Improving the Safety of Opioid Use for Acute Noncancer Pain in Hospitalized Adults: A Consensus Statement From the Society of Hospital Medicine

Abuse potential and analgesic efficacy of intravenous hydromorphone bolus administration among hospitalized patients with cancer pain: A double-blind, double dummy, randomized crossover trial

BACKGROUND

There is much concern that opioids administered as intravenous (iv) bolus for pain relief may inadvertently increase their risk for abuse. However, there is insufficient data to support this. The authors compared the abuse liability potential, analgesic efficacy, and adverse effect profile of fast (iv push) versus slow (iv piggyback) administration of iv hydromorphone among hospitalized patients requiring iv opioids for pain.

METHODS

In this double-blind, double dummy, randomized, 2 × 2 crossover trial, patients with ≥4 cancer-related pain were randomly assigned to receive either iv hydromorphone 1 mg administered over 2 minutes (fast iv push) or 15 minutes (slow iv piggyback) during the first treatment period. Participants crossed over to receive the alternate treatments during the second period after a 6-hour washout period.

RESULTS

Eighty-three eligible patients were allocated to slow-fast (42, 51%) or fast-slow (41, 49%). Both treatments produced low abuse potential scores with no difference between them (mean peak Drug Effect Questionnaire "drug liking" subscale of fast [24.00] vs. slow [24.34], p = .82). A total of 92% and 94% of slow and fast iv hydromorphone recipients, respectively, had similar improvements in pain scores over 120 minutes (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-5.82, p = .65). Drowsiness was more frequent with the fast than the slow rate (50% vs. 29% at 15 minutes [p = .03] and 52% vs. 31% at 60 minutes [p = .03]).

CONCLUSIONS

Slow iv hydromorphone infusion resulted in similar abuse liability potential and pain improvement but less sedation than fast injection. These findings, taken together, suggest that the slow infusion may be considered as a first-line modality for iv opioid administration in hospitalized patients requiring intermittent opioids for pain.

Opioid Use and Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized With Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND

Opioid use has not been shown to improve hospitalized inflammatory bowel disease patient pain scores and may prolong the length of stay (LOS). Additional clinical implications of opioid use, particularly high amounts, in the hospital setting have not yet been explored. We sought to determine how high opioid use impacts clinical outcomes in acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC).

METHODS

In this single-center study, we identified all patients hospitalized with ASUC who received intravenous corticosteroids from July 1, 2014 to December 31, 2021. Clinical outcomes including opioid exposure, cumulative intravenous corticosteroid dose, biologic rescue therapy initiation date, colectomy rate, opioid prescription at discharge, LOS, and hospitalization cost were collected. High opioid use was defined as ≥40 oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) per day. A univariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate the association of high opioid use with ASUC outcomes.

RESULTS

185 eligible hospitalizations for ASUC were evaluated. 75 patients (41%) received opioids during hospitalization, and 20 patients (11%) received ≥40 OMEs/day. High opioid use was associated with a median 3-day delay in biologic rescue therapy initiation when compared with low/no opioid use (P = .02). 70% of patients with high opioid use received an opioid prescription at discharge compared with 10% of those with low/no use (P < .001). Opioid use was not associated with LOS, duration of corticosteroid therapy, colectomy rate, or hospitalization cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Among ASUC hospitalizations, high opioid use was associated with delayed biologic rescue therapy initiation and higher rates of opioid prescriptions at discharge.

Efficacy and Safety of Transdermal Buprenorphine for Acute Postoperative Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Transdermal buprenorphine (TBUP) may have some advantages for the management of acute postoperative pain. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of TBUP compared to other analgesics or placebo for acute postoperative pain. A systematic search was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) until December 26, 2022. The search included randomized controlled trials comparing TBUP versus other analgesics or placebo for acute postoperative pain. A certainty assessment was conducted using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method. The protocol for this review was registered on Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022318601). In total, 15 studies involving 1,205 participants were included that compared TBUP versus fentanyl (n = 2), celecoxib (n = 3), placebo (n = 2), tramadol (n = 5), diclofenac (n = 3), parecoxib (n = 1), and flurbiprofen (n = 1). Meta-analyses were conducted for 3 comparators that involved 2 studies each. There was no significant difference in pain between TBUP 10 mcg/h versus fentanyl 25 mcg/h (standardized mean difference [SMD] -.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] -.86 to .81, P = .95, I2 = 85%). TBUP 10 mcg/h was associated with less pain compared to celecoxib 200 mg twice daily (SMD -.32, 95% CI -.58 to -.05, P = .02, I2 = 0%) and placebo (SMD -2.29, 95% CI -4.32 to -.27, P = .03, I2 = 94%). The GRADE assessment showed a very low certainty of evidence for all comparisons. There is insufficient evidence that TBUP improves pain control compared to other analgesics for acute postoperative pain. PERSPECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the use of TBUP to other analgesics for postoperative pain. The results showed that there is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of TBUP in this setting. The findings will help clinicians select the most appropriate opioid regimens for postoperative pain.

Risk Factors for Opioid-Related Adverse Drug Events Among Older Adults After Hospitalization for Major Orthopedic Procedures

OBJECTIVES

Older adults undergoing orthopedic procedures are commonly discharged from the hospital on opioids, but risk factors for postdischarge opioid-related adverse drug events (ORADEs) have not been previously examined. We aimed to identify risk factors for ORADEs after hospital discharge following orthopedic procedures.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older, who underwent major orthopedic surgery during hospitalization in 2016 and had an opioid fill within 2 days of discharge. We excluded beneficiaries with hospice claims and those admitted from or discharged to a facility. We used billing codes and medication claims to define potential ORADEs requiring a hospital revisit within 30 days of discharge.

RESULTS

Among 30,514 hospitalizations with a major orthopedic procedure (89.7% arthroplasty, 5.6% treatment of fracture of dislocation, 4.7% other) and an opioid claim, a potential ORADE requiring hospital revisit occurred in 750 (2.5%). Independent risk factors included age of 80 years or older (hazard ratio [HR], 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.38-1.97), female sex (HR, 1.34 [1.16-1.56]), and clinical conditions, including heart failure (HR, 1.34 [1.10-1.62]), respiratory illness (HR, 1.23 [1.03-1.46]), kidney disease (HR, 1.23 [1.04-1.47]), dementia/delirium (HR, 1.63 [1.26-2.10]), anxiety disorder (HR, 1.42 [1.18-1.71]), and musculoskeletal/nervous system injuries (HR, 1.54 [1.24-1.90]). Prior opioid use, coprescribed sedating medications, and opioid prescription characteristics were not associated with ORADEs after adjustment for patient characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Potential ORADEs occurred in 2.5% of older adults discharged with opioids after orthopedic surgery. These risk factors can inform clinician decision making, conversations with older adults, and targeting of harm reduction strategies.

Association of Early Opioid Withdrawal Treatment Strategy and Patient-Directed Discharge Among Hospitalized Patients with Opioid Use Disorder

BACKGROUND

Medical hospitalizations for people with opioid use disorder (OUD) frequently result in patient-directed discharges (PDD), often due to untreated pain and withdrawal.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between early opioid withdrawal management strategies and PDD.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using three datasets representing 362 US hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients hospitalized between 2009 and 2015 with OUD (as identified using ICD-9-CM codes or inpatient buprenorphine administration) and no PDD on the day of admission.

INTERVENTIONS

Opioid withdrawal management strategies were classified based on day-of-admission receipt of any of the following treatments: (1) medications for OUD (MOUD) including methadone or buprenorphine, (2) other opioid analgesics, (3) adjunctive symptomatic medications without opioids (e.g., clonidine), and (4) no withdrawal treatment.

MAIN MEASURES

PDD was assessed as the main outcome and hospital length of stay as a secondary outcome.

KEY RESULTS

Of 6,715,286 hospitalizations, 127,158 (1.9%) patients had OUD and no PDD on the day of admission, of whom 7166 (5.6%) had a later PDD and 91,051 (71.6%) patients received some early opioid withdrawal treatment (22.3% MOUD; 43.4% opioid analgesics; 5.9% adjunctive medications). Compared to no withdrawal treatment, MOUD was associated with a lower risk of PDD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.73, 95%CI 0.68-0.8, p < .001), adjunctive treatment alone was associated with higher risk (aOR = 1.13, 95%CI: 1.01-1.26, p = .031), and treatment with opioid analgesics alone was associated with similar risk (aOR 0.95, 95%CI: 0.89-1.02, p = .148). Among those with PDD, both MOUD (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] = 1.24, 95%CI: 1.17-1.3, p < .001) and opioid analgesic treatments (aIRR = 1.39, 95%CI: 1.34-1.45, p < .001) were associated with longer hospital stays.

CONCLUSIONS

MOUD was associated with decreased risk of PDD but was utilized in < 1 in 4 patients. Efforts are needed to ensure all patients with OUD have access to effective opioid withdrawal management to improve the likelihood they receive recommended hospital care.

Multimodal Analgesia's Impact on Opioid Use and Adverse Drug Effects in a Multihospital Health System

Purpose:In addition to opioid abuse and dependency, opioid use can lead to opioid related adverse drug events (ORADEs). ORADEs are associated with increased length of stay, cost of care, 30-day readmission rate, and inpatient mortality. The addition of scheduled non-opioid analgesic medications has shown to be effective in reducing opioid utilization in post-surgical and trauma populations, but evidence in entire hospital patient populations is limited. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of a multimodal analgesia order set on opioid utilization and adverse drug events in adult hospitalized patients. Methods: This retrospective pre/post implementation analysis was conducted at 3 community hospitals and a level II trauma center between January 2016 and December 2019. Patients included were 18 years of age or older, admitted for greater than 24 hours, and had at least one opioid ordered during hospital admission. The primary outcome of this analysis was the average oral morphine milligram equivalents (MME) used on days 1 through 5 of hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of hospitalized patients with an opioid ordered for analgesia who received a scheduled non-opioid analgesic medication, the average number of ORADEs recorded in nursing assessments on hospitalization days 1 through 5, length of stay, and mortality. Multimodal analgesic medications included acetaminophen, gabapentinoids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, muscle relaxants, and transdermal lidocaine. Results: The pre- and post-groups included 86 535 patients and 85 194 patients, respectively. The average oral MMEs used on days 1 through 5 were lower in the post-group (P < .0001). Utilization of multimodal analgesia as measured by the percentage of patients with 1 or more scheduled multimodal analgesia agent ordered increased from 33% to 49% at the end of the analysis. Conclusion: Utilization of a multimodal analgesia order set was associated with a decrease in opioid use and an increase in multimodal analgesia use in an entire hospital adult population.

Society of Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacists White Paper on the Role of Opioid Stewardship Pharmacists

Opioid stewardship is one essential function of pain and palliative care pharmacists and a critical need in the United States. In recent years, this country has been plagued by two public health emergencies: an opioid crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, which has exacerbated the opioid epidemic through its economic and psychosocial toll. To develop an opioid stewardship program, a systematic approach is needed. This will be detailed in part here by the Opioid Stewardship Taskforce of the Society of Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacists (SPPCP), focusing on the role of the pharmacist. Many pain and palliative care pharmacists have made significant contributions to the development and daily operation of such programs while also completing other competing clinical tasks, including direct patient care. To ensure dedicated time and attention to critical opioid stewardship efforts, SPPCP recommends and endorses opioid stewardship models employing a full time, opioid stewardship pharmacist in both the inpatient and outpatient setting. Early research suggests that opioid stewardship pharmacists are pivotal to improving opioid metrics and pain care outcomes. However, further research and development in this area of practice is needed and encouraged.

The impact of pain management changes to an inpatient general admission electronic order-set

BACKGROUND

Opioids pose many risks, and standardized ordering processes need to be created. In May 2020, our institution implemented pain management changes to the inpatient general admission electronic order-set and increased provider education on pain management prescribing.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the impact of pain management changes to the inpatient general admission electronic order-set on opioid prescribing.

METHODS

Data were collected by retrospective chart review of 376 patients who were admitted using the inpatient general admission electronic order-set at 8 hospital locations within an integrated health system. Two cohorts were identified for comparison: patients admitted pre-electronic order-set change (n = 183; August 2019) and patients admitted post-electronic order-set change (n = 193; August 2020). The primary end points were the amount of intravenous (IV) opioids received measured in morphine milligram equivalents (MME), the quantification of opioids received for pain management, and the oral MME prescribed on discharge.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in the use of IV opioids. There was, however, a statistically significant difference between the IV MME 24 to 48 hours with median 0 (interquartile range [IQR] 0, 6) and 0 (IQR 0, 0) for pre- and post-electronic order-set implementation, respectively (P = 0.003). Oxycodone was more frequently prescribed in the postimplementation cohort-55 patients (29%) compared with the 31 (17%) in the preimplementation cohort (P = 0.008). Tramadol was prescribed less frequently in the postimplementation cohort (n = 12 [6%]) than in preimplementation cohort (n = 28 [15%]) (P = 0.004). There was no statistically significant difference in the oral MME prescribed on discharge (P = 0.833).

CONCLUSION

Changes to the inpatient general admission electronic order-set had relatively little impact on the prescribing of opioids. Further electronic order-set changes or other methodologies should be explored to affect inpatient opioid use.

Saphenous and sciatic nerve block to treat acute lower limb ischemic pain in the emergency department

Acute limb ischemia (ALI) presents with significant pain that is often refractory to opioid pain management or is present in patients with relative contraindications to opioids. Here we present a case of ALI successfully managed with regional anesthesia using sciatic and saphenous nerve blocks. To our knowledge, this is the first case report of regional anesthesia for ALI performed in the Emergency Department (ED) by Emergency Medicine physicians.

Evaluation of concurrent benzodiazepine and opioid prescribing patterns with a focus on acute muscle spasms indication at hospital discharge

Background

In 2016, the CDC Guidelines for Prescribing Opioids in Chronic Pain recommended avoiding the co-prescribing of opioids and benzodiazepines when possible. This evaluation provides one institution's approach to improve safety for new, acute concurrent opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing.

Methods

Patients prescribed new, concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines upon discharge within one organization were identified. A chart review for the highest prescribing specialties was completed for a random sample of 100 patients to determine indications for prescribing, safety measures, and post discharge healthcare utilization.

Results

Orthopedic surgery, the hospitalist service, neurosurgery, and general surgery had the highest concurrent prescribing rates. The most common indication for benzodiazepine prescribing was muscle spasms, but quantity variability existed across and within all four specialties. Of the subset of patients reviewed, patients were consistently not prescribed naloxone.

Conclusions

A prescribing guideline was implemented to provide educational tools, standardized benzodiazepine quantities, and naloxone co-prescribing recommendations for the indication of muscle spasms.

Opioid Use in Vaso-Occlusive Crisis During Intravenous Opioid Drug Shortage

Introduction: In October 2017, the Food and Drug Administration announced a shortage of intravenous (IV) opioid medications. Patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) are particularly vulnerable, as high amounts of IV opioid medications are standard therapy during vaso-occlusive crises (VOC). Our institution responded to the crises by implementing IV to oral (PO) conversions of opioid therapies and encouraging multimodal pain management with non-opioid medications. Objectives: The primary objective was the assessment of IV opioid medication utilization before and during the shortage. Secondary objectives included total opioid consumption, length of stay, and prescribing of non-opioid analgesics. Methods: This single-institution retrospective study included patients >18 years of age admitted to adult medicine teams with VOC during February 2017 or February 2018. The amount of opioid medication administered to patients during both periods was assessed, and quantities were then converted to PO morphine milligram equivalents and compared between years. The number of patients receiving scheduled non-opioid medications were also compared. Length of stay and readmissions were compared between years. Results: Between 2017 and 2018, IV opioid use for VOC decreased by 52% on inpatient services, and there was a 34% reduction in overall opioid use. Oral opioid use more than doubled during the period (10.2% in 2017 vs 39.1% in 2018, P < .01). LOS between 2017 and 2018 (6 vs 6 days, P = .4774) and total number of ED visits (27 vs 8, P = .276) were similar. There were significantly fewer 30-day readmissions in 2018 versus 2017 (15 vs 28, P = .025). Conclusion: The implementation of IV opioid restrictions resulted in a decrease in IV opioid use in treatment of VOC in patients with SCD without causing increases in length of stay or readmissions. Oral opioids should be considered an option for VOC management in patients with SCD.

Impact of the COVID-19 Controlled Drugs and Substances Act exemption on pharmacist prescribing of opioids, benzodiazepines and stimulants in Ontario: A cross-sectional time-series analysis

BACKGROUND

Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, Health Canada issued an exemption to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) on March 19, 2020, enabling pharmacists to act as prescribers of controlled substances to support continuity of care. Our study investigates utilization of the CDSA exemption by Ontario pharmacists with the intent to inform policy on pharmacist scope of practice and to improve future patient outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a time-series analysis of pharmacist-prescribed opioid, benzodiazepine and stimulant claims data using Ontario Narcotics Monitoring System (NMS) data between January 2019 and December 2021. We used ARIMA modelling to measure the change to these classes of claims and to opioid claims containing quantities greater than a 30-day supply.

RESULTS

Postexemption, the average weekly number of pharmacist-prescribed opioid, benzodiazepine and stimulant claims rose by 146% (160 to 393 claims/week), 960% (49 to 515 claims/week) and 2150% (8 to 177 claims/week), respectively. There was a 2-week lag period between the time of announcement and the statistically significant increase in claims on April 5, 2020(p < 0.0001). The total number of claims for opioid quantities exceeding a 30-day supply decreased by 60%. Cumulative pharmacist-prescribed claims accounted for under 2% of the total NMS claims.

INTERPRETATION

Ontario pharmacists used the CDSA exemption but were prescribing at low rates. These findings suggest an effective change to pharmacy practice as the low rates show pharmacists used the exemption as a last line of defense. This may lead to further studies exploring treatment breaks during the COVID-19 pandemic and future changes to pharmacist scope to benefit patients.

Pharmacologic Pain Management Trends among Adults Hospitalized with Cellulitis: An Evidence-Based Practice Project

BACKGROUND

Nurses commonly administer opioids, following "as needed" order sets, to patients hospitalized for acute pain conditions like cellulitis. Practice guidelines recommend limiting opioid administration for acute pain management. At two hospitals in the Pacific Northwest, an opioid stewardship committee was formed to align with best practice.

AIMS

The main objective was to describe changes to inpatient rates of opioid and non-opioid administration following implementation of evidence-based opioid stewardship efforts.

DESIGN

Observational, retrospective, evidence-based practice project.

SETTINGS

One 200-bed and one 680-bed hospital in Washington State.

PARTICIPANTS/SUBJECTS

Data were included from patients aged 18 years or older hospitalized for cellulitis.

METHODS

Demographic and pain-related data were extracted from the electronic health record (n = 4,523 encounters) guided by the symptom management framework. The proportion of patients receiving opioid or non-opioid medications before and after implementation of evidence-based practice opioid stewardship interventions was calculated descriptively. A logistic regression tested factors related to administration of an opioid medication.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients receiving an opioid decreased following opioid stewardship efforts while those receiving non-opioid analgesics remained stable. Factors significantly influencing inpatient opioid administration were: average inpatient pain score, pre-hospital opioid prescription, length of stay, and year of hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

Analgesic administration treating painful, acute cellulitis at two hospitals in the Pacific Northwest included opioid and non-opioid medications. The proportion of patients receiving opioids decreased following best practice opioid stewardship actions. Opportunities may exist for nurses to collaborate with providers to improve inpatient analgesic administration practices.

Opioid-related adverse drug events in surgical patients: risk factors and association with clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Opioid analgesics are commonly used to treat acute post-operative pain. The primary objective of this study was to identify the risk factors for opioid related adverse drug events (ORADEs) in surgical patients and the association between ORADEs and clinical outcomes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from July 2016 to April 2020. ORADEs were defined using International Classification of Diseases 10^th Revision Australian Modification codes. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for ORADEs. To investigate the association between ORADEs and clinical outcomes, propensity score matching was performed.

RESULTS

Among 17,886 surgical patients who received opioid analgesics during hospital stay, 1,814 patients (10.2%) experienced ORADEs. Risk factors for general ORADEs included advanced age, comorbidities, concurrent use of benzodiazepines or gabapentionoids and a higher opioid daily dose. Patients who experienced ORADEs were associated with longer length of stay (LOS, Rate Ratio 3.00, 95% CI 2.97-3.04) but similar 28-day readmission rate (Odds Ratio 0.89, 95% CI 0.71-1.11).

CONCLUSIONS

Risk factors for general ORADEs were advanced age, specific comorbidities, use of benzodiazepines or gabapentionoids and higher opioid dose. Routine use of opioids with gabapentionoids should be avoided and only used after careful consideration.

Risk factors for opioid-related adverse drug events among older adults after hospital discharge

BACKGROUND

Although opioids are initiated on hospital discharge in millions of older adults each year, there are no studies examining patient- and prescribing-related risk factors for opioid-related adverse drug events (ADEs) after hospital discharge among medical patients.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older, hospitalized for a medical reason, with at least one claim for an opioid within 2 days of hospital discharge. We excluded patients receiving hospice care and patients admitted from or discharged to a facility. We used administrative billing codes and medication claims to define potential opioid-related ADEs within 30 days of hospital discharge, and competing risks regression to identify risk factors for these events.

RESULTS

Among 22,879 medical hospitalizations (median age 74, 36.9% female) with an opioid claim within 2 days of hospital discharge, a potential opioid-related ADE occurred in 1604 (7.0%). Independent risk factors included age of 80 years and older (HR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05-1.33); clinical conditions, including kidney disease (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08-1.37), dementia/delirium (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.22-1.56), anxiety disorder (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06-1.36), opioid use disorder (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.03-1.39), intestinal disorders (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.15-1.49), pancreaticobiliary disorders (HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09-1.61), and musculoskeletal and nervous system injuries (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.17-1.54); red flags for opioid misuse (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.04-1.80); opioid use in the 30 days before hospitalization (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08-1.34); and prescription of long-acting opioids (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.06-1.70).

CONCLUSIONS

Potential opioid-related ADEs occurred within 30 days of hospital discharge in 7.0% of older adults discharged from a medical hospitalization with an opioid prescription. Identified risk factors can be used to inform physician decision-making, conversations with older adults about risk, and development and targeting of harm reduction strategies.

Initiation of Long-Acting Opioids Following Hospital Discharge Among Medicare Beneficiaries

Guidelines recommend against initiating long-acting opioids during acute hospitalization, owing to higher risk of overdose and morbidity compared to short-acting opioid initiation. We investigated the incidence of long-acting opioid initiation following hospitalization in a retrospective cohort of Medicare beneficiaries with an acute care hospitalization in 2016 who were ≥65 years old, did not have cancer or hospice care, and had not filled an opioid prescription within the preceding 90 days. Among 258,193 hospitalizations, 47,945 (18.6%) were associated with a claim for a new opioid prescription in the week after hospital discharge: 817 (0.3%) with both short- and long-acting opioids, 125 (0.1%) with long-acting opioids only, and 47,003 (18.2%) with short-acting opioids only. Most long-acting opioid claims occurred in surgical patients (770 out of 942; 81.7%). Compared with beneficiaries prescribed short-acting opioids only, beneficiaries prescribed long-acting opioids were younger, had a higher prevalence of diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue, and had more known risk factors for opioid-related adverse events, including anxiety disorders, opioid use disorder, prior long-term high-dose opioid use, and benzodiazepine co-prescription. These findings may help target quality-improvement initiatives.

Against Medical Advice Discharges in Injection and Non-injection Drug Use-associated Infective Endocarditis: A Nationwide Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Among those with injection drug use-associated infective endocarditis (IDU-IE), against medical advice (AMA) discharge is common and linked to adverse outcomes. Understanding trends, risk factors, and timing is needed to reduce IDU-IE AMA discharges.

METHODS

We identified individuals ages 18-64 with International Classification of Diseases, 9thRevision, diagnosis codes for infective endocarditis (IE) in the National Inpatient Sample, a representative sample of United States hospitalizations from January 2010 to September 2015. We plotted unadjusted quarter-year trends for AMA discharges and used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with AMA discharge among IE hospitalizations, comparing IDU-IE with non-IDU-IE.

RESULTS

We identified 7259 IDU-IE and 23 633 non-IDU-IE hospitalizations. Of these hospitalizations, 14.2% of IDU-IE and 1.9% of non-IDU-IE resulted in AMA discharges. More than 30% of AMA discharges for both groups occurred before hospital day 3. In adjusted models, IDU status (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 3.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.43-4.48)] was associated with increased odds of AMA discharge. Among IDU-IE, women (AOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.04-1.41) and Hispanics (AOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.03-1.69) had increased odds of AMA discharge, which differed from non-IDU-IE. Over nearly 6 years, odds of AMA discharge increased 12% per year for IDU-IE (AOR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.07-1.18) and 6% per year for non-IDU-IE (AOR, 1.06; 95% CI. 1.00-1.13).

CONCLUSIONS

AMA discharges have risen among individuals with IDU-IE and non-IDE-IE. Among those who inject drugs, AMA discharges were more common and increases sharper. Efforts that address the rising fraction, disparities, and timing of IDU-IE AMA discharges are needed.

Association between Opioids Prescribed to Medical Inpatients with Pain and Long-Term Opioid Use

OBJECTIVES

Opioid receipt during medical hospitalizations may be associated with subsequent long-term use. Studies, however, have not accounted for pain, which may explain chronic use. The objective of this study was to identify the association between opioid exposure during a medical hospitalization and use 6 to 12 months later.

METHODS

This was an observational cohort study using electronic health record data from 10 hospitals in the Cleveland Clinic Health System in 2016. Eligible patients were opioid-naïve adults with pain age 18 years and older, admitted to a medical service. Outcomes were opioid receipt during hospitalization and on discharge, and long-term opioid use, defined as ≥2 prescriptions for at least 30 pills 6 to 12 months posthospitalization. We estimated the odds of long-term opioid use by opioid exposure during the hospitalization. Models controlled for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, including patient-reported pain.

RESULTS

Among the 2971 patients in the sample, 64% received opioids during their hospitalization and 28% were discharged with opioids. Overall, 3% of patients had long-term use. Higher pain score was associated with greater odds of long-term use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per point increase 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.19). No patient factors were associated with long-term use. Receipt of an opioid during a hospitalization only was not associated with long-term use (aOR 1.44, 95% CI 0.81-2.57), but receipt at discharge was (aOR 1.96, 95% CI 1.08-3.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Although opioid receipt at discharge was associated with long-term use, the number of patients this applied to was small. Pain severity was an important predictor of long-term use and should be accounted for in future studies.

Predictors of Prolonged Opioid Use After Lumbar Fusion and the Effects of Opioid Use on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

OBJECTIVE

To determine risk factors associated with prolonged opioid use after lumbar fusion and to elucidate the effect of opioid use on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent 1-3 level lumbar decompression and fusion with at least one-year follow-up were identified. Opioid data were collected through the Pennsylvania Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. Preoperative "chronic use" was defined as consumption of >90 days in the one-year before surgery. Postoperative "prolonged use" was defined as a filled prescription 90-days after surgery. PROMs included the following: Short Form-12 Health Survey PCS-12 and MCS-12, ODI, and VAS-Back and Leg scores. Logistic regression was performed to determine independent predictors for prolonged opioid use.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 260 patients. BMI >35 (OR: .44 [.20, .90], P = .03) and current smoking status (OR: 2.73 [1.14, 6.96], P = .03) significantly predicted postoperative opioid usage. Chronic opioid use before surgery was associated with greater improvements in MCS-12 (β= 5.26 [1.01, 9.56], P = .02). Patients with prolonged opioid use self-reported worse VAS-Back (3.4 vs 2.1, P = .003) and VAS-Leg (2.6 vs 1.2, P = .03) scores after surgery. Prolonged opioid use was associated with decreased improvement in VAS-Leg over time (β = .14 [.15, 1.85], P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Current smoking status and lower BMI were significantly predictive of prolonged opioid use. Excess opioid use before and after surgery significantly affected PROMs after lumbar fusion.

Relative risks of adverse events among older adults receiving opioids versus NSAIDs after hospital discharge: A nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although analgesics are initiated on hospital discharge in millions of adults each year, studies quantifying the risks of opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) among older adults during this transition are limited. We sought to determine the incidence and risk of post-discharge adverse events among older adults with an opioid claim in the week after hospital discharge, compared to those with NSAID claims only.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and older, hospitalized in United States hospitals in 2016. We excluded beneficiaries admitted from or discharged to a facility. We derived a propensity score that included over 100 factors potentially related to the choice of analgesic, including demographics, diagnoses, surgeries, and medication coadministrations. Using 3:1 propensity matching, beneficiaries with an opioid claim in the week after hospital discharge (with or without NSAID claims) were matched to beneficiaries with an NSAID claim only. Primary outcomes included death, healthcare utilization (emergency department [ED] visits and rehospitalization), and a composite of known adverse effects of opioids or NSAIDs (fall/fracture, delirium, nausea/vomiting, complications of slowed colonic motility, acute renal failure, and gastritis/duodenitis) within 30 days of discharge. After propensity matching, there were 13,385 beneficiaries in the opioid cohort and 4,677 in the NSAID cohort (mean age: 74 years, 57% female). Beneficiaries receiving opioids had a higher incidence of death (1.8% versus 1.1%; relative risk [RR] 1.7 [1.3 to 2.3], p < 0.001, number needed to harm [NNH] 125), healthcare utilization (19.0% versus 17.4%; RR 1.1 [1.02 to 1.2], p = 0.02, NNH 59), and any potential adverse effect (25.2% versus 21.3%; RR 1.2 [1.1 to 1.3], p < 0.001, NNH 26), compared to those with an NSAID claim only. Specifically, they had higher relative risk of fall/fracture (4.5% versus 3.4%; RR 1.3 [1.1 to 1.6], p = 0.002), nausea/vomiting (9.2% versus 7.3%; RR 1.3 [1.1 to 1.4], p < 0.001), and slowed colonic motility (8.0% versus 6.2%; RR 1.3 [1.1 to 1.4], p < 0.001). Risks of delirium, acute renal failure, and gastritis/duodenitis did not differ between groups. The main limitation of our study is the observational nature of the data and possibility of residual confounding.

CONCLUSIONS

Older adults filling an opioid prescription in the week after hospital discharge were at higher risk for mortality and other post-discharge adverse outcomes compared to those filling an NSAID prescription only.

Opioid Overdose in the Hospital Setting: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to determine the percentage of opioid overdose events among medical and surgical inpatient admissions, and to identify risk factors associated with these events.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and CINAHL databases from inception through July 30, 2017 and identified additional studies from reference lists and other reviews. Articles were included if they reported original research on the rate of opioid overdoses or opioid-related adverse events, and the adverse events occurred in a general medical hospital during an inpatient stay. We extracted information on study population, design, results, and risk for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. We performed this review in accordance with recently suggested standards and report our findings as per the Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies met our eligibility criteria. The percentage of opioid overdoses ranged from 0.06% to 2.50% of hospitalizations. The majority of studies used only 1 method of event detection. Risk factors for overdose included older age, infancy, medical comorbidity, substance use disorder diagnosis, combining opioids with other sedatives, and admission to hospitals with higher opioid-prescribing rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid overdose in the inpatient setting is a serious preventable harm and is likely underestimated in much of the current literature. Improved detection methods are needed to more accurately measure the rate of inpatient opioid overdose. Refined estimates of opioid overdose should be used to drive safety and quality improvement initiatives in hospitals.

Association Between In-Clinic Opioid Administration and Discharge Opioid Prescription in Urgent Care: a Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Emergency departments increasingly use nonopioid analgesics to manage acute pain and minimize opioid-related harms. Urgent care centers are expanding to lower costs and provide efficient access to healthcare. General internists increasingly work in these acute care settings. Much is known about opioid prescribing in the primary care, inpatient, and emergency department setting. Little is known about opioid prescribing in the urgent care setting and associated outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the association between in-clinic opioid administration and opioid receipt at clinic discharge and on progression to chronic opioid use among urgent care patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients, 20 years or older and not on opioid medications, who presented for care to an urgent care clinic within a safety-net healthcare system from June 1, 2016, to April 30, 2019.

MAIN MEASURES

We examined the association between the in-clinic administration of oral or intravenous opioids and opioid receipt at clinic discharge. We also examined the association between in-clinic opioid administration and progression to chronic opioid use after six months.

KEY RESULTS

The study sample included 34,978 patients, of which 13.8% (n = 4842) received in-clinic opioids and 86.2% (n = 30,136) did not receive in-clinic opioids. After adjusting for age, gender, race/ethnicity, insurance, and pain diagnosis, patients who received in-clinic opioids were more likely to receive opioids at discharge compared to patients who did not receive in-clinic opioids (aOR = 12.30, 95% CI 11.44-13.23). Among a selected cohort of patients, in-clinic opioid administration was associated with progression to chronic opioid use (aOR = 2.12, 95% CI 1.66-2.71).

CONCLUSIONS

In-clinic opioid administration was strongly associated with opioid receipt at discharge and progression to chronic opioid use. Increased use of nonopioid analgesics in urgent care could likely reduce this association and limit opioids available for diversion, overdose, and death.

Effect of Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors on the Comparative Nephrotoxicity of NSAIDs and Opioids during Hospitalization

Background

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) are increasingly important alternatives to opioids for analgesia during hospitalization as health systems implement opioid-minimization initiatives. Increasing NSAID use may increase AKI rates, particularly in patients with predisposing risk factors. Inconclusive data in outpatient populations suggests that NSAID nephrotoxicity is magnified by renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RAS-I). No studies have tested this in hospitalized patients.

Methods

Retrospective, active-comparator cohort study of patients admitted to four hospitals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. To minimize confounding by indication, NSAIDs were compared to oxycodone, and RAS-I were compared to amlodipine. We tested synergistic NSAID+RAS-I nephrotoxicity by comparing the difference in AKI rate between NSAID versus oxycodone in patients treated with RAS-I to the difference in AKI rate between NSAID versus oxycodone in patients treated with amlodipine. In a secondary analysis, we restricted the cohort to patients with baseline diuretic treatment. AKI rates were adjusted for 71 baseline characteristics with inverse probability of treatment-weighted Poisson regression.

Results

The analysis included 25,571 patients who received a median of 2.4 days of analgesia. The overall AKI rate was 23.6 per 1000 days. The rate difference (RD) for NSAID versus oxycodone in patients treated with amlodipine was 4.1 per 1000 days (95% CI, -2.8 to 11.1), and the rate difference for NSAID versus oxycodone in patients treated with RAS-I was 5.9 per 1000 days (95% CI, 1.9 to 10.1), resulting in a nonsignificant interaction estimate: 1.85 excess AKI events per 1000 days (95% CI, -6.23 to 9.92). Analysis in patients treated with diuretics produced a higher, albeit nonsignificant, interaction estimate: 9.89 excess AKI events per 1000 days (95% CI, -5.04 to 24.83).

Conclusions

Synergistic nephrotoxicity was not observed with short-term NSAID+RAS-I treatment in the absence of concomitant diuretics, suggesting that RAS-I treatment may not be a reason to choose opioids in lieu of NSAIDs in this population. Synergistic nephrotoxicity cannot be ruled out in patients treated with diuretics.

Multimodal Analgesia After Posterior Fossa Decompression With and Without Duraplasty for Children With Chiari Type I

BACKGROUND

Multimodal analgesia (MMA) may reduce opioid use after surgery for Chiari malformation type I. An MMA protocol was implemented after both posterior fossa decompression without dural opening (PFD) and posterior fossa decompression with duraplasty (PFDD).

METHODS

Scheduled nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (ketorolac or ibuprofen) and diazepam were alternated with acetaminophen, and as-needed oxycodone or intravenous morphine. The primary outcome was total opioid requirement over postoperative days 0 to 2.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2017, 49 PFD and 29 PFDD procedures were performed, and 46 of 78 patients used the protocol. Patients with PFD required less opioids than patients with PFDD. Among patients with PFDD, patients with MMA protocol usage had a lower mean opioid requirement than patients with no MMA protocol usage (0.53 ± 0.49 mgEq/kg versus 1.4 ± 1.0 mgEq/kg, P = .0142). In multivariable analysis, MMA protocol usage status independently predicted a mean decrease in opioid requirement of 0.146 mg equivalents/kg (P = .0497) after adjustment for procedure and surgeon. Statistically significant differences were not demonstrated in antiemetic requirements, discharge opioid prescriptions, total direct cost, and length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

A protocol of scheduled nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs alternating with scheduled acetaminophen and diazepam was associated with opioid use reductions.

Risk Factors for Severe Opioid-Related Adverse Events in a National Cohort of Medical Hospitalizations

BACKGROUND

Opioids are a leading cause of adverse drug events in the hospital. Guidelines recommend that physicians assess the risks of opioids and discuss them with patients when considering opioid use. There are no studies examining patient- and prescribing-related risk factors for opioid-related adverse drug events (ORADEs) in hospitalized medical patients.

OBJECTIVE

To identify independent risk factors for severe ORADEs in hospitalized medical patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PATIENTS

Medical patients hospitalized at US, non-federal, and acute care facilities, with at least one pharmacy charge for an opioid during hospitalization. We excluded patients with metastatic malignancy, hospice, or palliative care billing codes.

MAIN MEASURES

We used Cox proportional hazards modeling to identify risk factors for severe ORADEs, defined by a pharmacy charge for naloxone. Candidate risk factors were chosen a priori, based on clinical grounds and prior literature.

KEY RESULTS

Among 731,208 hospitalizations (median age 60, 56.5% female), a severe ORADE occurred in 2727 (0.4%). Independent risk factors included patient characteristics (advanced age, female gender), comorbidities (congestive heart failure, opioid abuse/dependence, non-opioid drug abuse/dependence, psychosis, depression, obstructive sleep apnea), organ failures on admission (respiratory failure, shock/hypotension, renal failure, hepatic failure, acidosis, and neurologic failure), medication co-administrations (antipsychotics and short-acting benzodiazepines), and characteristics of the opioid prescriptions themselves (total dose for the day, parenteral route of administration, and receipt of multiple types of opioids in a day). Although a risk prediction model derived from these factors performed well on stratified k-fold cross-validation (average c-statistics 0.68-0.71), the low incidence of the outcome limited the positive predictive value of the risk score.

CONCLUSIONS

In this national cohort of medical patients, we identified several risk factors for ORADEs that can be used to inform physician decision-making, conversations with patients about risk, and development and targeting of harm reduction strategies for at-risk populations.

Evaluation of a Long-Acting Opioid Restriction Policy: Does Restriction Reduce the Need for Naloxone Reversal?

Purpose: After a sentinel event related to long-acting (LA) opioid administration at our institution and subsequent root cause analysis, an inpatient LA opioid restriction policy was implemented to improve patient safety. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effect of an inpatient LA opioid restriction policy on inpatient therapy utilization and to compare rates of naloxone reversal events among patients administered LA opioids before and after policy implementation. Methods: To evaluate the first objective, an electronic medical record report was created to capture all inpatient LA opioid orders prescribed to adults at our institution between March 1, 2014, and July 30, 2017. Utilization was compared before and after policy implementation and use controlled for by patient days. To evaluate the second objective, naloxone administrations were identified via a query of the medical record between March 1, 2014, and July 30, 2017. Naloxone reversal events were independently evaluated by 2 trained reviewers, and a third when discrepancies existed. Rates of naloxone reversal events related to LA opioid administration were compared between the pre- and post-policy phase. Results: The results of our first objective demonstrate that policy implementation was associated with a statistically significant reduction in LA opioid utilization that was sustained throughout the study duration. For our second objective, among the 144 patients deemed to have an opioid-related naloxone reversal event, a LA opioid was administered to 12 patients (18.9%) in the pre-policy phase and 17 patients (15.9%) in the post-policy phase. This difference was not statistically significant (odds ratio [OR] = 1.629, confidence interval [CI] = 0.711-3.732, P = .248). Conclusion: A LA opioid restriction policy significantly reduced LA opioid utilization at our institution. Despite this, we did not find a significant reduction in inpatient naloxone reversals related to LA opioids. Further study is warranted to identify an optimal method to reduce LA opioid-related toxicity.

A Multifaceted, Student-Led Approach to Improving the Opioid Prescribing Practices of Hospital Medicine Clinicians

BACKGROUND

The development of guidelines for opioid prescribing, including those from the Society of Hospital Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been associated with changes in prescription patterns. However, many providers remain unaware of best practices surrounding appropriate opioid prescribing.

METHODS

The research team implemented a multimodal quality improvement intervention, led by first-year medical students, designed to increase clinician adherence to current prescribing guidelines for patients discharged on opioids. This intervention included an awareness campaign, educational sessions for providers, and weekly performance feedback.

RESULTS

A total of 4,993 discharges were identified in the baseline period and 4,811 discharges in the intervention period. During the baseline period, 12.3% of all patients discharged were discharged with opioid prescriptions vs. 11.4% during the intervention period (p = 0.165). Of these, approximately 60% were new opioid prescriptions during both periods (p = 0.991). The study's efforts were associated with a decrease in the percentage of patients discharged with opioid prescriptions longer than seven days (45.2% preintervention to 39.5% postintervention, p < 0.042); an increase in the percentage of patients with follow-up appointments within seven days of discharge (38.6% to 65.9%, p = 0.001); and an increase in documentation of prescription history obtained from the state Prescription Monitoring Program registry (32.5% to 39.7%, p = 0.042).

CONCLUSION

This intervention provided a successful framework to engage learners in improving opioid prescribing practices. The results are promising, but the experiences highlight the significant effort and resources needed to change prescriber practices, potentially limiting sustainability.

Opioid-Sparing Multimodal Analgesia After Selective Dorsal Rhizotomy

OBJECTIVES

Multimodal analgesia (MMA) may reduce opioid use among children who are hospitalized, and may contribute toward enhanced recovery after selective dorsal rhizotomy (SDR) for patients with spasticity in pediatric cerebral palsy. In this retrospective cohort study, we assess an MMA protocol consisting of scheduled nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug doses (ketorolac or ibuprofen), alternating with scheduled acetaminophen and diazepam doses, with as-needed opioids. It was hypothesized that protocol use would be associated with reductions in opioid requirements and other clinical improvements.

METHODS

Data were obtained for 52 patients undergoing SDR at an academic tertiary care pediatric hospital (2012-2017, with the protocol implemented in 2014). Using a retrospective cohort design, we compared outcomes between protocol and nonprotocol patients, employing both univariate t test and Wilcoxon rank test comparisons as well as multivariable regression methods. The primary outcome was total as-needed opioid requirements over postoperative days (PODs) 0 to 2, measured in oral morphine milligram equivalents per kilogram. Additional outcomes included antiemetic medication doses, discharge opioid prescriptions, total direct cost, and length of stay.

RESULTS

Twelve patients received the MMA protocol, and 40 patients did not. POD-0 MMA initiation was independently associated with a reduction of 0.14 morphine milligram equivalents per kilogram in mean opioid requirements over PODs 0 to 2 in the multiple regression analysis (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.28; P = .04). No statistically significant differences were demonstrated in doses of antiemetic medications, discharge opioid prescriptions, total direct cost, and length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

This MMA protocol may help reduce opioid use after SDR. Improving protocol implementation in a prospective, multisite study will help elucidate further MMA effects on pain, costs, and recovery.

Potentially Inappropriate Use of Intravenous Opioids in Hospitalized Patients

Physicians have the potential to decrease opioid misuse through appropriate prescribing practices. We examined the frequency of potentially inappropriate intravenous (IV) opioid use (where oral use would have been more appropriate) in patients hospitalized at a tertiary medical center. We excluded patients with cancer, patients receiving comfort care, and patients with gastrointestinal dysfunction. On the basis of recent guidance from the Society of Hospital Medicine, we defined IV doses as potentially inappropriate if administered more than 24 hours after an initial IV dose in patients who did not have nil per os status. Of the 200 patients studied, 31% were administered potentially inappropriate IV opioids at least once during their hospitalization, and 33% of all IV doses administered were potentially inappropriate. Given the numerous advantages of oral over IV opioids, this study suggests significant potential for improving prescribing practices to decrease risk of addiction, costs, and complications, ultimately improving the value of care provided.

Who Hurts More? A Multicenter Prospective Study of In-Hospital Opioid Use in Pediatric Trauma Patients in the Midwest

BACKGROUND

Despite increased national attention on misuse of prescription and nonprescription opioids for adolescents and children, little is known about opioid use in a pediatric population during hospitalization for injury. The purpose of this investigation is to describe opioid administration and magnitude of opioid exposure in the first 48 hours of hospitalization in a pediatric trauma population.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a secondary analysis of data collected for a randomized, prospective intervention study at 4 Midwestern children's trauma centers. Participants included children ages 10 to 17 years old, admitted to the hospital for unintentional injury. Descriptive statistics and multivariable modeling were used to characterize demographic factors and measure prevalence and magnitude of opioid use within the first 48 hours of hospitalization.

RESULTS

Among 299 participants, 82% received at least 1 opioid administration. Children had increased odds of receiving an opioid (odds ratio [OR] 4.25; 95% CI 2.16 to 8.35) for every log increase of Injury Severity Scores (ISS), yet the majority of children with minor injury (61%) also received an opioid. Children with fractures and older children had higher odds of receiving an opioid. Amount of opioid, expressed as morphine milligrams equivalent (MME), significantly increased with child age, ISS, and fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

Most pediatric trauma patients received an opioid in the first 48 hours of hospitalization, although prevalence and exposure varied by age, injury, and acuity. Aggressive pain management can be appropriate for injured pediatric patients; however, study results indicate areas for improvement, specifically for children with minor injuries and those receiving excessive opioid amounts.

Opioids in the treatment of non-specific acute and chronic pain

After reading this article, the reader will be familiar with the general classes of opioid agonists and partial agonists, the basics of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of opioids, the risks of opioid therapy and the requirements for the safe and effective use of opioids in acute and chronic pain. The use of opioids during surgical procedures or anesthesia is not discussed. Also, there is no discussion about various available opioid antagonists that are used to treat overdose and the various disorders associated with their use (including naloxone and naltrexone). Opioids are available, the most powerful and effective analgesics, and have become acceptable drugs for the treatment of acute and cancerous pain. However, there is concern about their use in case of chronic pain, if there is no cancer, because they are long-range ineffective but best suited for stopping this pain. Opioid prescription must be monitored for better use. Chronic pain creates discomfort for these patients, reducing their productivity and efficiency, which, in turn, can lead to economic problems in the country. The choice of Nalbuphine is due to the following reasons: the opioid, which is comparable to morphine by its analgesic potential, but has a better safety profile for nausea, vomiting and respiratory depression; not subject to strict quantitative accounting (extract on prescription form 1); the choice of opioid analgesics is significantly limited in Ukraine.

Attempts to Limit Opioid Prescribing in Critically Ill Patients: Not So Easy, Not So Fast

OBJECTIVE

To discuss why opioids have been considered the long-standing first-line therapy for treating acute, severe nociceptive pain in critically ill patients and discuss considerations for limiting opioid overuse in the intensive care unit setting.

DATA SOURCES

Articles were identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from database inception until December 2018. Additional references were located through a review of the bibliographies of articles and clinical practice guidelines.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Original research articles excluding case reports were included if they concerned nonopioid agents for pain management in critically ill patients. The focus was on studies not included in the most recent pain management guidelines.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Ten studies were retrieved. Nonopioid therapies or opioid-sparing therapies have been touted as possible alternatives for critically ill patients, but they have particular adverse effects concerns in critically ill patients, often lack parenteral dosage forms, and frequently require dose adjustment or avoidance in patients with renal or hepatic dysfunction. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: There is a well-recognized opioid epidemic that has been the subject of much discussion. Attempts to control the epidemic have focused on limiting opioid prescribing and using nonopioid alternatives, but there are special considerations when treating severe pain in critically ill patients that often preclude nonopioid analgesics.

CONCLUSIONS

There continues to be an unmet need for medications that are as effective as opioids for severe nociceptive pain in critically ill patients but without the adverse effect and abuse concerns. Until such medications are available, clinicians need to optimize prescribing of opioid and nonopioid analgesics.

Balancing Patient-Centered and Safe Pain Care for Nonsurgical Inpatients: Clinical and Managerial Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Hospitals and clinicians aim to deliver care that is safe. Simultaneously, they are ensuring that care is patient centered, meaning that it is respectful of patients' values, preferences, and experiences. However, little is known about delivering care in cases in which these goals may not align. For example, hospitals and clinicians are facing the daunting challenge of balancing safe and patient-centered pain care for nonsurgical patients, due to lack of comprehensive care guidelines and complexity of this patient population.

METHODS

To gather clinical and managerial perspectives on the importance, feasibility, and strategies used to balance patient-centered care (PCC) and safe pain care for nonsurgical inpatients, the research team conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with hospitalists, registered nurses, and health care managers from one health care system in the Midwestern United States. We systematically examined transcribed interviews and identified major themes using a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Participants acknowledged the importance of balancing PCC and safe pain care. They envisioned this balance as a continuum, with certain patients for whom it is easier (for example, an opioid-naive patient with a fracture), vs. more difficult (for example, a patient with opioid use disorder). Participants reported several strategies they use to balance PCC and safe pain care, including offering alternatives to opioids, setting realistic pain goals and expectations, and using a team approach.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians and health care managers use various strategies to balance PCC and safe pain care for nonsurgical patients. Future studies should examine the effectiveness of these strategies on patient outcomes.