Prevalence and Patterns of Opioid Use Before and After Liver Transplantation

Mismatched Postsurgical Opioid Prescription to Liver Transplant Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study From a Single High-volume Transplant Center

BACKGROUND

Improper opioid prescription after surgery is a well-documented iatrogenic contributor to the current opioid epidemic in North America. In fact, opioids are known to be overprescribed to liver transplant patients, and liver transplant patients with high doses or prolonged postsurgical opioid use have higher risks of graft failure and death.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of 552 opioid-naive patients undergoing liver transplant at an academic center between 2012 and 2019. The primary outcome was the discrepancy between the prescribed discharge opioid daily dose and each patient's own inpatient opioid consumption 24 h before discharge. Variables were analyzed with Wilcoxon and chi-square tests and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Opioids were overprescribed in 65.9% of patients, and 54.3% of patients who required no opioids the day before discharge were discharged with opioid prescriptions. In contrast, opioids were underprescribed in 13.4% of patients, among whom 27.0% consumed inpatient opioids but received no discharge opioid prescription. The median prescribed opioid daily dose was 333.3% and 56.3% of the median inpatient opioid daily dose in opioid overprescribed and underprescribed patients, respectively. Importantly, opioid underprescribed patients had higher rates of opioid refill 1 to 30 and 31 to 90 d after discharge, and the rate of opioid underprescription more than doubled from 2016 to 2019.

CONCLUSIONS

Opioids are both over- and underprescribed to liver transplant patients, and opioid underprescribed patients had higher rates of opioid refill. Therefore, we proposed to prescribe discharge opioid prescriptions based on liver transplant patients' inpatient opioid consumption to provide patient-centered opioid prescriptions.

Defining opioid naïve and implications for monitoring opioid use: A population-based study in Alberta, Canada

PURPOSE

Reducing initial exposure of "opioid naïve" patients to opioids is a public health priority. Identifying opioid naïve patients is difficult, as numerous definitions are used. The objective is to summarize current definitions and evaluate their impact on opioid naïve measures in Alberta.

METHODS

An exploratory data analysis of the literature was conducted over the last 10 years to identify definitions commonly used in the literature to define opioid naïve. Then, using these definitions as a guide, we descriptively report the proportion of patients in Alberta between 2017 and 2021 who would be considered as opioid naïve using these definitions and all opioid dispensing data.

RESULTS

Three categories of definitions were broadly identified: (1) no opioid use within the previous 30 days/6 months/1 year, based on dispensation date; (2) no opioid use based on dispensation date plus days of supply; and, (3) exclusion of codeine from Definitions 1 and 2. Applying these definitions to the Alberta population showed a very wide range in the proportion who would be considered as opioid naïve. Overall, 36.4% of Albertans (n = 1 551 075) had an opioid dispensation in 2017-2021. The average age was 46.6 ± 18.8 and 52.8% were female. The proportion of opioid naïve were most affected by the "opioid free" period, with 97.4%, 83.2%, and 65.6% being classified as opioid naïve using time windows from Definition 1 (30 days, 6 months, 1 year of no prior opioid use). Definitions 2 and 3 did not materially change the results. Further extending the "opioid free" period to 2 years showed only 35% were opioid naïve.

CONCLUSIONS

The most convenient definition for "opioid naïve" was the use of an "opioid free" period. The choice of window would depend on how the information may be used to assistant in clinical decisions with longer windows more likely to reflect true opioid naïve patients. Irrespective of definition used, a large proportion of opioid users would be considered opioid naïve in Alberta.

Pain management for liver transplant recipients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Liver transplant recipients pose several pain management challenges. Altered hepatic drug metabolism and clearance in end-stage liver disease patients complicates the use of certain medications, while existing coagulopathy and thrombocytopenia can limit the use of regional anesthetic techniques. Largely due to a high prevalence of substance use disorders, these patients have increased vulnerability to opioid misuse in the perioperative period, which can make acute postoperative pain difficult to control and potentiates prolonged and painful recovery, increasing the risk of developing chronic postsurgical pain. We present current evidence-based literature that reviews optimal pain management strategies for this challenging patient demographic.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple studies have shown that thoracic epidurals provide superior pain control in open hepatic resections. Recent data suggests thoracic epidurals may be safely considered in select liver transplant recipients with normal preoperative coagulation status; however, this evidence is limited, and further studies are needed. When the risks of coagulopathy prohibit epidural placement, truncal blocks such as transversus abdominis plane blocks or quadratus lumborum blocks and abdominal wound catheters can serve as alternative regional modalities. Specialized teams should manage pain using a multimodal approach.

SUMMARY

Thoracic epidural analgesia may be an option for liver transplant recipients with normal coagulation profiles prior to surgery; however, additional studies are warranted. Other regional techniques are also available. Emphasis should be placed on optimizing multimodal pain medication management. Nonpharmacological interventions should also be considered.

Evaluation of a multidisciplinary, multimodal pain management protocol following pancreas transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Patients undergoing solid-organ transplantation demonstrate pain arising from both the surgical intervention and pre-existing comorbidities. High levels of opioid use both pre- and post-transplant are associated with unfavorable transplant outcomes. Patient education, multimodal therapy, and discharge planning have all been demonstrated to reduce opioid use after transplant.

METHODS

This is a single-center, retrospective study analyzing patients before and after implementation of a multimodal, multidisciplinary pain management protocol. Morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) use during the index transplant hospitalization and the need for opioids at discharge was compared between the pre- and post-protocol groups.

RESULTS

A total of 52 patients were included in the study, 31 in the pre and 21 in the post-protocol groups. Inpatient MME use was reduced from 135.5 to 67.5 MMEs after protocol implementation. Additionally, the number of patients discharged on opioids following transplant decreased from 90.3% to 47.6%. Pain scores, length of stay (LOS), and return of bowel function was not different between groups.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of a multimodal, multidisciplinary pain management protocol significantly decreased opioid use during the post-surgical hospitalization and in the 6 months following transplantation. A combination of non-opioid analgesics, patient education, and discharge planning can be beneficial elements in pancreas transplant pain management.

Alcohol-associated liver disease predicts increased post-liver transplant opioid use

BACKGROUND

Alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) is a rising indication for liver transplantation (LT). Prolonged opioid use after LT leads to increased graft loss and mortality. The aim is to determine if patients transplanted with a primary diagnosis of ALD had higher risk of post-LT opioid use (p-LTOU) compared to non-ALD patients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent LT between 2015 and 2018 at Medstar Georgetown Transplant Institute. Patients with prolonged hospitalization post-LT (>90 days), death within 90 days post-LT, and re-transplants were excluded.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety seven patients were transplanted, among 29% for indications of ALD. ALD patients were younger (52 vs. 56 years), more likely to be male (76% vs. 61%), Caucasian (71% vs. 44%), have higher MELD (28.8±8.8 vs. 25±8.8), and psychiatric disease than non-ALD patients (P < .05). There was no difference in pre-LT use of opioids, tobacco, marijuana, or illicit drugs between ALD and non-ALD patients. Pre-LT opioid use (OR = 11.7, P < .001), ALD (OR = 2.5, P = .01), and MELD score (OR = .95, P = .02) independently predicted 90-day p-LTOU.

CONCLUSIONS

ALD, pre-LT opioid use, and MELD score independently predict p-LTOU. Special attention should be paid to identify post-LT prolonged opioid use in ALD patients.

Opioid Prescribing and Use Among Cancer Survivors: A Mapping Review of Observational and Intervention Studies

CONTEXT

Recent years show a sharp increase in research on opioid use among cancer survivors, but evidence syntheses are lacking, leaving knowledge gaps. Corresponding research needs are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an evidence synthesis.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase, identifying articles related to cancer, and opioid prescribing/use published through September 2020. We screened resulting titles/abstracts. Relevant studies underwent full-text review. Inclusion criteria were quantitative examination of and primary focus on opioid prescribing or use, and explicit inclusion of cancer survivors. Exclusion criteria included end-of-life opioid use and opioid use as a secondary or downstream outcome (for intervention studies). We extracted information on the opioid-related outcome(s) examined (including definitions and terminology used), study design, and methods.

RESULTS

Research returned 16,591 articles; 296 were included. Only 22 of 296 studies evaluated an intervention. There were 105 studies evaluating outcomes indicative of potentially high-risk, nonrecommended, or avoidable opioid use, e.g., continuous use-described as chronic use, prolonged use, and persistent use (n = 17); use after completion of curative-intent treatment-described as chronic opioid use, long-term opioid use, persistent opioid use, prolonged opioid use, continued opioid use, late opioid use, post-treatment opioid use (n = 27); use of opioids concurrent with other potentially high-risk medications (n = 13), and opioid misuse (n = 14).

CONCLUSIONS

We found lack of consistency in the measurement of and terms used to describe similar opioid use outcomes, and a lack of interventional research targeting well-documented patterns of potentially nonrecommended, potentially avoidable, or potentially high-risk opioid prescribing or use.

Opioids and Kidney Transplantation

The United States has faced an unprecedented opioid crisis in recent years, which has led to an increase in opioid overdose-related deaths and, consequently, an increase in the number of potential deceased donors available for transplantation. This new pool of potential organ donors is composed of younger donors with higher infectious disease transmission risk. The use of organs from these donors requires appropriate patient education, informed consent, and post-transplant monitoring practices. Prescription opioid use is also an important component of the evaluation of transplant and living donor candidates because it may impact outcomes and eligibility for the procedures. In kidney transplant recipients, prescription opioid use predicts a higher risk of mortality, graft loss, and post-transplant complications. These effects seem to be proportional to the levels of opioid use, and to parallel patterns in other transplant populations such as liver, heart and lung recipients. Among living kidney donors, predonation prescription opioid use is associated with an increased risk of re-admission after nephrectomy. Overall, the opioid epidemic creates educational needs for patients awaiting deceased donor transplant, and also impacts the evaluation and care of transplant candidates. Among transplant candidates and recipients, the identification of patients with chronic opioid use should prompt multidisciplinary evaluation and management strategies to minimize risks.

Opioid use prior to liver transplant is associated with increased risk of death after transplant

BACKGROUND

Opioids are generally discouraged and used sparingly in liver transplant (LT) candidates prior to LT. This study examined the relationship between opioid use at the time of LT and graft and patient survival following transplantation.

METHODS

A retrospective single center cohort study of LT recipients from June 2012 to December 2019 was performed. Primary outcomes were graft and patient survival, analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models; primary predictor was active opioid prescription at LT.

RESULTS

751 LT recipients were included; 16% had an opioid prescription at LT. Post-transplant death was significantly greater in opioid users (pvalue<0.001). In a multivariable Cox model examining predictors of death, opioid use remained associated with a significant increase in the risk of death (HR 2.4 CI 1.5-4.0, p < 0.001) even after controlling for other factors.

CONCLUSION

Opioid use at LT is associated with a markedly increased risk of death following transplant.

Assessment of Canadian policies regarding liver transplant candidacy of people who use alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, and opiates

BACKGROUND

When last assessed in 2013, all Canadian liver transplant programs required 6 months of abstinence from alcohol. New studies have questioned the validity of this policy. Moreover, with recreational cannabis now legal in Canada, more transplant candidates may use cannabis. Given these changes, our objective was to obtain an understanding of current Canadian practices regarding liver transplantation and candidates with addiction or alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, or opiate use.

METHODS

Electronic surveys were distributed to the medical directors of all seven adult liver transplant programs in Canada. Questions were based on either a Likert-scale ranking or free response. The complete data set was aggregated to provide a national perspective on this topic and ensure each individual program remained anonymous.

RESULTS

All seven programs responded to the survey. Of these programs, 43% always require 6-month abstinence from alcohol, 29% usually require it, and 14% sometimes require it. Formal alcohol rehabilitation is mandatory in two programs. The majority (57%) of programs never or rarely consider transplant for patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis; 29% require smoking cessation before consideration for transplant; and 71% felt that cannabis use is rarely or never a contraindication to liver transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Significantly more Canadian programs now perform liver transplant for patients who have less than 6 months abstinence from alcohol, and alcoholic hepatitis is no longer an absolute contraindication in Canada. Policies on smoking and opiates are quite variable. Further study and discussion are critical for development of national policies to obtain equitable access to liver transplant for all.