Development of prescribing indicators related to opioid-related harm in patients with chronic pain in primary care-a modified e-Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Long-term opioid use is associated with dependency, addiction, and serious adverse events. Although a framework to reduce inappropriate opioid prescribing exists, there is no consensus on prescribing indicators for preventable opioid-related problems in patients with chronic pain in primary care in the UK. This study aimed to identify opioid prescription scenarios for developing indicators for prescribing opioids to patients with chronic pain in primary care. METHODS: Scenarios of opioid prescribing indicators were identified from a literature review, guidelines, and government reports. Twenty-one indicators were identified and presented in various opioid scenarios concerning opioid-related harm and adverse effects, drug-drug interactions, and drug-disease interactions in certain disease conditions. After receiving ethics approval, two rounds of electronic Delphi panel technique surveys were conducted with 24 expert panellists from the UK (clinicians, pharmacists, and independent prescribers) from August 2020 to February 2021. Each indicator was rated on a 1-9 scale from inappropriate to appropriate. The score's median, 30th and 70th percentiles, and disagreement index were calculated. RESULTS: The panel unanimously agreed that 15 out of the 21 opioid prescribing scenarios were inappropriate, primarily due to their potential for causing harm to patients. This consensus was reflected in the low appropriateness scores (median ranging from 1 to 3). There were no scenarios with a high consensus that prescribing was appropriate. The indicators were considered inappropriate due to drug-disease interactions (n = 8), drug-drug interactions (n = 2), adverse effects (n = 3), and prescribed dose and duration (n = 2). Examples included prescribing opioids during pregnancy, concurrently with benzodiazepines, long-term without a laxative prescription and prescribing > 120-mg morphine milligram equivalent per day or long-term duration over 3 months after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The high agreement on opioid prescribing indicators indicates that these potentially hazardous consequences are relevant and concerning to healthcare practitioners. Future research is needed to evaluate the feasibility and implementation of these indicators within primary care settings. This research will provide valuable insights and evidence to support opioid prescribing and deprescribing strategies. Moreover, the findings will be crucial in informing primary care practitioners and shaping quality outcome frameworks and other initiatives to enhance the safety and quality of care in primary care settings.

Prevalence and determinants of chronic pain and persistent opioid use after surgery: A review of systematic reviews.

Background: Chronic post-surgical pain (CPSP) and persistent post-operative opioid use (PPOU) are inconsistently defined in published literature. This review comprehensively summarised their definitions, prevalence and determinants from existing systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Methods: Systematic reviews or meta-analyses evaluating the prevalence of CPSP and PPOU in adults after surgeries were retrieved from an electronic database search applying structured search strategies in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to 31 December 2022. Two reviewers selected systematic reviews, extracted data regarding the definition, prevalence and risk factors of CPSP and PPOU and assessed the quality using the AMSTAR 2 tool. Results: The study identified 6936 records related to chronic pain and persistent opioid use in patients after surgery, of which 24 articles were identified for full-text review. Eighteen systematic reviews were included in this umbrella review, of which five systematic reviews assessed chronic pain in patients who had undergone a surgical procedure, and 13 reviews assessed persistent opioid use after surgery. Despite considerable variations in patient characteristics (from age ≥18 years), types of surgeries, follow-up duration and the definitions of measures, most reviews were of medium to good quality (fulfilled 9-11/16 AMSTAR 2 criteria). The prevalence of CPSP and PPOU, commonly synthesised at 3, 6 or 12 months after surgeries, varied from 5%-58% and 2%-65%, respectively, despite various terminologies, definitions and timing of measures and associated determinants. The prevalence of neuropathic pain in CPSP was obtainable for four surgeries, with 9%-74%. Conclusion: To inform future practice and policy to optimise pain management and opioid safety, consensus on standardising measurements and further studies assessing risk factors associated with CPSP, PPOU and adverse outcomes are needed.

Out-of-pocket direct cost of ambulatory care of type 2 diabetes in Delhi: Estimates from the Delhi diabetes community-II (DEDICOM-II) survey.

BACKGROUND & AIM: Much of the cost data from India is restricted to patients recruited purely from healthcare institutions and do not explore determinants. Therefore, the out of pocket expenditure for ambulatory diabetes care was evaluated in Delhi. METHODS: The DEDICOM-II survey used a two-stage probability-proportionate-to-size(systematic) cluster design. Thirty clusters were chosen to recruit 25 to 30 subjects per area. We used questionnaires to estimate the direct out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) on drugs, investigations, consultation and travel, excluding hospitalization, and then analysed its determinants and impact on quality of care. RESULTS: We enrolled 843 subjects with a mean age of 53.1 years. The annual direct OOPE on ambulatory care of diabetes was US$ 116.3 (95 % CI 93.8-138.9) or INR 8074.8 (95 % CI 6512.9-9636.7), corresponding to 3.6 %(95 % CI 2.9-4.3) of the yearly family income. The burden of expenses was disproportionately higher for those visiting private providers from lower-income groups(19.1 %). Duration of disease and treatment with insulin predicted higher annual OOPE while care at public facilities was less expensive. Cost was higher for those adhering to the recommended processes of care. Quality of care was better for institutional care and worse for alternative medicine or self-care. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides representative estimates of the high cost of diabetes management in Delhi across the socio-economic and care provider spectra. Poorer patients suffer a high financial burden from diabetes, highlighting the need for enhancing equity in diabetes care.

Decoding behaviour change techniques in opioid deprescribing strategies following major surgery: a systematic review of interventions to reduce postoperative opioid use.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: METHODS: A structured search strategy encompassing databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library was implemented from inception to October 2023. Included studies focused on interventions targeting opioid reduction in adults following major surgeries. The risk of bias was evaluated using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool V.2 (RoB 2) and non-randomised studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tools, and Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated. BCTs were identified using a validated taxonomy. RESULTS: 22 studies, comprising 7 clinical trials and 15 cohort studies, were included, with varying risks of bias. Educational (n=12), guideline-focused (n=3), multifaceted (n=5) and pharmacist-led (n=2) interventions demonstrated diverse effect sizes (small-medium n=10, large n=12). A total of 23 unique BCTs were identified across studies, occurring 140 times. No significant association was observed between the number of BCTs and effect size, and interventions with large effect sizes predominantly targeted healthcare professionals. Key BCTs in interventions with the largest effect sizes included behaviour instructions, behaviour substitution, goal setting (outcome), social support (practical), social support (unspecified), pharmacological support, prompts/cues, feedback on behaviour, environmental modification, graded tasks, outcome goal review, health consequences information, action planning, social comparison, credible source, outcome feedback and social reward. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the dominant BCTs in highly effective interventions provides valuable insights for future opioid tapering strategy implementations. Further research and validation are necessary to establish associations between BCTs and effectiveness, considering additional influencing factors. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022290060.