Trends in Racial Inequalities in the Administration of Opioid and Non-opioid Pain Medication in US Emergency Departments Across 1999-2020.

BACKGROUND: Despite initiatives to eradicate racial inequalities in pain treatment, there is no clear picture on whether this has translated to changes in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether racial disparities in the receipt of pain medication in the emergency department have diminished over a 22-year period from 1999 to 2020. DESIGN: We used data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, an annual, cross-sectional probability sample of visits to emergency departments of non-federal general and short-stay hospitals in the USA. PATIENTS: Pain-related visits to the ED by Black or White patients. MAIN MEASURES: Prescriptions for opioid and non-opioid analgesics. KEY RESULTS: A total of 203,854 of all sampled 625,433 ED visits (35%) by Black or White patients were pain-related, translating to a population-weighted estimate of over 42 million actual visits to US emergency departments for pain annually across 1999-2020. Relative risk regression found visits by White patients were 1.26 (95% CI, 1.22-1.30; p<0.001) times more likely to result in an opioid prescription for pain compared to Black patients (40% vs. 32%). Visits by Black patients were also 1.25 (95% CI, 1.21-1.30; p<0.001) times more likely to result in non-opioid analgesics only being prescribed. Results were not substantively altered after adjusting for insurance status, type and severity of pain, geographical region, and other potential confounders. Spline regression found no evidence of meaningful change in the magnitude of racial disparities in prescribed pain medication over 22 years. CONCLUSIONS: Initiatives to create equitable healthcare do not appear to have resulted in meaningful alleviation of racial disparities in pain treatment in the emergency department.

Opioid consumption and non-opioid multimodal analgesic treatment in pain management trials after hip and knee arthroplasties: A meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: The leading principle in peri-operative pain management is multimodal analgesia, which reduces opioid requirements and associated adverse effects. Pragmatic pain trials should optimally test interventions in addition to multimodal non-opioid analgesics and interventions to ensure clinical relevance and baseline levels of opioid consumption that reflect clinical settings. We aimed to investigate opioid consumption and use of non-opioid analgesics administered adjunct to interventions in post-operative pain trials after total hip and knee arthroplasty. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted 7 January 2020 in The Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, PubMed, and EMBASE. Trials investigating analgesic interventions for post-operative pain in adults undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty were included. The primary outcome was the aggregated median 0-24 h post-operative opioid consumption. Further, we assessed the use of paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, gabapentinoids, high-dose glucocorticoids, local infiltration analgesia and nerve blocks administered as co-interventions equally to all participants. We assessed trends over time for all outcomes. RESULTS: Of 14,200 records, 570 trials were included. Median 0-24 h opioid consumption was 21 and 22 mg iv morphine equivalents in hip and knee arthroplasty trials, respectively. Meta-regression showed no overall linear correlation between opioid consumption and publication year. The use of multimodal non-opioid analgesia increased over time, though only 48% of trials published from 2010 to 2020 administered two or more non-opioid analgesics. Applying more non-opioid analgesics was associated with lower opioid consumption in intervention groups. CONCLUSION: Post-operative 0-24 h morphine consumption was median 21-22 mg. The demonstrated differences in non-opioid multimodal analgesic regimens between research and clinical settings, can potentially diminish the demonstrated opioid-sparing effects of trial interventions when such are implemented in a clinical context.

Ziconotide for the Management of Cancer Pain: A Budget Impact Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Recent recommendations on starting dose, smaller dose increments, and longer intervals between dose increase have the potential to increase the safety of ziconotide administration in addition to improving its value for money. Ziconotide is not routinely commissioned in England, with one of the concerns being whether it represents the best use of resources. The aim of this project is to conduct a budget impact analysis to estimate the costs or savings associated with the changes in ziconotide dosage in addition to its use in combination with morphine for the management of cancer pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An open, Markov-like cohort decision analytic model was developed to estimate the budget impact of ziconotide in combination with morphine (ziconotide combination therapy) vs morphine monotherapy through intrathecal drug delivery (ITDD) for the management of cancer pain. The perspective adopted was that of the UK National Health Service, with a five-year time horizon. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate different scenarios. RESULTS: Ziconotide combination therapy was more expensive than treatment with morphine monotherapy. The total costs of ziconotide combination therapy and morphine monotherapy for the first year were £395,748 and £136,628 respectively. The estimated five-year cumulative budget impact of treatment with ziconotide combination therapy for the five-year time horizon was £2,487,539, whereas that of morphine monotherapy was £913,804. The additional costs in any of the first five years are below the resource impact significance level of £1 million for medical technologies in England. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this budget impact analysis suggest that although a combination of intrathecal ziconotide in combination with morphine is associated with higher costs to the health care system in England, the incremental costs are not significant. Routine commissioning of ziconotide alone or in combination with morphine would provide an alternative for a population with limited ITDD treatment options.

Failure of Risk Assessment After Paracetamol Overdose-A Short Communication.

BACKGROUND: The accepted treatment for patients with acetaminophen/paracetamol overdose includes risk assessment based on the Rumack-Matthew (R-M) nomogram. An inaccurate use of the nomogram may result in improper treatment. Clinicians were surveyed to determine their understanding and proper use of this risk assessment tool in practice. METHODS: Differences between visual risk assessment using the same depiction of the R-M nomogram and calculated risk assessment were determined using an online calculator developed based on the Rumack equation. An online survey was administered in French between August 25, 2021, and November 25, 2021, as a Google Form with 14 questions (the paracetamol concentration and time postingestion were stated). A total of 147 respondents with an average age of 32 years (range 23-61 years) performed risk assessment (low/possible/probable/not assessable). The mean assessment accuracy was 66.2 ± 26.7% (12.3-99.3). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 93%, 55%, 71%, and 89%, respectively. A subcohort of n = 31 senior clinicians showed the same trends (91%, 52%, 69%, and 84%). RESULTS: Approximately 7% of patients who are at risk of hepatotoxicity based on the R-M nomogram would not be treated. By contrast, N-acetylcysteine was not recommended by the R-M nomogram but would be administered to approximately 50% of patients. A concern for the latter group is that anaphylactoid reactions occur in up to 25% of patients with low paracetamol concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: Some patients may be undertreated, resulting in possible hepatotoxicity, and many patients may be overtreated, resulting in a high percentage of anaphylaxis. Rather than relying on visual risk assessment, physicians should use an online calculator ( www.hopitox.com/?lang=en ) or consult with a toxicologist or poison center to substantially improve patient care after acetaminophen/paracetamol overdose.

Effects of State Opioid Prescribing Laws on Use of Opioid and Other Pain Treatments Among Commercially Insured U.S. Adults.

BACKGROUND: There is concern that state laws to curb opioid prescribing may adversely affect patients with chronic noncancer pain, but the laws' effects are unclear because of challenges in disentangling multiple laws implemented around the same time. OBJECTIVE: To study the association between state opioid prescribing cap laws, pill mill laws, and mandatory prescription drug monitoring program query or enrollment laws and trends in opioid and guideline-concordant nonopioid pain treatment among commercially insured adults, including a subgroup with chronic noncancer pain conditions. DESIGN: Thirteen treatment states that implemented a single law of interest in a 4-year period and unique groups of control states for each treatment state were identified. Augmented synthetic control analyses were used to estimate the association between each state law and outcomes. SETTING: United States, 2008 to 2019. PATIENTS: 7 694 514 commercially insured adults aged 18 years or older, including 1 976 355 diagnosed with arthritis, low back pain, headache, fibromyalgia, and/or neuropathic pain. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription or guideline-concordant nonopioid pain treatment per month, and mean days' supply and morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of prescribed opioids per day, per patient, per month. RESULTS: Laws were associated with small-in-magnitude and non-statistically significant changes in outcomes, although CIs around some estimates were wide. For adults overall and those with chronic noncancer pain, the 13 state laws were each associated with a change of less than 1 percentage point in the proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription and a change of less than 2 percentage points in the proportion receiving any guideline-concordant nonopioid treatment, per month. The laws were associated with a change of less than 1 in days' supply of opioid prescriptions and a change of less than 4 in average monthly MME per day per patient prescribed opioids. LIMITATIONS: Results may not be generalizable to non-commercially insured populations and were imprecise for some estimates. Use of claims data precluded assessment of the clinical appropriateness of pain treatments. CONCLUSION: This study did not identify changes in opioid prescribing or nonopioid pain treatment attributable to state laws. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

An assessment of dexmedetomidine as an opioid-sparing agent after neonatal open thoracic and abdominal operations.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of dexmedetomidine as an opioid-sparing agent in infants following open thoracic or abdominal operations. METHODS: Retrospective review of postoperative neonates who received IV acetaminophen with or without dexmedetomidine. The primary outcome was opioid dosage within the first ten postoperative days. Secondary outcomes included times to extubation, full feedings and discharge. RESULTS: 112 infants met inclusion criteria. Those managed with dexmedetomidine received 1.8-4.3 times more opioid on postoperative days 1-3, had longer times to extubation and trended towards longer lengths of hospital stay than infants who were not. Opioid was dosed >0.2 ME/kg on only 23% of days when the acetaminophen dose was >40 mg/kg/day and 10% of days when the acetaminophen dose was >45 mg/kg. CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine may not be opioid sparing after major operations in neonates and its use delays recovery. IV acetaminophen dosed at 40 mg/kg/day or greater may yield the most substantial opioid-sparing effect.

Assessment of Opioid Use and Analgesic Requirements After Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The opioid epidemic has generated interest in optimizing opioid prescribing after common surgeries. Recent studies have shown a broad range of analgesic prescription patterns following endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). Objective: To compare the efficacy of different analgesic regimens after ESS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multi-institutional, nonblinded randomized clinical trial was conducted at 6 tertiary centers across the US and Canada and included participants who underwent ESS for acute or chronic rhinosinusitis. The study was conducted from March 2019 to March 2020, and the data were analyzed in November to December 2020. Interventions: All participants received acetaminophen, 650 mg, as the first-line analgesic. From there, patients were randomized to either oxycodone rescue (oxycodone, 5 mg, as second-line therapy) or ibuprofen rescue (ibuprofen, 600 mg, as second-line therapy, with oxycodone, 5 mg, reserved for breakthrough pain). Main Outcomes and Measures: Baseline characteristics and disease severity were collected at enrollment. Medication logs, pain scores, and epistaxis measures were collected until postoperative day 7. The primary outcome was the postoperative visual analog scale score for pain. Brief Pain Inventory Pain Severity and Pain Interference Scores were also collected. Results: A total of 118 patients were randomized (62 [52.5%] oxycodone rescue, 56 [47.5%] ibuprofen rescue; mean [SD] age, 46.7 [16.3] years; 44 women [44.0%]; 83 White [83.0%], 7 Black [7.0%], and 7 Asian individuals [7.0%]). After exclusions for loss to follow-up and noncompliance, 51 remained in the oxycodone rescue group and 49 in the ibuprofen rescue group. The groups had similar demographic characteristics and disease severity. Thirty-two (63%) in the oxycodone rescue group had adequate pain management with acetaminophen only, while 19 (37%) consumed at least 1 oxycodone dose. In the ibuprofen rescue group, 18 (16%) required only acetaminophen, 28 (57%) used only acetaminophen and ibuprofen, and the remaining 13 (26%) consumed 1 or more oxycodone doses. The groups had similar average acetaminophen (9.69 vs 7.96 doses; difference, 1.73; 95% CI, -1.37 to 4.83) and oxycodone (1.89 vs 0.77 doses; difference, 1.13; 95% CI, -0.11 to 2.36) use. Both groups had similar postoperative visual analog scale scores. A subanalysis that compared opioids users with nonusers showed clinically significant lower pain scores in nonusers at multiple postoperative points. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, most patients who underwent ESS could be treated postoperatively using a nonopioid regimen of either acetaminophen alone or acetaminophen and ibuprofen. Ibuprofen as a second-line therapy did not reduce overall narcotic consumption, but the overall narcotic use was low in both groups. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03783702.

Utilization of opioid versus non-opioid analgesics in Medicaid and CHIP enrolled children with current asthma.

PURPOSE: Opioid analgesics are frequently dispensed in children despite its known risk in children with a compromised airway function. The objectives of the study were to assess the prevalence of opioid analgesic dispensing in children with current asthma and to identify patient and prescriber factors associated with the dispensing of opioid versus non-opioid analgesics. METHODS: Children <18 years of age, having current asthma and receiving an incident analgesic prescription were identified from a large Medicaid Managed Care Plan during years 2013 through 2018. Current asthma was defined as both receiving an asthma diagnosis and filling an anti-asthmatic medication during the 12-month period prior to the analgesic medication initiation. A scoring algorithm was applied to associate analgesic prescription with procedures and diagnoses according to perceived need for analgesia and time proximity. RESULTS: Of the 9529 children meeting the inclusion criteria, 2681 (28.1%) received an opioid prescription. Opioid analgesic dispensing was most common among children who had an outpatient surgery/procedure (29.4%), trauma (19.4%) dental procedure (18.4%), and respiratory infection (10.6%). Multivariable analysis indicated that non-Hispanic Black (AOR: 0.39[0.3-0.5]) and Hispanic (AOR: 0.51[0.4-0.6]) children were less likely to receive an opioid analgesic compared to their non-Hispanic White counterparts. Children with prior history of asthma-related emergency department visit (AOR: 1.24[1.0-1.5]) and short acting beta agonist overuse (AOR: 1.33[1.1-1.7]) were more likely to fill an opioid analgesic prescription than those without. CONCLUSION: Opioid analgesics are frequently dispensed to children with asthma. A higher dispensing rate was observed among non-Hispanic White children and among those with a history of uncontrolled asthma.

Opioid Free Ureteroscopy: What is the True Failure Rate?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the true failure rate of opioid free ureteroscopy (OF-URS) and rates of new-persistent opioid use utilizing a national prescription drug monitoring program. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We identified 239 patients utilizing our retrospective stone database who underwent OF-URS from Februrary 2018-March 2020. In Feb 2018, we initiated a OF-URS pathway (diclofenac, tamsulosin, acetaminophen, pyridium and oxybutynin). Patients who had a contraindication to NSAIDs were excluded from primary analyses. A prescription drug monitoring program was then utilized to determine the number of patients who failed OF-URS (defined as receipt of an opioid within 31 days of surgery) as well as rates of new-persistent opioid use (defined as receipt of opioid 91-180 days after surgery). All statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.4. Tests were 2-sided and statistical significance was set at P<0.05. RESULTS: We found a OF-URS failure rate of 16.6% and 14.0% in the total and opioid naïve cohorts, respectively. Rates of new-persistent opioid use were 0.9% and 1.2%, respectively (lower than published expected rate of ~6% after URS with postoperative opioids). 91% of patients obtained opioid from alternative sources. Uni/multivariate analyses were performed for both cohorts. In the total cohort, benzodiazepine users had a lower risk of OF-URS failure on multivariate analysis. No variables were associated with OF-URS failure in the opioid naïve cohort. CONCLUSION: The true failure rate of OF-URS is higher than previously thought at 16.6% and 14.0%. However, efforts to reduce opioid prescriptions with OF-URS pathways have successfully reduced new-persistent opioid use.

Preoperative Management of Opioid and Nonopioid Analgesics: Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement (SPAQI) Consensus Statement.

There is a lack of guidelines for preoperative dosing of opioid and nonopioid pain medications for surgical patients, which can lead to suboptimal preoperative pain control. The Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement identified preoperative dosing of opioid and nonopioid analgesics as an area in which consensus could improve patient care. The aim of this guideline is to provide consensus that will allow perioperative physicians to make optimal recommendations regarding preoperative pain medication dosing. Six categories of pain medications were identified: opioid agonists, opioid antagonists, opioid agonist-antagonists, acetaminophen, muscle relaxants, and triptans/headache medications. We then used a Delphi survey technique to develop consensus recommendations for preoperative dosing of individual medications in each of these groups.

Understanding the migraine treatment landscape prior to the introduction of calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitors: Results from the Assessment of TolerabiliTy and Effectiveness in MigrAINe Patients using Preventive Treatment (ATTAIN) study.

BACKGROUND: Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors were introduced in the United States (US) in 2018. To understand the changing patterns of preventive treatment following the introduction of these new agents, we must first characterize the patterns which preceded their introduction. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the burden, unmet need, and treatment patterns in patients with migraine initiating preventive migraine medications before the introduction of CGRP inhibitors in the US. METHODS: Between March 2016 and October 2017, we enrolled episodic (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) patients initiating or changing preventive treatment at primary care or neurology clinic visits in the US, in a real-world observational study using a prospective cohort design. At baseline and monthly thereafter for 6 months, we collected data from study sites and patients on migraine frequency, treatment modifications, migraine impact on functioning, and work productivity for a descriptive analysis of migraine patient experience and treatment patterns. RESULTS: From the sample of 234 completers, 118 had EM (50.4%) and 116 had CM (49.6%). Mean age at enrollment was 41 years (SD = 12) and mean age at first migraine diagnosis was 22 years (SD = 11). Most participants were females (n = 204/234; 87.2%) and white (n = 178/234; 76.1%). The majority (n = 164/234; 70.1%) had not used preventive migraine treatment in the 5 years prior to enrollment (treatment naïve). At baseline, mean monthly migraine days were 9.6 days (SD = 5.0) for the preventive treatment naïve group and 12.4 days (SD = 7.0) for treatment experienced patients. The majority had severe Migraine Disability Assessment (Grade IV, total score ≥21), including 67.1% (n = 110/164) of the preventive treatment naïve and 77.1% (n = 54/70) of the preventive treatment experienced patients. Headache Impact Test total scores indicating severe impairment (score >59) occurred in 88.4% (n = 145/164) of the treatment naïve and 88.6% (n = 62/70) of treatment experienced patients. Mean work productivity loss as measured by the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire in the subsample of employed patients was 53.3% loss. The most used acute medications at baseline were nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (n = 124/234; 53.0%), acetaminophen-based products (n = 112/234; 47.9%), and triptans (n = 105/234; 44.9%). The most commonly initiated preventive treatments were topiramate (n = 100/234; 42.7%), tricyclic antidepressants (n = 39/234; 16.7%), beta-blockers (n = 26/234; 11.1%), and onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 24/234; 10.3%). Over the 6-month follow-up period, almost half of patients (n = 116/234, 49.6%) modified their preventive treatment and discontinued treatment (n = 88/312 total modifications; 28.2%) or modified their pattern of use by increasing, decreasing, or skipping doses (n = 224/312 total modifications; 71.8%), often without seeking medical advice. Avoiding side effects was the main reason reported among patients who discontinued (n = 52/88; 59.1%), decreased frequency or dose (n = 37/89; 41.6%), and skipped doses (n = 29/86; 33.7%). Perceived lack of efficacy was another frequent reason reported among those who discontinued (n = 20/88; 22.7%), decreased frequency or dose (n = 15/89; 16.9%), and skipped doses (n = 18/86; 20.9%). Despite initiation of preventive treatment and improvements observed in number of headache and migraine days, migraine patients continued to experience substantial disability, headache impact, and reduced productivity throughout the 6-month follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to 2018, the burden of migraine was high for patients initiating preventive treatments. Despite having more than 9 days of migraine per month on average, the majority (70.1%) of patients initiating prevention had been treatment naïve, indicating underuse of preventive treatments. The preventive treatments used in this study were poorly tolerated and were reported by patients to lack efficacy, resulting in suboptimal adherence. The high discontinuation rates suggest that the preventive medications being offered during the period of the study did not meet the treatment needs of patients. In addition, the decisions by about half of patients to alter their prescribed treatment plan without consulting their provider can pose substantial health risks. These findings pertain to the broad set of preventive treatments initiated in this study and do not support inferences about individual preventive treatments, due to limitations in sample size. These findings suggest the need for more effective and better tolerated preventive treatment options.

An assessment of parents' knowledge and awareness regarding paracetamol use in children: a cross-sectional study from Palestine.

BACKGROUND: Paracetamol, also known as acetaminophen, is one of the most common antipyretic and analgesic over-the-counter (OTC) medicines administered to children due to its efficacy, safety, and availability in many pharmaceutical forms, including suppositories, syrup, and drops. Parents frequently administer the wrong dose of paracetamol by mistake for their children, as reported by many previous studies. We aimed in this study to assess parents' knowledge, attitudes, and practice regarding paracetamol dosing and toxicity, as well as their awareness regarding paracetamol-containing products. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study that targeted parents of children seeking healthcare services at primary health care centers in the Nablus area in the West Bank, Palestine. We used questionnaire-based interviews with parents for data collection. RESULTS: A total of 300 parents were included in the study. Most of the caregivers surveyed were (87%) females (mothers). About half the parents (50.9%) reported previously using paracetamol as an antipyretic in children under the age of six. A quarter (25.4%) preferred the syrup forms, while 33.8% preferred the suppository dosage form. Medical personnel was the primary source of information for half the caregivers (51.2%). The mean knowledge score about paracetamol was 2.1 (SD = 1.4) out of 6, and the median was 2.0 with an interquartile range of 1.0-3.0. Two hundred seventy-four (95.5%) of the participants scored less than 80% and were considered to have insufficient knowledge. Only 50.9% of parents recognized that paracetamol overdose could result in serious harm. CONCLUSIONS: We found a serious lack of knowledge regarding paracetamol dosing, administration, and potential toxicity among Palestinian parents. We recommend raising awareness regarding this problem among healthcare providers and authorities and working on plans that aim to provide caregivers with accurate and adequate information on dosing, formulation, side effects, and other aspects of paracetamol use, as well as developing effective educational plans targeting healthcare providers, as well as the public.

Is Opioid-free Post-Vasectomy Analgesia a Pain? A Single Surgeon Experience.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of transitioning from opioid to non-opioid analgesia post-vasectomy on unplanned opioid prescriptions and health encounters. METHODS: A retrospective review for patients who underwent vasectomy from October 2018 through December 2019 was performed. Beginning February 1st, 2019, patients were counseled to take scheduled acetaminophen and ibuprofen in lieu of acetaminophen with codeine, with an opioid prescription only provided upon request. Analysis was performed comparing 200 consecutive patients before and after this transition. Baseline patient characteristics, unplanned postoperative encounters for pain within 30 days of vasectomy, and associated narcotic prescriptions were compared between groups. RESULTS: 400 patients were included, consisting of 200 patients pre and 200 patients postintervention. There were no differences in socioeconomic characteristics between groups. No differences between the pre- and postintervention groups were observed in terms of generating telephone calls to clinic (9% vs 11%, P = .5), clinic visits (2.5% vs 2.5%, P = 1), or ED visits (0% vs 1%), P = .5) for the pre and postintervention cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients that are not prescribed opioids after vasectomy do not generate additional phone calls, clinic, or ED visits compared to those that were routinely prescribed prior to our institutional change. We have permanently discontinued the routine use of opioids for post-vasectomy analgesia. Other physicians performing vasectomy should consider making this change as well.

Characterising polypharmacy in the very old: Findings from the Newcastle 85+ Study.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is potentially harmful and under-researched amongst the fastest growing subpopulation, the very old (aged ≥85). We aimed to characterise polypharmacy using data from the Newcastle 85+ Study-a prospective cohort of people born in 1921 who turned 85 in 2006 (n = 845). METHODS: The prevalence of polypharmacy at baseline (mean age 85.5) was examined using cut-points of 0, 1, 2-4, 5-9 and ≥10 medicines-so-called 'no polypharmacy', 'monotherapy', 'minor polypharmacy', 'polypharmacy' and 'hyperpolypharmacy.' Cross-tabulations and upset plots identified the most frequently prescribed medicines and medication combinations within these categories. Mixed-effects models assessed whether gender and socioeconomic position were associated with prescribing changes over time (mean age 85.5-90.5). Participant characteristics were examined through descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Complex multimorbidity (44.4%, 344/775) was widespread but hyperpolypharmacy was not (16.0%, 135/845). The median medication count was six (interquartile range 4-8). Preventative medicines were common to all polypharmacy categories, and prescribing regimens were diverse. Nitrates and oral anticoagulants were more frequently prescribed for men, whereas bisphosphonates, non-opioid analgesics and antidepressants were more common in women. Cardiovascular medicines, including loop diuretics, tended to be more frequently prescribed for socioeconomically disadvantaged people (<25th centile Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD)), despite no difference in the prevalence of cardiovascular disease (p = 0.56) and diabetes (p = 0.92) by IMD. CONCLUSION: Considering their complex medical conditions, prescribing is relatively conservative amongst 85-year-olds living in North East England. Prescribing shows significant gender and selected socioeconomic differences. More support for managing preventative medicines, of uncertain benefit, might be helpful in this population.

Parental Assessment of Pain Control Following Pediatric Circumcision: Do Opioids Make a Difference?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a postoperative prescription for opioids affects parental assessment of pain control following pediatric circumcision. METHODS: This postoperative survey assessed the parental assessment of pain control in 199 patients, ages<18 years undergoing circumcision. This study was conducted at a quaternary care children's hospital in Houston, Texas from December 2018 to January 2020. Postoperative pain regimens included acetaminophen and ibuprofen or combination hydrocodone/acetaminophen in addition to ibuprofen for postoperative analgesia based on the surgical preference. The primary study outcome was identification of the proportion of parents rating their child's analgesia following pediatric circumcision as poor or inadequate based on the postoperative analgesic regimen. RESULTS: Of the 502 surveys sent, the response rate was 40% (199/502) of those who received the survey email, and 64% (199/308) for those who opened the email. Between the opioid and nonopioid groups, there was no difference in, race/ethnicity (Caucasian; 28% vs 37%; P = .43) or insurance status (insured; 51% vs 45%; P = .44). The proportion of parents who rated their child's pain as poor or inadequately controlled following circumcision was relatively rare:5.5% and 1.1% in the nonopioid and opioid groups, respectively. Parents rating their child's pain as excellent with regards to pain control following circumcision were 61% and 53% in the nonopioids and opioid groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that nonopioid analgesic regimens following pediatric circumcision were not associated with decreased parental satisfaction or an increasing assessment of poor or inadequately controlled pain. Limiting opioid exposure following pediatric circumcision is feasible and does not result in worse parental satisfaction with the analgesic plan.

A systematic review and trial sequential analysis of intravenous vs. oral peri-operative paracetamol.

Postoperative pain might be different after intravenous vs. oral paracetamol. We systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials in patients >15 years that compared intravenous with oral paracetamol for postoperative pain. We identified 14 trials with 1695 participants. There was inconclusive evidence for an effect of route of paracetamol administration on postoperative pain at 0-2 h (734 participants), 2-6 h (766 participants), 6-24 h (1115 participants) and >24 h (248 participants), with differences in standardised mean (95%CI) pain scores for intravenous vs. oral of -0.17 (-0.45 to 0.10), -0.09 (-0.24 to 0.06), 0.06 (-0.12 to 0.23) and 0.03 (-0.22 to 0.28), respectively. Trial sequential analyses suggested that a total of 3948 participants would be needed to demonstrate a meaningful difference in pain or its absence at 0-2 h. There were no differences in secondary outcomes. Intravenous paracetamol is more expensive than oral paracetamol. Substitution of oral paracetamol in half the patients given intravenous paracetamol in our hospital would save around £ 38,711 (€ 43,960 or US$ 47,498) per annum.

Efficacy of pregabalin as a monotherapy versus combined pregabalin and milnacipran in the management of fibromyalgia.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of combined pregabalin (PGB) and milnacipran (MLN) in female patients with fibromyalgia (FM) versus PGB as a monotherapy. METHODS: The present randomized open study included 58 female patients diagnosed with FM (registered on 4/2/19: NCT03905486). Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups (2:2); group 1 included 29 patients who received PGB monotherapy (150 mg twice daily) and group 2 included 29 patients who received combined PGB (150 mg twice daily) and MLN (50 mg twice daily) for 3 months. At the initial visit, patients were subjected to demographic data collection and assessed by the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and the FM impact questionnaire (FIQ). Outcome measures after 3 months: FIQ, VAS and Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire. RESULTS: The median disease duration was 2 years in group 1 (6 months to 5 years) and 2 years in group 2 (6 months to 12 years). The dropout rate was 20.7% in group 1 (n = 6) and 10.3% in group 2 (n = 3). At the follow-up evaluation, a statistically significant improvement was observed in VAS and FIQ scores in both groups (P < 0.001). Although the percentage of patients demonstrating significant improvement in pain, disease impact and sleep pattern were higher in group 2, this did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Although PGB as a monotherapy and in combination with MLN have both shown adequate efficacy in the treatment of patients with FM, the combined therapy did not demonstrate superiority over the monotherapy.

Regional Differences in Prescribing Patterns of Metamizole in Germany Based on Data from 70 Million Persons.

The non-opioid analgesic metamizole (dipyrone) is commonly used in Germany despite its narrow indications and market withdrawal from several countries. In this study we analyzed prescribing patterns of metamizole focusing on regional differences. The source of data was the "Information system for health care data" which includes data from the statutory health insurance funds for about 70 million Germans. We received aggregated data of individuals with at least one metamizole prescription in 2010 as well as the number of prescribed packages by age, sex, state and district along with the number of insured persons in each stratum. We calculated prescription prevalence stratified by age, sex, state and district. Among 68.4 million insured persons (mean age: 43.6 years; 53.0% female) 5.5 million received at least one metamizole prescription (8.1%, overall 12.2 million packages). Prevalence increased with age, and women received metamizole more often than men. In adults (total prevalence: 9.4%), levels varied between 7.0% (Saxony) and 11.1% (Schleswig-Holstein), whereas on a district level use ranged from 4.3% to 14.3%. In 2010, one of 12 individuals received metamizole at least once. Noticeable were the large regional variations which certainly cannot be explained by patient-related factors.