RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Managing acute postoperative pain in patients on chronic opioid therapy is challenging. There is little data regarding optimal perioperative chronic opioid management. We hypothesized that continuing the home dose of opioid while inpatient following ventral hernia repair (VHR) would reduce total opioid consumption postoperatively. METHODS: Chronic opioid users were ordered their home opioid scheduled and our standard multimodal analgesia regimen. At time of discharge, we reviewed inpatient opioid use and prescribed opioids based on morphine milligram equivalent (MME) consumed per our established protocol. RESULTS: VHR was performed in 658 patients with 117 utilizing chronic opioid medications from June 2017 through March 2022; 43 patients were managed on protocol and 74 were not. Inpatient daily MME consumption was similar between groups (34 vs 36 MME; p â€‹= â€‹0.285). Patients treated according to protocol received significantly lower MME prescriptions at discharge (80 vs 225 MME; p â€‹< â€‹0.001) with similar refills (21.4 vs 25.4 â€‹%; p â€‹= â€‹0.820). CONCLUSION: Continuing home opioids for chronic opioid users following VHR resulted in less opioid prescribing with no increase in refills.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: How state opioid policy environments with multiple concurrent policies affect opioid prescribing to individuals with acute pain is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine how prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), pain management clinic regulations, initial prescription duration limits, and mandatory continued medical education affected total and high-dose prescribing. DESIGN: A county-level multiple-policy difference-in-difference event study framework. SUBJECTS: A total of 2,425,643 individuals in a large national commercial insurance deidentified claims database (aged 12-64 years) with acute pain diagnoses and opioid prescriptions from 2007 to 2019. MAIN MEASURES: The total number of acute pain opioid treatment episodes and number of episodes containing high-dose (> 90 morphine equivalent daily dosage (MEDD)) prescriptions. KEY RESULTS: Approximately 7.5% of acute pain episodes were categorized as high-dose episodes. Prescription duration limits were associated with increases in the number of total episodes; no other policy was found to have a significant impact. Beginning five quarters after implementation, counties in states with pain management clinic regulations experienced a sustained 50% relative decline in the number of episodes containing > 90 MEDD prescriptions (95 CIs: (Q5: - 0.506, - 0.144; Q12: - 1.000, - 0.290)). Mandated continuing medical education regarding the treatment of pain was associated with a 50-75% relative increase in number of high-dose episodes following the first year-and-a-half of enactment (95 CIs: (Q7: 0.351, 0.869; Q12: 0.413, 1.107)). Initial prescription duration limits were associated with an initial relative reduction of 25% in high-dose prescribing, with the effect increasing over time (95 CI: (Q12: - 0.967, - 0.335). There was no evidence that PDMPs affected high-dose opioids dispensed to individuals with acute pain. Other high-risk prescribing indicators were explored as well; no consistent policy impacts were found. CONCLUSIONS: State opioid policies may have differential effects on high-dose opioid dispensing in individuals with acute pain. Policymakers should consider effectiveness of individual policies in the presence of other opioid policies to address the ongoing opioid crisis.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic and nonopioid therapies as first-line pain treatment for acute pain. However, little is known about their utilization generally and among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) for whom opioid and other pharmacologic therapies carry greater risk of harm. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between a pre-existing OUD diagnosis and treatment of acute low back pain (aLBP). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using 2016-2019 Medicare data. PARTICIPANTS: Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with a new episode of aLBP. MAIN MEASURES: The main independent variable was OUD diagnosis measured prior to the first LBP claim (i.e., index date). Using multivariable logistic regressions, we assessed the following outcomes measured within 30 days of the index date: (1) nonpharmacologic therapies (physical therapy and/or chiropractic care), and (2) prescription opioids. Among opioid recipients, we further assessed opioid dose and co-prescription of gabapentin. Analyses were conducted overall and stratified by receipt of physical therapy, chiropractic care, opioid fills, or gabapentin fills during the 6 months before the index date. KEY RESULTS: We identified 1,263,188 beneficiaries with aLBP, of whom 3.0% had OUD. Two-thirds (65.8%) did not receive pain treatments of interest at baseline. Overall, nonpharmacologic therapy receipt was less prevalent and opioid and nonopioid pharmacologic therapies were more common among beneficiaries with OUD than those without OUD. Beneficiaries with OUD had lower odds of receiving nonpharmacologic therapies (aOR = 0.62, 99%CI = 0.58-0.65) and higher odds of prescription opioid receipt (aOR = 2.24, 99%CI = 2.17-2.32). OUD also was significantly associated with increased odds of opioid doses ≥ 90 morphine milligram equivalents/day (aOR = 2.43, 99%CI = 2.30-2.56) and co-prescription of gabapentin (aOR = 1.15, 99%CI = 1.09-1.22). Similar associations were observed in stratified groups though magnitudes differed. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries with aLBP and OUD underutilized nonpharmacologic pain therapies and commonly received opioids at high doses and with gabapentin. Complementing the promulgation of practice guidelines with implementation science could improve the uptake of evidence-based nonpharmacologic therapies for aLBP.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: (1) Describe short and long-term opioid prescribing patterns and variation after common otolaryngologic procedures and (2) assess risk factors for chronic opioid use in this cohort. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Optum's deidentified Integrated Claims-Clinical data set. METHODS: An adult cohort of patients undergoing common otolaryngology procedures from 2010 to 2017 was identified. Associations between procedure and other covariates with any initial opioid prescription and continuous opioid prescriptions were assessed with multivariable modeling. Opioid use was defined as continuous if a new prescription was filled within 30 days of the previous prescription. A time-to-event analysis assessed continuous prescriptions from the index procedure to end of the last continuous opioid prescription. RESULTS: Among a cohort of 19,819 patients undergoing predominately laryngoscopy procedures (12,721, 64.2%), 2585 (13.0%) received an opioid prescription with variation in receiving a prescription, daily dose, and total initially prescribed dose varying by procedure, patient demographics, provider characteristics, and facility type. Opioids were prescribed most frequently after tonsillectomy (45.4%) and least frequently after laryngoscopy with interventions (3.9%), which persisted in the multivariable models. Overall rates of continuous use at 180 and 360 days were 0.48% and 0.27%, respectively. Among patients receiving an initial opioid prescription, maintaining continuous prescriptions was associated with tonsillectomy procedures, age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.997 per year, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.993-0.999), opioid prescriptions 6 months preprocedure (aHR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.37-0.47), and nonotolaryngology initial prescribers (aHRs: <1, P < .05). CONCLUSION: There is substantial variation in initial prescribing practices and continuous opioid prescriptions after common Otolaryngology procedures, but the overall rate of maintaining a continuous prescription starting after these procedures is very low. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer-related pain are at high risk for aberrant drug use behaviors (ADB), including self-escalation, diversion and concurrent illicit substance or opioid misuse; however, limited evidence is available to guide opioid prescribing for patients with life-limiting illness and concurrent or suspected ADB. We sought to characterize how specialists evaluate for and manage these high-risk behaviors in patients with cancer-related pain. METHODS: We conducted telephonic semi-structured interviews with palliative care and pain medicine providers. Participants discussed their own comfort and experience level with identifying and managing ADB in patients with life-limiting illness. They were subsequently presented with a series of standardized scenarios and asked to describe their concerns and management strategies. RESULTS: 95 interdisciplinary pain and palliative care specialists were contacted; 37 agreed to participate (38.9%). Analysis of interview contents revealed several central themes: (1) widespread discomfort and anxiety regarding safe and compassionate opioid prescribing for high-risk patients, (2) belief that widely used risk-mitigation tools such as opioid contracts and urine drug screens provided inadequate support for decision-making, and (3) lack of institutional and organizational support and guidance for safe prescribing strategies. Most clinicians reported self-education regarding addiction and alternative prescribing/pain management strategies. Providers varied widely in their willingness to discontinue opioid prescribing in a patient with aberrant behavior and pain associated with life-limiting illness. CONCLUSION: Providers caring for patients demonstrating ADB and cancer-related pain struggle to balance safe prescribing with symptom management. Increased guidance is needed regarding opioid prescribing, monitoring, and discontinuation in high-risk patients.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) have been widely adopted as a tool to address the prescription opioid epidemic in the United States. PDMP integration and mandatory use policies are 2 approaches states have implemented to increase use of PDMPs by prescribers. While the effectiveness of these approaches is mixed, it is unclear what factors motivated states to implement them. This study examines whether opioid dispensing, adverse health outcomes, or other non-health-related factors motivated implementation of these PDMP approaches. METHODS: Time-to-event analysis was performed using lagged state-year covariates to reflect values from the year prior. Extended Cox regression estimated the association of states' rates of opioid dispensing, prescription opioid overdose deaths, and neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome with implementation of PDMP integration and mandatory use policies from 2009 to 2020, controlling for demographic and economic factors, state government and political factors, and prior opioid policies. RESULTS: In our main model, prior opioid dispensing (HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.17, 4.57), neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome hospitalizations (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.09, 2.19), and number of prior opioid policies (HR 2.13, 95% CI 1.13, 4.00) were associated with mandatory use policies. Prior prescription opioid overdose deaths (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.08, 1.35) were also associated with mandatory use policies in a model that did not include opioid dispensing or neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome. No study variables were associated with implementation of PDMP integration. CONCLUSION: Understanding state-level factors associated with implementing PDMP approaches can provide insights into factors that motivate the adoption of future public health interventions.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Current evidence supports that many patients do not use prescribed opioids following reconstructive pelvic surgery, yet it remains unclear if it is feasible to eliminate routine opioid prescriptions without a negative impact on patients or providers. OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is a difference in the proportion of patients discharged without opioids after implementing a bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol compared to usual care after minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery (transvaginal, laparoscopic, or robotic). Secondary objectives include measures of patient-perceived pain control and provider workload. STUDY DESIGN: The bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol intervention was implemented as a division-wide evidence-based practice change on August 1, 2022. This retrospective cohort compares a 6-month postintervention (bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol) cohort to 6-month preintervention (usual care) of patients undergoing minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery. A 3-month washout period was observed after bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol initiation. We excluded patients <18 years, failure to consent to research, combined surgery with other specialties, urge urinary incontinence or urinary retention procedures alone, and minor procedures not typically requiring opioids. Primary outcome was measured by proportion discharged without opioids and total oral morphine equivalents prescribed. Pain control was measured by pain scores, postdischarge prescriptions and refills, phone calls and visits related to pain, and satisfaction with pain control. Provider workload was demonstrated by phone calls and postdischarge prescription refills. Data were obtained through chart review on all patients who met inclusion criteria. Primary analysis only included patients prescribed opioids according to the bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol protocol. Two sample t tests compared continuous variables and chi-square tests compared categorical variables. RESULTS: Four hundred sixteen patients were included in the primary analysis (207 bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol, 209 usual care). Baseline demographics were similar between groups, except a lower proportion of irritable bowel syndrome (13% vs 23%; P<.01) and pelvic pain (15% vs 24.9%; P=.01), and higher history of prior gynecologic surgery (69.1% vs 58.4%; P=.02) in the bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort. The bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort was more likely to be discharged without opioids (68.1% vs 10.0%; P<.01). In those prescribed opioids, total oral morphine equivalents on discharge was significantly lower in the bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort (48.1 vs 81.8; P<.01). The bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort had a 20.6 greater odds (confidence interval 11.4, 37.1) of being discharged without opioids after adjusting for surgery type, arthritis/joint pain, IBS, pelvic pain, and contraindication to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort was also less likely to receive a rescue opioid prescription after discharge (1.4% vs 9.5%; P=.03). There were no differences in opioid prescription refills (19.7% vs 18.1%; P=.77), emergency room visits for pain (3.4% vs 2.9%; P=.76), postoperative pain scores (mean 4.7 vs 4.0; P=.07), or patient satisfaction with pain control (81.5% vs 85.6%; P=.21). After bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol implementation, the proportion of postoperative phone calls for pain also decreased (12.6% vs 21.5%; P=.02). Similar results were identified when nonadherent prescribing was included in the analysis. CONCLUSION: A bundle of evidence-based opioid sparing strategies and tiered prescribing based on inpatient use increases the proportion of patients discharged without opioids after minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery without evidence of uncontrolled pain or increased provider workload.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: The opioid epidemic is a public health crisis. However, opioid prescription recommendations have not been established in gynecological oncology, and guidelines that incorporate patient-reported pain are lacking. Objectives: The article aims to evaluate prescribing patterns, utilization, and patient-reported pain control in gynecological oncology patients at a large tertiary academic center. Methods: This was a two-phase, prospective cohort study. For Phase 1, patients undergoing hysterectomy through the gynecological oncology division at the University of New Mexico were enrolled. Postoperative opioid use was collected and standardized to oral morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). The factors associated with outpatient opioid use were used to develop an opioid prescription algorithm. In Phase 2, we evaluated the implementation of the prescription algorithm. For both phases, patients completed a demographic survey, satisfaction survey, and validated pain questionnaires. Results: In Phase 1, the amount of opioids used was significantly lower than the amount of opioids prescribed. Factors that correlated with postoperative opioid use included surgical procedures and last 24-hour inpatient MME use. A standardized opioid prescription algorithm was developed by incorporating these factors. In Phase 2, the opioid prescribing algorithm there was no significant difference in pain scores between the two phases. Conclusions: Opioids were substantially overprescribed in gynecological oncology patients undergoing hysterectomy. Our study found that the surgical route and last 24-hour MME inpatient usage were reliable predictors of outpatient opioid use. We developed and implemented a standardized opioid prescription algorithm that was validated by comparing the pain control measures in the two phases.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: In drug studies, research designs requiring no prior exposure to certain drug classes may restrict important populations. Since abuse-deterrent formulations (ADF) of opioids are routinely prescribed after other opioids, choice of study design, identification of appropriate comparators, and addressing confounding by "indication" are important considerations in ADF post-marketing studies. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study using claims data (2006-2018) from a North Carolina private insurer [NC claims] and Merative MarketScan [MarketScan], we identified patients (18-64 years old) initiating ADF or non-ADF extended-release/long-acting (ER/LA) opioids. We compared patient characteristics and described opioid treatment history between treatment groups, classifying patients as traditional (no opioid claims during prior six-month washout period) or prevalent new users. RESULTS: We identified 8415 (NC claims) and 147 978 (MarketScan) ADF, and 10 114 (NC claims) and 232 028 (MarketScan) non-ADF ER/LA opioid initiators. Most had prior opioid exposure (ranging 64%-74%), and key clinical differences included higher prevalence of recent acute or chronic pain and surgery among patients initiating ADFs compared to non-ADF ER/LA initiators. Concurrent immediate-release opioid prescriptions at initiation were more common in prevalent new users than traditional new users. CONCLUSIONS: Careful consideration of the study design, comparator choice, and confounding by "indication" is crucial when examining ADF opioid use-related outcomes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: In response to the opioid epidemic, a multitude of policy and clinical-guideline based interventions were launched to combat physician overprescribing. However, the sudden rise of the Covid-19 pandemic disrupted all aspects of healthcare delivery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how opioid prescribing patterns changed during the Covid-19 pandemic within a large multispecialty orthopedic practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of 1,048,559 patient encounters from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2022 at a single orthopedic practice was performed. Primary outcomes were the percent of encounters with opioids prescribed and total morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) per opioid prescription. Differences in outcomes were assessed by calendar year. Encounters were then divided into two groups: pre-Covid (1/1/2019-2/29/2020) and Covid (3/1/2020-12/31/2022). Univariate analyses were used to evaluate differences in diagnoses and outcomes between periods. Multivariate analysis was performed to assess changes in outcomes during Covid after controlling for differences in diagnoses. Statistical significance was assessed at p < 0.05. RESULTS: The percentage of encounters with opioids prescribed decreased from a high of 4.0% in 2015 to a low of 1.6% in 2021 and 2022 (p < 0.001). MMEs per prescription decreased from 283.6 ± 213.2 in 2015 to a low of 138.6 ± 100.4 in 2019 (p < 0.001). After adjusting for diagnoses, no significant differences in either opioid prescribing rates (post-COVID OR = 0.997, p = 0.893) or MMEs (post-COVID ß = 2.726, p = 0.206) were observed between the pre- and post-COVID periods. CONCLUSION: During the Covid-19 pandemic opioid prescribing levels remained below historical averages. While continued efforts are needed to minimize opioid overprescribing, it appears that the significant progress made toward this goal was not lost during the pandemic era.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Although substantial attention has been given to opioid prescribing in the United States, opioid-related mortality continues to climb due to the rising incidence and prevalence of opioid use disorder. Perioperative care has an important role in the consideration of opioid prescribing and the care of individuals at risk for poor postoperative pain- and opioid-related outcomes. Opioids are effective for acute pain management and commonly prescribed for postoperative pain. However, failure to align prescribing with patient need can result in overprescribing and exacerbate the flow of unused opioids into communities. Conversely, underprescribing can result in the undertreatment of pain, complicating recovery and impairing well-being after surgery. Optimizing pain management can be particularly challenging for individuals who are previously exposed to opioids or have critical risk factors, including opioid use disorder. In this review, we will explore the role of perioperative care in the broader context of the opioid epidemic in the United States, and provide considerations for a multidisciplinary, comprehensive approach to perioperative pain management and optimal opioid stewardship.

RESUMEN

John D Loeser speaks to Thomas York, Journal Development Editor of Pain Management. John D Loeser is Professor, emeritus, of Neurological Surgery and Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine at the University of Washington where he has been a faculty member since 1969. He was the Director of the Multidisciplinary Pain Center at the University of Washington from 1983 to 1997. He has been active in research, teaching and patient care in the field of Pain Management for over 45 years. He was a founding member and served as president of the American Pain Society and the International Association for the Study of Pain. He has authored or co-authored over 400 peer-reviewed articles, 129 book chapters and 8 books. He is particularly interested in multidisciplinary pain management and the development of rational strategies for the treatment of patients with chronic pain.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate whether voluntary and mandatory prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) use in Victoria, Australia, had an impact on prescribing behaviour, focusing on individual patients' prescribed opioid doses and transition to prescribing of nonmonitored medications. METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study using routinely collected primary healthcare data. A 90-day moving average prescribed opioid dose in oral morphine equivalents was used to estimate opioid dosage. A Markov transition matrix was used to describe how patients prescribed medications transitioned between opioid dose groups and other nonopioid treatment options during 3 transition periods: transition between 2 control periods prior to PDMP implementation (T1 to T2); during the voluntary PDMP implementation (T2 to T3); and during mandatory PDMP implementation (T3 to T4). RESULTS: Among patients prescribed opioids in our study, we noted an increased probability of transitioning to not being prescribed opioids during the mandatory PDMP period (T3 to T4). This increase was attributed mainly to the ceasing of low-dose opioid prescribing. Membership in an opioid dose group remained relatively stable for most patients who were prescribed high opioid doses. For those who were only prescribed nonmonitored medications initially, the probability of being prescribed opioids increased during the mandatory PDMP when compared to other transition periods. CONCLUSION: The introduction of PDMP mandates appeared to have an impact on the prescribing for patients who were prescribed low-dose opioids, while its impact on individuals prescribed higher opioid doses was comparatively limited.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Disparities in opioid prescribing among racial and ethnic groups have been observed in outpatient and emergency department settings, but it is unknown whether similar disparities exist at discharge among hospitalized older adults. OBJECTIVE: To determine filled opioid prescription rates on hospital discharge by race/ethnicity among Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older discharged from hospital in 2016, without opioid fills in the 90 days prior to hospitalization (opioid-naïve). MAIN MEASURES: Race/ethnicity was categorized by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI), grouped as Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic, other (American Indian/Alaska Native/unknown/other), and White. The primary outcome was an opioid prescription claim within 2 days of hospital discharge. The secondary outcome was total morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) among adults with a filled opioid prescription. KEY RESULTS: Among 316,039 previously opioid-naïve beneficiaries (mean age, 76.8 years; 56.2% female), 49,131 (15.5%) filled an opioid prescription within 2 days of hospital discharge. After adjustment, Black beneficiaries were 6% less likely (relative risk [RR] 0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.97) and Asian/Pacific Islander beneficiaries were 9% more likely (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03-1.14) to have filled an opioid prescription when compared to White beneficiaries. Among beneficiaries with a filled opioid prescription, mean total MMEs were lower among Black (356.9; adjusted difference - 4%, 95% CI - 7 to - 1%), Hispanic (327.0; adjusted difference - 7%, 95% CI - 10 to - 4%), and Asian/Pacific Islander (328.2; adjusted difference - 8%, 95% CI - 12 to - 4%) beneficiaries when compared to White beneficiaries (409.7). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Black older adults were less likely to fill a new opioid prescription after hospital discharge when compared to White older adults and received lower total MMEs. The factors contributing to these differential prescribing patterns should be investigated further.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

This study aimed to examine the association between different contextual factors (e.g., facility size, rurality, and perceived needs) and the adoption of a policy or strategy related to opioid prescribing practices in healthcare settings. Cross-sectional survey data was collected from a convenience sample of physicians (N = 68). Logistic regression models were used to examine the effects of contextual factors on the dependent variables. Less than half reported having a policy restricting opioid prescribing practices, and 81% reported having one or more strategies for the safe use of chronic opioid therapy. After adjusting for other contextual factors, small practice size was positively associated with having a policy restricting opioid prescribing practices. This exploratory study provides insights for further investigation of how various contextual factors can influence policy adoption in different healthcare settings and practices to address major public health threats.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The purpose of this review is to discuss important considerations when prescribing buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD) in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting, recognizing the challenges of providing detailed recommendations in the setting of limited available evidence. SUMMARY: Buprenorphine is a partial mu-opioid receptor agonist that is likely to be increasingly prescribed for OUD in the ICU setting due to the relaxation of prescribing regulations. The pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of buprenorphine are complicated by the availability of several formulations that can be given by different administration routes. There is no single optimal dosing strategy for buprenorphine induction, with regimens ranging from very low-dose to high dose regimens. Faster induction with higher doses of buprenorphine has been studied and is frequently utilized in the emergency department. In patients admitted to the ICU who were receiving opioids either medically or illicitly, analgesia will not occur until their baseline opioid requirements are covered when their preadmission opioid is either reversed or interrupted. For patients in the ICU who are not on buprenorphine at the time of admission but have possible OUD, there are no validated tools to diagnose OUD or the severity of opioid withdrawal in critically ill patients unable to provide the subjective components of instruments validated in outpatient settings. When prescribing buprenorphine in the ICU, important issues to consider include dosing, monitoring, pain management, use of adjunctive medications, and considerations to transition to outpatient therapy. Ideally, addiction and pain management specialists would be available when buprenorphine is prescribed for critically ill patients. CONCLUSION: There are unique challenges when prescribing buprenorphine for OUD in critically ill patients, regardless of whether they were receiving buprenorphine when admitted to the ICU setting for OUD or are under consideration for buprenorphine initiation. There is a critical need for more research in this area.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Prescription opioids, including those prescribed after surgery, have greatly contributed to the US opioid epidemic. Educating opioid prescribers is a crucial component of ensuring the safe use of opioids among surgical patients. METHODS: An annual opioid prescribing education curriculum was implemented among new surgical prescribers at our institution between 2017 and 2022. The curriculum includes a single 75-min session which is comprised of several components: pain medications (dosing, indications, and contraindications); patients at high risk for uncontrolled pain and/or opioid misuse or abuse; patient monitoring and care plans; and state and federal regulations. Participants were asked to complete an opioid knowledge assessment before and after the didactic session. RESULTS: Presession and postsession assessments were completed by 197 (89.6%) prescribers. Across the five studied years, the median presession score was 54.5%. This increased to 63.6% after completion of the curriculum, representing a median relative knowledge increase of 18.2%. The median relative improvement was greatest for preinterns and interns (18.2% for both groups); smaller improvements were observed for postgraduate year 2-5 residents (9.1%) and advanced practice providers (9.1%). On a scale of 1 to 10 (with 5 being comfortable), median (interquartile range) self-reported comfort in prescribing opioids increased from 3 (2-5) before education to 5 (4-6) after education (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Each year, the curriculum substantially improved provider knowledge of and comfort in opioid prescribing. Despite increased national awareness of the opioid epidemic and increasing institutional initiatives to improve opioid prescribing practices, there was a sustained knowledge and comfort gap among new surgical prescribers. The observed effects of our opioid education curriculum highlight the value of a simple and efficient educational initiative.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain cautioned that inflexible opioid prescription duration limits may harm patients. Information about the relationship between initial opioid prescription duration and a subsequent refill could inform prescribing policies and practices to optimize patient outcomes. We assessed the association between initial opioid duration and an opioid refill prescription. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults ≥19 years of age in 10 US health systems between 2013 and 2018 from outpatient care with a diagnosis for back pain without radiculopathy, back pain with radiculopathy, neck pain, joint pain, tendonitis/bursitis, mild musculoskeletal pain, severe musculoskeletal pain, urinary calculus, or headache. Generalized additive models were used to estimate the association between opioid days' supply and a refill prescription. RESULTS: Overall, 220,797 patients were prescribed opioid analgesics upon an outpatient visit for pain. Nearly a quarter (23.5%) of the cohort received an opioid refill prescription during follow-up. The likelihood of a refill generally increased with initial duration for most pain diagnoses. About 1 to 3 fewer patients would receive a refill within 3 months for every 100 patients initially prescribed 3 vs. 7 days of opioids for most pain diagnoses. The lowest likelihood of refill was for a 1-day supply for all pain diagnoses, except for severe musculoskeletal pain (9 days' supply) and headache (3-4 days' supply). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term prescription opioid use increased modestly with initial opioid prescription duration for most but not all pain diagnoses examined.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background and Objectives: Opioid overprescribing in patients undergoing breast surgery is a concern, as evidence suggests that minimal or no opioid is needed to manage pain. We sought to describe characteristics of opioid prescribers and determine associations between prescriber's characteristics and high opioid prescribing within 7 days of same-day breast surgery. Methods: Patients ≥18 years of age who underwent same-day breast surgery in Ontario, Canada from 2012 to 2020 were identified and linked to prescriber data. The primary outcome was current high opioid prescribing defined as >75th percentile of the mean oral morphine equivalents (OME; milligrams). Prescriber characteristics including age, sex, specialty, years in practice, practice setting, and history of high (>75th percentile) opioid prescribing in the previous year were captured. Associations between prescriber characteristics and the primary outcome were estimated in modified Poisson regression models. Results: The final cohort contained 56,434 patients, 3469 unique prescribers, and 58,656 prescriptions. Over half (1971/3469; 57%) of prescribers wrote ≥1 prescription that was >75th percentile of mean OME of 180 mg, of which 50% were family practice physicians. Adjusted mean OMEs prescribed varied by specialty with family practice specialties prescribing the highest mean OME (614 ± 38 mg) compared to surgical specialties (general surgery [165 ± 9 mg], plastic surgery [198 ± 10 mg], surgical oncology [154 ± 14 mg]). Whereas 73% of first and 31% of second prescriptions were provided by general surgery physicians, family practice physicians provided 2% of first and 51% of second prescriptions. Prescriber characteristics associated with a higher likelihood of high current opioid prescribing were family practice (risk ratio [RR], 1.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-1.79 compared to general surgery), larger community practice setting (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.05-1.71 compared to urban), and a previous high opioid prescribing behavior (RR, 2.28; 95% CI, 2.06-2.52). Conclusions: While most studies examine surgeon opioid prescribing, our data suggest that other specialties contribute to opioid overprescribing in surgical patients and identify characteristics of physicians likely to overprescribe.

RESUMEN

Objective: Balancing surgical pain management and opioid stewardship is complex. Identifying patient-level variables associated with low or no use can inform tailored prescribing. Methods: A prospective, observational study investigating surgical procedures, prescription data, and patient-reported outcomes at an academic health system in Pennsylvania. Surgical patients were consented following surgery, and prospective data were captured using automated text messaging (May 1, 2021-February 29, 2022). The primary outcome was opioid use. Results: Three thousand six hundred three (30.2%) patients consented. Variation in patient reported used included 28.1% of men reported zero use versus 24.3% of women, 20.5% of Black patients reported zero use versus 27.2% of white patients. Opioid-naïve patients reported more zero use as compared with chronic use (29.7% vs 9.8%). Patients reporting higher use had more telephone calls and office visits within 30 days but no change in emergency department utilization or admissions. Higher discharge pain score was associated with higher use. In the adjusted analysis, opioid use relative to the guideline, higher use was associated with age, male sex, obesity, discharge pain score, and history of mental health disorder. In the adjusted model, younger age and being opioid-naïve to be associated with low to zero use across procedures. Conclusions: Younger age, being opioid-naïve, and lower discharge pain score are associated with low or no postoperative opioid use. These characteristics can be used by clinicians to help tailor opioid prescribing to specific patients to reduce the risk of prolonged exposure and unused `ts in the community.