Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Opioid Prescribing on Hospital Discharge Among Older Adults: A National Retrospective Cohort Study.

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

Predictors of treatment intensification in uncontrolled hypertension.

PURPOSE: Prior studies have shown that treatment intensification for patients presenting with uncontrolled hypertension (HTN) rarely occurs, even during visits to the patient's own primary care physicians (PCPs). In this article, we identified predictors of treatment intensification for uncontrolled HTN. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using nationally representative survey data on visits by patients aged 18 or above with uncontrolled HTN, defined as a recorded SBP at least 140 and/or a DBP at least 90 using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) 2008-2018. Our outcome is treatment intensification defined as the addition of a new blood pressure medication. RESULTS: We analyzed 22 559 visits to PCPs where uncontrolled HTN was noted, representing 801 023 786 visits nationally. Among these encounters, 2138 (10.3%) of the visits resulted in treatment intensification. Visits with the patient's own PCP had higher rates of treatment intensification than visits to another PCP (10.8 vs. 5.9%, P  < 0.0001). Visits for patients previously on antihypertensive medications had lower rates of treatment intensification (11% for no medications, 10.4% for one medication, 6.6% for ≥2 medications, P  < 0.0001), but there were no statistically significant differences in rates of intensification for those with relevant comorbidities (9.4% for no chronic conditions, 10.8% for one to two chronic conditions, 8.9% for at least three chronic conditions, P  = 0.12). Multivariable adjusted results were similar to the unadjusted findings. CONCLUSION: Visits for patients with uncontrolled HTN rarely result in treatment intensification. Substantial opportunity exists to improve management of HTN, particularly for patients on fewer medications or seen by a covering provider.

Does prehabilitation before esophagectomy improve postoperative outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is associated with high morbidity. It remains unclear whether prehabilitation, a strategy aimed at optimizing patients' physical and mental functioning prior to surgery, improves postoperative outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of prehabilitation on post-operative outcomes after esophagectomy. Data sources included Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PEDro, with information from 1 January 2000 to 5 August 2023. The analysis included randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared prehabilitation interventions to standard care prior to esophagectomy. A random effects model was used to generate a pooled estimate for pairwise meta-analysis, meta-analysis of proportions, and meta-analysis of means. A total of 1803 patients were included with 584 in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1219 in observational studies. In the randomized evidence, there were no significant differences between prehabilitation and control in the odds of postoperative pneumonia (15.0 vs. 18.9%, odds ratio (OR) 1.06 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66;1.72]) or pulmonary complications (14 vs. 25.6%, OR 0.68 [95% CI: 0.32;1.45]). In the observational data, there was a reduction in both postoperative pneumonia (22.5 vs. 32.9%, OR 0.48 [95% CI: 0.28;0.83]) and pulmonary complications (26.1 vs. 52.3%, OR 0.35 [95% CI: 0.17;0.75]) with prehabilitation. Hospital and intensive care unit length of stay (days), operative mortality, and severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) did not differ between groups in both the randomized data and observational data. Prehabilitation demonstrated reductions in postoperative pneumonia and pulmonary complications in observational studies, but not RCTs. The overall certainty of these findings is limited by the low quality of the available evidence.