Evaluation of opioid prescribing for surgical patients discharged from three metropolitan hospitals between 2012 and 2020

This multicentre, retrospective medical record audit evaluated opioid analgesia prescribing within a Victorian metropolitan public hospital network. The study included all surgical patients discharged between January 2012 and December 2020 with one or more discharge prescriptions from three metropolitan hospitals (n = 117,989). The main outcome measures were mean oral morphine equivalent daily dose (OMEDD), mean number of opioid types and proportion of patients prescribed one or more slow-release opioids on discharge.Total opioid prescribing (mean OMEDD) peaked in 2013. Between 2017 and 2020 there was a trend towards prescribing fewer opioids on discharge. Over the study period, there was decreasing prescription of codeine and increasing prescription of oxycodone and tapentadol. The proportion of patients prescribed slow-release opioids increased in the earlier years of the study, reaching a peak of 20.6% in 2017. Since 2017 there has been a rapid reduction in the prescription of slow-release opioids.Subanalysis was undertaken to evaluate key changes in the opioid prescribing landscape in the health network. The removal of default opioid pack sizes in the electronic medication management system (December 2014) and the release of the Faculty of Pain Medicine-Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists' statement regarding the use of opioid analgesics in patients with chronic non-cancer pain (March 2018) were associated with significant reductions in mean OMEDD prescribed on discharge (136 mg vs 122 mg and 120 mg vs 85.4 mg, respectively, P < 0.001).In conclusion, the quantity of opioids prescribed on discharge in this patient group peaked in 2013 and has been decreasing since.

Impact of modified-release opioid use on clinical outcomes following total hip and knee arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched cohort study

Modified-release opioids are often prescribed for the management of moderate to severe acute pain following total hip and knee arthroplasty, despite recommendations against their use due to increasing concerns regarding harm. The primary objective of this multicentre study was to examine the impact of modified-release opioid use on the incidence of opioid-related adverse events compared with immediate-release opioid use, among adult inpatients following total hip or knee arthroplasty. Data for total hip and knee arthroplasty inpatients receiving an opioid analgesic for postoperative analgesia during hospitalisation were collected from electronic medical records of three tertiary metropolitan hospitals in Australia. The primary outcome was the incidence of opioid-related adverse events during hospital admission. Patients who received modified with or without immediate-release opioids were matched to those receiving immediate-release opioids only (1:1) using nearest neighbour propensity score matching with patient and clinical characteristics as covariates. This included total opioid dose received. In the matched cohorts, patients given modified-release opioids (n = 347) experienced a higher incidence of opioid-related adverse events overall, compared with those given immediate-release opioids only (20.5%, 71/347 vs. 12.7%, 44/347; difference in proportions 7.8% [95%CI 2.3-13.3%]). Modified-release opioid use was associated with an increased risk of harm when used for acute pain during hospitalisation after total hip or knee arthroplasty.

Risks and benefits of oral modified-release compared with oral immediate-release opioid use after surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Prescription of modified-release opioids for acute postoperative pain is widespread despite evidence to show their use may be associated with an increased risk of adverse effects. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the available evidence on the safety and efficacy of modified-release, compared with immediate-release, oral opioids for postoperative pain in adults. We searched five electronic databases from 1 January 2003 to 1 January 2023. Published randomised clinical trials and observational studies on adults who underwent surgery which compared those who received oral modified-release opioids postoperatively with those receiving oral immediate-release opioids were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data on the primary outcomes of safety (incidence of adverse events) and efficacy (pain intensity, analgesic and opioid use, and physical function) and secondary outcomes (length of hospital stay, hospital readmission, psychological function, costs, and quality of life) up to 12 months postoperatively. Of the eight articles included, five were randomised clinical trials and three were observational studies. The overall quality of evidence was low. Modified-release opioid use was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events (n = 645, odds ratio (95%CI) 2.76 (1.52-5.04)) and worse pain (n = 550, standardised mean difference (95%CI) 0.2 (0.04-0.37)) compared with immediate-release opioid use following surgery. Our narrative synthesis concluded that modified-release opioids showed no superiority over immediate-release opioids for analgesic consumption, length of hospital stay, hospital readmissions or physical function after surgery. One study showed that modified-release opioid use is associated with higher rates of persistent postoperative opioid use compared with immediate-release opioid use. None of the included studies reported on psychological function, costs or quality of life.

Bones, groans and sending patients home: Perioperative opioid-related harm reduction strategy utilisation in a regional New South Wales (NSW) hospital

OBJECTIVE

Perioperative initiation of opioids continues to be a major contributor to chronic use, misuse and diversion in regional areas. There is considerable effort to mitigate harm through avoiding excessive prescribing and reducing the risk of persistent postoperative opioid use. Improving perioperative documentation practices has been reported to ensure appropriate opioid initiation and de-escalation. It has not been established whether these strategies are utilised in regional hospitals.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study of perioperative opioid prescribing and documentation practices in Goulburn Base Hospital, a regional centre in the Southern New South Wales (NSW) Local Health District. Data were collected from 110 records and validated for adult patients undergoing elective total knee replacement (TKR) or total hip replacement (THR) from 12 January 2020 to 13 January 2021.

OUTCOME MEASURES

To observe perioperative opioid prescribing and utilisation of harm reduction strategies in a regional hospital.

RESULTS

65% of patients were opioid naïve (ON). Preoperative pain assessments and patient education were completed in 23% and 15% of records, respectively. Postoperative opioids were prescribed for 99% of patients, with 74% prescribed a slow-release (SR) formulation. 50% of patients were discharged with an SR prescription. Inadequate postoperative pain control was reported in 21% of patients. Of the 103 patients prescribed opioids on discharge, only 20% included a de-escalation plan and only 35% of discharge summaries included dose and quantity of opioids supplies.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has identified underutilisation of perioperative harm reduction strategies despite the potential to improve appropriate initiation and de-escalation of opioids. These findings highlight opportunities for improvement in regional hospitals.

No place for routine use of modified-release opioids in postoperative pain management

Modified-release opioid tablets were introduced into surgical practice in the belief that they provided superior pain relief and reduced nursing workload, and they rapidly became embedded into many perioperative pathways. Although national and international guidelines for the management of postoperative pain now advise against the use of modified-release opioids, they continue to be prescribed in many centres. Recognition that modified-release opioids show lack of benefit and increased risk of harm compared with immediate-release opioids in the acute, postoperative setting has become clear. Their slow onset and offset make rapid and safe titration of these opioids impossible, including down-titration as the patient recovers; pain relief may be less effective; they have been associated with an increased incidence of opioid-related adverse drug events, increased length of hospital stay, and higher readmission rates; and they lead to higher rates of opioid-induced ventilatory impairment and persistent postoperative opioid use. Evidence indicates that modified-release opioids should not be used routinely in the postoperative period.

How to close the gaps between evidence and practice for perioperative opioids

Excellent resources are now available that distil the best evidence around opioid prescribing in the perioperative period, including the list of recommendations provided by the international multidisciplinary consensus statement on the prevention of opioid-related harm in adult surgical patients. While some of the recommendations have been widely accepted as an essential part of postoperative practice, others have had slow and variable adoption. This article focuses on the items where theory and practice still diverge and suggests how best to close that gap. We must also remain mindful that while education is essential, it is on the lowest rung of implementation efficacy and, on its own, is a poor driver of behaviour change. Ongoing structural nudges and the use of local procedure-specific analgesic pathways will also be helpful in addressing the gap between evidence-based recommendations and practice.

Current Issues in the Use of Opioids for the Management of Postoperative Pain: A Review

Importance

Uncontrolled and indiscriminate prescribing of opioids has led to an opioid crisis that started in North America and spread throughout high-income countries. The aim of this narrative review was to explore some of the current issues surrounding the use of opioids in the perioperative period, focusing on drivers that led to escalation of use, patient harms, the move away from using self-reported pain scores alone to assess adequacy of analgesia, concerns about the routine use of controlled-release opioids for the management of acute pain, opioid-free anesthesia and analgesia, and prescription of opioids on discharge from hospital.

Observations

The origins of the opioid crisis are multifactorial and may include good intentions to keep patients pain free in the postoperative period. Assessment of patient function may be better than unidimensional numerical pain scores to help guide postoperative analgesia. Immediate-release opioids can be titrated more easily to match analgesic requirements. There is currently no good evidence to show that opioid-free anesthesia and analgesia affects opioid prescribing practices or the risk of persistent postoperative opioid use. Attention should be paid to discharge opioid prescribing as repeat and refill prescriptions are risk-factors for persistent postoperative opioid use. Opioid stewardship is paramount, and many governments are passing legislation, while statutory bodies and professional societies are providing advice and guidance to help mitigate the harm caused by opioids.

Conclusions and Relevance

Opioids remain a crucial part of many patients' journey from surgery to full recovery. The last few decades have shown that unfettered opioid use puts patients and societies at risk, so caution is needed to mitigate those dangers. Opioid stewardship provides a multilayered structure to allow continued safe use of opioids as part of broad pain management strategies for those patients who benefit from them most.

Opioid Prescription After Cardiac Surgery

OBJECTIVES

To characterise short-term and long-term opioid prescription patterns after cardiac surgery.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We obtained data from a single Australian tertiary hospital from November 2012 to July 2019 and included 2,205 patients who underwent a primary cardiac surgical procedure.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the dose of opioids at hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included factors associated with high dose opioid prescriptions and persistent opioids use after cardiac surgery.

RESULTS

Overall, 76.4% of study patients were prescribed opioids at hospital discharge, with a median discharge prescription of 150 mg oral morphine equivalents. Moreover, 52.8% of discharge opioid prescriptions were as slow-release formulations and 60.0% of all discharge prescriptions were for patients who had received no opioids the day before discharge. In the subset of our patients with long-term data, 14.0% were still receiving opioids at 3-12 months after cardiac surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

In cardiac surgical patients, opioid prescriptions at discharge were common, most were at higher than recommended doses and more than half were slow-release formulations. Such prescription was associated with one in seven patients continuing to receive opioids 3-12 months after surgery.

The opioid epidemic from the acute care hospital front line

Prescription opioid use has risen steeply for over two decades, driven primarily by advocacy for better management of chronic non-cancer pain, but also by poor opioid stewardship in the management of acute pain. Inappropriate prescribing, among other things, contributed to the opioid 'epidemic' and striking increases in patient harm. It has also seen a greater proportion of opioid-tolerant patients presenting to acute care hospitals. Effective and safe management of acute pain in opioid-tolerant patients can be challenging, with higher risks of opioid-induced ventilatory impairment and persistent post-discharge opioid use compared with opioid-naive patients. There are also increased risks of some less well known adverse postoperative outcomes including infection, earlier revision rates after major joint arthroplasty and spinal fusion, longer hospital stays, higher re-admission rates and increased healthcare costs. Increasingly, opioid-free/opioid-sparing techniques have been advocated as ways to reduce patient harm. However, good evidence for these remains lacking and opioids will continue to play an important role in the management of acute pain in many patients.Better opioid stewardship with consideration of preoperative opioid weaning in some patients, assessment of patient function rather than relying on pain scores alone to assess adequacy of analgesia, prescription of immediate release opioids only and evidence-based use of analgesic adjuvants are important. Post-discharge opioid prescribing should be contingent on an assessment of patient risk, with short-term only use of opioids. In partnership with pharmacists, nursing staff, other medical specialists, general practitioners and patients, anaesthetists remain ideally positioned to be involved in opioid stewardship in the acute care setting.

Impact of an Australian/New Zealand organisational position statement on extended-release opioid prescribing among surgical inpatients: a dual centre before-and-after study

Extended-release opioids are often prescribed to manage postoperative pain despite being difficult to titrate to analgesic requirements and their association with long-term opioid use. An Australian/New Zealand organisational position statement released in March 2018 recommended avoiding extended-release opioid prescribing for acute pain. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of this organisational position statement on extended-release opioid prescribing among surgical inpatients. Secondary objectives included predictors and clinical outcomes of prescribing extended-release opioids among surgical inpatients. We conducted a retrospective, dual centre, 11-month before-and-after study and time-series analysis by utilising electronic medical records from two teaching hospitals in Sydney, Australia. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients prescribed an extended-release opioid. For surgical patients prescribed any opioid (n = 16,284), extended-release opioid prescribing decreased after the release of the position statement (38.4% before vs. 26.6% after, p < 0.001), primarily driven by a reduction in extended-release oxycodone (31.1% before vs. 14.1% after, p < 0.001). There was a 23% immediate decline in extended-release opioid prescribing after the position statement release (p < 0.001), followed by an additional 0.2% decline per month in the following months. Multivariable regression showed that the release of the position statement was associated with a decrease in extended-release opioid prescribing (OR 0.54, 95%CI 0.50-0.58). Extended-release opioid prescribing was also associated with increased incidence of opioid-related adverse events (OR 1.52, 95%CI 1.35-1.71); length of stay (RR 1.44, 95%CI 1.39-1.51); and 28-day re-admission (OR 1.26, 95%CI 1.12-1.41). Overall, a reduction in extended-release opioid prescribing was observed in surgical inpatients following position statement release.