Prescribed opioids in primary care: cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of influence of patient and practice characteristics

Nudging strategies to influence prescribers' behavior toward reducing opioid prescriptions: a systematic scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic scoping review aimed to map the literature on the use of various nudging strategies to influence prescriber behavior toward reducing opioid prescriptions across diverse healthcare settings.

METHODS

A systematic database search was conducted using seven electronic databases. Only articles published in English were included. A total of 2234 articles were identified, 35 of which met the inclusion criteria. Two independent dimensions were used to describe nudging strategies according to user action and the timing of their implementation.

RESULTS

Six nudging strategies were identified. The most common strategy was default choices, followed by increasing salience of information or incentives and providing feedback. Moreover, 32 studies used the electronic health record as an implementation method, and 29 reported significant results. Most of the effective interventions were multicomponent interventions (i.e., combining nudge strategies and non-nudge components).

CONCLUSIONS

Most nudging strategies used a passive approach, such as defaulting prescriptions to generics and requiring no action from the prescriber. Although reported as effective, this approach often operates under the prescriber's radar. Future research should explore the ethical implications of nudging strategies.INPLASY registration number: 202420082.

Patterns and trends of medicinal poisoning substances: a population-based cohort study of injuries in 0-11 year old children from 1998-2018

BACKGROUND

There have been sharp increases in antidepressant and opioid prescriptions over the last 10 years, as well as increased over-the-counter medicine availability. However, the impact on childhood medicinal poisonings rates, particularly by socioeconomic deprivation is unclear. This study reports population level medicinal poisoning substance patterns in England among children aged 0-11 years, helping inform safety advice and poisoning prevention interventions.

METHODS

An open cohort study of 1,489,620 0-11 year olds was conducted from 1998 to 2018, using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, to examine inpatient hospital admissions for poisoning. Incidence rates and adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) were calculated for poisoning substance groups by age, sex, socio-economic deprivation and year.

RESULTS

3,685 medicinal poisoning hospital admissions were identified. The most common substances were paracetamol (33.2%), dependence/withdrawal risk drugs (DWRD - antidepressants, opioids, gabapentinoids, benzodiazepines) (13.5%) and other over-the-counter (OTC) analgesics/anti-common cold drugs (13.0%). Over the study period DWRD poisonings decreased 33% (aIRR 0.67, 95%CI 0.50-0.90 comparing 2013/14-2017/18 to 1998/99-2002/03), while paracetamol poisonings increased 43% (aIRR 1.43, 95%CI 1.20-1.70 for the same periods), with no change in incidence rates for other OTC drugs (aIRR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60-1.12) or all medications combined (aIRR 0.97, 95%CI 0.88-1.07). A gradient in poisonings by area-level socioeconomic deprivation was shown for all medications (aIRR 1.32, 95%CI 1.18-1.47 for most deprived compared to least deprived quintile), and DWRDs (aIRR 2.03, 95%CI 1.42-2.88 for 4th most deprived quintile and aIRR 1.88, 95%CI 1.32-2.66 for 5th most deprived quintile, compared to least deprived quintile), but not for paracetamol or other OTC drug poisonings.

CONCLUSIONS

Poisonings from DWRDs decreased by 33%, while paracetamol poisonings increased by 43% during the study period. There was a gradient by area-level socioeconomic deprivation in prescribed medication poisonings, including drugs with withdrawal/dependence risk, but not OTC medication poisonings. Households in more socioeconomically deprived areas have the potential to benefit most from measures to improve safe storage of medicines and are likely to require targeted interventions providing education and safety equipment. In addition, universal promotion of the safe storage of OTC and prescribed medicines must be provided by prescribers, community pharmacies and other outlets of such medication.

Understanding general practitioners' prescribing choices to patients with chronic low back pain: a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Although NSAIDs are recommended as a first line analgesic treatment, opioids are very commonly prescribed to patients with low back pain (LBP) despite risks of harms.

AIM

This study aimed to determine factors contributing to general practitioners' (GPs') prescribing choices to patients with chronic LBP in a primary care setting.

METHOD

This discrete choice experiment (DCE) presented 210 GPs with hypothetical scenarios of a patient with chronic LBP. Participants chose their preferred treatment for each choice set, either the opioid, NSAID or neither. The scenarios varied by two patient attributes; non-specific LBP or LBP with referred leg pain (sciatica) and number of comorbidities. The three treatment attributes also varied, being: the type of opioid or NSAID, degree of pain reduction and number of adverse events. The significance of each attribute in influencing clinical decisions was the primary outcome and the degree to which GPs preferred the alternative based on the number of adverse events or the amount of pain reduction was the secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Overall, GPs preferred NSAIDs (45.2%, 95% CI 38.7-51.7%) over opioids (28.8%, 95% CI 23.0-34.7%), however there was no difference between the type of NSAID or opioid preferred. Additionally, the attributes of pain reduction and adverse events did not influence a GP's choice between NSAIDs or opioids for patients with chronic LBP.

CONCLUSION

GPs prefer prescribing NSAIDs over opioids for a patient with chronic low back pain regardless of patient factors of comorbidities or the presence of leg pain (i.e. sciatica).

Opioid Prescribing for Chronic Musculoskeletal Conditions: Trends over Time and Implementation of Safe Opioid-Prescribing Practices

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed (1) to determine the impact of a clinical decision support (CDS) tool on rate of opioid prescribing and opioid dose for patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions and (2) to identify prescriber and facility characteristics associated with adherence to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain in this population.We conducted an interrupted time series analysis to assess trends in percentage of patients from 2016 to 2020, receiving an opioid and the average opioid dose, as well as the change associated with implementation of the CDS toolkit. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess the association between prescriber and facility characteristics and safe opioid-prescribing practices.

METHODS

We assessed the impact of the CDS intervention on percent of patients receiving an opioid and average opioid dose (morphine milligram equivalents). We operationalized safe opioid prescribing as a composite score of several behaviors (i.e., prescribing naloxone, initiating a pain agreement, prescribing <90 MME, avoiding extended-release prescriptions for opioid-naïve patients, and avoiding coprescribing opioids and benzodiazepines) and used a hierarchical linear regression model to assess associations between prescriber and facility characteristics and safe opioid prescribing.

RESULTS

This CDS intervention had a modest but statistically significant 1.6% reduction on the percent of patients (n = 1,290,746) receiving an opioid (mean: 15% preintervention; 10% postintervention). The average dose of opioid prescriptions did not significantly change. Advanced practice providers and prescribers with higher percentages of patients aged 18 to 64 exhibited safer opioid prescribing, while prescribers with higher percentages of white patients and larger numbers of patients on opioids exhibited less safe opioid prescribing.

CONCLUSION

A CDS intervention was associated with a small improvement in percent of patients receiving an opioid, but not on average dose. Clinicians are not prescribing opioids for chronic musculoskeletal conditions frequently, when they do, they are generally adhering to guidelines.

The quality of prison primary care: cross-sectional cluster-level analyses of prison healthcare data in the North of England

Background

Prisoners have significant health needs, are relatively high users of healthcare, and often die prematurely. Strong primary care systems are associated with better population health outcomes. We investigated the quality of primary care delivered to prisoners.

Methods

We assessed achievement against 30 quality indicators spanning different domains of care in 13 prisons in the North of England. We conducted repeated cross-sectional analyses of routinely recorded data from electronic health records over 2017-20. Multi-level mixed effects logistic regression models explored associations between indicator achievement and prison and prisoner characteristics.

Findings

Achievement varied markedly between indicators, prisons and over time. Achieved processes of care ranged from 1% for annual epilepsy reviews to 94% for blood pressure checks in diabetes. Intermediate outcomes of care ranged from only 0.2% of people with epilepsy being seizure-free in the preceding year to 34% with diabetes having sufficient blood pressure control. Achievement improved over three years for 11 indicators and worsened for six, including declining antipsychotic monitoring and rising opioid prescribing. Achievement varied between prisons, e.g., 1.93-fold for gabapentinoid prescribing without coded neuropathic pain (odds ratio [OR] range 0.67-1.29) and 169-fold for dried blood spot testing (OR range 0.05-8.45). Shorter lengths of stay were frequently associated with lower achievement. Ethnicity was associated with some indicators achievement, although the associations differed (both positive and negative) with indicators.

Interpretation

We found substantial scope for improvement and marked variations in quality, which were largely unaltered after adjustment for prison and prisoner characteristics.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research Health and Social Care and Delivery Research Programme: 17/05/26.

What is the role of randomised trials in implementation science?

BACKGROUND

There is a consistent demand for implementation science to inform global efforts to close the gap between evidence and practice. Key evaluation questions for any given implementation strategy concern the assessment and understanding of effects. Randomised trials are generally accepted as offering the most trustworthy design for establishing effectiveness but may be underused in implementation science.

MAIN BODY

There is a continuing debate about the primacy of the place of randomised trials in evaluating implementation strategies, especially given the evolution of more rigorous quasi-experimental designs. Further critiques of trials for implementation science highlight that they cannot provide 'real world' evidence, address urgent and important questions, explain complex interventions nor understand contextual influences. We respond to these critiques of trials and highlight opportunities to enhance their timeliness and relevance through innovative designs, embedding within large-scale improvement programmes and harnessing routine data. Our suggestions for optimising the conditions for randomised trials of implementation strategies include strengthening partnerships with policy-makers and clinical leaders to realise the long-term value of rigorous evaluation and accelerating ethical approvals and decluttering governance procedures for lower risk studies.

CONCLUSION

Policy-makers and researchers should avoid prematurely discarding trial designs when evaluating implementation strategies and work to enhance the conditions for their conduct.

Digitally deployed, GP remote consultation video intervention that aims to reduce opioid prescribing in primary care: protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Opioid prescribing rates are disproportionately high in the North of England. In addition to patients' complex health needs, clinician prescribing behaviour is also a key driver. Although strategies have been initiated to reduce opioid prescribing nationally, the COVID-19 pandemic has interrupted service provision and created challenges for the system and health professionals to tackle this complex issue. A pilot intervention using smartphone video messaging has been developed to remotely explain the rationale for opioid reduction and facilitate self-initiation of support. The aim of this study is to evaluate the potential benefits, risks and economic consequences of 'at scale' implementation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This will be a mixed-methods study comprising a quasi-experimental non-randomised before-and-after study and qualitative interviews. The intervention arm will comprise 50 General Practitioner (GP) Practices using System 1 (a clinical computer system hosting the intervention) who will deliver the video to their patients via text message. The control arm will comprise 50 practices using EMIS (a different computer system) who will continue usual care. Monthly practice level prescribing and consultation data will be observed for 6 months postintervention. A general linear model will be used to estimate the association between the exposure and the main outcome (opioid prescribing; average daily quantity (ADQ)/1000 specific therapeutic group age-sex related prescribing unit). Semi-structured interviews will be undertaken remotely with purposively selected participants including patients who received the video, and health professionals involved in sending out the videos and providing additional support. Interviews will be audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been granted by the NHS Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee (22/PR/0296). Findings will be disseminated to the participating sites, participants, and commissioners, and in peer-reviewed journals and academic conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05276089.

Interventions to improve the implementation of evidence-based healthcare in prisons: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

There are challenges to delivering high quality primary care within prison settings and well-recognised gaps between evidence and practice. There is a growing body of literature evaluating interventions to implement evidence-based practice in the general population, yet the extent and rigour of such evaluations in incarcerated populations are unknown. We therefore conducted a scoping literature review to identify and describe evaluations of implementation interventions in the prison setting.

METHODS

We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and grey literature up to August 2021, supplemented by hand searching. Search terms included prisons, evidence-based practice, and implementation science with relevant synonyms. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion. Data extraction included study populations, study design, outcomes, and author conclusions. We took a narrative approach to data synthesis. We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidance for scoping reviews.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies reported in 17 papers comprised one randomised controlled trial, one controlled interrupted time series analysis and 13 uncontrolled before and after studies. Eight studies took place in the US and four in the UK. Ten studies evaluated combined (multifaceted) interventions, typically including education for staff or patients. Interventions most commonly targeted communicable diseases, mental health and screening uptake. Thirteen studies reported adherence to processes of care, mainly testing, prescribing and referrals. Fourteen studies concluded that interventions had positive impacts.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a paucity of high-quality evidence to inform strategies to implement evidence-based health care in prisons, and an over-reliance on weak evaluation designs which may over-estimate effectiveness. Whilst most evaluations have focused on recognised priorities for the incarcerated population, relatively little attention has been paid to long-term conditions core to primary care delivery. Initiatives to close the gaps between evidence and practice in prison primary care need a stronger evidence base.

Opioid prescribing and social deprivation: A retrospective analysis of prescribing for CNCP in Liverpool CCG

BACKGROUND

Treating Chronic Non-Cancer Pain (CNCP) with long-term, high dose and more potent opioids puts patients at increased risk of harm, whilst providing limited pain relief. Socially deprived areas mapped from Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) scores show higher rates of high dose, strong opioid prescribing compared to more affluent areas.

OBJECTIVE

To explore if opioid prescribing is higher in more deprived areas of Liverpool (UK) and assess the incidence of high dose prescribing to improve clinical pathways for opioid weaning.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This retrospective observational study used primary care practice and patient level opioid prescribing data for N = 30,474 CNCP patients across Liverpool Clinical Commissioning Group (LCCG) between August 2016 and August 2018.

METHOD

A Defined Daily Dose (DDD) was calculated for each patient prescribed opioids. DDD was converted into a Morphine Equivalent Dose (MED) and patients stratified according to high (≥120mg) MED cut off. The association between prescribing and deprivation was analysed by linking GP practice codes and IMD scores across LCCG.

RESULTS

3.5% of patients were prescribed an average dose above 120mg MED/day. Patients prescribed long-term, high dose, strong opioids were more likely to be female, aged 60+, prescribed three opioids and reside in the North of Liverpool where there is a higher density of areas in the IMD most deprived deciles.

CONCLUSION

A small but significant proportion of CNCP patients across Liverpool are currently prescribed opioids above the recommended dose threshold of 120mg MED. Identification of fentanyl as a contributor to high dose prescribing resulted in changes to prescribing practice, and reports from NHS pain clinics that fewer patients require tapering from fentanyl. In conclusion, higher rates of high dose opioid prescribing continue to be evident in more socially deprived areas further increasing health inequalities.

Long-term, high-dose opioid prescription for chronic non-cancer pain in primary care: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Opioid prescriptions for chronic pain have risen sharply over the last 25 years; harms associated with these drugs are related to dose and length of use.

AIM

The main aim of this study was to identify patients prescribed long-term, high-dose (LTHD) opioids in the community and to assess the prevalence of such use.

DESIGN & SETTING

An observational study of opioid prescribing in two demographically dissimilar GP practices in North Wales, UK.

METHOD

Details of opioid prescriptions were collected for 22 841 patients, of whom 1488 (6.5%) were being prescribed opioids on the census date. Exhaustive examination of the data identified all patients who were prescribed oral morphine equivalent doses of ≥120 mg/day for ≥1 year.

RESULTS

All these patients were being prescribed ≥120 mg/day, as a single drug, morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, or buprenorphine, irrespective of opioid polypharmacy. Across both practices, 1.71/1000 patients were identified as LTHD users of opioid medication for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Prevalence was similar in the two practices. Repetition of the process until January 2021 showed no change in the pattern.

CONCLUSION

This study offers confirmation that a significant group of patients are prescribed long-term opioid medication for chronic pain at doses that are unlikely to be effective in reducing pain, but are likely to have harmful consequences. The findings offer a simple, reliable, and practical method of data extraction to identify these patients individually from routinely collected prescribing data, which will help in monitoring and treating individuals and establishing the problem prevalence.

Patterns of prescribing in primary care leading to high-dose opioid regimens: a mixed-method study

BACKGROUND

There are concerns about continuing increases in the number of patients prescribed long-term opioids and the prescribing of 'strong' opioids for chronic pain. Little is known about patients who are prescribed these long-term, high-dose drugs.

AIM

To understand patterns of opioid prescribing that lead to long-term, high-dose use.

DESIGN & SETTING

A mixed-method study of the opioid prescription histories of patients using high doses in a North Wales GP practice.

METHOD

All patients on high-dose opioids during the census week were identified. Summary graphs of the prescription histories were prepared. Qualitative analysis was conducted individually by four researchers. A workshop was held to arrive at a consensus about common features and to inform further quantitative analysis.

RESULTS

A quarter of high-dose regimens were initiated outside the practice, either in a different primary care practice or in secondary care. The majority of the remaining patients showed a pattern of dose increases to high levels over a short period (median 3.5 months). None showed a pattern of gradual increases over a longer timescale. Most of the patients remained on high doses continuously once a daily dose of ≥120 mg oral morphine equivalent (OME) was reached.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that high-dose opioid regimens develop quickly in response to unknown clinical factors. An expected insidious upward drift in dose was not seen. The findings have implications for the prevention of potentially dangerous long-term, high-dose opioid prescribing. A dose of 60 mg OME or more is suggested as a useful 'red flag'.

A qualitative interview study of GPs' experiences of prescribing opioid medication for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Prescribing of opioid medication has increased over the past 20 years. Most occurs in primary care for chronic pain. There is little evidence that these drugs are effective for this indication. There are concerns about the continuing prescribing of opioids, particularly in the long term and at high doses.

AIM

To explore GPs' experiences of prescribing opioids, problems encountered, and factors militating against good prescribing practice.

DESIGN & SETTING

Qualitative interviews with GPs who prescribe opioids in primary care in North East Wales.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews with 20 GPs were transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis utilising the framework approach.

RESULTS

Participating GPs identified a range of problems associated with prescribed opioids. They were concerned about limited effectiveness of the drugs and what they perceived as addiction resulting from their use. They identified healthcare system factors that were obstacles to good prescribing practice such as lack of continuity of care, poor access to secondary care pain management support, and, most importantly, constant time pressure. They reported adverse effects on relationships with patients. Unrealistic expectations that pain could be eliminated resulted in pressure to prescribe stronger drugs and increased doses. It led to difficulties in establishing and maintaining trust and in persuading patients to agree to, and to carry out, dose reductions.

CONCLUSION

Themes emerging from this study suggest that GPs lack appropriate control of opioid prescribing. There is a need to develop methods to help patients and GPs to work together to manage chronic pain safely.

Immunomodulatory effects of fentanyl and morphine on DSS- and TNBS-induced colitis

BACKGROUND

Opioid prescription for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-related pain is on the rise. However, the use of strong opioids can result in severe complications, and even death, in IBD patients. This study aimed to define the role of fentanyl and morphine, two representative strong opioids, in the pathogenesis of dextran sodium sulfate (DSS)- and 2,4,6-trinitrobenzenesulfonic acid solution (TNBS)-induced colitis.

METHOD

DSS and TNBS models were induced in C57BL/6J and Balb/c mice, respectively. Disease activity index (DAI), histopathology, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), multiplex ELISA, and flow cytometry were performed to evaluate the effects of fentanyl and morphine.

RESULT

Fentanyl exacerbated DSS- and TNBS-induced colitis, while morphine exhibited no significant immunomodulatory effect. Fentanyl and morphine had no obvious effects on the serum levels of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), glucocorticoid (GC), and prostaglandin E2 (PGE-2) in DSS and TNBS models. Fentanyl elevated the proportions of Th1 cells, μ-opioid receptor (MOR) + Th1 cells, and MOR + macrophages in the colonic mucosa of DSS-treated mice, and enhanced the proportions of Th1 cells, macrophages, MOR + Th1 cells, and MOR + macrophages in the colonic mucosa of TNBS-treated mice. We found that fentanyl upregulated the levels of inflammatory cytokines/chemokines in MOR + macrophages of the colonic lamina propria mononuclear cells (LPMCs) from DSS-treated mice, whereas it had no effect on the expression of most inflammatory cytokines/chemokines in MOR + macrophages in the colonic LPMCs from TNBS-treated mice.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that fentanyl exacerbates murine colitis via Th1 cell- and macrophage-mediated mechanisms, while morphine exhibits no significant immunomodulatory effect.

Trends in strong opioid prescription for cancer patients in Japan from 2010 to 2019: an analysis with large medical claims data

BACKGROUND

Consumption of opioids, essential drugs for pain relief, has seen rapid growth worldwide. In Japan, where total opioid consumption still remains low among developed countries, little is known about trends in the clinical patterns of opioids in terminally ill cancer patients.

METHODS

Patients who died of cancer from 2010 to 2019 were included in this study. Morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, tapentadol, methadone and hydromorphone were examined as opioids for cancer pain. We calculated the prevalence of prescribed opioids prior to death by year and age group and the average opioid dose 30 days before death.

RESULTS

The total number of patients was 221 598. We found that the prescription prevalence of opioids increased from 60.8 to 65.9% (5.1%). Morphine was most prescribed in 2010 but had decreased prevalence (-9.0%) during the 10-year period. Oxycodone had the highest increase in prescription prevalence (13.7%), and fentanyl prevalence decreased (-4.9%). In the subgroup comparison, the prescription prevalence of opioids in the elderly was lower than that in the younger group; however, the increasing trend in the elderly was greater than that in the younger group. The percentage of patients prescribed low-dose opioids (<60 mg/day) during the 30 days before death increased by 4.9% and was the highest throughout the study period.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of opioid prescriptions for terminally ill cancer patients has increased from 2010 to 2019 in Japan. The opioid-specific trends were similar to the global trend but differed by palliative care specialty.

Regional variation in longitudinal trajectories of primary care opioids prescribing across Health Boards in Scotland: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

This study aims to describe the longitudinal trajectory of opioid prescribing at the practice level and assess associated factors, including Health Boards and socioeconomic status.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This drug utilization research used practice-level dispensing data from 2016 to 2018. Practice-level prescription opioids dispensed were quantified by the defined daily doses (DDDs) per 1000 registrants. Group-based trajectory models were used to identify groups of practices with similar trajectories based on the difference in monthly opioid utilization. Characteristics of registrants were associated with the trajectory by a conditional logistic regression and the prescription opioids dispensed by a random-effect regression model.

RESULTS

Of the 798 practices, 29.5% increased opioid prescription by an additional 100 DDDs/1000 registrants/month during 2017 and 2018. Practice in southwest Scotland tended to be categorized into the group with increasing opioid utilization. Deprived socioeconomic status was associated with increasing opioid utilization (odds ratio: 2.2; 95% confidence interval: 1.5, 3.2) or higher annual opioid utilization (coefficient: 358.2; 95% confidence interval: 327.6, 388.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing opioid utilization over time was related to deprived socioeconomic status associated with chronic pain conditions and inequality in pain services. Further strategies to balance inequality are needed, which needs further investigation.

Cancer patients' needs assessment in primary care: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT), economic evaluation and normalisation process theory evaluation of the needs assessment tool cancer (CANAssess)

INTRODUCTION

Unmet needs in patients with cancer and their carers are common but poorly identified and addressed. The Needs Assessment Tool-Cancer (NAT-C) is a structured consultation guide to identify and triage patient and carer unmet needs. The NAT-C is validated, but its effectiveness in reducing unmet patient and carer needs in primary care is unknown.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Cluster randomised controlled trial with internal pilot and embedded process evaluation to test the clinical and cost effectiveness of the NAT-C in primary care for people with active cancer in reducing unmet patient and carer need, compared with usual care. We will recruit 1080 patients with active cancer (and carers if relevant) from 54 general practices in England.Participating practices will be randomised 1:1 to either deliver an NAT-guided clinical consultation plus usual care or to usual care alone. Consenting participants with active cancer and their carers (if nominated) will be asked to complete study questionnaires at baseline, 1 and 3 months for all, 6 months except for those recruited outside of the last 3 months of recruitment, and attend an NAT-C appointment if allocated to an intervention practice. An internal pilot will assess: site and participant recruitment, intervention uptake and follow-up rates. The primary outcome, the proportion of patients with an unmet need on the Supportive Care Needs Survey Short Form 34 at 3 months postregistration, will be analysed using a multilevel logistic regression. Mixed-methods process evaluation informed by Normalisation Process Theory will use quantitative survey and interview data from clinicians and key stakeholders in cancer care to develop an implementation strategy for nationwide rollout of the NAT-C if the intervention is cost-effective.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval from London-Surrey REC (20/LO/0312). Results will be peer-reviewed, published and made available to research participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN15497400.

The effect of cognitive function and central nervous system depressant use on mortality-A prospective observational study of previously hospitalised older patients

BACKGROUND

Older patients are often users of prolonged Central Nervous System Depressants (CNSD) (Z-hypnotics, benzodiazepines and opioids), which may be associated with reduced cognition. The long-term effects of CNSD use and reduced cognitive function in older patients are unclear. The aim of this study was to examine whether cognitive function and CNSD use at baseline hospitalisation were associated with all-cause mortality two years after discharge.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective observational study, including baseline data (2017-2018) from previously hospitalised older patients (65-90 years), assessing all-cause mortality two years after discharge. We used logistic regression to assess the primary outcome, all-cause mortality two years after baseline hospitalisation. The primary predictors were cognitive function measured by The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and prolonged CNSD use (continuous use ≥ 4 weeks). Adjustment variables: age, gender, education, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS-G), using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) to compare the predictive power of the models. In a sub-analysis we used, the Neurobehavioural Cognitive State Examination (Cognistat) and the Clock Drawing Test.

RESULTS

Two years after discharge, out of 246 baseline patients, 43 were deceased at follow-up, among these 27 (63%) were CNSD users, and 16 (36%) were non-users at baseline, (p = 0.002). In the multivariable models cognitive function (MMSE score) was a predictor of mortality (OR 0.81 (95% CI 0.69; 0.96), p = 0.014). CNSD use was associated with mortality (OR 2.71 (95% CI 1.06; 6.95), p = 0.038), with ROC AUC: 0.74-0.77 for these models. Results using Cognistat supported the findings. The Clock Drawing Test was not significant predictor of mortality.

CONCLUSION

Two years after discharge from the hospital, older patients with reduced cognitive function and CNSD use during hospital stay had higher mortality. This underlines that inappropriate (prolonged and concurrent) use of CNSDs should be avoided by older patients, particularly in patients with reduced cognitive function.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03162081, 22 May 2017.

Clinician Acceptance of Order Sets for Pain Management: A Survey in Two Urban Hospitals

BACKGROUND

Order sets are a clinical decision support (CDS) tool in computerized provider order entry systems. Order set use has been associated with improved quality of care. Particularly related to opioids and pain management, order sets have been shown to standardize and reduce the prescription of opioids. However, clinician-level barriers often limit the uptake of this CDS modality.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the barriers to order sets adoption, we surveyed clinicians on their training, knowledge, and perceptions related to order sets for pain management.

METHODS

We distributed a cross-sectional survey between October 2020 and April 2021 to clinicians eligible to place orders at two campuses of a major academic medical center. Survey questions were adapted from the widely used framework of Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. We hypothesize that performance expectancy (PE) and facilitating conditions (FC) are associated with order set use. Survey responses were analyzed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

The intention to use order sets for pain management was associated with PE to existing order sets, social influence (SI) by leadership and peers, and FC for electronic health record (EHR) training and function integration. Intention to use did not significantly differ by gender or clinician role. Moderate differences were observed in the perception of the effort of, and FC for, order set use across gender and roles of clinicians, particularly emergency medicine and internal medicine departments.

CONCLUSION

This study attempts to identify barriers to the adoption of order sets for pain management and suggests future directions in designing and implementing CDS systems that can improve order sets adoption by clinicians. Study findings imply the importance of order set effectiveness, peer influence, and EHR integration in determining the acceptability of the order sets.

Collaboration between adult patients and practitioners when making decisions about prescribing opioid medicines for chronic non-cancer pain in primary care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Long-term opioid therapy (>12 months) is not effective for improving chronic non-cancer pain and function. Where patients are not experiencing pain relief with long-term opioids, the opioid should be tapered and discontinuation considered. Practitioners may find it challenging to tell patients experiencing pain that they are better off reducing or not taking medicines that do not help. This review aims to ascertain what is published about: (1) the interaction and (2) the nature of the relationship between practitioners and patients when prescribing opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in primary care.

METHOD

A scoping review of English-language qualitative, quantitative or mixed-method studies in databases including: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, BNI, CINALH EMCARE and HMIC. The identified papers were reviewed to provide a descriptive summary of the literature.

RESULTS

The review identified 20 studies. The studies used a range of methods including interviews, focus groups, audio and video recordings of clinical consultations, telephone survey and data from patient records. One study reported that researchers had engaged with a patient advisory group to guide their research. Patients expressed the importance of being treated as individuals, not being judged and being involved in prescribing decisions. Practitioners expressed difficulty in managing patient expectations and establishing trust. Opioid risk and practitioner suspicion shape opioid prescribing decisions. There is a paucity of literature about how precisely practitioners overcome interactional challenges and implement personalised care in practice.

CONCLUSION

The studies in this review ascertain that practitioners and patients often find it challenging to achieve shared decisions in opioid review consultations. Effective communication is essential to achieve good clinical practice. Collaborative research with PPI partners should be aimed at identifying communication practices that support practitioners to achieve shared decisions with patients when reviewing opioids for chronic non-cancer pain.

How Cues of Being Watched Promote Risk Seeking in Fund Investment in Older Adults

Social cues, such as being watched, can subtly alter fund investment choices. This study aimed to investigate how cues of being watched influence decision-making, attention allocation, and risk tendencies. Using decision scenarios adopted from the “Asian Disease Problem,” we examined participants’ risk tendency in a financial scenario when they were watched. A total of 63 older and 66 younger adults participated. Eye tracking was used to reveal the decision-maker’s attention allocation (fixations and dwell time per word). The results found that both younger and older adults tend to seek risk in the loss frame than in the gain frame (i.e., framing effect). Watching eyes tended to escalate reckless gambling behaviors among older adults, which led them to maintain their share in the depressed fund market, regardless of whether the options were gain or loss framed. The eye-tracking results revealed that older adults gave less attention to the sure option in the eye condition (i.e., fewer fixations and shorter dwell time). However, their attention was maintained on the gamble options. In comparison, images of “watching eyes” did not influence the risk seeking of younger adults but decreased their framing effect. Being watched can affect financial risk preference in decision-making. The exploration of the contextual sensitivity of being watched provides us with insight into developing decision aids to promote rational financial decision-making, such as human-robot interactions. Future research on age differences still requires further replication.

Healthcare resource utilisation and cost analysis associated with opioid analgesic use for non-cancer pain: A case-control, retrospective study between 2005 and 2015

Objective

To examine differences in healthcare utilisation and costs associated with opioid prescriptions for non-cancer pain issued in primary care.

Method

A longitudinal, case-control study retrospectively examined Welsh healthcare data for the period 1 January 2005–31 December 2015. Data were extracted from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank. Subjects, aged 18 years and over, were included if their primary care record contained at least one of six overarching pain diagnoses during the study period. Subjects were excluded if their record also contained a cancer diagnosis in that time or the year prior to the study period. Case subjects also received at least one prescription for an opioid analgesic. Controls were matched by gender, age, pain-diagnosis and socioeconomic deprivation. Healthcare use included primary care visits, emergency department (ED) and outpatient (OPD) attendances, inpatient (IP) admissions and length of stay. Cost analysis for healthcare utilisation used nationally derived unit costs for 2015. Differences between case and control subjects for resource use and costs were analysed and further stratified by gender, prescribing persistence (PP) and deprivation.

Results

Data from 3,286,215 individuals were examined with 657,243 receiving opioids. Case subjects averaged 5 times more primary care visits, 2.8 times more OPD attendances, 3 times more ED visits and twice as many IN admissions as controls. Prescription persistence over 6 months and greater deprivation were associated with significantly greater utilisation of healthcare resources. Opioid prescribing was associated with 69% greater average healthcare costs than in control subjects. National Health Service (NHS) healthcare service costs for people with common, pain-associated diagnoses, receiving opioid analgesics were estimated to be £0.9billion per year between 2005 and 2015.

Conclusion

Receipt of opioid prescriptions was associated with significantly greater healthcare utilisation and accompanying costs in all sectors. Extended prescribing durations are particularly important to address and should be considered at the point of initiation.

Multimodal nonopioid pain protocol provides equivalent pain control versus opioids following arthroscopic shoulder labral surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare postoperative pain and patient satisfaction in patients undergoing primary arthroscopic labral surgery managed with either a nonopioid alternative pain regimen or a traditional opioid pain regimen.

METHODS

Sixty consecutive patients undergoing primary arthroscopic shoulder labral surgery were assessed for participation. In accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement, a prospective randomized controlled trial was performed. The 2 arms of the study were a multimodal nonopioid analgesic protocol as the experimental group and a standard opioid regimen as the control group. The primary outcome was postoperative pain scores (on a visual analog scale [VAS]) for the first 10 days postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, patient-reported outcomes, and complications. Randomization was performed with a random number generator, and all data were collected by blinded observers. Patients were not blinded.

RESULTS

Twelve patients did not meet the inclusion criteria or declined to participate. Thus, 48 patients were included in the final analysis: 24 in the nonopioid group and 24 in the opioid group. There was no significant difference in VAS or PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) scores between patients in the 2 cohorts on any postoperative day (P > .05). When we controlled for confounding factors with repeated-measures mixed models, the nonopioid cohort reported significantly lower VAS and PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) Pain Interference scores (P < .01) at all time points. No difference was found in reported adverse events (constipation, diarrhea, drowsiness, nausea, and upset stomach) between cohorts at any time point (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

This study found that a multimodal nonopioid pain regimen provided, at the minimum, equivalent pain control, an equivalent adverse reaction profile, and equivalent patient satisfaction when compared with a standard opioid-based regimen following arthroscopic shoulder labral surgery.

Opioids and Gabapentinoids Utilisation and Their Related-Mortality Trends in the United Kingdom Primary Care Setting, 2010-2019: A Cross-National, Population-Based Comparison Study

Background: There is growing concern over the increasing utilisation trends of opioids and gabapentinoids across but there is lack of data assessing and comparing the utilisation trends across the four United Kingdom countries. We assessed/compared opioids and gabapentinoids utilisation trends across the four United Kingdom countries then evaluated the correlation between their utilisation with related mortality.

Methods: This repeated cross-national study used Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) datasets (2010–2019). Opioids and gabapentinoids utilisation were measured using number of items dispensed/1,000 inhabitants and defined daily doses (DDDs)/1,000 inhabitant/day. Number of Opioids and gabapentinoids-related mortality were extracted from the United Kingdom Office for National Statistics (2010–2018). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics including linear trend analysis; correlation between the Opioids and gabapentinoids utilisation and their related mortality using Pearson correlation coefficient.

Results: The results illustrated an overall significant increasing trend in the utilisation of opioids (12.5–14%) and gabapentinoids (205–207%) with substantial variations among the four United Kingdom countries. For opioids, Scotland had the highest level of number of items dispensed/1,000 inhabitant (156.6% higher compared to the lowest level in England), whereas in terms of DDD/1,000 inhabitant/day, NI had the highest level. Utilisation trends increased significantly across the four countries ranging from 7.7% in Scotland to 20.5% in NI (p < 0.001). Similarly, for gabapentinoids, there were significant increasing trends ranging from 126.5 to 114.9% in NI to 285.8–299.6% in Wales (p < 0.001) for number of items/1,000 inhabitants and DDD/1,000 inhabitant/day, respectively. Although the utilisation trends levelled off after 2016, this was not translated into comparable reduction in opioids and gabapentinoids-related mortality as the latter continued to increase with the highest level in Scotland (3.5 times more deaths in 2018 compared to England- 280.1 vs. 79.3 deaths/million inhabitants). There were significant moderate-strong positive correlations between opioids and gabapentinoids utilisation trends and their related mortality.

Conclusion: The utilisation trends of opioids and gabapentinoids have increased significantly with substantial variations among the four United Kingdom countries. This coincided with significant increase in their related mortality. Our findings support the call for immediate actions including radical changes in official United Kingdom policies on drug use and effective strategies to promote best clinical practice in opioids and gabapentinoids prescribing.

General practice responses to opioid prescribing feedback: a qualitative process evaluation

BACKGROUND

The rise in opioid prescribing in primary care represents a significant public health challenge, associated with increased psychosocial problems, hospitalisations, and mortality. An evidence-based bimonthly feedback intervention to reduce opioid prescribing was developed and implemented, targeting 316 general practices in West Yorkshire over 1 year.

AIM

To understand how general practice staff received and responded to the feedback intervention.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative process evaluation involving semi-structured interviews, guided by Normalisation Process Theory (NPT), of primary care healthcare professionals targeted by feedback.

METHOD

Participants were purposively recruited according to baseline opioid prescribing levels and degree of change following feedback. Interview data were coded to NPT constructs, and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Interviews were conducted with 21 staff from 20 practices. Reducing opioid prescribing was recognised as a priority. While high achievers had clear structures for quality improvement, feedback encouraged some less structured practices to embed changes. The non-prescriptive nature of the feedback reports allowed practices to develop strategies consistent with their own ways of working and existing resources. Practice concerns were allayed by the credibility of the reports and positive experiences of reducing opioid prescribing. The scale, frequency, and duration of feedback may have ensured a good overall level of practice population reach.

CONCLUSION

The intervention engaged general practice staff in change by targeting an issue of emerging concern, and allowing adaption to different ways of working. Practice efforts to reduce opioid prescribing were reinforced by regular feedback, credible comparative data showing progress, and shared experiences of patient benefit.

The effects of an evidence- and theory-informed feedback intervention on opioid prescribing for non-cancer pain in primary care: A controlled interrupted time series analysis

BACKGROUND

The rise in opioid prescribing in primary care represents a significant international public health challenge, associated with increased psychosocial problems, hospitalisations, and mortality. We evaluated the effects of a comparative feedback intervention with persuasive messaging and action planning on opioid prescribing in primary care.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A quasi-experimental controlled interrupted time series analysis used anonymised, aggregated practice data from electronic health records and prescribing data from publicly available sources. The study included 316 intervention and 130 control primary care practices in the Yorkshire and Humber region, UK, serving 2.2 million and 1 million residents, respectively. We observed the number of adult patients prescribed opioid medication by practice between July 2013 and December 2017. We excluded adults with coded cancer or drug dependency. The intervention, the Campaign to Reduce Opioid Prescribing (CROP), entailed bimonthly, comparative, and practice-individualised feedback reports to practices, with persuasive messaging and suggested actions over 1 year. Outcomes comprised the number of adults per 1,000 adults per month prescribed any opioid (main outcome), prescribed strong opioids, prescribed opioids in high-risk groups, prescribed other analgesics, and referred to musculoskeletal services. The number of adults prescribed any opioid rose pre-intervention in both intervention and control practices, by 0.18 (95% CI 0.11, 0.25) and 0.36 (95% CI 0.27, 0.46) per 1,000 adults per month, respectively. During the intervention period, prescribing per 1,000 adults fell in intervention practices (change -0.11; 95% CI -0.30, -0.08) and continued rising in control practices (change 0.54; 95% CI 0.29, 0.78), with a difference of -0.65 per 1,000 patients (95% CI -0.96, -0.34), corresponding to 15,000 fewer patients prescribed opioids. These trends continued post-intervention, although at slower rates. Prescribing of strong opioids, total opioid prescriptions, and prescribing in high-risk patient groups also generally fell. Prescribing of other analgesics fell whilst musculoskeletal referrals did not rise. Effects were attenuated after feedback ceased. Study limitations include being limited to 1 region in the UK, possible coding errors in routine data, being unable to fully account for concurrent interventions, and uncertainties over how general practices actually used the feedback reports and whether reductions in prescribing were always clinically appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeated comparative feedback offers a promising and relatively efficient population-level approach to reduce opioid prescribing in primary care, including prescribing of strong opioids and prescribing in high-risk patient groups. Such feedback may also prompt clinicians to reconsider prescribing other medicines associated with chronic pain, without causing a rise in referrals to musculoskeletal clinics. Feedback may need to be sustained for maximum effect.

Rationalisation of long-term high-dose opioids for chronic pain: development of an intervention and conceptual framework

There has been a large increase in the number of prescriptions for opioid drugs in the United Kingdom over the last 20 years or more and the prescribing of opioids in high doses continues to increase. Much opioid prescribing is for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) despite serious doubts about the long-term effectiveness of opioids for this indication. Clinical experience is that there are increasing numbers of patients who are on high dosages of opioid drugs over sustained periods which provide limited or no pain relief while having significant negative effects on functioning and quality of life. The aim of this article is to bring readers' attention to some clinical observations of the CNCP population with high doses and to describe an intervention to reduce these doses. Many of these patients have no clinical features of addiction; we suggest that those who show little or no substance misuse behaviours are best understood as a distinct clinical population who have different treatment needs. In order to understand and treat these patients, a model is required which, rather than seeing the problem as lying solely with the patient, focuses on the interaction between the individual and his or her environment and seeks a change in what the patient does every day, rather than a simple, and largely unattainable, goal of symptom elimination. The clinician authors worked together to develop an intervention based upon approaches taken from both pain management and psychiatric practice. A detailed description of this rapid opioid reduction intervention (RORI) is provided along with some preliminary outcome data.

Quantifying prescribed high dose opioids in the community and risk of overdose

Background

Opioid prescribing for a range of health issues is increasing globally. The risk of fatal and non-fatal overdose is increased among people prescribed strong opioids: in high doses in the context of polypharmacy (the use of multiple medications at the same time), especially with other sedatives; and among people with multiple morbidities including cardiorespiratory, hepatic and renal conditions. This study described and quantified the prescribing of strong opioids, comorbidities and other overdose risk factors among those prescribed strong opioids, and factors associated with high/very high opioid dosage in a regional health authority in Scotland as part of a wider service improvement exercise.

Methods

Participating practices ran searches to identify patients prescribed strong opioids and their characteristics, polypharmacy, and other overdose risk factors. Data were anonymised before being analysed at practice and patient-level. Morphine Equivalent Doses were calculated for patients based on drug/dose information and classed as Low/Medium/High/Very High. Descriptive statistics were generated on the strong opioid patient population and overdose risk factors. The relationship between the prescribing of strong opioids and practice/patient-level factors was investigated using linear and logistic regression models.

Results

Eighty-five percent (46/54) of GP practices participated. 12.4% (42,382/341,240) of individuals in participating practices were prescribed opioids and, of these, one third (14,079/42,382) were prescribed strong opioids. The most common comorbidities and overdose risk factors among strong opioid recipients were pain (67.2%), cardiovascular disease (43.2%), and mental health problems (39.3%). There was a positive significant relationship between level of social deprivation among practice caseload and level of strong opioid prescribing (p < 0.001). People prescribed strong opioids tended to be older (mean 59.7 years) and female (8638, 61.4%) and, among a subset of patients, age, gender and opioid drug class were significantly associated with prescribing of High/Very High doses.

Conclusions

Our findings have identified a large population at potential risk of prescription opioid overdose. There is a need to explore pragmatic models of tailored interventions which may reduce the risk of overdose within this group and clinical practice may need to be tightened to minimise overdose risk for individuals prescribed high dose opioids.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-11162-4.

Characterization and Associated Costs of Constipation Relating to Exposure to Strong Opioids in England: An Observational Study

PURPOSE

Opioid use is associated with gastrointestinal adverse events, including nausea and constipation. We used a real-world dataset to characterize the health care burden associated with opioid-induced constipation (OIC) with particular emphasis on strong opioids.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a large UK primary care dataset linked to hospital data. Patients prescribed opioids during 2016 were selected and episodes of opioid therapy constructed. Episodes with ≥84 days of exposure were classified as chronic, with date of first prescription as the index date. The main analysis focused on patients prescribed strong opioids who were laxative naive. Constipation was defined by ≥2 laxative prescriptions during the opioid episode. Patients for whom initial laxative therapy escalated by switch, augmentation, or dose were defined as OIC unstable, and the first 3 lines of OIC escalation were classified. Health care costs accrued in the first 12 months of the opioid episode were aggregated and compared.

FINDINGS

A total of 27,629 opioid episodes were identified; 5916 (21.4%) involved a strong opioid for patients who were previously laxative naive. Of these patients, 2886 (48.8%) were defined as the OIC population; 941 (33.26%) were classified as stable. Of the 1945 (67.4%) episodes classified as unstable, 849 (43.7%), 360 (18.5%), and 736 (37.8%) had 1, 2, and ≥3 changes of laxative prescription, respectively. Patients without OIC had lower costs per patient year (£3822 [US$5160/€4242]) compared with OIC (£4786 [US$6461/€5312]). Costs increased as patients had multiple changes in therapy: £4696 (US$6340/€5213), £4749 (US$6411/€5271), and £4981 (US$6724/€5529) for 1, 2, and ≥3 changes, respectively. The adjusted cost ratio relative to non-OIC was 1.14 (95% CI, 1.09-1.32) for those classified as stable and 1.19 (95% CI, 1.09-1.32) for those with ≥3 laxative changes. Similar patterns were observed for patients taking anyopioid, with costs increased for those classified as having OIC (£3727 [US$5031/€4137] vs £2379 [US$3212 /€2641),and for those patients classified as unstable versus stable (£3931 [US$5307/€4363] vs £3432 [US$4633/€3810). Costs increased with each additional line of therapy from £3701 (US$4996/€4108), £3916 (US$5287/€4347), and £4318 (US$5829/€4793).

IMPLICATIONS

OIC was a common adverse event of opioid treatment and was poorly controlled for a large number of patients. Poor control was associated with increased health care costs. The impact of OIC should be considered when prescribing opioids. These results should be interpreted with consideration of the caveats associated with the analysis of routine data.

How do people who use drugs experience treatment? A qualitative analysis of views about opioid substitution treatment in primary care (iCARE study)

OBJECTIVE

To understand the most significant aspects of care experienced by people in opioid substitution treatment (OST) in primary care settings.

DESIGN

Semistructured individual interviews were conducted, following the critical incidents technique. Interview transcripts were analysed following a thematic analysis approach.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged 18 years or older, receiving OST in UK-based primary care services.

RESULTS

Twenty-four people in OST were interviewed between January and March 2019. Participants reported several aspects which were significant for their treatment, when engaging with the primary care service. These were grouped into 10 major themes: (1) humanised care; (2) individual bond/connection with the professional; (3) professionals' experience and knowledge; (4) having holistic care; (5) familiarity; (6) professionals' commitment and availability to help; (7) anonymity; (8) location; (9) collaborative teamwork; and (10) flexibility and changes around the treatment plan.

CONCLUSIONS

This study included first-hand accounts of people who use drugs about what supports them in their recovery journey. The key lessons learnt from our findings indicate that people who use drugs value receiving treatment in humanised and destigmatised environments. We also learnt that a good relationship with primary care professionals supports their recovery journey, and that treatment plans should be flexible, tailor-made and collaboratively designed with patients.

Opioid prescriptions in patients with osteoarthritis: a population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To examine the incidence, prevalence and trends for opioid prescriptions in patients with OA. Furthermore, types of opioids prescribed and long-term prescription rates were examined. Finally, the patient characteristics associated with the prescription of opioids were assessed.

METHODS

A population-based cohort study was conducted using the Integrated Primary Care Information database. Incidence and prevalence of opioid prescriptions were calculated for the period 2008-2017. Logistic regression was used to assess which patient characteristics were associated with opioid prescriptions.

RESULTS

In total, 157 904 OA patients were included. The overall prescription rate remained fairly stable, at around 100 incident and 170 prevalent prescriptions per 1000 person years. However, the incident prescription rate for oxycodone increased from 7.1 to 40.7 per 1000 person years and for fentanyl from 4.2 to 7.4 per 1000 person years. The incident prescription rate for paracetamol/codeine decreased from 63.0 to 13.3 per 1000 person years. Per follow-up year, long-term use was found in 3% of the patients with incident OA. Finally, factors associated with more prescriptions were increasing age, OA in ≥2 joint groups [odds ratio (OR) 1.56; 95% CI: 1.51, 1.65] and the presence of other musculoskeletal disorders (OR 4.91; 95% CI: 4.76, 5.05). Men were less likely to be prescribed opioids (OR 0.78; 95% CI: 0.76, 0.80).

CONCLUSION

Prescription rates for opioids remained stable, but types of opioids prescribed changed. Oxycodone and fentanyl were increasingly prescribed, while prescriptions of paracetamol/codeine decreased. Since the benefit of opioids for OA pain is questionable and side effects are common, opioids should be prescribed with caution.

Multiplicity and complexity: a qualitative exploration of influences on prescribing in UK general practice

OBJECTIVES

Despite widespread availability of evidence-based guidelines to inform rational use of medicines, considerable unwarranted variation exists in prescribing. A greater understanding of key determinants of contemporary prescribing in UK general practice could inform strategies to promote evidence-based prescribing. This study explored (1) current influences on prescribing in general practice and (2) the possibility that general practice-based pharmacists (PBPs) may contribute to greater engagement with evidence-based prescribing.

DESIGN

Semistructured, telephone interviews and a focus group were conducted, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was undertaken.

PARTICIPANTS

General practice prescribers: general practitioners (GPs), PBPs, nurses.Key informants: individuals within the National Health Service (NHS) with responsibility for influencing, monitoring and measuring general practice prescribing.

SETTING

General practices and NHS organisations in England.

RESULTS

Interviews with 17 prescribers (GPs (n=6), PBPs (n=6), nurses (n=5)) and 6 key informants, and one focus group with five key informants were undertaken between November 2018 and April 2019. Determinants operating at individual, practice and societal levels impacted prescribing and guideline use. Prescribers' professional backgrounds, for example, nursing, pharmacy, patient populations and patient pressure were perceived as substantial influences, as well as media portrayal and public perceptions of medicines.Prescribers identified practice-level determinants of prescribing, including practice culture and shared beliefs. Key informants tended to emphasise higher-level influences, including NHS policies, availability of support and advice from secondary care and generic challenges associated with medicines use, for example, multimorbidity.Participants expressed mixed views about the potential of PBPs to promote evidence-based prescribing in general practice.

CONCLUSION

Prescribing in UK general practice is influenced by multiple intersecting factors. Strategies to promote evidence-based prescribing should target modifiable influences at practice and individual levels. Customising strategies for medical and non-medical prescribers may maximise their effectiveness.

Establishing a primary care audit and feedback implementation laboratory: a consensus study

BACKGROUND

There is a significant variation among individual primary care providers in prescribing of potentially problematic, low-value medicines which cause avoidable patient harm. Audit and feedback is generally effective at improving prescribing. However, progress has been hindered by research waste, leading to unanswered questions about how to include audit and feedback for specific problems and circumstances. Trials of different ways of providing audit and feedback in implementation laboratories have been proposed as a way of improving population healthcare while generating robust evidence on feedback effects. However, there is limited experience in their design and delivery.

AIM

To explore priorities, feasibility, and ethical challenges of establishing a primary care prescribing audit and feedback implementation laboratory.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Two-stage Delphi consensus process involving primary care pharmacy leads, audit and feedback researchers, and patient and public.

METHOD

Participants initially scored statements relating to priorities, feasibility, and ethical considerations for an implementation laboratory. These covered current feedback practice, priority topics for feedback, usefulness of feedback in improving prescribing and different types of prescribing data, acceptability and desirability of different organization levels of randomization, options for trial consent, different methods of delivering feedback, and interest in finding out how effective different ways of presenting feedback would be. After receiving collated results, participants then scored the items again. The consensus was defined using the GRADE criteria. The results were analyzed by group and overall score.

RESULTS

Fourteen participants reached consensus for 38 out of 55 statements. Addressing antibiotic and opioid prescribing emerged as the highest priorities for action. The panel supported statements around addressing high-priority prescribing issues, taking an "opt-out" approach to practice consent if waiving consent was not permitted, and randomizing at lower rather than higher organizational levels. Participants supported patient-level prescribing data and further research evaluating most of the different feedback methods we presented them with.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a good level of support for evaluating a wide range of potential enhancements to improve the effects of feedback on prescribing. The successful design and delivery of a primary care audit and feedback implementation laboratory depend on identifying shared priorities and addressing practical and ethical considerations.

Examining opioid prescribing trends for non-cancer pain using an estimated oral morphine equivalence measure: a retrospective cohort study between 2005 and 2015

Background

Over the past 20 years prescription of opioid medicines has markedly increased in the UK, despite a lack of supporting evidence for use in commonly occurring, painful conditions. Prescribing is often monitored by counting numbers of prescriptions dispensed, but this may not provide an accurate picture of clinical practice.

Aim

To use an estimated oral morphine equivalent (OMEQ_e) dose to describe trends in opioid prescribing in non-cancer pain, and explore if opioid burden differed by deprivation status.

Design & setting

A retrospective cohort study using cross-sectional and longitudinal trend analyses of opioid prescribing data from Welsh Primary Care General Practices (PCGP) took place. Data were used from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank.

Method

An OMEQ_e measure was developed and used to describe trends in opioid burden over the study period. OMEQ_e burden was stratified by eight drug groups, which was based on usage and deprivation.

Results

An estimated 643 436 843 milligrams (mg) OMEQ_e was issued during the study. Annual number of prescriptions increased 44% between 2005 and 2015, while total daily OMEQ_e per 1000 population increased by 95%. The most deprived areas of Wales had 100 711 696 mg more OMEQ_e prescribed than the least deprived over the study period.

Conclusion

Over the study period, OMEQ_e burden nearly doubled, with disproportionate OMEQ_e prescribed in the most deprived communities. Using OMEQ_e provides an alternative measure of prescribing and allows easier comparison of the contribution different drugs make to the overall opioid burden.

A Role for Primary Care Pharmacists in the Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease? Lessons from Chronic Disease: A Systematic Review

Background and aims: Chronic disease, particularly inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), requires a multifaceted approach to managing patients, but it is apparent that primary care pharmacists are being underutilized. To demonstrate the benefits of pharmacist interventions in primary care, a systematic review was conducted of interventions in asthma and type 2 diabetes where pharmacists have a defined role in chronic disease management. We also explored potential opportunities for primary care pharmacists to deliver tailored care to patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Methods: The search strategy retrieved original research articles from seven databases; eligible articles were assessed for inclusion. Quality appraisal was performed independently by two reviewers. Results: Thirty-seven included studies were grouped into four categories of interventions: education/counseling (43%), medication management (34%), monitoring/follow-up (17%), and screening/risk prevention (6%). Education plus counseling was reported as the main intervention delivered by pharmacists. Three measurable outcomes were identified: clinical, humanistic (e.g., quality of life), and economic. Clinical outcomes (63%) were reported more commonly than humanistic (26%) and economic (11%) outcomes. Pharmacist interventions led to statistically significant improvements in control of disease, severity, and medication adherence, as well as improvements in overall patient satisfaction, quality of life among patients with asthma and type 2 diabetes. Conclusion: As one of the most accessible sources of primary health care, pharmacists are well-placed to minimize the impact of chronic diseases on patients and communities. Evidence suggests there are opportunities for primary care pharmacists to play a more active role in the management of chronic diseases such as IBD.

Associations of mental health and family background with opioid analgesic therapy: a nationwide Swedish register-based study

There is evidence of greater opioid prescription to individuals in the United States with mental health conditions. Whether these associations generalize beyond the US prescription environment and to familial mental health and socioeconomic status (SES) has not been examined comprehensively. This study estimated associations of diverse preexisting mental health diagnoses, parental mental health history, and SES in childhood with opioid analgesic prescription patterns nationwide in Sweden. Using register-based data, we identified 5,071,193 (48.4% female) adolescents and adults who were naive to prescription opioid analgesics and followed them from 2007 to 2014. The cumulative incidence of any dispensed opioid analgesic within 3 years was 11.4% (95% CI, 11.3%-11.4%). Individuals with preexisting self-injurious behavior, as well as opioid and other substance use, attention-deficit/hyperactivity, depressive, anxiety, and bipolar disorders had greater opioid therapy initiation rates than did individuals without the respective conditions (hazard ratios from 1.24 [1.20-1.27] for bipolar disorder to 2.12 [2.04-2.21] for opioid use disorder). Among 1,298,083 opioid recipients, the cumulative incidence of long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) was 7.6% (7.6%-7.7%) within 3 years of initiation. All mental health conditions were associated with greater LTOT rates (hazard ratios from 1.66 [1.56-1.77] for bipolar disorder to 3.82 [3.51-4.15] for opioid use disorder) and were similarly associated with concurrent benzodiazepine-opioid therapy. Among 1,482,462 adolescents and young adults, initiation and LTOT rates were greater for those with parental mental health history or lower childhood SES. Efforts to understand and ameliorate potential adverse effects of opioid analgesics must account for these patterns.

Association between prescribed central nervous system depressant drugs, comorbidity and cognition among hospitalised older patients: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Central nervous system depressants (CNSDs) such as opioids, benzodiazepine and Z-hypnotics are commonly used. However, CNSDs may influence cognitive function, especially in older hospitalised patients with comorbidities. The aim was to examine the association between CNSD use and cognitive function in older patients. We assessed global and domain specific cognitive function, among hospitalised older patients, including covariates for comorbidity, anxiety and depression.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional hospital-based study.

SETTINGS

Data was collected consecutively from inpatients at somatic wards of a general university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Older patients between 65 and 90 years with/without CNSD use for ≥4 weeks.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome was cognitive function assessed by Cognistat. Secondary outcomes were routine clinical tests in the wards (mini-mental state examination (MMSE), trail making test (TMT) A and B, and clock drawing tests). Analyses were bivariate and multiple linear regression, adjusted for age, gender, and education. Covariates were comorbidity, depression and anxiety scores.

RESULTS

The main result indicated that CNSD users (n=100) had (β=-3.4, 95% CI 6.27 to -0.58, p=0.017) lower Cognistat score than non-users (n=146), adjusted for age, gender, education, anxiety and depression, but not significant when including covariate for comorbidity (β= -2.50 - 5.45; -0.46, p=0.097). Comorbidity was associated with cognitive function (β=-0.77, 95% CI -1.22 to -0.14, p=0.014). Cognistat subdimensions associated with CNSD use were language (p=0.017) and calculation (p=0.003). In clock drawing test, users had lower scores than non-users (β=-0.80, 95% CI 1.24 to -0.36, p=0.004), but no significant difference was found with MMSE and TMT A or B. Z-hypnotics were associated with reduced cognitive function.

CONCLUSION

Among older hospitalised patients, global cognition and specific cognitive functions were associated with long-term use of CNSD medication as well as with somatic comorbidity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03162081, 22 May 2017.

Association between opioid usage and rectal dysfunction in constipation: A cross-sectional study of 2754 patients

BACKGROUND

Opioid use has reached epidemic proportions. In contrast to the known effect of opioids on gut transit, the effect on rectal sensorimotor function has not been comprehensively investigated.

METHODS

Cross-sectional (hypothesis-generating) study of anorectal physiology studies in 2754 adult patients referred to a tertiary unit (2004-2016) for investigation of functional constipation (defined by "derived" Rome IV core criteria). Statistical associations between opioid usage, symptoms, and anorectal physiological variables were investigated. Opioids were sub-classified as prescriptions for mild-moderate or moderate-severe pain.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 2354 patients (85.5%) were classified as non-opioid users, 162 (5.9%) as opioid users for mild-moderate pain, and 238 (8.6%) for moderate-severe pain. Opioids for moderate-severe pain were associated with increased symptomatic severity (Cleveland Clinic constipation score 18.5 vs 15.1; mean difference 2.9 [95%-CI 2.3-3.6]; P < .001), rectal hyposensitivity (odds ratio 1.74 [95%-CI 1.23-2.46]; P = .002), functional evacuation disorders (odds ratio 1.73 [95%-CI 1.28-2.34]; P < .001), and delayed whole-gut transit (odds ratio 1.68 [95%-CI 1.19-2.37]; P = .003). Differences in anorectal variables between opioid users for mild-moderate pain and non-opioid users were not statistically significant. Hierarchical opioid use (non vs mild-moderate vs moderate-severe) was associated with decreasing proportions of patients with no physiological abnormality on testing (40.2% vs 38.1% vs 29.2%) and increasing proportions with both delayed whole-gut transit and rectal sensorimotor dysfunction (16.6% vs 17.5% vs 28.5%).

CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES

Opioid use is over-represented in patients referred for investigation of constipation. Opioids for moderate-severe pain are associated with rectal sensorimotor abnormalities. Further studies are required to determine whether this association indicates causation.

Use of Opioids Increases With Age in Older Adults: An Observational Study (2005-2017)

Aim

Pain is increasingly treated with opioids. Potential harms of opioid therapy disproportionally affect older patients. This study aims to provide information on trends, nature and duration of opioid prescribing to older adults, in primary care and to explore differences between older patients from different ages.

Methods

Primary care data (2005-2017) were derived from routine electronic medical records of patients in Nivel Primary Care Database. All opioid prescriptions with Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification (ATC) code N02A were selected (except for codeine). Diagnoses were recorded using the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC). Patients were categorized in three age groups (65-74, 75-84, and ≥85 years). Descriptive analyses were used to describe the trend of opioid prescriptions for specific opioids, the duration of use and underlying diagnoses.

Results

283,600 patients were included of which 32,287 had at least one opioid prescription in 2017. An increase in the number of older adults who received at least one opioid was seen between 2005 and 2017. The oldest patients were more likely to be prescribed an opioid, especially when it comes to strong opioids, the increase in the volume of prescribing was highest in this group. Moreover, over 40% of the oldest patients used strong opioids chronically. Strong opioids were mostly prescribed for musculoskeletal diagnoses. Cancer was the second most common diagnosis for strong opioids in the younger subgroups, whereas less specified diagnoses were as second in the oldest subgroup.

Conclusion

Opioid prescription changes with increasing age in frequency, nature, and duration, despite higher harm risks among older patients. Because of the high prevalence of chronic use, it is important to monitor the patient throughout the treatment and to critically evaluate the initiation and continuation of opioid prescriptions.

Spatial heterogeneity and socioeconomic determinants of opioid prescribing in England between 2015 and 2018

BACKGROUND

Opioid overdoses have had a serious impact on the public health systems and socioeconomic welfare of several countries. Within this broader context, we focus our study on primary care opioid prescribing in England from 2015 to 2018, particularly the patterns of spatial variations at the community level and the socioeconomic and environmental factors that drive consumption.

METHODS

Leveraging open data sources, we combine prescription records with aggregated data on patient provenance and build highly granular maps of Oral Morphine Equivalent (OME) prescribing rates for Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOA). We quantify the strength of spatial associations by means of the Empirical Bayes Index (EBI) that accounts for geographical variations in population density. We explore the interplay between socioeconomic and environmental determinants and prescribing rates by implementing a multivariate logistic regression model across different temporal snapshots and spatial scales.

RESULTS

We observe, across time and geographical resolutions, a significant spatial association with the presence of localized hot and cold spots that group neighboring areas with homogeneous prescribing rates (e.g., EBI = 0.727 at LSOA level for 2018). Accounting for spatial dependency effects, we find that LSOA with both higher employment deprivation (OR = 62.6, CI 52.8-74.3) and a higher percentage of ethnically white (OR = 30.1, CI 25.4-35.7) inhabitants correspond to higher prescribing rates. Looking at educational attainment, we find LSOA with the prevalent degree of education being apprenticeship (OR = 2.33, CI 1.96-2.76) a risk factor and those with level 4+ (OR = 0.41, CI 0.35-0.48) a protective factor. Focusing on environmental determinants, housing (OR = 0.18, CI 0.15-0.21) and outdoor environment deprivation (OR = 0.62, CI 0.53-0.72) indices capture the bi-modal behavior observed in the literature concerning rural/urban areas. The results are consistent across time and spatial aggregations.

CONCLUSIONS

Failing to account for local variations in opioid prescribing rates smooths out spatial dependency effects that result in underestimating/overestimating the impact on public health policies at the community level. Our study suggests a novel approach to inform more targeted interventions toward the most vulnerable population strata.

What proportion of patients with chronic noncancer pain are prescribed an opioid medicine? Systematic review and meta-regression of observational studies

Guidelines now discourage opioid analgesics for chronic noncancer pain because the benefits frequently do not outweigh the harms. We aimed to determine the proportion of patients with chronic noncancer pain who are prescribed an opioid, the types prescribed and factors associated with prescribing. Database searches were conducted from inception to 29 October 2018 without language restrictions. We included observational studies of adults with chronic noncancer pain measuring opioid prescribing. Opioids were categorized as weak (e.g. codeine) or strong (e.g. oxycodone). Study quality was assessed using a risk of bias tool designed for observational studies measuring prevalence. Individual study results were pooled using a random-effects model. Meta-regression investigated study-level factors associated with prescribing (e.g. sampling year, geographic region as per World Health Organization). The overall evidence quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. Of the 42 studies (5,059,098 participants) identified, the majority (n = 28) were from the United States of America. Eleven studies were at low risk of bias. The pooled estimate of the proportion of patients with chronic noncancer pain prescribed opioids was 30.7% (95% CI 28.7% to 32.7%, n = 42 studies, moderate-quality evidence). Strong opioids were more frequently prescribed than weak (18.4% (95% CI 16.0-21.0%, n = 15 studies, low-quality evidence), versus 8.5% (95% CI 7.2-9.9%, n = 15 studies, low-quality evidence)). Meta-regression determined that opioid prescribing was associated with year of sampling (more prescribing in recent years) (P = 0.014) and not geographic region (P = 0.056). Opioid prescribing for patients with chronic noncancer pain is common and has increased over time.

Understanding patterns of care for musculoskeletal patients using routinely collected National Health Service data from general practices in England

Musculoskeletal conditions are extremely common and represent a costly and growing problem in the United Kingdom. Understanding patterns of care and how they vary between individual patients and patient groups is necessary for effective and efficient disease management. In this article, we present a novel approach to understanding patterns of care for musculoskeletal patients in which trajectories are constructed from clinical and administrative data that are routinely collected by clinicians and healthcare professionals. Our approach is applied to routinely collected National Health Service data for musculoskeletal patients who were registered to a set of general practices in England and highlights both known and previously unreported variations in the prescribing of opioid analgesics by gender and presence of pre-existing depression. We conclude that the application of our approach to routinely collected National Health Service data can extend the dimensions over which patterns of care can be understood for musculoskeletal patients and for patients with other long-term conditions.

Developing and evaluating packages to support implementation of quality indicators in general practice: the ASPIRE research programme, including two cluster RCTs

Background

Dissemination of clinical guidelines is necessary but seldom sufficient by itself to ensure the reliable uptake of evidence-based practice. There are further challenges in implementing multiple clinical guidelines and clinical practice recommendations in the pressurised environment of general practice.

Objectives

We aimed to develop and evaluate an implementation package that could be adapted to support the uptake of a range of clinical guideline recommendations and be sustainably integrated within general practice systems and resources. Over five linked work packages, we developed ‘high-impact’ quality indicators to show where a measurable change in clinical practice can improve patient outcomes (work package 1), analysed adherence to selected indicators (work package 2), developed an adaptable implementation package (work package 3), evaluated the effects and cost-effectiveness of adapted implementation packages targeting four indicators (work package 4) and examined intervention fidelity and mechanisms of action (work package 5).

Setting and participants

Health-care professionals and patients from general practices in West Yorkshire, UK.

Design

We reviewed recommendations from existing National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidance and used a multistage consensus process, including 11 professionals and patients, to derive a set of ‘high-impact’ evidence-based indicators that could be measured using routinely collected data (work package 1). In 89 general practices that shared data, we found marked variations and scope for improvement in adherence to several indicators (work package 2). Interviews with 60 general practitioners, practice nurses and practice managers explored perceived determinants of adherence to selected indicators and suggested the feasibility of adapting an implementation package to target different indicators (work package 3). We worked with professional and patient panels to develop four adapted implementation packages. These targeted risky prescribing involving non-steroidal anti-inflammatory and antiplatelet drugs, type 2 diabetes control, blood pressure control and anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation. The implementation packages embedded behaviour change techniques within audit and feedback, educational outreach and (for risky prescribing) computerised prompts. We randomised 178 practices to implementation packages targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing (trial 1), or blood pressure control or anticoagulation (trial 2), or to a further control (non-intervention) group, and undertook economic modelling (work package 4). In trials 1 and 2, practices randomised to the implementation package for one indicator acted as control practices for the other package, and vice versa. A parallel process evaluation included a further eight practices (work package 5).

Main outcome measures

Trial primary end points at 11 months comprised achievement of all recommended levels of glycated haemoglobin, blood pressure and cholesterol; risky prescribing levels; achievement of recommended blood pressure; and anticoagulation prescribing.

Results

We recruited 178 (73%) out of 243 eligible general practices. We randomised 80 practices to trial 1 (40 per arm) and 64 to trial 2 (32 per arm), with 34 non-intervention controls. The risky prescribing implementation package reduced risky prescribing (odds ratio 0.82, 97.5% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.99; p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2337 per quality-adjusted life-year. The other three packages had no effect on primary end points. The process evaluation suggested that trial outcomes were influenced by losses in fidelity throughout intervention delivery and enactment, and by the nature of the targeted clinical and patient behaviours.

Limitations

Our programme was conducted in one geographical area; however, practice and patient population characteristics are otherwise likely to be sufficiently diverse and typical to enhance generalisability to the UK. We used an ‘opt-out’ approach to recruit general practices to the randomised trials. Subsequently, our trial practices may have engaged with the implementation package less than if they had actively volunteered. However, this approach increases confidence in the wider applicability of trial findings as it replicates guideline implementation activities under standard conditions.

Conclusions

This pragmatic, rigorous evaluation indicates the value of an implementation package targeting risky prescribing. In broad terms, an adapted ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach did not consistently work, with no improvement for other targeted indicators.

Future work

There are challenges in designing ‘one-size-fits-all’ implementation strategies that are sufficiently robust to bring about change in the face of difficult clinical contexts and fidelity losses. We recommend maximising feasibility and ‘stress testing’ prior to rolling out interventions within a definitive evaluation. Our programme has led on to other work, adapting audit and feedback for other priorities and evaluating different ways of delivering feedback to improve patient care.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN91989345.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 8, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Overuse and Misuse of Inhaled Corticosteroids Among Veterans with COPD: a Cross-sectional Study Evaluating Targets for De-implementation

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use among patients with COPD increases the risk of pneumonia and other complications. Current recommendations limit ICS use to patients with frequent or severe COPD exacerbations. However, use of ICS among patients with COPD is common and may be occurring both among those with mild disease (overuse) and those misdiagnosed with COPD (misuse).

OBJECTIVE

To identify patients without identifiable indication for ICS and assess patient and provider characteristics associated with potentially inappropriate to targeted in de-implementation efforts DESIGN: We performed a cross-sectional study of patients with COPD in the Veterans Affairs (VA) system with recent spirometry.

PARTICIPANTS

After setting an index date, we identified individuals with a clinical diagnosis of COPD who had spirometry completed in the prior 5 years. We excluded individuals with an appropriate indication for ICS based on the 2017 GOLD statement, including asthma and a recent history of frequent or severe exacerbations.

MAIN MEASURES

ICS use without identifiable indication KEY RESULTS: We identified 26,536 patients with COPD without an identifiable indication for ICS. Nearly ¼ of patients (n = 6330) filled ≥2 prescriptions for ICS in the year prior to the index date. We found that older age (adjusted prevalence ratio [APR] 1.06 per decade, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.08), white race (APR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05-1.19), and more primary care visits (APR 1.05 per visit, 95% CI 1.03-1.07) were associated with increased likelihood of potentially inappropriate use. Primary care clinic complexity and provider training were not associated with ICS use. Among patients misdiagnosed with COPD, we found that 14% used ICS.

CONCLUSIONS

Potentially inappropriate ICS use is common among patients with and without airflow obstruction who are diagnosed with COPD. We identified patient comorbidities and patterns of healthcare utilization that increase the likelihood of ICS use that could be targeted for system-level de-implementation interventions.

Acceptability of a primary care-based opioid and pain review service: a mixed-methods evaluation in England

BACKGROUND

Primary care opioid prescribing to treat chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) has progressively increased despite a lack of evidence for long-term safety and effectiveness. Developing primary care interventions to reduce opioid dependence in patients with CNCP is a public health priority.

AIM

To report the acceptability of the South Gloucestershire pain and opioid review service for patients with CNCP, which aimed to help patients understand their relationship with prescribed opioids and support non-drug-based pain management strategies.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A mixed-methods evaluation was performed on the service, which was based in two GP practices in South Gloucestershire, England, and delivered by project workers.

METHOD

Descriptive data were collected on delivered-within-service and community-based interventions. Twenty-five semi-structured interviews (n = 18 patients, n = 7 service providers) explored experiences of the service.

RESULTS

The enrolment process, person-centred primary care-based delivery, and service content focused on psychological issues underlying CNCP were found to be acceptable to patients and service providers. Patients welcomed having time to discuss their pain, its management, and related psychological issues. Maintaining a long-term approach was desired as CNCP is a complex issue that takes time to address. GPs recommended that funding was needed to ensure they have dedicated time to support a similar service and to ensure that project workers received adequate clinical supervision.

CONCLUSION

This service model was acceptable and may be a useful means to manage patients with CNCP who develop opioid dependence after long-term use of opioids. A randomised controlled trial is needed to formally test the effectiveness of the service.