Decreasing Trends in Opioid Prescribing on Discharge to Hospice Care

Assessment of the antinociceptive, respiratory-depressant, and reinforcing effects of the low pKa fluorinated fentanyl analogs, FF3 and NFEPP

RATIONALE

Recent studies report that fentanyl analogs with relatively low pKa values produce antinociception in rodents without other mu opioid-typical side effects due to the restriction of their activity to injured tissue with relatively low pH values. However, it is unclear if and to what degree these compounds may produce mu opioid-typical side effects (respiratory depression, reinforcing effects) at doses higher than those required to produce antinociception.

OBJECTIVES

The present study compared the inflammatory antinociceptive, respiratory-depressant, and reinforcing effects of fentanyl and two analogs of intermediate (FF3) and low (NFEPP) pKa values in terms of potency and efficacy in male and female Sprague-Dawley rats.

METHODS

Nociception was produced by administration of Complete Freund's Adjuvant into the hind paw of subjects, and antinociception was measured using an electronic Von Frey test. Respiratory depression was measured using whole-body plethysmography. Reinforcing effects were measured in self-administration using a progressive-ratio schedule of reinforcement. The dose ranges tested for each drug encompassed no effect to maximal effects.

RESULTS

All compounds produced full effects in all measures but varied in potency. FF3 and fentanyl were equipotent in antinociception and self-administration, but FF3 was less potent than fentanyl in respiratory depression. NFEPP was less potent than fentanyl in every measure. The magnitude of potency difference between antinociception and other effects was greater for FF3 than for NFEPP or fentanyl, indicating that FF3 had the widest margin of safety when relating antinociception to respiratory-depressant and reinforcing effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Low pKa fentanyl analogs possess potential as safer analgesics, but determining the optimal degree of difference for pKa relative to fentanyl will require further study due to some differences between the current results and findings from prior work with these analogs.

Use of Opioids for Adults With Pain From Cancer or Cancer Treatment: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide guidance on the use of opioids to manage pain from cancer or cancer treatment in adults.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature identified systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials of the efficacy and safety of opioid analgesics in people with cancer, approaches to opioid initiation and titration, and the prevention and management of opioid adverse events. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 2010, to February 17, 2022. American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations.

RESULTS

The evidence base consisted of 31 systematic reviews and 16 randomized controlled trials. Opioids have primarily been evaluated in patients with moderate-to-severe cancer pain, and they effectively reduce pain in this population, with well-characterized adverse effects. Evidence was limited for several of the questions of interest, and the Expert Panel relied on consensus for these recommendations or noted that no recommendation could be made at this time.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Opioids should be offered to patients with moderate-to-severe pain related to cancer or active cancer treatment unless contraindicated. Opioids should be initiated PRN (as needed) at the lowest possible dose to achieve acceptable analgesia and patient goals, with early assessment and frequent titration. For patients with a substance use disorder, clinicians should collaborate with a palliative care, pain, and/or substance use disorder specialist to determine the optimal approach to pain management. Opioid adverse effects should be monitored, and strategies are provided for prevention and management.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Patient and Family Participation in Medication Decisions on Discharge to Hospice Care

Background: High-quality hospice care is characterized by patient-centered care and shared decision making between patients, families, and health care workers. However, little is known regarding the frequency and characteristics of patient and family participation in medication decisions on transition to hospice care. Objective: To quantify the frequency and characteristics of patient and/or family participation in medication decisions. Subjects: Adult (age ≥18 years) patients discharged from Oregon Health & Science University Hospital (OHSU) to hospice care between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2016. Design: Cross-sectional study. Measures: The primary outcome was documented patient and/or family participation. Patient or family participation was defined as documentation of patient or family member discussion surrounding medication decisions in the discharge summary. We used logistic regression to identify patient and admission characteristics associated with documentation of patient or family member participation in medication decisions. Results: Among 348 eligible patients, patient and/or family participation was documented in 22% of discharges to hospice care. Higher Charlson comorbidity index (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.17) and having a diagnosis of cancer (aOR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.16-3.43) were associated with an increased documentation of patient or family member participation in medication decisions. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit were less likely to have patient/family member participation (aOR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.32-0.94). Having a specialty palliative care consultation was not significantly associated with patient or family member participation in medication decisions (aOR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.40-1.48). Conclusions: Patient or family participation in medication decisions was documented for only 22% patients on discharge to hospice care. Opportunities to improve participation likely include increasing knowledge and capacity regarding primary palliative care for all clinicians and implementation of specialized interventions for patients and families transitioning to hospice care from acute care settings.

Opioid Use at End-Of-Life Among Nova Scotia Patients With Cancer

Purpose: To determine the factors associated with opioid analgesic prescriptions as measured by community pharmacy dispensations to all Nova Scotia (NS) patients with cancer at end-of-life from 2005 to 2009.

Methods: The NS Cancer Registry and the NS Prescription Monitoring Program (NSPMP) were used to link Nova Scotians who had a cancer diagnosis and received a prescription for opioids in their last year of life (n = 6,186) from 2005 to 2009. The association of factors with opioid dispensations at end-of-life were determined (e.g., patient demographics, type of prescriber, type of cancer, and opioid type, formulation, and dose).

Results: Almost 54% (n = 6,186) of the end-of-life study population with cancer (n = 11,498) was linked to the NSPMP and therefore dispensed opioids. Most prescriptions were written by general practitioners (89%) and were for strong opioids (81%). Immediate-release formulations were more common than modified-release formulations. Although the annual average parenteral morphine equivalents (MEQ) did not change during the study period, the number of opioid prescriptions per patient per year increased from 5.9 in 2006 to 7.0 in 2009 (p < 0.0001). Patients age 80 and over received the fewest prescriptions (mean 3.9/year) and the lowest opioid doses (17.0 MEQ) while patients aged 40–49 received the most prescriptions (mean 14.5/year) and the highest doses of opioid (80.2 MEQ).

Conclusion: Our study examined opioid analgesic use at end-of-life in patients with cancer for a large real-world population and determined factors, trends and patterns associated with type and dose of opioid dispensed. We provide information regarding how general practitioners prescribe opioid therapy to patients at end-of-life. Our data suggest that at the time of this study, there may have been under-prescribing of opioids to patients with cancer at end-of-life. This information can be used to increase awareness among general practitioners, and to inform recommendations from professional regulatory bodies, to aid in managing pain for cancer patients at end-of-life. Future work could address how opioid prescribing has changed over time, and whether efforts to reduce opioid prescribing in response to the opioid crisis have affected patients with cancer at end-of-life in Nova Scotia.