Prescription pain medications for disorders of gut-brain interaction: Comparing usage patterns with clinical practice recommendations.

Treatment of gastrointestinal pain remains a significant challenge in the management of many disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI). Pharmacologic agents and various behavioral therapies are among the potential therapeutic options for pain-predominant DGBI such as irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, functional heartburn, and centrally mediated abdominal pain syndrome. In the retrospective study published in this journal, Luo et al. examine the use of prescription pain medications from a global perspective among patients with DGBI using the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study. This review article provides an overview of usage patterns of various pharmacologic pain management agents (opioids, central neuromodulators, antispasmodics, and other peripherally acting agents) and non-pharmacologic therapies in the context of clinical practice recommendations on the management of DGBI pain.

High Opioid Prescribing Profiles Among Gastroenterologists: A Nationwide Analysis.

Chronic opioid use is associated with adverse effects on the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and increased morbidity.1-3 Despite efforts to de-escalate opioid use, 10% of outpatient GI visits are associated with an opioid prescription.4 Although we previously described declining opioid prescriptions to Medicare patients by most gastroenterologists,5 opioid prescriptions for GI conditions have increased.4 Considerable variation in opioid prescribing behavior exists in the general physician population, and a small percentage of high prescribers are responsible for driving opioid prescriptions.6,7 The aims of this study are (1) to examine the impact of high opioid prescribers (HPs) on overall prescription volume in gastroenterology and (2) identify characteristics associated with HPs.

Increasing Rates of Opioid Prescriptions for Gastrointestinal Diseases in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Pain control is an important management approach for many gastrointestinal conditions. Because of the ongoing opioid crisis, public health efforts have focused on limiting opioid prescriptions. This study examines national opioid prescribing patterns and factors associated with opioid prescriptions for gastrointestinal conditions. METHODS: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional study using the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data from 2006 to 2016. The International Classification of Diseases codes were used to identify ambulatory visits with a primary gastrointestinal diagnosis. Data were weighted to calculate national estimates for opioid prescriptions for gastrointestinal disease. Joinpoint regression was used to analyze temporal trends. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with opioid prescriptions. RESULTS: We analyzed 12,170 visits with a primary gastrointestinal diagnosis, representing 351 million visits. The opioid prescription rate for gastrointestinal visits was 10.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.0%-11.2%). Opioid prescription rates for gastrointestinal disease increased by 0.5% per year from 2006 to 2016 (P = 0.04). Prescription rates were highest for chronic pancreatitis (25.1%) and chronic liver disease (13.9%) visits. Seventy-one percent of opioid prescriptions were continuations of an existing prescription. Patient characteristics associated with continued opioid prescriptions included rural location (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.46; 95% CI 1.11-1.93), depression (aOR 1.83; 95% CI 1.33-2.53), and Medicaid insurance (aOR 1.57; 95% CI 1.15-2.13). DISCUSSION: Opioid prescription rates for gastrointestinal disease visits increased from 2006 to 2016. Our findings suggest an inadequate response to the opioid epidemic by providers managing gastrointestinal conditions. Further clinical interventions are needed to limit opioid use for gastrointestinal disease.(Equation is included in full-text article.).

Cost Savings Associated With Palliative Care Among Older Adults With Advanced Cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is inconsistent evidence that palliative care intervention decreases total healthcare expenditure at end-of-life for oncology patients. This inconsistent evidence may result from small sample sizes at single institution studies and disparate characterization of costs across studies. Comprehensive studies in population-based datasets are needed to fully understand the impact of palliative care on total healthcare costs. This study analyzed the impact of palliative care on total healthcare costs in a nationally representative sample of advanced cancer patients. METHODS: We conducted a matched cohort study among Medicare patients with metastatic lung, colorectal, breast and prostate cancers. We matched patients who received a palliative care consultation to similar patients who did not receive a palliative care consultation on factors related to both the receipt of palliative care and end of life costs. We compared direct costs between matched patients to determine the per-patient economic impact of a palliative care consultation. RESULTS: Patients who received a palliative care consultation experienced an average per patient cost of $5,834 compared to $7,784 for usual care patients (25% decrease; p < 0.0001). Palliative care consultation within 7 days of death decreased healthcare costs by $451, while palliative care consultation more than 4 weeks from death decreased costs by $4,643. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that palliative care has the capacity to substantially reduce healthcare expenditure among advanced cancer patients. Earlier palliative care consultation results in greater cost reductions than consultation in the last week of life.

Effect of Palliative Care on Aggressiveness of End-of-Life Care Among Patients With Advanced Cancer.

PURPOSE: Palliative care's role in oncology has expanded, but its effect on aggressiveness of care at the end of life has not been characterized at the population level. METHODS: This matched retrospective cohort study examined the effect of an encounter with palliative care on health-care use at the end of life among 6,580 Medicare beneficiaries with advanced prostate, breast, lung, or colorectal cancer. We compared health-care use before and after palliative care consultation to a matched nonpalliative care cohort. RESULTS: The palliative care cohort had higher rates of health-care use in the 30 days before palliative care consultation compared with the nonpalliative cohort, with higher rates of hospitalization (risk ratio [RR], 3.33; 95% CI, 2.87 to 3.85), invasive procedures (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.62 to 1.88), and chemotherapy administration (RR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.45 to 1.78). The opposite pattern emerged in the interval from palliative care consultation through death, where the palliative care cohort had lower rates of hospitalization (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65), invasive procedures (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.59), and chemotherapy administration (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.53). Patients with earlier palliative care consultation in their disease course had larger absolute reductions in health-care use compared with those with palliative care consultation closer to the end of life. CONCLUSION: This population-based study found that palliative care substantially decreased health-care use among Medicare beneficiaries with advanced cancer. Given the increasing number of elderly patients with advanced cancer, this study emphasizes the importance of early integration of palliative care alongside standard oncologic care.