Patterns of Opioid Prescription, Use, and Costs Among Patients With Advanced Cancer and Inpatient Palliative Care Between 2008 and 2014.

PURPOSE: An understanding of opioid prescription and cost patterns is important to optimize pain management for patients with advanced cancer. This study aimed to determine opioid prescription and cost patterns and to identify opioid prescription predictors in patients with advanced cancer who received inpatient palliative care (IPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed data from 807 consecutive patients with cancer who received IPC in each October from 2008 through 2014. Patient characteristics; opioid types; morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) in milligrams per day of scheduled opioids before, during, and after hospitalization; and in-admission opioid cost per patient were assessed. We determined symptom changes between baseline and follow-up palliative care visits and the in-admission opioid prescription predictors. RESULTS: A total of 714 (88%) of the 807 patients were evaluable. The median MEDD per patient decreased from 150 mg/d in 2008 to 83 mg/d in 2014 ( P < .001). The median opioid cost per patient decreased and then increased from $22.97 to $40.35 over the 7 years ( P = .03). The median MEDDs increased from IPC to discharge by 67% ( P < .001). The median Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale pain improvement at follow-up was 1 ( P < .001). Younger patients with advanced cancer (odds ratio [OR[, 0.95; P < . 001) were prescribed higher preadmission MEDDs (OR, 1.01; P < .001) more often in the earlier study years (2014 v 2009: OR, 0.18 [ P = .004] v 0.30 [ P = .02]) and tended to use high MEDDs (> 75 mg/d) during hospitalization. CONCLUSION: The MEDD per person decreased from 2008 to 2014. The opioid cost per patient decreased from 2008 to 2011 and then increased from 2012 to 2014. Age, prescription year, and preadmission opioid doses were significantly associated with opioid doses prescribed to patients with advanced cancer who received IPC.

The Conversion Ratio From Intravenous Hydromorphone to Oral Opioids in Cancer Patients.

CONTEXT: The lack of knowledge of the accurate conversion ratio (CR) between intravenous (IV) and oral hydromorphone and opioid rotation ratio (ORR) between IV hydromorphone and oral morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) may lead to poorly controlled pain or overdosing in cancer inpatients. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the CR and ORR from IV hydromorphone to oral hydromorphone and MEDD (obtained from oral morphine and oxycodone). METHODS: A total of 4745 consecutive inpatient palliative care consults during 2010-14 were reviewed for conversions from IV hydromorphone to oral hydromorphone, morphine or oxycodone. Patient characteristics, symptoms, and opioid doses were determined in patients successfully discharged on oral opioids without readmission within one week. Linear regression analysis was used to estimate the CR or ORR between the 24 hour IV hydromorphone mg dose before conversion and the oral opioid mg dose used before discharge. RESULTS: Among 394 patients on IV hydromorphone, 147 underwent conversion to oral hydromorphone and 247 underwent rotation to oral morphine (163) or oxycodone (84). The median (interquartile range) CR from IV to PO hydromorphone was 2.5 (2.14-2.75) with correlation of 0.95 (P < 0.0001). The median ORR (interquartile range) from IV hydromorphone to MEDD was 11.46 (9.84-13.00) with correlation of 0.93(P < 0.0001). The median ORR was 11.54 in patients receiving <30 mg of IV hydromorphone/day and 9.86 in patients receiving ≥30 mg (P = 0.0004). CONCLUSION: Our study found that 1 mg of IV hydromorphone is equivalent to 2.5 mg of oral hydromorphone and 11.46 mg of MEDD. Hydromorphone at doses ≥30 mg/day may require a lower ORR to other opioids.

Extreme hypothyroidism associated with sunitinib treatment for metastatic renal cancer.

Although thyroid abnormalities are reported with the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, patients rarely require replacement therapy. The initial multicentre studies of sunitinib for metastatic renal cancer did not report hypothyroidism in fatigued patients, and thyroid tests were not routinely monitored. More recent studies, however, suggest that up to 70% of patients develop thyroid test abnormalities during treatment with sunitinib. Despite these concerns, the clinical relevance of sunitinib-induced hypothyroidism is uncertain since thyroid gland recovery is the norm in most patients. We report a case of a patient with metastatic papillary renal cell cancer on combination anti-angiogenic therapy with sunitinib, who developed unusually high thyroid stimulating hormone levels and severe symptoms despite receiving L-thyroxine. Our case also illustrates the complexity of managing sunitinib-associated thyroid dysfunction, which may be accompanied by transient thyroiditis, hyperthyroidism, and profound hypothyroidism.