Analgesic Prescription Research Articles

Nonmedical Opioid Use After Short-term Therapeutic Exposure in Children: A Systematic Review

Opioid-related harms continue to rise for children and youth. Analgesic prescribing decisions are challenging because the risk for future nonmedical opioid use or disorder is unclear. To synthesize research examining the association between short-term therapeutic opioid exposure and future nonmedical opioid use or opioid use disorder and associated risk factors. We searched 11 electronic databases. Two reviewers screened studies. Studies were included if: they were published in English or French, participants had short-term (≤14 days) or an unknown duration of therapeutic exposure to opioids before 18 years, and reported opioid use disorder or misuse. Data were extracted, and methodologic quality was assessed by 2 reviewers. Data were summarized narratively. We included 21 observational studies (49 944 602 participants). One study demonstrated that short-term therapeutic exposure may be associated with opioid abuse; 4 showed an association between medical and nonmedical opioid use without specifying duration of exposure. Other studies reported on prevalence or incidence of nonmedical use after medical exposure to opioids. Risk factors were contradictory and remain unclear. Most studies did not specify duration of exposure and were of low methodologic quality, and participants might not have been opioid naïve. Some studies suggest an association between lifetime therapeutic opioid use and nonmedical opioid use. Given the lack of clear evidence regarding short-term therapeutic exposure, health care providers should carefully evaluate pain management options and educate patients and caregivers about safe, judicious, and appropriate use of opioids and potential signs of misuse.

Serious opioid-related adverse outcomes associated with opioids prescribed by dentists.

Although nonsteroidal anti inflammatory drugs are superior to opioids in dental pain management, opioids are still prescribed for dental pain in the United States. Little is known about the serious adverse outcomes of short-acting opioids within the context of dental prescribing. The objective of this study was to evaluate adverse outcomes and persistent opioid use (POU) after opioid prescriptions by dentists, based on whether opioids were overprescribed or within recommendations. A cross-sectional analysis of adults with a dental visit and corresponding opioid prescription (index) from 2011 to 2018 within a nationwide commercial claims database was conducted. Opioid overprescribing was defined as >120 morphine milligram equivalents per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines. Generalized estimating equation models were used to assess adverse outcomes (emergency department visits, hospitalizations, newly diagnosed substance use disorder, naloxone administration, or death within 30 days from index) and POU (≥1 prescription 4-90 days postindex). Predicted probabilities are reported. Of 633,387 visits, 2.6% experienced an adverse outcome and 16.6% had POU. Adverse outcome risk was not different whether opioids were overprescribed or within recommendations (predicted probability 9.0%, confidence interval [CI]: 8.0%-10.2% vs 9.1%, CI: 8.1-10.3), but POU was higher when opioids were overprescribed (predicted probability 27.4%, CI: 26.1%-28.8% vs 25.2%, CI: 24.0%-26.5%). Visits associated with mild pain and those with substance use disorders had the highest risk of both outcomes. Findings from this study demonstrate that dental prescribing of opioids was associated with adverse outcomes and POU, even when prescriptions were concordant with guidelines. Additional efforts are required to improve analgesic prescribing in dentistry, especially in groups at high risk of opioid-related adverse outcomes.

Analgesic prescribing in patients with inflammatory arthritis in England: an observational study using electronic healthcare record data.

ObjectivesInternational data suggest inflammatory arthritis (IA) pain management frequently involves opioid prescribing, despite little evidence of efficacy, and potential harms. We evaluated analgesic prescribing in English National Health Service-managed patients with IA.MethodsRepeated cross-sectional analyses in the Consultations in Primary Care Archive (primary care consultation and prescription data in nine general practices from 2000 to 2015) evaluated the annual prevalence of analgesic prescriptions in: (i) IA cases (RA, PsA or axial spondyloarthritis [SpA]), and (ii) up to five age-, sex- and practice-matched controls. Analgesic prescriptions were classified into basic, opioids, gabapentinoids and oral NSAIDs, and sub-classified into chronic and intermittent (≥3 and 1–2 prescriptions per calendar year, respectively).ResultsIn 2000, there were 594 cases and 2652 controls, rising to 1080 cases and 4703 controls in 2015. In all years, most (65.3–78.5%) cases received analgesics, compared with fewer (37.5–41.1%) controls. Opioid prescribing in cases fell between 2000 and 2015 but remained common with 45.4% (95% CI: 42.4%, 48.4%) and 32.9% (95% CI: 29.8%, 36.0%) receiving at least 1 and ≥3 opioid prescriptions, respectively, in 2015. Gabapentinoid prescription prevalence in cases increased from 0% in 2000 to 9.5% (95% CI: 7.9%, 11.4%) in 2015, and oral NSAID prescription prevalence fell from 53.7% (95% CI: 49.6%, 57.8%) in 2000 to 25.0% (95% CI: 22.4%, 27.7%) in 2015. Across years, analgesic prescribing was commoner in RA than PsA/axial SpA, and 1.7–2.0 times higher in cases than controls.ConclusionsAnalgesic prescribing in IA is common. This is at variance with existing evidence of analgesic efficacy and risks, and guidelines. Interventions are needed to improve analgesic prescribing in this population.

99 ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF PAIN IN OLDER ADULTS WITH ACUTE FRACTURE ADMITTED UNDER AN ORTHOPAEDIC SERVICE

Abstract Background Older adults with acute fractures often have suboptimal pain control, in particular those with cognitive impairment. Effective pain management improves rehabilitation engagement and earlier discharge from acute care. Our study aimed to evaluate pain management of older adults with acute fracture admitted under an orthopaedic service in a tertiary hospital. Methods Prospective review of patients over 65 years with an acute fracture admitted under an orthopaedic service. Review of chart, medication prescription and pain status. Data included type of fracture, comorbidities, cognitive status and analgesia prescribed. Data analysed using Excel. Results 40 inpatients included. Median age 82 years (range 65-93 years), 70% female. 53% had cognitive impairment, ranging from mild to severe dementia. 75% had >5 regular medications pre-admission. 80% had >5 comorbidities. Two-thirds (73%) had an acute hip fracture. Most (80%) inpatients had a surgical intervention, the remaining were managed conservatively. Analgesia prescriptions included paracetamol for almost all patients (95%), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for 3 (8%) and regular opioids in only 3 (8%). 43% of patients reported pain at time of data collection. 13% had analgesia changed in the 24 hours beforehand. Pain adversely affected function in 205 and mobility in 28%. 2 patients were unable to verbalise pain however no pain scales or visual assessments were used. Documentation of pain assessment was best by nurses (100%) followed by doctors (60%) and allied health professionals (40%). Conclusion Older adults with acute fracture are often multimorbid with cognitive impairment. This patient population are often untreated for pain with suboptimal pain assessment and analgesia review or prescriptions. Consequently we developed a pain policy for use on our orthopaedic service as a guide for effective pain assessment and management for older adults with acute fracture.

Prospective Prescription Review System Promotes Safe Use of Analgesics, Improves Clinical Outcomes, and Saves Medical Costs in Surgical Patients: Insights from Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital

IntroductionThe rate of awareness of prospective prescription review for inpatient prescriptions remains low, and no study has evaluated prospective prescription review systems among hospitalized patients. In this study we evaluate the effect of a prospective prescription review system on the use of analgesics, clinical outcomes, and medical costs in hospitalized patients who underwent surgery.MethodsA single-center, real-world study was conducted retrospectively at Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing, China. Patient data were extracted from the medical records, before (June 2016–May 2017) and after (June 2018–May 2019) prescription review system implementation. The primary outcome was proportion of prescriptions of analgesics with potential risks. The secondary outcomes included prescription of opioids or non-opioids, usage of medications to manage analgesics-related adverse events, clinical outcomes, and medical costs. Propensity score matching was used to balance the cohort of patients before and after implementation of the prescription review system.ResultsA total of 28,150 inpatients were included for study analysis. After implementation of the prescription review system, the proportion of prescriptions of analgesics with potential risk was significantly reduced (6.3% vs 26.1%, P < 0.05). A significant decrease was observed in the proportion of patients prescribed opioids (24.3% vs 27.5%, P < 0.001) and tramadol (4.7% vs 12.1%, P < 0.001). There was a significant decrease in prescription of antiemetics (21.8% vs 34.1%, P < 0.001) and cathartics (38.4% vs 50.6%, P < 0.001) which were used in the management of opioid-related adverse events. There was a decreased length of stay in hospital [median (Q1, Q3) 10 (6, 17) vs 11 (7, 18), P < 0.01)] with similar readmission rates within 30 days post discharge (1.0% vs 0.8%, P = 0.099).ConclusionsThe introduction of the prescription review system was associated with safer prescribing, including a reduction in prescriptions of analgesics with potential risk and necessity of medication to manage analgesics-related adverse events, which resulted in better clinical outcomes and cost saving.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01935-z.

General practitioner prescribing trends among pediatric patients in the United Kingdom: 1998-2018.

To describe the prescribing trends of 17 therapeutic drug categories and the specific drug classes of systemic antibiotics, analgesics, and antidepressants in children and adolescents in the United Kingdom between 1998 and 2018. A population-based retrospective cohort study including children and adolescents aged 018 years. Overall and annual prescription rates per 10 000 person-years and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Rate ratios and 95% CIs were calculated to assess changes in prescription rates during the study period using Poisson regression. Among 4 075 527 children and adolescents during the study period from 1998 to 2018, the prescribing rates increased by 15% for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder drugs (rate ratio: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.12-1.18), 14% for anxiolytics and hypnotics (rate ratio: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.13-1.16), and 8% for drugs for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (rate ratio: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.07-1.09). Prescribing rates decreased by 6% for cough preparations (rate ratio: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.92-0.95) and by 3% for analgesics (rate ratio: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.96-0.99). No meaningful changes were observed for systemic antibiotics (rate ratio: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.99-1.04). Among specific drug classes, prescribing rates decreased for broad-spectrum penicillins and cephalosporins, and they increased for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, opioids, and drugs for migraine. Between 1998 and 2018, the prescribing of centrally acting drugs and drugs for GERD increased among pediatric patients, whereas prescribing of cough preparations and analgesics declined in this population.

Healthcare resource utilisation and cost analysis associated with opioid analgesic use for non-cancer pain: A case-control, retrospective study between 2005 and 2015.

ObjectiveTo examine differences in healthcare utilisation and costs associated with opioid prescriptions for non-cancer pain issued in primary care.MethodA longitudinal, case-control study retrospectively examined Welsh healthcare data for the period 1 January 2005–31 December 2015. Data were extracted from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank. Subjects, aged 18 years and over, were included if their primary care record contained at least one of six overarching pain diagnoses during the study period. Subjects were excluded if their record also contained a cancer diagnosis in that time or the year prior to the study period. Case subjects also received at least one prescription for an opioid analgesic. Controls were matched by gender, age, pain-diagnosis and socioeconomic deprivation. Healthcare use included primary care visits, emergency department (ED) and outpatient (OPD) attendances, inpatient (IP) admissions and length of stay. Cost analysis for healthcare utilisation used nationally derived unit costs for 2015. Differences between case and control subjects for resource use and costs were analysed and further stratified by gender, prescribing persistence (PP) and deprivation.ResultsData from 3,286,215 individuals were examined with 657,243 receiving opioids. Case subjects averaged 5 times more primary care visits, 2.8 times more OPD attendances, 3 times more ED visits and twice as many IN admissions as controls. Prescription persistence over 6 months and greater deprivation were associated with significantly greater utilisation of healthcare resources. Opioid prescribing was associated with 69% greater average healthcare costs than in control subjects. National Health Service (NHS) healthcare service costs for people with common, pain-associated diagnoses, receiving opioid analgesics were estimated to be £0.9billion per year between 2005 and 2015.ConclusionReceipt of opioid prescriptions was associated with significantly greater healthcare utilisation and accompanying costs in all sectors. Extended prescribing durations are particularly important to address and should be considered at the point of initiation.

Nurses' Perceived Barriers to and Facilitators of Pain Assessment and Management in Critical Care Patients: A Systematic Review.

AimThis review aims to examine nurses’ perceived barriers to and facilitators of pain assessment and management in adult critical care patients.BackgroundPain is one of the worst memories among critically ill patients. However, pain among those patients is still undertreated due to several barriers that impede effective management. Therefore, addressing the perceived barriers and facilitators to pain assessment management among critical care nurses is crucial.MethodsA systematic search of pain assessment and management in critical care patient-relevant literature from four databases was done, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.ResultsThe barriers and facilitators were categorized into four groups: nurse-related, patient-related, physician-related, and system-related. The most frequently reported barriers in this study included nurses’ lack of knowledge regarding the use of pain assessment tools, patients’ inability to communicate, physicians’ prescription of analgesics being independent of pain scores evaluation, and absence of standardized guidelines and protocols for pain evaluation and control. For the facilitators, the most reported ones include ongoing education and professional training related to pain assessment and management, patients’ ability to self-report pain, effective collaboration between physicians and nurses, and productive discussion of patients’ pain scores during nurse-to-nurse handovers.ConclusionVarious barriers and facilitators to pain assessment and management were identified and examined in this review. However, future research is still needed to further investigate these barriers and facilitators and examine any other potential associated factors among critical care nurses.Relevance to Clinical PracticeThe findings of our study could help hospital managers in developing continuous education and staff development training programs on assessing and managing pain for critical care patients. Also, our findings could be used to develop an evidence-based standard pain management protocol tailored to effectively assess and promptly treat pain in critical care patients.

Opioid Prescribing after Carpal Tunnel Release: Analysis from the Michigan Collaborative Hand Initiative for Quality in Surgery.

Little is known regarding the national practice patterns for postoperative opioid prescribing after carpal tunnel release, which is one of the most common surgical procedures performed. The authors sought to assess the rate of opioid prescribing after carpal tunnel release and patient-, surgeon-, and practice-level predictors of opioid prescriptions after surgery. The authors conducted a cohort study from the Michigan Collaborative Hand Initiative for Quality in Surgery, a national consortium of nine practices with 33 surgeons who prospectively collect data for the purpose of quality improvement. Patients were included who underwent carpal tunnel release between July 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019. Multilevel logistic regression was used to determine practice and surgeon variation in postoperative opioid prescribing related to patient characteristics. Of the 648 patients with 792 operative hands, 52.9 percent were prescribed a postoperative opioid. After controlling for patient, surgeon, and practice characteristics, endoscopic carpal tunnel releases were associated with a decreased odds of receiving a postoperative opioid prescription compared to open carpal tunnel releases (OR, 0.19; 95 percent CI, 0.07 to 0.52). However, 57.4 percent of the variation in opioid prescribing was explained at the practice level, and 4.1 percent of the variation was explained at the surgeon level. Practice-level prescribing patterns play a substantial role in opioid prescribing. National efforts should consider development of evidence-based opioid prescribing recommendations for carpal tunnel release that target all prescribers, including trainees and advanced practice providers. In addition, endoscopic carpal tunnel release may offer an opportunity to minimize opioid prescribing. The authors recommend that providers encourage the use of nonopioid analgesia and limit opioid prescriptions after carpal tunnel release. Risk, III.

Extraoral photobiomodulation for prevention of oral and oropharyngeal mucositis in head and neck cancer patients: interim analysis of a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial.

PurposeTo assess the safety and efficacy of prophylactic extraoral photobiomodulation (PBM) for the prevention of oral and oropharyngeal mucositis (OM) on clinical outcomes and survival in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OOPSCC).MethodsOOPSCC patients who received radiotherapy (RT) were prospectively randomized to two groups: prophylactic extraoral PBM and placebo. OM grade (NCI), pain (VAS), analgesia, and anti-inflammatory prescriptions were assessed weekly. Quality of life questionnaires (QoL) were performed at the first and last day of RT. Following RT, participants were evaluated quarterly for oncological outcomes follow-up.ResultsFifty-five patients met the inclusion criteria. The first occurrence of OM was observed at week 1, for the placebo group (p = 0.014). Later, OM onset and severity was observed for the PBM group, with first occurrence at week 2 (p = 0.009). No difference in severe OM incidence was observed (p > 0.05). Lower mean pain score was noted at week 7 for the PBM group (2.1) compared to placebo group (4.5) (p = 0.009). Less analgesics (week 3; p = 0.009/week 7; p = 0.02) and anti-inflammatory prescription (week 5; p = 0.0346) were observed for the PBM group. Better QoL scores were observed for the PBM group at last day of RT (p = 0.0034). No difference in overall survival among groups was observed in 1 year of follow-up (p = 0.889).ConclusionProphylactic extraoral PBM can delay OM onset, reduce pain, and reduce analgesic and anti-inflammatory prescription requirements. Extraoral PBM was associated with better QoL. There was no evidence of PBM impact on oncological outcomes.Trial registrationTRN:RBR-4w4swx (date of registration: 01/20/2020).Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-021-06625-8.

SP2.2.2Analgesia prescribing in acute surgical admissions - dual-centre cross-sectional study

Abstract Aim Pain is a common presenting complaint of acute surgical inpatients and has a great impact on their subjective wellbeing and the perception of care they receive if not addressed promptly and efficiently. It is also a common cause of patients’ complaints if not properly addressed. We set out to evaluate if analgesia is prescribed locally in accordance with WHO analgesia ladder and NICE CKS analgesia guidelines for mild-to-moderate pain. Method We performed cross-sectional studies of adults aged 16 and over, admitted under general or vascular surgery in two DGHs (2018-2020) with complaints of pain on admission. 30 patients were included in both studies with an average age 53/56 years. We undertook notes review, checked observation charts and drug charts for pain grading and analgesia prescribing following initial clinical assessment. Results In the first study, average pain score of 6 was obtained. Only 19/30 patients (63%) had regular analgesia prescribed. Only 2/30 (6%) were started on regular weak opioids, with further 8/30 (26%) on as required/PRN weak opioids. 17/30 (56%) patients had PRN Oramorph prescribed. Only 2/30 (6%) were started on PRN NSAIDs despite only 46% having cautions/contraindications. 5/30 patients with pain scores of 9-10 not had any regular analgesia prescribed. Comparable results were achieved in the second hospital we audited. Conclusions This study shows significant under-prescribing of analgesia, especially regular analgesia for surgical patients with moderate-severe pain, and skipping of weaker opioids/NSAIDs in favour of Oramorph. There is significant scope for improvement following educational session implementation.

Impact of the 2018 Society of Critical Care Medicine Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Guidelines on Nonopioid Analgesic Use and Related Outcomes in Critically Ill Adults After Major Surgery.

We compared ICU nonopioid analgesic use, opioid use, and pain before and after Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep guideline publication at one academic center among critically ill adults receiving an opioid infusion and greater than or equal to 24 hours of mechanical ventilation after major surgery. The 2017 (n = 77) and 2019 (n = 57) groups were similar at baseline. The 2019 (vs 2017) patients were more likely to receive scheduled IV/oral acetaminophen (84% vs 69%; p = 0.05), less likely to receive a lidocaine patch (33% vs 50%; p = 0.05), and just as likely to receive ketamine (4% vs 3%; p = 1.0), an nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (7% vs 3%; p = 0.26), or gabapentin/pregabalin (16% vs 9%; p = 0.23). Daily average opioid exposure (in IV morphine milligram equivalent) was not different (70 [42–99] [2017] vs 78 mg [49–109 mg]; p = 0.94). The 2019 (vs 2017) group spent more ICU days with severe pain (p = 0.04). At our center, Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep guideline publication had little effect on nonopioid analgesic or opioid prescribing practices in critically ill surgical adults.

OUR EXPERIENCE IN HARDING AND «BIKINI» APPROACHES AT TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY

Total hip arthroplasty is widely spread in all over the world medical practice. Different approaches are used for that procedure. Objective. To analyze the advantages and disadvantages of` «Bikini» approachand compare them to the Harding approach in patients after total hip arthroplasty. Methods. Тhe results of treatment of 108 patients were retrospectively analyzed: 41 patients were operated with «Bikini» approach, 67 — with Harding approach. Total hip implant with ceramic-on-ceramic, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene-on-ceramic, and ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene-onmetal movement pair were used, also were used both cemented and cementless types of fixation. Results were evaluated on 14 day and 3 months after the surgery by Harris scale. Results. 14-day of followup the average Harris score value in patients operated with Harding approach were 74.87 points, in patients operated with «Bikini» approach — 80,55 points, on the 3rd month of follow-up period the Harris score was 78.24 and 83.9 respectively. Conclusions. Both evaluated approaches have their own advantages and disadvantages, instruments and surgeon skills requirements. Proper utilization of the «Bikini» and Harding approaches provides good functionalresults in early and late terms. «Bikini» approach requires a larger volume of preoperative preparation. The absence of fascia lata andperiarticular muscles injury due to the «Bikini» approach usage allows reducing of narcotic analgesics prescriptions, intraoperative blood loss and duration of walking with crutches. Good cosmetical scars effects are achieved by the parallelism of skin incision relatively to Langer’s lines. In the early postoperative period the better functional results were marked, early rehabilitation and mild pain syndrome allow to reduce hospital length of stay. The technicalcomplexity of the «Bikini» approach requires operations number more than 30 per year.

Analgesic prescriptions received by patients before commencing the BOA model of care for osteoarthritis: a Swedish national registry study with matched reference and clinical guideline benchmarking

Background and purpose — Swedish clinical guidelines for osteoarthritis (OA) prioritize patient education, exercise, and—if necessary—weight reduction before considering adjunct pharmacological intervention. Contrariwise, we investigated the proportion and type of dispensed analgesic prescriptions in Sweden received by patients during 3 years before commencing non-pharmacological primary care interventions for OA (2008–2016) compared with the general population. Furthermore, we analyzed the proportion of analgesic prescriptions dispensed before (2008–2012) compared with after (2012–2016) guideline publication in terms of concordance with clinical guideline recommendations. Patients and methods — Patients with hip or knee OA (n = 72,069) from the Better Management of OA national quality register receiving non-pharmacological interventions in primary care between 2008 and 2016 were included (OA cohort). An age, sex, and residence matched reference cohort (n = 216,207) was formed from the Swedish Total Population Register. Based on a period 3 years prior to inclusion in the OA cohort, Swedish Prescribed Drug Register data was linked to both the OA and reference cohorts. Results — Compared with the reference cohort, a distinctly larger proportion of the OA cohort had dispensed prescriptions for most types of analgesics, increasing exponentially each year prior to commencing non-pharmacological intervention. Since guideline publication, the proportion of the OA cohort having no dispensed prescription analgesics prior to non-pharmacological primary care intervention concordantly increased by 5.0% (95% CI 4.2–5.9). Furthermore, dispensed prescriptions concordantly decreased for non-selective NSAIDs –8.6% (CI –9.6 to –7.6), weak opioids –6.8% (CI –7.7 to –5.9), glucosamine –9.5% (CI –9.8 to –8.8). and hyaluronic acid –1.6% (CI –1.8 to –1.5) but discordantly increased for strong opioids 2.8% (CI 2.1–3.4) and glucocorticoid intra-articular injection for hip OA 2.1% (CI 1.0–3.1). Interpretation — In Sweden, dispensed prescription of analgesics commonly occurred before initiating non-pharmacological primary care interventions for OA but reduced modestly after guideline publication, which prioritizes non-pharmacological before pharmacological interventions. Additional modest improvements occurred in the stepped-care prioritization of analgesic prescription types. However, future strategies are required to curb an increase of strong opioids prescription for OA and glucocorticoid intra-articular injection for hip OA.

Prescription d’opioïdes pour les patients atteints de cancer avec métastases osseuses ; étude pharmaco-épidémiologique nationale transversale

Oncological situations represent the majority of palliative situations. Labeling the palliative stage often comes too late in oncology. Pain comes first among discomfort symptoms with the greatest impact on quality of life. We wondered whether the evolutionary stage of the cancer was linked with the prescriptions of opioid analgesics. We observed the prescriptions of strong opioids in patients suffering from metastatic bone cancer 3 months before and after identifying the situation as palliative. This is a cross-sectional observational study performed between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2016 using data from the French (nationwide claims database). We included 38,399 patients with cancer with at least one metastatic bone location in a palliative situation. Seventeen percent (n=6544) of patients had a prescription of opioid analgesics after palliative care labeling, 19.8% (n=7606) had a prescription before, 31.1% (n=11949) had a prescription before and after and 32.0% had no prescription of opioid analgesics. An increase in the dosage of opioid analgesics is observed between before and after labeling the stage of the disease as palliative with an average dosage ranging from 99.6 to 142.3mg per day. This study shows that labeling a situation as palliative affects prescriptions of strong opioid analgesics. An early identification of the situation as palliative is essential to provide appropriate care.

Impact of a pharmacy‐led nursing education on discharge opioid prescribing after kidney transplant

AbstractA major contributor to the opioid epidemic is prescribing in the postoperative setting. There remains the need for opioid stewardship both postoperatively and upon discharge in kidney transplant recipients. In October 2017, pharmacist‐led education was given to all transplant nursing staff at a single center with the goal of optimizing postoperative pain control through education and empowerment of nurses. Furthermore, the education focus was to advance nursing knowledge, enhance patient assessment, and reform patient education. Clinical pharmacists continued to work with the transplant team to base a patient's discharge analgesia on inpatient analgesia use. This study assessed the impact of the nursing education on discharge analgesic prescribing patterns after kidney transplant admission. Opioid prescribing on transplant discharge was significantly lower after the education (pre 68.3% vs post 11.1%, P &lt;.001). Transplant admission was shortened by 1 day (6 vs 5 days, P = .03). Over time, a significant downtrend in opioid prescribing was observed on discharge from 86.1% in 2015 to 49.6% in 2017 and 8.5% in 2018 (P &lt;.001). If opioid therapy was required on discharge in the posteducation group, tramadol was predominantly prescribed (7/13 opioid prescriptions, 53.9%). Thus, opioid minimization and pain management using nonopioid analgesic prescribing on discharge are feasible in an adult kidney transplant population with proper nursing collaboration and education.

The Practice of Pain Assessment and Management in a Tertiary Oncology Center.

BackgroundPain is one of the common and devastating symptoms that affects millions of cancer patients globally. Despite published guidelines and education on the assessment and management of cancer-related pain, underestimated or undertreated pain continues to be a considerable worldwide public health concern among cancer patients. In this study, we aimed to assess physicians’ adherence to the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines in the management and assessment of pain in oncology patients based on the available score of pain in the Princess Noorah Oncology Center (PNOC) at the King Abdulaziz Medical City in Jeddah.MethodologyThis cross-sectional, retrospective chart review study studied 451 patients (selected through computerized random sampling) who were admitted to the PNOC during the study period.ResultsThe pain was assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory in almost all patients (n = 450, 99.8%). The pain was categorized as mild in 386 (85.6%) patients, moderate in 46 (10.2%) patients, and severe in 19 (4.2%) patients. Opioid prescriptions were significantly higher among patients with moderate (76.1%) and severe pain (89.5%) compared to those with mild pain (39.1%; p < 0.0001).ConclusionsThe practice of pain documentation for cancer patients was adequate as indicated by reporting the pain scores of 99.8% of inpatients. Patients with moderate and severe pain were more likely to receive opioids and a combination of opioids plus non-opioid analgesics, whereas the prescription of analgesics was predicted by experiencing moderate cancer pain.

Improvement of pain management in a comprehensive cancer center: a comparison of two cross-sectional studies 8years apart.

In 2011, a multidisciplinary palliative team (MPT) was established at Rigshospitalet (DK) and a cross-sectional study in inpatients was carried out at the Departments of Oncology and Hematology. High symptom burden, high prevalence of pain (64%), and insufficient analgesic treatment were demonstrated. In 2019, a similar study was carried out. This study compares prevalence of symptoms including pain and analyzes analgesic treatment of adult in-patients in a comprehensive cancer center. Two cross-sectional studies (May-Jun 2011; Feb-Sep 2019). malignant diseases, age ≥ 18 y, able to understand Danish. EORTC QLQ-C30 and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) were applied. A total of 134 and 183 inpatients were included in 2011 and 2019, respectively. Differences in the two populations were seen; in 2019 more patients had advanced disease (P = 0.0096), lower performance status (P = 0.0028), and a palliative treatment plan (P = 0.0034). The prevalence of impairments and symptoms was high and similar in the 2years with exception of severe pain (P = 0.0143) and neuropathic pain (P < 0.0001) which increased in 2019. Moreover, pain relief significantly improved, and significantly fewer patients with pain were left untreated. Significant increase in opioid and adjuvant analgesic prescription in 2019. An overall unchanged high symptom burden was observed. However, improvement of pain management was observed in 2019. The establishment of a MPT may possibly have contributed to improved pain management.

Cirrhosis Inpatients Receive More Opioids and Fewer Nonopioid Analgesics Than Patients Without Cirrhosis.

Pain is common among cirrhosis patients, particularly those hospitalized with acute illness. Managing pain in this population is challenging due to concern for adverse events and lack of guidelines for analgesic use. We sought to characterize analgesic use among inpatients with cirrhosis compared with matched noncirrhosis controls, as well as hospital-level variation in prescribing patterns. We utilized the Vizient Clinical Database, which includes clinical and billing data from hospitalizations at >500 US academic medical centers. We identified cirrhosis patients hospitalized in 2017-2018, and a matched cohort of noncirrhosis patients. Types of analgesic given-acetaminophen (APAP), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and adjuvants (eg, gabapentinoids, antidepressants) were defined from inpatient prescription records. Conditional logistic regression was used to associate cirrhosis diagnosis with analgesic use. Of 116,363 cirrhosis inpatients, 83% received at least 1 dose of an analgesic and 58% had regular inpatient analgesic use, rates that were clinically similar to noncirrhosis controls. Cirrhosis inpatients were half as likely to receive APAP (26% vs. 42%, P <0.01) or NSAIDs (3% vs. 7%, P <0.01), but were more likely to receive opioids (59% vs. 54%, P <0.01), particularly decompensated patients (60%). There was notable variation in analgesic prescribing patterns between hospitals, especially among cirrhosis patients. Analgesic use was common among inpatients, with similar rates among patients with and without cirrhosis. Cirrhosis patients-particularly decompensated patients-were less likely to receive APAP and NSAIDs and more likely to receive opioid analgesics. Because of lack of evidence-based guidance for management of cirrhosis patients with pain, providers may avoid nonopioid analgesics due to perceived risks and consequently may overutilize opioids in this high-risk population.

Urban scaling of opioid analgesic sales in the United States.

Opioid misuse is a public health crisis in the United States. The origin of this crisis is associated with a sharp increase in opioid analgesic prescribing. We used the urban scaling framework to analyze opioid prescribing patterns in US commuting zones (CZs), i.e., groups of counties based on commuting patterns. The urban scaling framework postulates that a set of scaling relations can be used to predict health outcomes and behaviors in cities. We used data from the Drug Enforcement Administration's Automated Reports and Consolidated Ordering System (ARCOS) to calculate counts of oxycodone/hydrocodone pills distributed to 607 CZs in the continental US from 2006 to 2014. We estimated the scaling coefficient of opioid pill counts by regressing log(pills) on log(population) using a piecewise linear spline with a single knot at 82,363. Our results show that CZs with populations below the knot scaled superlinearly (β = 1.36), i.e., larger CZs had disproportionally larger pill counts compared to smaller CZs. On the other hand, CZs with populations above the knot scaled sublinearly (β = 0.92), i.e., larger CZs had disproportionally smaller pill counts compared to smaller CZs. This dual scaling pattern was consistent across US census regions. For CZs with population below the knot, the superlinear scaling of pills is consistent with the explanation that an increased number of successful matches between prescribers and users will lead to higher prescribing rates. The non-linear scaling behavior observed could be the result of a combination of factors, including stronger health care systems and prescribing regulation in largely populated commuting zones, as well as high availability of other opioids such as heroin in these commuting zones. Future research should explore potential mechanisms for the non-linearity of prescription opioid pills.