Calidad de las prescripciones de medicamentos opioides posterior a una intervención educativa en médicos residentes / [Quality of opioid medication prescriptions after an educational intervention in resident doctors]

Objetivo: Evaluar el impacto de una intervención educativa en la calidad de las prescripciones de medicamentos opioides. Métodos: Se aplicó el instrumento IAM (Índice de Adecuación de la Medicación) a 10 médicos residentes de la subespecialidad de medicina paliativa y del dolor para determinar la calidad de las prescripciones de analgésicos opioides, antes y después de haber realizado una intervención educativa (IE) en farmacoterapia racional. Resultados: Se analizaron un total de 181 prescripciones, 55 antes y 126 después de la IE. Se mejoraron las puntuaciones del nivel de acuerdo en todos los ítems del perfil descriptivo de los médicos participantes. La calidad de la prescripción aumentó del 14,5% al 73%, mejorando en todas las áreas, excepto la duplicidad de tratamientos. Conclusiones: La IE mejoró la calidad de las prescripciones y el perfil prescriptivo de los médicos participantes. El instrumento IAM es útil para determinar la calidad de las prescripciones de opioides. (AU)

Objective: To assess the impact of an educational intervention on the quality of opioid drug prescriptions. Methods: The MAI (Medication Adequacy Index) instrument was applied to 10 resident physicians of the Palliative and Pain Medicine Subspeciality to determine the quality of opioid analgesic prescriptions before and after an educational intervention (EI) in rational pharmacotherapy. Results: A total of 181 prescriptions were analyzed, 55 before and 126 after the EI. The level of agreement scores improved for all items of the physicians’ descriptive profile. Prescription quality increased from 14.5% to 73%, improving in all areas except for duplicity of treatment. Conclusions: The EI improved the quality of the prescriptions and the physicians’ prescribing profile. The MAI instrument is useful to determine the quality of opioid prescriptions. (AU)

Surgical Patient Compliance With Healthcare Facility-Provided In-home Opioid Disposal Products: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to review the literature regarding the use of an in-home opioid disposal product on unused opioids after surgery. BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic in the United States is a major cause of concern for healthcare facilities. The misuse and diversion of retained opioids after a surgical procedure continues to contribute to this problem. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, OVID, and PubMed databases with keywords including opioid, analgesics, narcotics, medical waste disposal, medical disposal, refuse disposal, and opioid disposal resulted in 286 articles. Articles were screened based on strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Eight studies determined that an in-home opioid disposal product provided by a healthcare facility produced rates of opioid disposal between 19% and 71%. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of an in-home opioid disposal product by a healthcare facility is likely to increase the disposal of unused opioid medications in the postoperative surgical patient population.

Postoperative Pain After Enhanced Recovery Pathway Robotic Colon and Rectal Surgery: Does Specimen Extraction Site Matter?

BACKGROUND: The current opioid crisis has motivated surgeons to critically evaluate ways to balance postoperative pain while decreasing opioid use and thereby reducing opioids available for community diversion. The longest incision for robotic colorectal surgery is the specimen extraction site incision. Intracorporeal techniques allow specimen extraction to be at any location. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to determine whether the Pfannenstiel location is associated with less pain and opioid use than other abdominal wall specimen extraction sites. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted with a prospectively maintained colorectal surgery database (July 2018 through October 2019). PATIENTS: Patients with enhanced recovery robotic colorectal resections with specimen extraction were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Propensity score weighting was used to derive adjusted rates for numeric pain scores, inpatient opioid use, opioids prescribed at discharge, opioid refills after discharge, and other related outcomes. For comparing outcomes between groups, p values were calculated using weighted χ2, Fisher exact, and t tests. RESULTS: There were 137 cases (70.9%) with Pfannenstiel extraction site incisions and 56 (29.0%) at other locations (7 midline, 49 off-midline). There was no significant difference in transversus abdominis plane blocks and epidural analgesia use between groups. Numeric pain scores, overall benefit of analgesia scores, inpatient postoperative opioid use, opioids prescribed at discharge and taken after discharge, and opioid refills were not significantly different between groups. Nonopioid pain analgesics (acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and gabapentin) prescribed at discharge were significantly less in the Pfannenstiel group (90.19% vs 98.45%; p = 0.006). Postoperative complications and readmissions were not different between groups. LIMITATIONS: This study was conducted at a single institution. CONCLUSIONS: The Pfannenstiel incision as the specimen extraction site choice in minimally invasive surgery is associated with similar postoperative pain and opioid use as extraction sites in other locations for patients having robotic colorectal resections. Specimen extraction sites may be chosen based on patient factors other than pain and opioid use. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B495. DOLOR POSTOPERATORIO DESPUS DE VAS DE RECUPERACIN MEJORADA EN CIRUGA ROBTICA DE COLON Y RECTO IMPORTA EL LUGAR DE EXTRACCIN DE LA MUESTRA: ANTECEDENTES:La actual crisis de opioides ha motivado a los cirujanos a evaluar críticamente, formas para equilibrar el dolor postoperatorio, disminuyendo el uso de opioides y por lo tanto, disminuyendo opioides disponibles para el desvío comunitario. La incisión más amplia en cirugía colorrectal robótica, es la incisión del sitio de extracción de la muestra. Las técnicas intracorpóreas permiten que la extracción de la muestra se realice en cualquier sitio.OBJETIVO:El estudio fue diseñado para determinar si la ubicación del Pfannenstiel está asociada con menos dolor y uso de opioides, a otros sitios de extracción de la muestra en la pared abdominal.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTES:Estudio de base de datos de cirugía colorrectal mantenida prospectivamente (7/2018 a 10/2019).PACIENTES:Se incluyeron resecciones robóticas colorrectales con recuperación mejorada y extracción de muestras.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se utilizó la ponderación del puntaje de propensión para derivar las tasas ajustadas para los puntajes numéricos de dolor, uso de opioides en pacientes hospitalizados, opioides recetados al alta, recarga de opioides después del alta y otros resultados relacionados. Para comparar los resultados entre los grupos, los valores p se calcularon utilizando chi-cuadrado ponderado, exacto de Fisher y pruebas t.RESULTADOS:Hubo 137 (70,9%) casos con incisiones en el sitio de extracción de Pfannenstiel y 56 (29,0%) en otras localizaciones (7 en la línea media, 49 fuera de la línea media). No hubo diferencias significativas en los bloqueos del plano transverso del abdomen y el uso de analgesia epidural entre los grupos. Las puntuaciones numéricas de dolor, puntuaciones de beneficio general de la analgesia, uso postoperatorio de opioides en pacientes hospitalizados, opioides recetados al alta y tomados después del alta, y las recargas de opioides, no fueron significativamente diferentes entre los grupos. Los analgésicos no opioides (acetaminofén, antiinflamatorios no esteroideos, gabapentina) prescritos al alta, fueron significativamente menores en el grupo de Pfannenstiel (90,19% frente a 98,45%, p = 0,006). Las complicaciones postoperatorias y los reingresos, no fueron diferentes entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:Una sola institución.CONCLUSIÓN:La incisión de Pfannenstiel como sitio de extracción de la muestra en cirugía mínimamente invasiva, se asocia con dolor postoperatorio y uso de opioides similar, a otros sitios de extracción en pacientes sometidos a resecciones robóticas colorrectales. Sitios de extracción de la muestra, pueden elegirse en función de factores del paciente distintos al dolor y uso de opioides. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B495.).

Patient access to chronic medications during the Covid-19 pandemic: Evidence from a comprehensive dataset of US insurance claims.

Patient access and adherence to chronic medications is critical. In this work, we evaluate whether disruptions related to Covid-19 have affected new and existing patients' access to pharmacological therapies without interruption. We do so by performing a retrospective analysis on a dataset of 9.4 billion US prescription drug claims from 252 million patients from May, 2019 through August, 2020 (about 93% of prescriptions dispensed within those months). Using fixed effect (conditional likelihood) linear models, we evaluate continuity of care, how many days of supply patients received, and the likelihood of discontinuing therapy for drugs from classes with significant population health impacts. Findings indicate that more prescriptions were filled in March 2020 than in any prior month, followed by a significant drop in monthly dispensing. Compared to the pre-Covid era, a patient's likelihood of discontinuing some medications increased after the spread of Covid: norgestrel-ethinyl estradiol (hormonal contraceptive) discontinuation increased 0.62% (95% CI: 0.59% to 0.65%, p<0.001); dexmethylphenidate HCL (ADHD stimulant treatment) discontinuation increased 2.84% (95% CI: 2.79% to 2.89%, p<0.001); escitalopram oxalate (SSRI antidepressant) discontinuation increased 0.57% (95% CI: 0.561% to 0.578%, p<0.001); and haloperidol (antipsychotic) discontinuation increased 1.49% (95% CI: 1.41% to 1.57%, p<0.001). In contrast, the likelihood of discontinuing tacrolimus (immunosuppressant) decreased 0.15% (95% CI: 0.12% to 0.19%, p<0.001). The likelihood of discontinuing buprenorphine/naloxone (opioid addiction therapy) decreased 0.59% (95% CI: 0.55% to 0.62% decrease, p<0.001). We also observe a notable decline in new patients accessing these latter two therapies. Most US patients were able to access chronic medications during the early months of Covid-19, but still were more likely to discontinue their therapies than in previous months. Further, fewer than normal new patients started taking medications that may be vital to their care. Providers would do well to inquire about adherence and provide prompt, nonjudgmental, re-initiation of medications. From a policy perspective, opioid management programs seem to demonstrate a robust ability to manage existing patients in spite of disruption.

Incidencia en dispensación de estupefaciente y psicótropo. ¿La paciente oncológica se queda sin analgesia? (con comentario bioético y legal de Fernando Abellán-García Sánchez) / Incidence in the dispensing of narcotic and psychotropic drugs. Does de cancer patient run out of analgesia?

Paciente de 36 años con antecedentes de cáncer que tiene prescrito fentanilo 0,2 mg y Dormicum(R) 7,5 mg. Acude a nuestra farmacia un sábado a las 11:00 para retirar ambos medicamentos porque no tiene suficiente para el fin de semana. Al entrar en su plan de tratamiento, comprobamos que dicho plan está anulado y que la totalidad de los medicamentos aparecen como "no dispensables". Al tratarse de medicamentos que necesitan prescripción derivamos al centro de salud con servicio de urgencias que está abierto los sábados, solicitando al médico de urgencias que actualice el plan de tratamiento, ya que hemos comprobado que la paciente no tiene medicación suficiente para el fin de semana y ella nos indica que ningún médico le ha suspendido el tratamiento. La paciente acude al centro médico, y tras 1,5 horas nos llama llorando diciéndonos que la facultativo que la atendió no le actualiza el plan de tratamiento. La derivamos al hospital y, como no queda tiempo suficiente para que llegue a recoger la medicación porque cerramos a las 14:00, llamamos a las farmacias de guardia para informarnos de si disponen de la medicación, no la tienen y no tendrían forma de conseguirla hasta el lunes. Damos el teléfono personal a la paciente para que nos informe de la situación, nos llama al salir del hospital, ya son las 16:00 y nuestra farmacia está cerrada. El médico del hospital nos informa de que la conducta de la médica del centro de salud de urgencias es totalmente inapropiada, que la paciente bajo ningún concepto puede suspender la medicación de forma gradual. Decidimos desplazarnos a la farmacia y dispensarle la medicación

36-year-old patient with a history of cancer prescribed Fentanyl 0.2 mg and Dormicum(R) 7.5 mg. She goes to our pharmacy office on a Saturday at 11:00 to pick up both medications because she doesn't have enough for the weekend. When we enter your treatment plan, we verify that this plan is canceled and that all the medications appear as "not dispensable". When dealing with medications that need a prescription, we refer to the health center with an emergency service that is open on Saturdays, asking the emergency doctor to update the treatment plan since we have verified that the patient does not have enough medication for the weekend and she tells us that no doctor has stopped your treatment. The patient goes to the medical center, after 1.5 hours she calls us crying telling us that the doctor who treated her does not update her treatment plan. We refer her to the hospital and since there is not enough time for her to pick up the medication because we close at 2:00 p.m. we call the pharmacies on duty to inform us if they have the medication, they do not have it and they would not have a way to get it until Monday . We give the patient the personal telephone number so that she can inform us of the situation, she calls us when she leaves the hospital, it is already 4:00 p.m., our pharmacy is closed. The hospital doctor informs us that the conduct of the emergency health center doctor is totally inappropriate, that the patient can under no circumstances gradually discontinue the medication. We decided to go to the pharmacy and dispense the medication

Predictors of shortages of opioid analgesics in the US: Are the characteristics of the drug company the missing puzzle piece?

BACKGROUND: Shortages of opioid analgesics are increasingly common, interfere with patient care and increase healthcare cost. This study characterized the incidence of shortages of opioid analgesics in the period 2015-2019 and evaluated potential predictors to forecast the risk of shortages. METHODS: This was an observational retrospective study using the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug shortages data. All FDA approved opioids were included in the study. Opioid analgesics were identified using the FDA National Drug Codes (NDC) and classified according to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) schedule. We conducted Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator logistic regression analysis to assess direction of the association between risk of shortage and potential predictors. We used multivariable penalized logistic regression analysis to model predictors of shortages. We split the dataset into training and validation sets to evaluate the performance of the model. FINDINGS: The FDA approved 8,207 unique NDCs for opioid analgesics; 3,017 (36.8%) were in the market as of April 30, 2019 and 91(3.0%) of them were listed as in shortage by the FDA. All NDCs in shortage were schedule II opioids; 86 (94.5%) were injectable and 84 (92.3%) generics. There were 418 companies with at least one opioid NDC listed by the FDA. Three companies accounted for more than 4 in 5 of the schedule II active injectable opioids. For each unit increase in the number of prior instances of shortages of a company, the likelihood of an NDC shortage for that company increased by 3.4%. For each unit increase in number of NDCs marketed by a company, the odds of an NDC shortage for that company decreased by 1%. CONCLUSIONS: In the period 2015-2019, shortages of opioid analgesics disproportionally impacted schedule II and injectable opioids. The risk of shortage of opioid analgesics significantly increased with the incidence of previous instances of shortages of a manufacturing company and decreased with the number of NDCs marketed by a company. The characteristics of the manufacturing company, rather than the number of companies, might be the missing piece to the complex puzzle of drug shortages in the US.

Opioid use by cancer status and time since diagnosis among older adults enrolled in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian screening trial in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Dosing limits in opioid clinical practice guidelines in the United States are likely misapplied to cancer patients, however, opioid use may be difficult to ascertain as they are largely excluded from opioid use studies. METHODS: The primary objective was to determine whether cancer patients were more likely to be chronic opioid users after diagnosis. We described prescription opioid use among U.S. older adult cancer patients during two time periods, within 2 years of diagnosis (short-term) and at least 2 years beyond diagnosis (long-term), compared to those without cancer (controls). Among participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) screening trial with linkages to Medicare Part D data during 2011-2015, we used multivariable logistic regression to estimate the association between cancer diagnosis and opioid use outcomes controlling for demographics. The primary outcome of opioid use was measured with the following metrics: Any opioid use, chronic use (90 consecutive days supply of opioid use while allowing for a 7-day gap between refills), high use (average daily morphine equivalent (MME) ≥120 mg for any 90-day period), and total MME dose above 2,000 mg (MME2000 ). RESULTS: The short-term cohort included 1,491 cancer patients and 24,930 controls. Any use in the 2-year post-diagnosis period was higher among cancer patients OR 3.3 (95% CI: 3.0-3.7). Chronic use rates were similar by cancer status (4.6% vs. 3.8% for cases and controls, respectively). The long-term cohort included 4,377 cancer patients and 27,545 controls. Rates of any use were similar among cancer patients and controls (63% vs. 59%). CONCLUSIONS: Any opioid use was similar among long-term cancer survivors compared to controls, but differed among short-term survivors for any opioid use and marginally for chronic opioid use.

The opioid crisis and HIV in the USA: deadly synergies.

The opioid epidemic is one of the greatest public health problems that the USA faces. Opioid overdose death rates have increased steadily for more than a decade and doubled in 2013-17, as the highly potent synthetic opioid fentanyl entered the drug supply. Demographics of new HIV diagnoses among people who inject drugs are also changing, with more new HIV diagnoses occurring among White people, young people (aged 13-34 years), and people who reside outside large central metropolitan areas. Racial differences also exist in syringe sharing, which decreased among Black people and Hispanic people but remained unchanged among White people in 2005-15. Recent HIV outbreaks have occurred in rural areas of the USA, as well as among marginalised people in urban areas with robust HIV prevention and treatment services (eg, Seattle, WA). Multiple evidence-based interventions can effectively treat opioid use disorder and prevent HIV acquisition. However, considerable barriers exist precluding delivery of these solutions to many people who inject drugs. If the USA is serious about HIV prevention among this group, stigma must be eliminated, discriminatory policies must change, and comprehensive health care must be accessible to all. Finally, root causes of the opioid epidemic such as hopelessness need to be identified and addressed.

Opioid days' supply limits: an interrupted time-series analysis of opioid prescribing before and following a Massachusetts law.

Background: In 2016, Massachusetts passed the first-in-the-nation law limiting opioid naïve adults and all minors to a 7-day supply of opioids when prescribed in the outpatient setting.Objective: We hypothesized this policy would be associated with declines in the percent of opioid prescriptions with more than a 7-day supply among opioid naïve adults and minors for select prescriber groups.Methods: Interrupted time series analyses were conducted using measures from the Massachusetts Prescription Monitoring Program database for 2015 through 2017 (n = 13,672,325 opioid prescriptions; 54% to females). Outcomes were the monthly percent of opioid prescriptions greater than 7 days' supply in opioid naïve adults and in minors among select prescriber groups. Model estimates of the pre-policy trend, the average changes in the level pre/post-implementation, and the trend changes post-implementation were assessed.Results: Pre-policy trends showed significant monthly declines in the percent of opioid prescriptions greater than 7 days' supply for all prescriber groups. Policy implementation was associated with significant reduction in the level for opioid naïve adults among surgeons (-2.92%, p < .01), dentists (-0.23%, p < .01), and general medical providers (-2.22%, p = .04), and for minors among all-included prescribers (-2.97%, p < .01) and surgeons (-3.8%, p < .01). Post-implementation changes in trends were not significant except among opioid naïve adults for dentists (0.02%, p = .04).Conclusion: Within a context of significant reductions occurring in opioid prescriptions greater than 7 days' supply during this period, the Massachusetts policy was associated with further declines for opioid naïve adults and minors among select prescriber groups.

Evaluation of Acute Postoperative Pain Management During an Injectable Opioid Shortage.

BACKGROUND: Drug product shortages, including injectable opioids, are common and have the potential to adversely affect patient care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of an injectable opioid shortage for hospitalized adult patients in the acute postoperative setting. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective cohort study of noncritically ill hospitalized, postoperative patients requiring opioids for acute pain management was conducted. Patient cohorts were compared preshortage and postshortage for proportion of total intravenous (IV) opioids used, proportions of specific pain medications used, subjective pain scores, 30-day mortality, respiratory depression, need for opioid reversal, hospital length of stay, and opioid equivalent doses. RESULTS: A total of 275 patients were included, 130 patients in the preshortage cohort and 145 in the postshortage cohort. The proportion of total IV opioid doses was lower in the postshortage cohort versus the preshortage cohort (16.6% vs 20.5%; P < 0.01). Specific medications used were significantly different between the cohorts. The proportion of severe pain scores was lower in the postshortage cohort versus the preshortage cohort (55.6% vs 58.5%; P = 0.04). No significant differences were seen in the overall proportion of nonopioid analgesic use, 30-day mortality, respiratory depression, need for emergent opioid reversal, hospital length of stay, or opioid equivalent doses between cohorts. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: In hospitalized, postoperative adults, an injectable opioid shortage was associated with significant decreases in IV opioid use and severe pain scores but no significant differences in nonopioid analgesic use, safety outcomes, or opioid equivalent doses. These results may assist clinicians in developing strategies for injectable opioid shortages and generating hypotheses for future studies.

The effects of a morphine shortage on emergency department pain control.

OBJECTIVE: In 2018, due to a national morphine shortage, our two study emergency departments (EDs) were unable to administer intravenous (IV) morphine for over six months. We evaluated the effects of this shortage on analgesia and patient disposition. METHODS: This was a retrospective study in two academic EDs. Our control period (with morphine) was 4/1/17-6/30/17 and our study period (without morphine) was 4/1/18-6/30/18. We included all adult patients with a chief complaint of pain, initial pain score ≥4, and ≥2 recorded pain scores. The primary outcome was delta pain score. Secondary outcomes included final pain score, proportion of ED visits with opioids vs. non-opioids administered, and ED disposition. RESULTS: We identified 6296 patients during our control period and 5816 during our study period. There was no significant difference in mean final pain score (study 4.45, control 4.44, p = 0.802), delta pain score (study -3.30, control -3.32, p = 0.556), nor admission rates (study 18.8%, control 17.8%, p = 0.131). We saw a decrease in opioid use (study 47.4%, control 60.0%, p < 0.01) and an increased use of non-opioid analgesics (study 27.3%, control 18.44%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Removing IV morphine in the ED, without a compensatory rise in alternative opioids, does not appear to significantly impact analgesia or disposition. These data favor a more limited opioid use strategy in the ED.

Palliative and end-of-life care in COVID-19 management in sub-Saharan Africa: a matter of concern.

The COVID-19 pandemic has strained health care systems beyond capacity resulting in many people not having access to life-sustaining measures even in well-resourced countries. Palliative and end-of-life care are therefore essential to alleviate suffering and ensure a continuum of care for patients unlikely to survive. This is challenging in sub-Saharan Africa where lack of trained teams on basic palliative care and reduced access to opioids limit implementation of palliative and end-of-life care. At the same time, health care providers have to cope with local cultural conceptions of death and absence of advance care directives.

COVID-19 and overdose prevention: Challenges and opportunities for clinical practice in housing settings.

The global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) will exacerbate the negative health outcomes associated with the concurrent opioid overdose crisis in North America. COVID-19 brings unique challenges for practitioners who provide opioid use disorder (OUD) care. The majority of overdose deaths in the Canadian province of British Columbia occur in housing environments. Some supportive housing environments in Vancouver, British Columbia, have on-site primary care and substance use disorder treatment clinics. Some of these housing environments also include supervised consumption services. These housing environments needed to make adjustments to their care to adhere to COVID-19 physical distancing measures. Such adjustments included a pandemic withdrawal management program to provide patients with a pharmaceutical grade alternative to the toxic illicit drug supply, which allow patients to avoid the heightened overdose risk while using illicit drugs alone or potentially exposing themselves to COVID-19 while using drugs in a group setting. Other modifications to the OUD care continuum included modified supervised injection spaces to adhere to physical distancing, the use of personal protective equipment for overdose response, virtual platforms for clinical encounters, writing longer prescriptions, and providing take-home doses to promote opioid agonist treatment retention. These strategies aim to mitigate indoor overdose risk while also addressing COVID-19 risks.

Safer opioid distribution in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 has turned the world upside down in a very short period of time. The impact of COVID-19 will disproportionately effect people who are least able to protect themselves and this will include people who use drugs. The arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic comes at time when North America is in the midst of a protracted overdose epidemic caused by a toxic illegal drug supply. Overdose deaths are likely to rise when people are isolated, social support programs are cut back, and the illicit drug supply is further compromised. Safer opioid distribution in response to a toxic street drug supply is a pragmatic and effective way to reduce overdose deaths. COVID-19 makes such an approach even more urgent and compelling.

Association Between Spine Surgery and Availability of Opioid Medication.

Importance: Prolonged prescribing of opioids after spine surgery is often perceived as a negative outcome, but successful opioid reduction may occur despite continued prescribing. Improved characterization of opioid availability before and after surgery is necessary to identify these successes. Objective: To evaluate the association between spine surgery and modification of opioid availability postoperatively by using consistent definitions to classify opioid availability before and after surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study included 2223 adults (age ≥18 years) who underwent spine surgery in Olmsted County, Minnesota, from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2016. Data were analyzed from April 1, 2019, to December 1, 2019. Exposures: Preoperative opioid availability based on prescription data in the 180 days before surgery in accordance with Consortium to Study Opioid Risks and Trends (CONSORT) definitions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Successful modification of opioid availability, defined as an improvement in CONSORT status postoperatively (assessed from 181 to 365 days after surgery) compared with preoperative status, or continued absence of opioid availability for patients with no preoperative availability. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between preoperative opioid availability and successful modification by 1 year after undergoing surgery. Results: Of 2223 patients included in the study, 1214 were male (54.6%), with a median age of 55 years (interquartile range, 43-68) years. Patients were classified as having no (778 [35.0%]), short-term (1118 [50.3%]), episodic (227 [10.2%]), or long-term (100 [4.5%]) preoperative opioid availability. Of the 2148 patients (96.6%) who were alive at 1 year, postoperative opioid availability was classified as no (1583 [73.7%]), short-term (398 [18.5%]), episodic (104 [4.8%]), and long-term (63 [2.9%]). A total of 1672 patients (77.8%) had successful modification of opioid availability, with success of 83.0% for those with no preoperative availability, 74.9% for those with short-term preoperative availability, 79.8% for those with episodic preoperative availability, and 64.4% for those with long-term preoperative opioid availability. In multivariable analysis, success was significantly associated with preoperative opioid availability (odds ratio [OR] for short term, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.48-0.77]; OR for episodic, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.64-1.40]; OR long term, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.30-0.82]; P < .001 overall vs no availability). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, when following standardized CONSORT definitions, 4 of 5 adults undergoing spine surgery in a population-based cohort met the criteria for a successful pattern of postoperative opioid prescribing. Similar methods to objectively assess changes in opioid prescribing may be clinically useful in other perioperative settings.

Impact of a perioperative oral opioid substitution protocol during the nationwide intravenous opioid shortage: A single center, interrupted time series with segmented regression analysis.

INTRODUCTION: To mitigate the recent nationwide shortage of intravenous opioids, we developed a standardized perioperative oral opioid guideline anchored with appropriate use of nonopioid analgesia, neuraxial and loco-regional techniques. We hypothesize that adoption of this new guideline was associated with: 1) equivalent patient reported pain scores in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU); and 2) equivalent total opioid use (oral and parenteral) during the perioperative period. METHODS: Cases performed from July 1, 2017 to May 31, 2019 were screened. All opioids administered were converted to intravenous morphine milligram equivalents. Segmented regression analyses of interrupted time series were performed examining the change in opioid use, PACU pain scores and number of non-opioid analgesic medications used before and after the protocol implementation in April 2018. RESULTS: After exclusions, 29, 621 cases were included in the analysis. No significant differences in demographic, ASA status, case length and surgical procedure type were present in the pre and post-intervention period. A significant decrease in total (Estimate: -39.9 mg, SE: 6.9 mg, p < 0.001) and parenteral (Estimate: -51.6 mg, SE: 7.1 mg, p < 0.001) opioid use with a significant increase in oral opioid use (Estimate: 9.4 mg, SE: 1.1 mg, p < 0.001) was noted after the intervention. Pain scores were not significantly different between the pre- and post-intervention period (Estimate: 0.05, SE: 0.13, p = 0.69). CONCLUSION: We report our experience with a primary perioperative oral based opioid regimen that is associated with decreased total opioid consumption and equivalent patient reported pain scores.