RESUMO
Objective: COVID-19, coinciding with the opioid epidemic in the United States, has had significant impacts on health-care utilization. While mixed, early analyses signaled a potential resurgence in opioid use following the pandemic. The primary study objective was to assess the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with opioid utilization among Health First Colorado (Colorado's Medicaid Program) members and a non-Medicaid managed care cohort who did not have a diagnosis of cancer or sickle cell disease. Patients and Methods: Using an interrupted time series and segmented regression analysis, this population-level study assessed the association of the COVID-19 pandemic on prescribed utilization of long- and short-acting opioid analgesics among Health First Colorado members and a random sample of non-Medicaid managed care members. Pharmacy claims data for both cohorts were assessed between October 1, 2018, and September 30, 2021, with April 2020 identified as the interruption of interest. We evaluated the following monthly opioid use measures separately for short-acting and long-acting opioids: number of members filling an opioid, total fills, and total days supplied. Results: Short- and long-acting opioid utilization was significantly decreasing among Health First Colorado members in the 18 months prior to the start of COVID-19. After the onset of the pandemic, utilization stabilized and slopes were not significantly different from zero. Among the non-Medicaid managed care cohort, short- and long-acting opioid utilization significantly decreased in the 18 months leading up to the onset of the pandemic. After the onset of the pandemic, utilization of long-acting opioids stabilized, while utilization of short-acting opioids significantly increased. Conclusion: While we observed an increase in opioid utilization measures post-pandemic in the non-Medicaid managed care cohort, a similar increase was not observed in Health First Colorado members suggesting that thoughtful opioid policies put in place pre-pandemic may have been effective at controlling potential inappropriate opioid utilization.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be a serious and debilitating adverse effect that is highly feared by cancer patients. For patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens at our institution in the ambulatory infusion center, palonosetron was selected as the preferred serotonin (5-HT3) antagonist for CINV prophylaxis per the 2016 NCCN Guidelines, when a neurokinin1 antagonist was not included in the prophylactic regimen. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of dexamethasone and palonosetron versus granisetron for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: This study is an Institutional Review Board-approved, single-center retrospective review of electronic health records including patients who received moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens with CINV prophylaxis with dexamethasone and either palonosetron or granisetron. RESULTS: A total of 268 eligible patients were included in the study. Eighty-eight patients received palonosetron and 180 patients received granisetron as their 5-HT3 receptor antagonist between October 31, 2014 and October 31, 2016. There were no statistically significant differences between the two antiemetic groups for the primary outcome of presence of any change in day 1 intravenous prophylactic antiemetics. Nine (10.23%) palonosetron patients and 15 (8.33%) granisetron patients required a change in their day 1 intravenous prophylactic antiemetics (P = 0.610). CONCLUSIONS: Despite palonosetron's better efficacy, longer half-life, and higher binding affinity, the results of this retrospective review demonstrates that the choice of serotonin antagonist, palonosetron or granisetron, did not result in a change in day 1 intravenous prophylactic antiemetics or antiemetic outpatient medications for patients undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens.