Removing Meperidine from the Health-System Formulary—Frequently Asked Questions

Restriction of oxycodone in the emergency department (ROXY-ED): A randomised controlled trial

Background

The prescription of opioids in emergency care has been associated with harm, including overdose and dependence. The aim of this trial was to assess restriction of access to oxycodone (ROXY), in combination with education and guideline modifications, versus education and guideline modifications alone (standard care) to reduce oxycodone administration in the Emergency Department (ED).

Methods

An unblinded, active control, randomised controlled trial was conducted in an adult tertiary ED. Participants were patients aged 18-75 years who had analgesics administered in the ED. The primary intervention was ROXY, through removal of all oxycodone immediate release tablets from the ED imprest, with availability of a small supply after senior clinician approval. The intervention did not restrict prescription of discharge medications. The primary outcome measure was oxycodone administration rates. Secondary outcomes were administration rates of other analgesic medications, time to initial analgesics and oxycodone prescription on discharge.

Results

There were 2258 patients eligible for analysis. Oxycodone was administered to 80 (6.1%) patients in the ROXY group and 221 (23.3%) patients in the standard care group (relative risk (RR) 0.26; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.33; p < .001). Tapentadol was prescribed more frequently in the ROXY group (RR 2.17; 95% CI: 1.71-2.74), while there were no differences in prescription of other analgesic medications. On discharge, significantly fewer patients were prescribed oxycodone (RR 0.51; 95% CI: 0.39-0.66) and no differences were observed in prescription rates of other analgesic medications. There was no difference in time to first analgesic (HR 0.94; 95% CI: 0.86-1.02).

Conclusions

Restricted access to oxycodone was superior to education and guideline modifications alone for reducing oxycodone use in the ED and reducing discharge prescriptions of oxycodone from the ED. The addition of simple restrictive interventions is recommended to enable rapid changes to clinician behaviour to reduce the potential harm associated with the prescribing of oxycodone in the ED.

Molecular Docking and Dynamic Simulation Revealed the Potential Inhibitory Activity of Opioid Compounds Targeting the Main Protease of SARS-CoV-2

Opioids are a class of chemicals, naturally occurring in the opium poppy plant, and act on the brain to cause a range of impacts, notably analgesic and anti-inflammatory actions. Moreover, an overview was taken in consideration for SARS-CoV-2 incidence and complications, as well as the medicinal uses of opioids were discussed being a safe analgesic and anti-inflammatory drug in a specific dose. Also, our article focused on utilization of opioids in the medication of SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, the major objective of this study was to investigate the antiviral effect of opioids throughout an in silico study by molecular docking study to fifteen opioid compounds against SARS-CoV-2 main protease (PDB ID 6LU7, M^pro). The docking results revealed that opioid complexes potentially inhibit the M^pro active site and exhibiting binding energy (-11.0 kcal/mol), which is comparably higher than the ligand. Furthermore, ADMET prediction indicated that all the tested compounds have good oral absorption and bioavailability and can transport via biological membranes. Finally, M^pro-pholcodine complex was subjected to five MD (RMSD, RMSF, SASA, Rg, and hydrogen bonding) and two MM-PBSA, and conformational change studies, for 100 ns, confirmed the stability of pholcodine, as a representative example, inside the active site of M^pro.

Opioid Epidemic or Pain Crisis? Using the Virginia All Payer Claims Database to Describe Opioid Medication Prescribing Patterns and Potential Harms for Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE:

A key challenge regarding the current opioid epidemic is understanding how concerns regarding opioid-related harms affect access to pain management, an essential element of cancer care. In certain regions of the United States where disproportionately high cancer mortality and opioid fatality rates coexist (such as southwest Virginia in central Appalachia), this dilemma is particularly pronounced.

METHODS:

This longitudinal, exploratory, secondary analysis used the Commonwealth of Virginia All Payer Claims Database to describe prescription opioid medication (POM) prescribing patterns and potential harms for adult patients with cancer living in rural southwest Virginia between 2011 and 2015. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were conducted at the patient, prescriber, and prescription levels to identify patterns and predictors of POM prescribing and potential harms. To explore geographic patterns, choropleth and heat maps were created.

RESULTS:

Of the total sample of patients with cancer (n = 4,324), less than 25% were prescribed a Controlled Substance Schedule II POM at least three times in any study year. More than 60% of patients never received a Controlled Substance Schedule II POM prescription. Six hundred fifty-two patients (15.1%) experienced 1,599 hospitalizations for any reason; 10 or fewer patients were admitted for 11 opioid use disorder–related hospitalizations. The main findings suggest potential undertreatment of cancer-related pain; no difference in risk for opioid-related hospitalization on the basis of frequency of POM prescriptions; and geographic disparities where opioid overdoses are occurring versus where POM prescription use is highest.

CONCLUSION:

These findings have significant opioid policy and practice implications related to the need for cancer-specific prescribing guidelines, how to optimally allocate health delivery services, and the urgent need to improve data interoperability and access related to POMs.

Current management of migraine in US emergency departments: An analysis of the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey

Background

Published data from 1998 revealed that most patients treated for migraine in an emergency department received opioids. Over the intervening years, a large body of evidence has emerged demonstrating the efficacy and safety of non-opioid alternatives. Expert opinion during these years has cautioned against use of opioids for migraine. Our objectives were to compare current frequency of use of various medications for acute migraine in US emergency departments with use of these same medications in 1998 and to identify factors independently associated with opioid use.

Methods

We analyzed National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data from 2010, the most current dataset available. The National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey is a public dataset collected and distributed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is a multi-stage probability sample from randomly selected emergency departments across the country, designed to be representative of all US emergency department visits. We included in our analysis all patients with the ICD9 emergency department discharge diagnosis of migraine. We tabulated frequency of use of specific medications in 2010 and compared these results with the 1998 data. Using a logistic regression model, into which all of the following variables were entered, we explored the independent association between any opioid use in 2010 and sex, age, race/ethnicity, geographic region, type of hospital, triage pain score and history of emergency department use within the previous 12 months.

Results

In 2010, there were 1.2 (95% confidence interval 0.9, 1.4) million migraine visits to US emergency departments. Including opioid-containing oral analgesic combinations, opioids were administered in 59% of visits (95% confidence interval 51, 67). The most commonly used parenteral agent, hydromorphone, was used in 25% (95% confidence interval 19, 33) of visits in 2010 versus less than 1% (95% confidence interval 0, 3) in 1998. Conversely, use of meperidine had decreased markedly over the same timeframe. In 2010, it was used in just 7% (95% confidence interval 4, 12) of visits compared to 37% (95% confidence interval 29, 45) in 1998. Metoclopramide, the most commonly used anti-dopaminergic, was administered in 17% (95% confidence interval 12, 23) of visits in 2010 and 3% (95% confidence interval 1, 6) of visits in 1998. Use of any triptan was relatively uncommon in 2010 (7% (95% confidence interval 4, 11) of visits) and in 1998 (10% (95% confidence interval 6, 15) of visits). Of the predictor variables listed above, only emergency department use within the previous 12 months was associated with opioid administration (adjusted odds ratio: 2.87 (95% confidence interval 1.03, 7.97)).

Conclusions

In spite of recommendations to the contrary, opioids are still used in more than half of all emergency department visits for migraine. Though use of meperidine has decreased markedly between 1998 and 2010, it has largely been replaced by hydromorphone. Opioid use in migraine visits is independently associated with prior visits to the same emergency department in the previous 12 months.

Management of Pain in the Emergency Department

Since pain is a primary impetus for patient presentation to the Emergency Department (ED), its treatment should be a priority for acute care providers. Historically, the ED has been marked by shortcomings in both the evaluation and amelioration of pain. Over the past decade, improvements in the science of pain assessment and management have combined to facilitate care improvements in the ED. The purpose of this review is to address selected topics within the realm of ED pain management. Commencing with general principles and definitions, the review continues with an assessment of areas of controversy and advancing knowledge in acute pain care. Some barriers to optimal pain care are discussed, and potential mechanisms to overcome these barriers are offered. While the review is not intended as a resource for specific pain conditions or drug information, selected agents and approaches are mentioned with respect to evolving evidence and areas for future research.

Meperidine restriction in a pediatric hospital

BACKGROUND

Much has been published revealing concerns surrounding the use of meperidine due to associated toxicities, drug interactions, and lack of proven efficacy. Thus, many adult institutions have chosen to remove or limit the use of this agent, while little has been published about the restriction of meperidine in pediatrics. Many clinicians feel there are still clinical situations in which this agent may be useful.

OBJECTIVE

To describe methods taken in a pediatric hospital to restrict the use of meperidine and review literature describing uses of meperidine as a second-line agent.

METHODS

In our pediatric institution, a policy to restrict the use of meperidine was developed, approved, and implemented. An assessment of meperidine's use 6 months prior to policy implementation was done, along with a postinitiation review of use.

RESULTS

Data revealed that the use of meperidine dropped from 646 doses in 84 patients to 226 doses in 27 patients after restriction, as anticipated. Previous to implementation of these restrictions, orthopedics physicians ordered the majority of meperidine prescriptions, while the gastroenterology service ordered the majority of meperidine prescriptions after implementation of the restriction policy. However, the use of the required form was not widely adopted, with only 30% of practitioners utilizing it postrestriction. Widespread restriction of meperidine and education about use of the form at this institution are still under way.

CONCLUSION

Not only are there limited reasons for using meperidine, there are acceptable alternatives for every known indication. Limiting meperidine's use via a restriction policy and/or removal from the institution formulary can help limit the use of this potentially toxic agent in the pediatric patient.

[Pharmaceutical services for inpatients provided by hospital pharmacies in Brazil: a review of the literature]

This paper discusses the literature on hospital pharmacy services for in-patients in Brazil, seeking a broader view of its characteristics and priorities. Seventeen papers were located in the Medline and Lilacs databases that complied with the pre-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Most of them were related to teaching and research, logistics and compounding, based on observations in public hospitals in Southeast Brazil. Few studies focused on core activities such as management and selection. The academic syllabus through which pharmacy students are trained may underlie the perception that compounding is the preponderant aspect of hospital pharmacy services, although this is required in only a few institutions. Added to this is poor compliance by pharmacy activities with established norms and standards and the lack of an indexed Brazilian publication in this field. As there were far more studies of the public sector than its private counterpart, it seems as though there is either greater freedom of action in the former or less scientific output in the latter, quantified by published studies.