Standardized indolent systemic mastocytosis evaluations across a healthcare system: implications for screening accuracy.

Timely diagnosis of systemic mastocytosis (SM) remains challenging due to care heterogeneity. We implemented a standardized approach for SM screening and diagnosis utilizing a novel healthcare system-wide international screening registry. A retrospective analysis assessed rates of SM, cutaneous mastocytosis (CM), and molecular diagnoses before and two years after care standardization. Accuracy of individual and combined SM screening tests - basal serum tryptase (BST) ≥11.5 and ≥20.0 ng/mL, REMA ≥2, monomorphic maculopapular CM, and elevated BST based upon tryptase genotype - was analyzed. Tryptase genotyping and high-sensitivity KIT p.D816V testing increased substantially two years following care standardization. SM diagnoses doubled from 47 to 94 and KIT p.D816V molecular diagnoses increased from 24 to 79. Mean BST and KIT p.D816V variant allele frequency (VAF) values were significantly lower in patients diagnosed after standardization. Hereditary-alpha tryptasemia prevalence was increased in SM prior to care standardization at 4/30 (13.3%) but reflected the general population prevalence two years later at 5/76 (6.6%). Elevated BST based upon genotype and BST ≥11.5 ng/mL had the highest sensitivities at 84.2% and 88.3%, respectively. Presence of monomorphic MPCM, elevated BST based upon tryptase genotype, and the combination of REMA ≥2 with elevated BST based upon tryptase genotype had specificities >90%. BST >20.0 ng/mL had low sensitivity and specificity and was not required to establish any indolent SM diagnosis. Care standardization increased SM diagnosis rates, particularly in patients with low BSTs. Stratifying BST based upon genotype had the best overall sensitivity and specificity of any indolent SM screening test and improved the REMA score specificity.

Military Health System Opioid, Tramadol, and Gabapentinoid Prescription Volumes Before and After a Defense Health Agency Policy Release.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and health system policies to mitigate inappropriate opioid prescribing practices may have an extended impact on low-dose opioid (e.g., tramadol) and non-opioid (e.g., gabapentinoid) pain medication prescribing practices. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes in opioid, tramadol, and gabapentinoid prescribing rates from January 2016 to February 2020 within the Military Health System, including the degree to which prescribing rates changed after release of a US Defense Health Agency Procedural Instruction. METHODS: In this observational health services research study, opioid, tramadol, and gabapentin prescription dispense events of US Military Health System beneficiaries enrolled in care at military treatment facilities prior to US Defense Health Agency Procedural Instruction release (January 2016-May 2018) were used to forecast values from the post-intervention period (June 2018-February 2020). RESULTS: The median opioid and tramadol prescribing rates decreased from January 2016 to February 2020, aside from tramadol prescribing in Surgery Clinics, which increased. Gabapentinoid prescribing rate changes were mixed. In Bayesian time series models, the forecasted proportion of patients receiving each of the three medications, regardless of age group or clinic type, did not significantly vary from the actual prescribing rates in the post-intervention period. CONCLUSION: Overall, CPGs and policies targeting opioid prescribing practices may have provided the maximal impetus for providers to re-evaluate their prescribing practices, as the policy did not appear to change the slope in prescribing rates. However, it is unclear whether the policies mitigated the likelihood of plateaus in prescribing rates. Further work is needed to assess the degree to which providers simultaneously altered other non-opioid pain medication prescribing practices, self-management recommendations, and non-pharmacological therapy referrals.

Variability among Online Opioid Conversion Calculators Performing Common Palliative Care Conversions.

Introduction: Online opioid conversion calculators (OOCCs) are commonly used to aid conversion between opioids to overcome tolerance, reduce adverse effects, or challenges related to administration. The purpose of this study was to describe and characterize variability among OOCC used by health care practitioners when converting common opioids and doses encountered in the hospice and palliative care setting. Methods: We collected 58 quantitative surveys and performed sentiment analysis on 62 qualitative responses from adult learners primarily practicing in the palliative care setting and enrolled in an online palliative care Master of Science program through the University of Maryland, Baltimore, who were asked to perform opioid conversion calculations using realistic patient cases. Results: OOCC have substantial variability leading to a wide range of outputs, which may put patients at risk for opioid-related harm. Assessing participant sentiment toward OOCC showed most participants held a "Negative Sentiment" toward these calculators after the activity. Conclusion: Overall, findings reveal that given the same information, clinicians can come to widely different opioid doses and these differences can be amplified by OOCC. These differences can be particularly dangerous given the higher opioid doses commonly used in the palliative care setting. Considering the significant harm that can arise from an error when converting between opioids, clinicians should avoid the routine use of OOCC in real-world patient care settings. If an OOCC is used, organizations should endorse a specific calculator, provide training and education about the algorithm that supports the calculations, and encourage clinicians to use it only after their own manual calculation, which should be documented in the medical record.

Exploring the Use of State Medical Cannabis Legislation as a Proxy for Medical Cannabis Use Among Patients Receiving Chemotherapy.

OPINION STATEMENT: The use of medical cannabis is expanding in the USA. Due to conflicting, low-quality evidence, many oncologists may not feel confident to recommend it to patients. Given the potential for legal and financial risks when conducting clinical trials with medical cannabis, the use of observational data should be explored. Observational data that directly capture medical cannabis use in relation to prescription medications and track the prevalence and patterns of cannabis use is sparse. To gain insights into the role medical cannabis plays in the pharmaceutical landscape, proxies such as cannabis legislation need to be explored. In the context of recommendation-nonadherent antiemetic prescribing among patients experiencing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, medical cannabis may be a suitable alternative to an antiemetic in states that allow medical cannabis. Findings suggest that legislation may impact the use of certain antiemetics in states with cannabis legislation in place. The presence or absence of legislation regarding medical cannabis use may serve as an early, observable surrogate marker of medical cannabis use in the community. In light of the paucity of clinical trials and observational datasets that capture cannabis use, there remains a tremendous need for the development of methodologies or standardized datasets that appropriately and reliably capture the use of medical cannabis to facilitate research into its clinical application and effect on prescription medication use. Standardizing the reporting and destigmatizing use could eliminate the dependence upon proxy measures as a substitute for more extensive data and go a long way in improving data capture, thus allowing us to generate knowledge and hypotheses from observational data until research conditions improve and allow for expanded clinical trials involving medical cannabis.

Nonprescription Medication Use in Hospice Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Patients admitted to hospice are more vulnerable to age-related physiologic changes, polypharmacy, and inappropriate medication use and monitoring. The objective of this study was to characterize the utilization of nonprescription medications in a hospice population. METHODS: This was a retrospective study designed to characterize nonprescription or over-the-counter medication use in hospice patients. Data for this study were provided by Seasons Hospice & Palliative Care, a national hospice organization with licenses to operate in 19 states and collected from January 1 to December 31, 2016. The most frequently utilized nonprescription medications, therapeutic classes, and the frequency of patients with at least 1 claim within a therapeutic class were summarized. RESULTS: The final study population included 62 639 orders representing 15 164 patients. The average age was 79.31 years with a standard deviation of 13.31 years. The average length of stay was 26.80 days with a standard deviation of 44.14 days. The top 5 most common medications were as follows: acetaminophen (25.15%), bisacodyl (21.69%), senna (8.35%), omeprazole (4.51%), and docusate (4.46%). Approximately 13 714 (29.67%) of patients were exposed to analgesics, 13 469 (29.14%) to laxatives, and 3535 (7.65%) to antacids or antigas medications. CONCLUSION: This study highlights numerous opportunities for improvement in the use of nonprescription medications among hospice patients. Reducing the use of nonprescription medications that are ineffective or produce unwanted side effects can contribute to improving the quality of care that patients receive.

Methadone: Maximizing Safety and Efficacy for Pain Control in Patients with Cancer.

Methadone is a valuable opioid in the management of patients who have cancer with pain. Methadone is a mu-, kappa-, and delta-opioid agonist, and an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist. These mechanisms of action make methadone an attractive option for complex pain syndromes. It is critically important that providers consider a patient's risk status before beginning methadone. Careful consideration must be given to dosing methadone in both opioid-naïve and opioid-tolerant patients, with vigilant monitoring for therapeutic effectiveness and potential toxicity until the patient achieves steady state.