current Issue
  • Get Alerts
  • Upcoming Articles

Additional Content

  • Current NCIOM Task Forces
  • NC Health Data & Resources
  • NCIOM Blog
North Carolina Medical Journal

ISSN: 0029-2559

© 2022 North Carolina Medical Journal

Powered by HighWire