Patterns and Trends in Receipt of Opioids Among Patients Receiving Treatment for Cancer in a Large Health System.

BACKGROUND: Given limited evidence on opioid prescribing among patients receiving treatment for cancer during the ongoing opioid epidemic, our objective was to assess predictors of and trends in opioid receipt during cancer treatment, including how patterns differ by type of cancer. METHODS: Using cancer registry data, we identified patients with a first lifetime primary diagnosis of breast, colorectal, or lung cancer from 2013 to 2017 who underwent treatment within a large cancer center network. Cancer registry data were linked to electronic health record information on opioid prescriptions. We examined predictors of and trends in receipt of any opioid prescription within 12 months of cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: The percentage of patients receiving opioids varied by cancer type: breast cancer, 35% (1,996/5,649); colorectal, 37% (776/2,083); lung, 47% (1,259/2,654). In multivariable analysis, opioid use in the year before cancer diagnosis was the factor most strongly associated with receipt of opioids after cancer diagnosis, with 4.90 (95% CI, 4.10-5.86), 5.09 (95% CI, 3.88-6.69), and 3.31 (95% CI, 2.68-4.10) higher odds for breast, colorectal, and lung cancers, respectively. We did not observe a consistent decline in opioid prescribing over time, and trends differed by cancer type. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that prescription of opioids to patients with cancer varies by cancer type and other factors. In particular, patients are more likely to receive opioids after cancer diagnosis if they were previously exposed before diagnosis, suggesting that pain among patients with cancer may commonly include non-cancer-related pain. Heterogeneity and complexity among patients with cancer must be accounted for in developing policies and guidelines aimed at addressing pain management while minimizing the risk of opioid misuse.

A virtual breakthrough series collaborative to support deprescribing interventions across Veterans Affairs healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: Virtual collaborative models are a practical way to implement a supportive environment for multi-team learning. In this project, we aimed to describe the processes and outcomes of a virtual deprescribing collaborative that facilitated implementation of deprescribing interventions around the country. METHODS: Two successive cohorts comprised of multidisciplinary teams from geographically diverse veterans affairs (VA) sites were selected via an application process to participate in a virtual deprescribing collaborative. Each site developed its own deprescribing protocol and took part in regular meetings, mentoring groups, monthly data reporting, and other learning activities over an approximate 9 month period, per cohort. Standard measures were number of veterans served and medications deprescribed. Descriptive and qualitative analyses were utilized. RESULTS: Twenty-one total VA sites were selected to participate in the deprescribing collaborative in two cohorts (Cohort 1, n = 12 sites; Cohort 2, n = 9 sites). The majority of sites' practice areas directly served the older adult population, and the majority of site leads were pharmacists. The most utilized tool used by the collaborative sites was the VA VIONE decision support tool (n = 14) and the most common strategy was individualized medication review. Combining outcomes from both Cohorts 1 and 2, a total of n = 4770 veterans were served, with 8332 medications deprescribed. Eighty-two percent of Cohort 1 sites surveyed reported their deprescribing program was still being utilized after 1 year follow up. CONCLUSIONS: This virtual deprescribing collaborative aided in the successful implementation of both established and novel deprescribing practices across a variety of VA practice sites that care for older adults. The shared learning experience enhanced problem solving and allowed for interdisciplinary teamwork. Overall the collaborative was successful in improving polypharmacy for several thousand older adults.

Association between opioid dose escalation and time to death in a comfort measures only population.

PURPOSE: Opioids are crucial to the relief of pain and dyspnea experienced by patients dying in the hospital setting; however, there are concerns about the association of opioid dosage with hastened death via opioid-induced respiratory depression, and there is little published evidence regarding the association between opioid dose escalation and time to death in the inpatient comfort measures only (CMO) population. METHODS: The medical records of adult patients admitted to 2 hospitals who had an active CMO order at the time of death and received opioid dose escalations after CMO pronouncement were assessed in a retrospective cohort study. Patients were categorized into higher and lower opioid dose escalation groups according to an institutional palliative care symptom guide. A Cox proportional hazards model was constructed to test the associations between dose escalation group, patient sex, opioid naivety, palliative care consultation, and opioid dosage after CMO pronouncement (independent variables) and time to death (dependent variable). RESULTS: In the 71-patient cohort, 39 patients (54.9%) were male and 32 (45.1%) were female. The mean (SD) age of patients was 67.2 (16.6) years. Higher dose escalation (n = 46, 64.8%) was associated with a nonsignificant decrease in survival time compared to lower dose escalation (n = 25, 35.2%), with a mean difference in time to death of 19.8 hours (hazard ratio [HR], 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-2.97). Receipt of a palliative care consult (n = 56, 78.9%) during the final hospital visit was associated with increased survival time (mean difference, 20.1 hours; HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16-0.63). CONCLUSION: Time to death in an inpatient CMO population was not significantly associated with the degree of opioid dose escalation.

A Systematic Review of Palliative Care Content in the Doctor of Pharmacy Curriculum.

Objective. To describe the methods of teaching and evaluating palliative care experiences for pharmacy students.Findings. A literature search retrieved 971 reports, from which 26 studies met all of study criteria. Educational interventions concerning palliative care included didactic courses, flipped classrooms, advanced pharmacy practice experiences (APPEs), workshops, and seminars. Total direct hours of education in palliative care ranged from 1-200. Seven (27%) focused experiences were reported as required, while nine (35%) were reported as elective. The majority (n=14, 54%) of studies measured pharmacy students' confidence, attitudes, or perceptions as the main outcome, and of those most studies reported an improvement. Five (19%) studies reported on interprofessional experiences in palliative care conducted in the United States, and four (15%) studies reported on similar experiences conducted outside the United States. When reported, most experiences were developed for students to complete prior to beginning their APPE year. All of the included studies used a non-randomized design.Summary. This review suggests a palliative care experience for pharmacy students should be interprofessional, occur during the year prior to APPEs, and measure skills-based outcomes.

Does Deprescribing Improve Quality of Life? A Systematic Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing has been shown to reduce potentially inappropriate or unnecessary medications; however, whether these benefits translate into improved quality of life (QOL) is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to isolate the impact of deprescribing on patient or designated representative reported QOL; satisfaction with care (SWC) and emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations were also investigated to further explore this question. METHODS: This systematic review searched the Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from database inception until November 2017. Randomized controlled trials and non-randomized prospective studies of older adults (> 65 years or older) and older persons with life-limiting conditions were included. Two reviewers independently assessed the search results and performed risk of bias assessments. Data on QOL, SWC, and ED visits and hospitalizations were extracted from all identified studies. Risk of bias of individual studies was assessed using measures recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. RESULTS: Screening of 6543 eligible records identified 12 studies within 13 articles. In ten studies investigating the reduction of at least one medication deprescribed, compared with usual care, all but two found no difference in QOL. To date there has only been one study examining the impact of deprescribing on SWC, which was found to be not statistically significant. Four studies exploring the impact of deprescribing on ED visits and hospitalizations also found no significant difference. However, many studies were found to have a higher performance, detection, or other bias. We found considerable heterogeneity in patient populations, targeted medications for deprescribing, and QOL measurements used in these studies. CONCLUSION: Based on a limited number of studies with varying methodological rigor, deprescribing may not significantly improve QOL or SWC; however, it may not contribute to additional ED visits and hospitalizations. Future controlled studies are needed.