Ultrarestrictive Opioid Prescription Protocol for Pain Management After Gynecologic and Abdominal Surgery.

Importance: Opioids are routinely prescribed for postoperative home pain management for most patients in the United States, with limited evidence of the amount needed to be dispensed. Opioid-based treatment often adversely affects recovery. Prescribed opioids increase the risk of chronic opioid use, abuse, and diversion and contribute to the current opioid epidemic. Objective: To evaluate whether after hospital discharge, postsurgical acute pain can be effectively managed with a markedly reduced number of opioid doses. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this case-control cohort study, an ultrarestrictive opioid prescription protocol (UROPP) was designed and implemented from June 26, 2017, through June 30, 2018, at a single tertiary-care comprehensive cancer center. All patients undergoing gynecologic oncology surgery were included. Patients undergoing ambulatory or minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic or robotic approach) were not prescribed opioids at discharge unless they required more than 5 doses of oral or intravenous opioids while in the hospital. Patients who underwent a laparotomy were provided a 3-day opioid pain medication supply at discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: Total number of opioid pain medications prescribed in the 60-day perioperative period, requests for opioid prescription refills, and postoperative pain scores and complications were evaluated. Factors associated with increased postoperative pain, preoperative and postoperative pain scores, inpatient status, prior opioid use, and all opioid prescriptions within the 60-day perioperative window were monitored among the case patients and compared with those from consecutive control patients treated at the center in the 12 months before the UROPP was implemented. Results: Patient demographics and procedure characteristics were not statistically different between the 2 cohorts of women (605 cases: mean [SD] age, 56.3 [14.5] years; 626 controls: mean [SD] age, 55.5 [13.9] years). The mean (SD) number of opioid tablets given at discharge after a laparotomy was 43.6 (17.0) before implementation of the UROPP and 12.1 (8.9) after implementation (P < .001). For patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic surgery, the mean (SD) number of opioid tablets given at discharge was 38.4 (17.4) before implementation of the UROPP and 1.3 (3.7) after implementation (P < .001). After ambulatory surgery, the mean (SD) number of opioid tablets given at discharge was 13.9 (16.6) before implementation of the UROPP and 0.2 (2.1) after implementation (P < .001). The mean (SD) perioperative oral morphine equivalent dose was reduced to 64.3 (207.2) mg from 339.4 (674.4) mg the year prior for all opioid-naive patients (P < .001). The significant reduction in the number of dispensed opioids was not associated with an increase the number of refill requests (104 patients [16.6%] in the pre-UROPP group vs 100 patients [16.5%] in the post-UROPP group; P = .99), the mean (SD) postoperative visit pain scores (1.1 [2.2] for the post-UROPP group vs 1.4 [2.3] for pre-UROPP group; P = .06), or the number of complications (29 cases [4.8%] in the post-UROPP group vs 42 cases [6.7%] in the pre-UROPP group; P = .15). Conclusions and Relevance: Implementation of a UROPP was associated with a significant decrease in the overall amount of opioids prescribed to patients after gynecologic and abdominal surgery at the time of discharge for all patients, and for the entire perioperative time for opioid-naive patients without changes in pain scores, complications, or medication refill requests.

Evaluation of the Feasibility and Utility of a Pharmacist-Centered Collaborative Drug Therapy Management Program for Oncology-Based Symptom Management.

Collaborative drug therapy management (CDTM) is a practice agreement between a pharmacist and a physician, which allows the pharmacist to assume responsibility of drug therapy management. There has been limited documentation of CDTM practices in the oncology setting. Therefore, a CDTM program in the gynecology oncology clinic at Roswell Park Cancer Institute (RPCI) was initiated to establish the feasibility and utility of CDTM and its effects on patient care and physician satisfaction. Primarily, 3 symptoms were managed by the CDTM pharmacists, namely chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), and women's health. The CDTM program showed favorable results after a short 4-month period. The CDTM pharmacists were referred a total of 12 consultations for CDTM purposes; 8 patients enrolled in the CIPN CDTM protocol, 3 in the CINV protocol, and 1 in the women's health protocol. The CDTM pharmacists were able to perform a total of 54 consultations, with a mean time of 16.9 minutes spent with each patient per consultation. Additionally, the CDTM pharmacists made 70 interventions and identified 6 medication-related adverse effects. The patient and physician satisfaction survey demonstrated the value of the CDTM pharmacists, and respondents were supportive of the program.

Oxaliplatin is a safe alternative option for patients with recurrent gynecologic cancers after hypersensitivity reaction to Carboplatin.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the tolerability and efficacy of oxaliplatin in patients with recurrent gynecologic malignancies after carboplatin hypersensitivity reactions in comparison with conventionally used cisplatin. METHODS: Forty-six patients were treated with platinum-based chemotherapy from 2006 to 2011 and developed hypersensitivity reactions to carboplatin. Oxaliplatin was administered to 27 patients; 19 patients received cisplatin. Clinicopathologic variables, toxicity, and time-to-failure were analyzed retrospectively using descriptive statistics, Fisher exact, and independent sample permutation t tests. RESULTS: The median number of carboplatin cycles and cumulative dose before reaction were similar in the oxaliplatin and cisplatin groups, respectively (6 vs 7.5 cycles, P = 0.93; 980 [662] mg vs 686 [579.6] mg, P = 0.49). Non-life-threatening hypersensitivity reaction to oxaliplatin developed in 2 of 27 patients. No reactions to cisplatin occurred. The median number of oxaliplatin/cisplatin cycles was 6 in both groups. Complete response to therapy was 34.6% (oxaliplatin) and 31.6% (cisplatin); stable disease was seen in 50.0% and 36.8% of oxaliplatin- and cisplatin-treated patients, respectively (P = 0.46). Exposure to oxaliplatin resulted in less neurotoxicity than cisplatin (25.9% vs 68.4%, P = 0.01). The median number of prior chemotherapy lines in both groups was 2. The median time-to-failure was 10.8 months in oxaliplatin group and 9.8 months in cisplatin group (P = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: Salvage therapy with oxaliplatin after hypersensitivity reaction to carboplatin is associated with excellent tolerability and time-to-failure comparable to cisplatin. When further administration of carboplatin is precluded, oxaliplatin represents a safe and effective treatment strategy in the platinum-sensitive relapse setting. The significantly lower neurotoxicity profile makes it an attractive alternative to cisplatin.