Mismatched opioid prescription in patients discharged after neurological surgeries: a retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT: Although postsurgical overprescription has been well-studied, postsurgical opioid underprescription remains largely overlooked. This retrospective cohort study was to investigate the extent of discharge opioid overprescription and underprescription in patients after neurological surgeries. Six thousand nine hundred forty-nine adult opioid-naive patients who underwent inpatient neurosurgical procedures at the University of California San Francisco were included. The primary outcome was the discrepancy between individual patient's prescribed daily oral morphine milligram equivalent (MME) at discharge and patient's own inpatient daily MME consumed within 24 hours of discharge. Analyses include Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, and χ 2 tests, and linear or multivariable logistic regression. 64.3% and 19.5% of patients were opioid overprescribed and underprescribed, respectively, with median prescribed daily MME 360% and 55.2% of median inpatient daily MME in opioid overprescribed and underprescribed patients, respectively. 54.6% of patients with no inpatient opioid the day before discharge were opioid overprescribed. Opioid underprescription dose-dependently increased the rate of opioid refill 1 to 30 days after discharge. From 2016 to 2019, the percentage of patients with opioid overprescription decreased by 24.8%, but the percentage of patients with opioid underprescription increased by 51.2%. Thus, the mismatched discharge opioid prescription in patients after neurological surgeries presented as both opioid overprescription and underprescription, with a dose-dependent increased rate of opioid refill 1 to 30 days after discharge in opioid underprescription. Although we are fighting against opioid overprescription to postsurgical patients, we should not ignore postsurgical opioid underprescription.

Inpatient administration of opioids and risk for post-operative ileus in older adults.

OBJECTIVE: Post-operative ileus (POI) is a common and potentially serious complication after surgery. We assessed the incidence and identified predictors of POI in older surgical patients. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study. SETTING: University of California-San Francisco electronic medical record data. PARTICIPANTS: Opioid-naïve, noncancer patients, aged 65 and older, who underwent elective surgery in the period 2017-2019. EXPOSURE: Administration of opioid analgesics per day of hospitalization in opioid naïve patients. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE: Incidence of POI and likelihood of developing POI. RESULTS: In the study period, 3 percent of opioid naïve patients developed POI. Patients with POI used on average 197.1 oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) per day of hospitalization compared to 82.5 OME in patients without POI (p = 0.013). Yet, there were not statistically significant differences in post-operative pain scores between patients with and without POI. General surgery (p = 0.0031), length of surgery (p = 0.0031), and hospital length of stay (p < 0.0001) were significant predictors of the risk for developing POI. Adjusted inpatient administration of more than 90 OME per day of hospitalization was associated with a four times greater risk for developing POI (p = 0.016). Developing POI was associated with 6.5 (95 percent confidence interval: 5.2-7.8) additional days of hospitalization among patients who developed POI compared to patients who did not develop POI (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Adjusted inpatient administration of more than 90 OME significantly increased the risk for developing POI in opioid-naïve older patients. Developing POI after surgery significantly increased the hospital length of stay. Optimizing inpatient administration of opioids may prevent opioid use-related POI and longer hospitalizations.

Hospital admission medication reconciliation in high-risk prescription opioid users.

BACKGROUND: No studies have assessed the clinical significance of medication reconciliation in surgical patients using high-risk extended-release/long-acting (ER/LA) opioid medications. OBJECTIVES: We assessed differences in the perioperative use of opioid analgesics in patients who underwent medication reconciliation upon hospital admission compared to patients who did not and identified predictors of perioperative use of opioids. METHODS: Retrospective observational quasi-experimental study including adult non-cancer patients who underwent elective surgery at UCSF Medical Center in the period January 2017 through December 2019 and received at least one opioid analgesic during surgical hospitalization. The primary study outcome was perioperative use of opioids measured in daily oral morphine equivalents (OME). Secondary outcomes were predictors of perioperative use of opioids after adjusting for baseline differences between groups. RESULTS: We identified 402 patients. Of them, 59.5% were female. The mean patient age was 58.5 years. Most patients underwent neurological or orthopedic surgery (each 40.8%). Over 94.3% of our patients underwent medication reconciliation upon hospital admission, with 78.4% completed by a pharmacy staff. Medication reconciliation evidenced that 5.5% patients were not taking the ER/LA opioids on their medication history list. Inactive ER/LA opioids were discontinued during hospitalization. None of the patients with inactive ER/LA opioids had those opioids restarted at hospital discharge. In addition, patients (26.9%) were successfully converted from ER/LA to SA opioids. After adjusting for patients' demographic and clinical characteristics, surgical procedure type and post-operative pain, opioid formulation conversion was the main predictor of perioperative use of opioids per hospitalization day. Switching patients from ER/LA to SA opioids reduced the mean daily use of OME by 66.03 units (p < 0.02) without adversely impacting postoperative pain. CONCLUSIONS: Medication reconciliation upon hospital admission reduced unnecessary exposure to opioids in hospitalized surgical patients.

Pain Management for Dental Medicine in 2021: Opioids, Coronavirus and Beyond.

Over the past year our attention has inevitably been on the coronavirus pandemic, the health and welfare of our families, patients, and office staffs as well as the re-opening of our dental practices. In addition, the opioid crisis continues, is very likely to worsen as a result of the pandemic and continues to be a challenge to Dentistry. National public health issues and healthcare disparities continue and have created a global concern for providing evidence-based, adequate pain management in the dental setting. We have brought together a group of national thought leaders and experts in this field who will share their insights on the current state of opioid prescribing in Dentistry and describe some of the exciting work being done in advancing pain management. The learning objectives for this conference proceedings were: Describing the implications of current public health concerns for safe and effective pain management in dental medicine.Identifying risk factors and understanding the current guidelines for the use of opioid and non-opioid medications in dental medicine.Analyzing the interprofessional collaborations necessary for effective pain management in dental medicine.Recognizing the challenges and opportunities brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic for the dental profession.Applying evidence-based strategies for managing the complex pain patient in the dental setting.Appraising new and future modalities for the assessment and management of orofacial pain.

Association between Use of Methadone, Other Central Nervous System Depressants, and QTc Interval-Prolonging Medications and Risk of Mortality in a Large Cohort of Women Living with or at Risk for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between use of methadone, other central nervous system (CNS) depressants, and QTc interval-prolonging medications and risk of mortality among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected and at-risk HIV-uninfected women. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study (Women's Interagency HIV Study [WIHS]). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 4150 women enrolled in the WIHS study between 1994 and 2014 who were infected (3119 women) or not infected (1031 women) with HIV. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data on medication utilization were collected from all study participants via interviewer-administered surveys at 6-month intervals (1994-2014). Mortality was confirmed by National Death Index data. With age defining the time scale for the analysis, Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause mortality in HIV-infected and -uninfected women and non-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) deaths in HIV-infected women. A total of 1046 deaths were identified, of which 429 were considered non-AIDS deaths. Use of benzodiazepines, CNS depressants (excluding methadone), and number of medications with conditional QTc interval-prolonging effects were each associated with all-cause mortality in multivariate models of HIV-infected women: hazard ratio (HR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.60, p=0.037; HR 1.61, 95% CI 1.35-1.92, p<0.0001; and HR 1.15 per drug, 95% CI 1.00-1.33, p=0.047, respectively. Other explanatory variables for all-cause mortality in this model included HIV viral load, CD4+  cell count, renal function, hemoglobin and albumin levels, HIV treatment era, employment status, existence of depressive symptoms, ever use of injection drugs, and tobacco smoking. Of interest, use of CNS depressants (excluding methadone) was also associated with non-AIDS deaths (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.49-2.2, p<0.0001). Although use of benzodiazepines and conditional QT interval-prolonging medications were associated with increased risk of non-AIDS mortality (HR 1.32 and 1.25, respectively), the effect was not statistically significant (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of HIV-infected and at-risk HIV-uninfected women, use of benzodiazepines, CNS depressants, and conditional QTc interval-prolonging medications were associated with a higher risk of mortality independent of methadone and other well-recognized mortality risk factors. Care must be taken to assess risk when prescribing these medications in this underserved and at-risk patient population.

Short-term and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions: is there a difference?

OBJECT: Previous studies comparing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF) with open TLIF have demonstrated that MITLIF reduces blood loss and decreases postoperative pain while preserving fusion rates and reducing complications. In this study, the authors wanted to compare outcomes of MITLIF with those of open TLIF to determine whether MITLIF also improves postoperative functional mobility and decreases the usage of pain medication. METHODS: In total, 75 consecutive patients who underwent either single-level open TLIF or MITLIF at the University of California, San Francisco, between 2006 and 2011 were included, and patients were followed up for an average of 5.05 years. Fifty patients underwent MITLIF and 25 underwent open TLIF. Primary outcomes included administration of morphine-equivalent narcotics and functional status on postoperative Day 1. Secondary outcomes included operative characteristics, complications, long-term fusion rates, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in age, sex, body mass index (BMI), level of disease, or surgical indication were detected between the open TLIF and MITLIF groups. Similarly, preoperative medication usage did not significantly differ between these groups. Intraoperatively, compared with TLIF, MITLIF resulted in decreased lengths of operation, lower blood loss, and fewer complications (p < 0.05). Total administration of morphine-equivalent pain medication in the hospital also tended to be lower in the MITLIF than in the TLIF group. Functional assessment by physical therapy on postoperative Day 1 demonstrated higher function in the MITLIF patients for transfer-related tasks, ambulatory ability, and distance walked than in the TLIF patients (p < 0.05). This translated to shorter inpatient hospitalizations (6.05 vs 4.8 days for open TLIF vs MITLIF patients, respectively, p = 0.006) and an average cost reduction of $3885 per MITLIF patient. Long-term fusion rates were 92% in the MITLIF group and 100% in the open TLIF group (p = 0.09). Preoperative VAS pain scores were 7.1 for the MITLIF patients and 7.6 for the TLIF patients (p = 0.26). At the last follow-up, the reported VAS pain score was 2.9 in the MITLIF patients and 3.5 in the open TLIF patients, but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.25). There was also no statistically significant difference in the degree change in this score (p = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: The MITLIF approach achieves improved functional mobility, decreases the usage of postoperative pain medication, and significantly reduces cost compared with open TLIF while preserving long-term fusion rates. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study comparing the postoperative usage of pain medication between treatments in the postoperative period before discharge.

Pharmacological management of persistent pain in older persons.

Drugs without a strong evidence base and outside of recommendations are too often prescribed for older adults. Established guidelines such as Beers criteria have identified both specific medications and certain drug classes as inappropriate for older adults, primarily due to adverse effects. Age-related physiological changes in distribution, metabolism, and elimination often alter the effects of pharmacotherapies in older adults. When designing a therapeutic program, all elements contributing to the pathophysiology of painful conditions should be considered, as well as the mechanisms of action of analgesic drug classes. Both appropriate and inappropriate medications for older adults are detailed herein, as well as their contraindications and potential drug-drug or drug-disease interactions. The number needed to treat (NNT) can be useful in considering efficacy, while the safety of a pharmacotherapy is indicated by the calculated number needed to harm (NNH). The NNT is a measure describing the number of patients who require treatment for every 1 who reaches the therapeutic goal, and the NNH describes the number of participants who manifest side effects; these can further be segregated into numbers who withdraw from studies due to intolerable side effects. These parameters, along with a patient's comorbidities and concomitant medications, should be considered when selecting an analgesic and dose regimen. In addition, practitioners should avoid prescribing multiple-drug therapies that have overlapping pharmacodynamics or that may have an adverse pharmacokinetic interaction.

Special issues in the management of chronic pain in older adults.

Pain syndromes are prevalent among older individuals and generally increase in incidence as the population ages. Yet, pain often is undertreated in older patients, sometimes due to difficulties in assessing pain intensity and the effectiveness of treatment in the context of age-related cognitive impairment and physiologic changes. As a result, older patients with chronic pain conditions are more likely to experience greater functional limitations and decreased quality of life due to these and other barriers to appropriate care. This article discusses the epidemiology, assessment, and management of pain in older adults, and reviews special issues in the treatment of this population, such as adverse effects due to changes in drug metabolism and drug-drug interactions.

Treatment response in antidepressant-naïve postherpetic neuralgia patients: double-blind, randomized trial.

UNLABELLED: In 47 patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) who had never had an adequate trial of any antidepressant, we performed a randomized, double-blind, parallel design trial comparing desipramine, amitriptyline, and fluoxetine. Patients were titrated to a maximum of 150 mg/day for desipramine and amitriptyline and 60 mg/day for fluoxetine over a 3-week period and then treated for an additional 3 weeks before tapering off study medication. A total of 38 subjects (81%) completed the entire trial. The modified intent-to-treat analysis of percent change in daily diary pain intensity scores showed no significant differences among the 3 drugs (ANOVA P = .120). Desipramine produced the greatest reduction in pain intensity (47%), followed by amitriptyline (38%) and fluoxetine (35%). Clinically meaningful pain relief (moderate or better) was significantly more likely with desipramine (12/15 patients) than with amitriptyline (9/17) or fluoxetine (5/15); chi(2)P = 0.036). The 11 subjects using opioids at study entry had smaller reductions in pain than those not using concomitant opioids. The fluoxetine group had the highest noncompletion rate (33%), with 1 subject hospitalized for hyponatremia. Although the magnitude of pain reduction and the category pain relief rating was not significantly different among the 3 drugs, the tricyclics desipramine and amitriptyline were well tolerated and provided clinically meaningful pain relief in 53% to 80% of subjects. PERSPECTIVE: Few clinical trials focus on patients who are naïve to an entire class of medication. In this randomized blinded trial, the tricyclic antidepressants desipramine and amitriptyline were compared to the serotonin-selective antidepressant fluoxetine. All 3 drugs reduced PHN pain, with desipramine providing satisfactory relief in 80% of those treated.

Biologic poisons for pain.

Pain therapies from natural sources date back thousands of years to the use of plant and animal extracts for a variety of painful conditions and injuries. We certainly are all familiar with modern uses of plant-derived analgesic compounds such as opium derivatives from papaverum somniferum and salicylates from willow bark (Salix species). Local anesthetics were isolated from coca leaves in the late 1800s. Sarapin, derived from carnivorous pitcher plants, has been injected for regional analgesia in human and veterinary medicine, but efficacy is controversial. Biologic organisms can play important roles in developing an understanding of pain mechanisms, either from isolation of compounds that are analgesic or of compounds that produce pain, hyperalgesia, and allodynia.

Oral opioid therapy for chronic peripheral and central neuropathic pain.

BACKGROUND: Although opioids are commonly used to treat chronic neuropathic pain, there are limited data to guide their use. Few controlled trials have been performed, and many types of neuropathic pain remain unstudied. METHODS: Adults with neuropathic pain that was refractory to treatment were randomly assigned to receive either high-strength (0.75-mg) or low-strength (0.15-mg) capsules of the potent mu-opioid agonist levorphanol for eight weeks under double-blind conditions. Intake was titrated by the patient to a maximum of 21 capsules of either strength per day. Outcome measures included the intensity of pain as recorded in a diary, the degree of pain relief, quality of life, psychological and cognitive function, the number of capsules taken daily, and blood levorphanol levels. RESULTS: Among the 81 patients exposed to the study drug, high-strength levorphanol capsules reduced pain by 36 percent, as compared with a 21 percent reduction in pain in the low-strength group (P=0.02). On average, patients in the high-strength group took 11.9 capsules per day (8.9 mg per day) and patients in the low-strength group took close to the 21 allowed (18.3 capsules per day; 2.7 mg per day). Affective distress and interference with functioning were reduced, and sleep was improved, but there were no differences between the high-strength group and the low-strength group in terms of these variables. Noncompletion of the study was primarily due to side effects of the opioid. Patients with central pain after stroke were the least likely to report benefit. CONCLUSIONS: The reduction in the intensity of neuropathic pain was significantly greater during treatment with higher doses of opioids than with lower doses. Higher doses produced more side effects without significant additional benefit in terms of other outcome measures.

Antidepressants for chronic neuropathic pain.

Tricyclic antidepressants have been used to manage pain for several decades, and are superior treatments for some patients suffering from neuropathic pain. Unfortunately, older antidepressants have dose-limiting side effects that can lead to drug intolerance. The most common are anticholinergic side effects, although some patients experience sexual dysfunction. Cognitive impairment, sedation, and orthostatic hypotension also are relatively common. Taking an overdose of tricyclic antidepressants can be lethal in overdose. Several weeks of therapy may be required before antinociception occurs, but tricyclic antidepressants in optimal doses appear to be the most effective treatment for neuropathic pain; this is supported by systematic reviews comparing them with other agents. Newer medications such as atypical antidepressants and anticonvulsants may be overtaking older antidepressants, but they should not be overlooked as important options for the management of pain.

Better understanding your patient from a psychological perspective: early identification of problem behaviors affecting the dental office.

Early assessment of problem patient behaviors can be a complex and time-consuming task. These negative behaviors can frequently interrupt and misdirect treatment goals. Most dentists, due to private practice demands, do not have the time and training to assess these behaviors. The emotional stability of each patient is taken for granted. Subtle negative behavioral clues can be detected during medical history taking and the initial patient interview. Current prescription medications can also provide clues concerning past or current treatment for depression, anxiety, psychiatric problems, or substance abuse. The burden of properly assessing behaviors and their impact on dental treatment rests on the dentist's acumen in history taking. All practices have some difficult patients. It is important that dentists recognize patients who have special needs such as those with high anxiety, dependency, depression, obsessional somatic focus, or prior negative dental experiences.