Prescription Patterns of Adjuvant Pain Medications Following an Opioid Supply Restriction Law: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Florida House Bill 21 (HB21) was implemented in July 2018 to limit prescriptions of Schedule II opioids for acute pain patients, but it is unclear whether such restrictions have a collateral influence on the utilization of commonly prescribed adjuvant pain medications. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess whether this law was associated with a change in use patterns of gabapentinoids, benzodiazepines, and muscle relaxants. METHODS: We obtained prescription claims for medications dispensed from January 1, 2015, to June 31, 2019, from a health plan serving a large Florida employer. Interrupted time series analyses were conducted to compare pre-HB21 and post-HB21 implementation changes in the mean monthly number of users and prescriptions for gabapentinoids, benzodiazepines, and muscle relaxants. RESULTS: There was a 6% immediate increase (relative risk: 1.06; 95% confidence interval: 1.02, 1.11) in the monthly proportion of gabapentinoid users, and an 11% immediate increase in the monthly proportion of gabapentinoids prescriptions (relative risk: 1.11; 95% confidence interval: 1.04, 1.18) per 1000 patients following law implementation. However, after the law, we observed a significant reduction in trend for the monthly proportion of muscle relaxants and benzodiazepine users. CONCLUSIONS: An increased number of patients and prescriptions were observed for gabapentinoids, while fewer patients received benzodiazepines and muscle relaxants after HB21. In previous studies, opioid prescription restriction laws are shown to reduce opioids, but this work suggests that these laws may also have unintended consequences for the use of adjunctive medications that were not intended to be affected.

Changes in Prescribing by Provider Type Following a State Prescription Opioid Restriction Law.

BACKGROUND: Many states have implemented opioid days' supply restriction policies, leading to reductions in opioid prescribing. Although research within certain provider types exist, no study has evaluated a restriction policy by various provider types. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes in opioid utilization following a days' supply restriction policy stratified by provider type: surgery, emergency medicine, primary care, specialty care, and dentistry. DESIGN: Interrupted time series (ITS) PARTICIPANTS: Opioid prescription claims of patients in a private health plan serving a large Florida employer from 1/1/2015 to 3/31/2019. Provider types were determined using the Healthcare Provider Taxonomy Code associated with the national provider identifier (NPI). INTERVENTIONS: Florida's opioid restriction policy implemented on July 1, 2018. MAIN MEASURES: Changes in mean morphine milligram equivalent (MMEs), mean days' supply, and mean number of units dispensed per opioid prescription before and after policy implementation. KEY RESULTS: There were 10,583 opioid initial prescriptions dispensed. Treating providers were classified as surgery (16.4%; n = 1732), emergency care (14.3%; n = 1516), primary care (21.2%; n = 2241), specialty care (11.4%; n = 1207), and dentistry providers (23.7%; n = 2511). Significant reductions in mean days' supply were observed across most provider types ranging from 14% reduction for dentistry providers to 41% reduction for specialty care providers. Significant changes were observed for emergency care and specialty care providers with a 30% (p = 0.001)and 29% (p < 0.001) reduction in mean MME, respectively, and a 27% (p = 0.040) reduction in mean number of units dispensed in emergency care providers, after implementation. Pre-implementation trends in opioid prescribing varied by provider type impacting the effects of the opioid days' supply restriction policy. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-policy opioid prescribing varied by provider type with a differential impact on mean MMEs, mean days' supply, and mean number of units dispensed per prescription following implementation.

Lessons from clinical implementation of a preemptive pharmacogenetic panel as part of a testing pilot program with an employer-sponsored medical plan.

Introduction: This manuscript reports on a pilot program focused on implementing pharmacogenetic testing within the framework of an employer-sponsored medical plan at University of Florida (UF) Health. The aim was to understand the challenges associated with program implementation and to gather insights into patient attitudes towards PGx testing. Methods: The pilot program adopted a partially preemptive approach, targeting patients on current prescriptions for medications with relevant gene-drug associations. Patients were contacted via phone or through the MyChart system and offered pharmacogenetic testing with no additional direct costs. Results: Of 244 eligible patients, 110 agreed to participate. However, only 61 returned the mailed DNA collection kits. Among these, 89% had at least one potentially actionable genotype-based phenotype. Post-test follow-up revealed that while the majority viewed the process positively, 71% preferred a consultation with a pharmacogenetic specialist for better understanding of their results. Barriers to implementation ranged from fatigue with the healthcare system to a lack of understanding of the pharmacogenetic testing and concerns about privacy and potential misuse of genetic data. Conclusion: The findings underscore the need for clearer patient education on pharmacogenetic results and suggest the importance of the role of pharmacogenetic-trained pharmacists in delivering this education. They also highlight issues with relying on incomplete or inaccurate medication lists in patients' electronic health record. The implementation revealed less obvious challenges, the understanding of which could be beneficial for the success of future preemptive pharmacogenetic implementation programs. The insights from the pilot program served to bridge the information gap between patients, providers, and pharmacogenetic -specialists, with the ultimate goal of improving patient care.

A narrative review of ergonomic problems, principles, and potential solutions in surgical operations.

BACKGROUND: Ergonomic development and awareness are critical to the long-term health and well-being of surgeons. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders affect an overwhelming majority of surgeons, and various operative modalities (open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery) differentially affect the musculoskeletal system. Previous reviews have addressed various aspects of surgical ergonomic history or methods of ergonomic assessment, but the purpose of this study is to synthesize ergonomic analysis by surgical modality while discussing future directions of the field based on current perioperative interventions. METHODS: pubmed was queried for "ergonomics," "work-related musculoskeletal disorders," and "surgery," which returned 124 results. From the 122 English-language papers, a further search was conducted via the articles' sources for relevant literature. RESULTS: Ninety-nine sources were ultimately included. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders culminate in detrimental effects ranging from chronic pain and paresthesias to reduced operative time and consideration for early retirement. Underreporting symptoms and a lack of awareness of proper ergonomic principles substantially hinder the widespread utilization of ergonomic techniques in the operating room, reducing the quality of life and career longevity. Therapeutic interventions exist at some institutions but require further research and development for necessary widespread implementation. CONCLUSION: Awareness of proper ergonomic principles and the detrimental effects of musculoskeletal disorders is the first step in protecting against this universal problem. Implementing ergonomic practices in the operating room is at a crossroads, and incorporating these principles into everyday life must be a priority for all surgeons.

Diabetes Prevention in a U.S. Healthcare System: A Portrait of Missed Opportunities.

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes is a widespread, preventable illness. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has screening guidelines for diabetes prevention. The aim is to establish the extent to which U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's guidelines for prediabetes screening, diagnosis, and treatment are followed in a large health system and to identify missed opportunities for diabetes prevention. METHODS: A comprehensive analysis of the electronic health records for the entire patient population of a large health center between August 1, 2019 and October 31, 2020 was analyzed, focusing on 21,448 patients eligible for prediabetes screening according to USPSTF recommendations. Compliance with U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for screening, diagnosis, and treatment was assessed. RESULTS: Of the 21,448 patients identified as eligible for prediabetes screening, 13,465 (62.8%) were screened in accordance with the USPSTF recommendations. Of those patients screened, 3,430 met the requirements for a prediabetes diagnosis. Only 185 (5.4%) of patients who screened positive for prediabetes received a formal diagnosis of prediabetes, and no patients who received a diagnosis received appropriate treatment for their prediabetes. Women were more likely than men to be screened (p<0.001), and non-Hispanic Whites were less likely than non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics to be formally diagnosed even after screening positive (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although a majority of eligible patients receive appropriate screening for prediabetes, diagnosis and treatment of patients who screen positive for prediabetes is not common practice. Future research and policy may benefit from a focus on classifying diabetes prevention as a quality metric and incentivizing behaviors consistent with diabetes prevention.

Assessment of a Manual Method versus an Automated, Probability-Based Algorithm to Identify Patients at High Risk for Pharmacogenomic Adverse Drug Outcomes in a University-Based Health Insurance Program.

We compared patient cohorts selected for pharmacogenomic testing using a manual method or automated algorithm in a university-based health insurance network. The medication list was compiled from claims data during 4th quarter 2018. The manual method selected patients by number of medications by the health system's list of medications for pharmacogenomic testing. The automated method used YouScript's pharmacogenetic interaction probability (PIP) algorithm to select patients based on the probability that testing would result in detection of one or more clinically significant pharmacogenetic interactions. A total of 6916 patients were included. Patient cohorts selected by each method differed substantially, including size (manual n = 218, automated n = 286) and overlap (n = 41). The automated method was over twice as likely to identify patients where testing may reveal a clinically significant pharmacogenetic interaction than the manual method (62% vs. 29%, p < 0.0001). The manual method captured more patients with significant drug-drug or multi-drug interactions (80.3% vs. 40.2%, respectively, p < 0.0001), higher average number of significant drug interactions per patient (3.3 vs. 1.1, p < 0.0001), and higher average number of unique medications per patient (9.8 vs. 7.4, p < 0.0001). It is possible to identify a cohort of patients who would likely benefit from pharmacogenomic testing using manual or automated methods.

Chronic Opioid Therapy Utilization Following an Acute Pain Prescription Supply Restriction Law: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Florida House Bill 21 (HB21) was implemented in July 2018 to limit Schedule II opioids prescriptions for patients with acute pain to a 3-day supply. Little is known about the potential unintended effects that such opioid restriction policies may have on chronic pain patients, who are exempt from the law. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the effect of HB21 on opioid utilization measures among a cohort of chronic opioid therapy (COT) patients. STUDY DESIGN: A quasi-experimental design with interrupted time series analyses. SETTING: Pharmacy claims from January 1, 2015 to June 31, 2019 from a large employer-based health plan in Florida. METHODS: COT patients were those who received a ≥ 70 days' supply of opioids in the prior 90 days, representing 15,310 patients. Interrupted time series analyses were conducted to compare the following monthly measures among COT patients before and after HB21 implementation: 1) number of COT patients, 2) daily Morphine Milligram Equivalents [MMEs], 3) days' supply of prescriptions. RESULTS: There was a significant 25% reduction in the trend (pre-HB21 RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.93, 0.96 versus post-HB21 RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.76) and an 8% immediate decrease (RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.88, 0.97) in the monthly prevalence of COT patients after HB21 implementation. However, no significant change was observed in trends for monthly number of days supplied per prescription, monthly MMEs per COT patient-day, or total MMEs per prescription. LIMITATIONS: Our study used data from employer-based private health insurance and did not include a longer post-policy period to adjust for implementation lag. CONCLUSION: Fewer patients received COT after HB21; however, patients who continued to receive COT experienced no significant changes in their regimen. The study did not assess whether COT patients were appropriately tapered or if therapeutic alternatives were initiated for new chronic pain patients.