Opioids After Surgery in the United States Versus the Rest of the World: The International Patterns of Opioid Prescribing (iPOP) Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: The International Patterns of Opioid Prescribing study compares postoperative opioid prescribing patterns in the United States (US) versus the rest of the world. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The US is in the middle of an unprecedented opioid epidemic. Diversion of unused opioids contributes to the opioid epidemic. METHODS: Patients ≥16 years old undergoing appendectomy, cholecystectomy, or inguinal hernia repair in 14 hospitals from 8 countries during a 6-month period were included. Medical records were systematically reviewed to identify: (1) preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative characteristics, (2) opioid intake within 3 months preoperatively, (3) opioid prescription upon discharge, and (4) opioid refills within 3 months postoperatively. The median/range and mean/standard deviation of number of pills and OME were compared between the US and non-US patients. RESULTS: A total of 4690 patients were included. The mean age was 49 years, 47% were female, and 4% had opioid use history. Ninety-one percent of US patients were prescribed opioids, compared to 5% of non-US patients (P < 0.001). The median number of opioid pills and OME prescribed were 20 (0-135) and 150 (0-1680) mg for US versus 0 (0-50) and 0 (0-600) mg for non-US patients, respectively (both P < 0.001). The mean number of opioid pills and OME prescribed were 23.1 ±â€Š13.9 in US and 183.5 ±â€Š133.7 mg versus 0.8 ±â€Š3.9 and 4.6 ±â€Š27.7 mg in non-US patients, respectively (both P < 0.001). Opioid refill rates were 4.7% for US and 1.0% non-US patients (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: US physicians prescribe alarmingly high amounts of opioid medications postoperatively. Further efforts should focus on limiting opioid prescribing and emphasize non-opioid alternatives in the US.

Awareness of Colorectal Cancer and Attitudes Towards Its Screening Guidelines in Lebanon.

BACKGROUND: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) provides an effective strategy for early detection and prevention of the disease; however, global screening rates are still low. PURPOSE: This study aims at assessing the awareness of CRC risk factors, warning signs, and attitudes towards CRC guidelines and screening modalities, in order to identify the barriers to and correlates of CRC screening in the Lebanese population. METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to 371 participants in the largest health care medical center in Lebanon. A validated 12- and 9-item Cancer Awareness Measurement questionnaire was used to assess participants' awareness of CRC risk factors and warning signs. RESULTS: 83% and 67% of participants were not aware of CRC risk factors and warning signs, respectively, 15% have previously undergone CRC screening, 56% were aware of the necessity for screening, and 43% were willing to undergo screening. Factors affecting awareness of the necessity for CRC screening, past screening and willingness to screen included awareness of risk factors and warning signs, undergoing regular physician check-ups, having a family physician as a primary source of knowledge of CRC, and knowing a family member or friend diagnosed with CRC. Barriers to screening were related to participants' evaluation of the screening technique and misconceptions about this disease. CONCLUSION: Serious active measures should be taken by health care sectors, authoritative groups, primary care physicians, and awareness campaigns to fill the gap in awareness of this disease and to alleviate the barriers and misconceptions around it.

Knowledge, Beliefs and Attitudes of Patients and the General Public towards the Interactions of Physicians with the Pharmaceutical and the Device Industry: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence on the knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of patients and the general public towards the interactions of physicians with the pharmaceutical and the device industry. METHODS: We included quantitative and qualitative studies addressing any type of interactions between physicians and the industry. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE in August 2015. Two reviewers independently completed data selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological features. We summarized the findings narratively stratified by type of interaction, outcome and country. RESULTS: Of the 11,902 identified citations, 20 studies met the eligibility criteria. Many studies failed to meet safeguards for protecting from bias. In studies focusing on physicians and the pharmaceutical industry, the percentages of participants reporting awareness was higher for office-use gifts relative to personal gifts. Also, participants were more accepting of educational and office-use gifts compared to personal gifts. The findings were heterogeneous for the perceived effects of physician-industry interactions on prescribing behavior, quality and cost of care. Generally, participants supported physicians' disclosure of interactions through easy-to-read printed documents and verbally. In studies focusing on surgeons and device manufacturers, the majority of patients felt their care would improve or not be affected if surgeons interacted with the device industry. Also, they felt surgeons would make the best choices for their health, regardless of financial relationship with the industry. Participants generally supported regulation of surgeon-industry interactions, preferably through professional rather than governmental bodies. CONCLUSION: The awareness of participants was low for physicians' receipt of personal gifts. Participants also reported greater acceptability and fewer perceived influence for office-use gifts compared to personal gifts. Overall, there appears to be lower awareness, less concern and more acceptance of surgeon-device industry interactions relative to physician-pharmaceutical industry interactions. We discuss the implications of the findings at the patient, provider, organizational, and systems level.