Opioid prescribing in the emergency department of a tertiary hospital: A retrospective audit of hospital discharge data

Effectiveness of Opioid Analgesic Medicines Prescribed in or at Discharge From Emergency Departments for Musculoskeletal Pain : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The comparative benefits and harms of opioids for musculoskeletal pain in the emergency department (ED) are uncertain.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and harms of opioids for musculoskeletal pain in the ED setting.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases and registries from inception to 7 February 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials of any opioid analgesic compared with placebo or a nonopioid analgesic administered or prescribed to adults in or on discharge from the ED.

DATA EXTRACTION

Pain and disability were rated on a scale of 0 to 100 and pooled using a random-effects model. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Forty-two articles were included (n = 6128). In the ED, opioids were statistically but not clinically more effective in reducing pain in the short term (about 2 hours) than placebo and paracetamol (acetaminophen) but were not clinically or statistically more effective than nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or local or systemic anesthetics. Opioids may carry higher risk for harms than placebo, paracetamol, or NSAIDs, although evidence is very uncertain. There was no evidence of difference in harms associated with local or systemic anesthetics.

LIMITATIONS

Low or very low GRADE ratings for some outcomes, unexplained heterogeneity, and little information on long-term outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The risk-benefit balance of opioids versus placebo, paracetamol, NSAIDs, and local or systemic anesthetics is uncertain. Opioids may have equivalent pain outcomes compared with NSAIDs, but evidence on comparisons of harms is very uncertain and heterogeneous. Although factors such as route of administration or dosage may explain some heterogeneity, more work is needed to identify which subgroups will have a more favorable benefit-risk balance for one analgesic over another. Longer-term pain management once dose thresholds are reached is also uncertain.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None. (PROSPERO: CRD42021275293).

Continued opioid use following an emergency department presentation for low back pain

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the proportion of patients with low back pain who receive an opioid analgesic prescription on hospital discharge, the proportion using opioid analgesics 4 weeks after discharge, and to identify predictors of continued opioid analgesic use at 4 weeks after an ED presentation in opioid-naïve patients.

METHODS

An observational cohort study nested within a randomised controlled trial in four EDs in New South Wales, Australia. Participants were adults who presented to the ED with non-specific low back pain or low back pain with lower limb neurological signs and symptoms. Electronic medical records supplemented the patient-reported pain and use of opioid analgesics at 4-week follow up.

RESULTS

Of the 104 patients included, 33 (31.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 22.9-41.6) received an opioid analgesic prescription at hospital discharge and 38 (36.5%, 95% CI 27.3-46.6) reported taking an opioid analgesic for pain 4 weeks after the ED presentation. Among opioid-naïve patients (n = 85), older age (odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% CI 1.00-1.08, P = 0.031) was the only predictor for continued opioid analgesic use at 4 weeks post-ED presentation.

CONCLUSION

About one-third of patients who present to the ED with low back pain receive an opioid analgesic prescription on discharge and are taking an opioid analgesic 4 weeks later. These findings justify future research to identify strategies to reduce the risk of long-term opioid use in patients who present to the ED with low back pain.

Oxycodone prescribing in the emergency department during the opioid crisis

OBJECTIVE

Misuse of prescription opioids is a significant public health issue in Australia. There has been a rapid rise in prescription opioid use, with an associated increase in overdose and death. The over-prescribing of oral opioids, especially oxycodone, in the ED has been identified as a contributor to this problem overseas. It is unclear if similar practice occurs in the Australian ED. The primary aim of our study was to identify the incidence of oral oxycodone administration to patients within the ED. The secondary outcome was to identify the incidence of oxycodone prescribed to patients on discharge from the ED into the community.

METHODS

Our study was designed as an observational, retrospective data analysis of the incidence of oxycodone prescribed within the three EDs of a large Australian public health service. All immediate-release (IR) and slow-release (SR) oral oxycodone prescribed over a 4-year period (2015-2018) was included.

RESULTS

There were 890 557 presentations to the three EDs during the period, which resulted in 288 242 episodes of oxycodone administration within department, equivalent to 324 administrations per 1000 presentations. There were 39 381 prescriptions for oxycodone provided on discharge, resulting in an incidence of 44 prescriptions per 1000 discharged. The most frequently prescribed opioid medication in the ED was oxycodone IR 5 mg, 78.6% of discharge prescriptions generated provided a maximum quantity (20 for IR formulation or 28 for SR) of tablets allowable under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a higher incidence of oxycodone prescribing in the Australian ED than previously recognised. An overuse of oxycodone may be contributing to adverse patient outcomes and a public health crisis. Hospitals should consider appropriate steps to reduce the incidence of opioid prescribing and the supply of these medications into the community.

Does prescribing of immediate release oxycodone by emergency medicine physicians result in persistence of Schedule 8 opioids following discharge?

OBJECTIVES

To identify the prevalence of oxycodone immediate release (IR) prescribed during an ED admission and the persistence of Schedule 8 (S8) opioids following an ED admission.

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional audit was undertaken reviewing all admission at the ED of the Royal Hobart Hospital, Tasmania, between 1 August and 30 September 2016. The admissions lists for ED were cross matched with the narcotic registers for oxycodone IR (the most commonly supplied S8 in ED) to identify how many patients received IR oxycodone during their ED admissions. Determination of the persistence of opioid use in opioid naïve patients was then undertaken using the Tasmanian real time reporting database of all S8 opioid dispensed in Tasmania (DAPIS).

RESULTS

There were 8432 ED admissions for 7065 patients aged over 13 years. IR oxycodone was prescribed during 1049 of these admissions (12.4%). Of the patients who were not taking regularly prescribed S8 opioids prior to their ED admission (n = 853), 48 patients (5.6%) were taking S8 opioids at both 2 and 6 months following their ED admission. Thirty patients (2.8%) were approved for authorities for long-term opioids for non-cancer pain.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that prescribing of IR oxycodone within ED is lower than previous studies. Additionally, the progression to regular chronic opioid use following an ED admission where IR oxycodone was given was relatively low with 3.0% of opioid naïve patients being approved for indications related to chronic non-cancer pain in the following 6 months.