Cross-sectional study of rapid tapering of opioid prescriptions following medical regulatory intervention in Alberta from 2013 to 2020

OBJECTIVE

To determine if inappropriate tapering/discontinuation of opioids to Alberta patients occurred from mid-2013-2020, as unintended consequences of prescribing guidelines, regulations and policies in response to the North American opioid crisis.

DESIGN

A population-based, repeated cross-sectional time-series study.

SETTING

Alberta, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Residents of Alberta, Canada aged 18 and older who received an opioid dispense from a community pharmacy from 2013 to 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The prevalence of potential rapid tapering was measured at a given date (reference day), enveloped by a data window. Dose changes were measured as oral morphine equivalents (OME) per patient, at multiple time points ('data window' around a reference day). Chronic recipients were identified, and their prescriptions were contrasted 90 days before and after the reference day to measure OME/day changes.

RESULTS

Approximately 9000 dispenses (totalling ~6 million OME) per day were analysed from 2013 to 2020. The total number of opioid recipients was highly cyclic in nature (peaking in winter). The number of chronic opioid recipients remained somewhat stable from ~70K in 2013 to ~86K at the end of 2020. The number of chronic high and very high dose recipients presented a significant decrease after 2017. Approximately 11%-12% of chronic high-dose recipients experienced potential rapid dose tapering at a rate of 50% or more prereference to postreference day at any given point of time. For chronic very high dose recipients, approximately 11.5% experience potential rapid dose tapering at a rate of 50% or more prereference to postreference day at any given point of time. Potential discontinuation remained constant and the interventions did not have a significant impact on the trend.

CONCLUSION

The evidence suggests that changes in prescribing guidelines were not associated with an increase of rapid opioid tapering/discontinuation in Alberta.

Reducing prescribing of benzodiazepines in older adults: a comparison of four physician-focused interventions by a medical regulatory authority

BACKGROUND

The inappropriate and/or high prescribing of benzodiazepine and 'Z' drugs (BDZ +) is a major health concern. The purpose of this study was to determine whether physician or pharmacist led interventions or a simple letter or a personalized prescribing report from a medical regulatory authority (MRA) was the most effective intervention for reducing BDZ + prescribing by physicians to patients 65 years of age or older.

METHODS

This was a four-armed, one year, blinded, randomized, parallel-group, investigational trial in Alberta, Canada. Participants were fully licensed physicians (n = 272) who had prescribed 4 times the defined daily dose (4 + DDD) or more of any BDZ + to an older patient at least once in the 3rd quarter of 2016. All physician-participants were sent a personalized prescribing profile by the MRA. They were then randomized into four groups that received either nothing more, an additional personal warning letter from the MRA, a personal phone call from an MRA pharmacist or a personal phone call from an MRA physician. The main outcomes were prescribing behavior change of physicians at one year in terms of: change in mean number of older patients receiving 4 + DDD BDZ + and mean dose BDZ + prescribed per physician. To adjust for multiple statistical testing, we used MANCOVA to test both main outcome measures simultaneously by group whilst controlling for any baseline differences.

RESULTS

All groups experienced a significant fall in the total number of older patients receiving 4 + DDD of BDZ + by about 50% (range 43-54%) per physician at one year, and a fall in the mean dose of BDZ + prescribed of about 13% (range 10-16%). However, there was no significant difference between each group.

CONCLUSIONS

A personalized prescribing report alone sent from the MRA appears to be an effective intervention for reducing very high levels of BDZ + prescribing in older patients. Additional interventions by a pharmacist or physician did not result in additional benefit. The intervention needs to be tested further on a more general population of physicians, prescribing less extreme doses of BDZ + and that looks at more clinical and healthcare utilization outcomes.

Survey of physician attitudes to using multisource feedback for competence assessment in Alberta

BACKGROUND

The use of multisource feedback (MSF) for assessing physician performance is widespread and rapidly growing. Findings from early very small research studies using highly selected participants suggest high levels of satisfaction and support. However, after nearly two decades of experience using MSF to evaluate all physicians in Alberta, we are sceptical of this.

OBJECTIVES

To determine physicians' actual opinions of MSF using the entire physician population of Alberta, Canada DESIGN: Online survey.

SETTING

Alberta, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

All physicians with a full licence to practice in Alberta in 2015.

INTERVENTIONS

All participants were asked to grade how well they thought MSF was at assessing various aspects of physician performance using a 10-point Likert-type scale. There was also a text response field for written comments.

OUTCOMES

Mean responses to quantitative questions. Qualitative content and thematic analysis of open-ended text responses.We analysed the data using SPSS V.23 and NVivo V.11 and built a multivariate model highlighting the predictors of high and low opinions of MSF.

RESULTS

Survey response rate was high for physicians with 2215 responses (25%). The mean rating for how successful MSF was at assessing a variety of dimensions, varied from a low of 5.03/10 for medical knowledge to a high of 6.38/10 for professionalism and communication. Canadian-trained MDs rated MSF significantly lower on every dimension by approximately 20% compared with non-Canadian-trained MDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Alberta physicians have much lower opinions about the ability of MSF to measure any dimension of their performance than what has been suggested in the literature. Canadian-trained MDs have a particularly low opinion of MSF for reasons that remain unclear. The results of this survey offer a serious challenge to the effectiveness of a programme that is designed to promote self-reflection and performance improvement.

2b or not 2b? Shoulder function after level 2b neck dissection: A double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Selective neck dissection (SND) is a mainstay of head and neck cancer treatment. A common sequela is shoulder syndrome from spinal accessory nerve (SAN) trauma. Extensive dissection in neck levels 2 and 5 leads to SAN dysfunction. However, it is not known whether limited level 2 dissection reduces SAN injury. The purpose of this double-blind randomized controlled trial was to determine whether omitting level 2b dissection would improve shoulder-related quality of life and function.

METHODS

Patients with head and neck cancers undergoing surgery were randomized 1:1 to SND without level 2b dissection (group 1) or with it (group 2) on their dominant-hand side. Patients, caregivers, and assessors were blinded. The primary outcome was the change in the Neck Dissection Impairment Index (NDII) score after 6 months. An a priori calculation of the minimally important clinical difference in the NDII score was determined to establish a sample size of 15 patients per group (power = 0.8). Secondary outcomes included shoulder strength and range of motion (ROM) and SAN nerve conduction. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00765791).

RESULTS

Forty patients were enrolled, and 30 were included (15 per group). Six months after the surgery, group 2 demonstrated a significant median decrease in the NDII from the baseline (30 points) and in comparison with group 1, whose NDII dropped 17.5 points (P = .02). Shoulder ROM and SAN conduction demonstrated significant declines in group 2 (P ≤ .05). No adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Level 2b should be omitted in SND when this is oncologically safe and feasible. This allows for an optimal balance between function and cancer cure.

Botulinum Toxin for the Treatment of Focal Task-Specific Hand Dystonias: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective:

Botulinum Toxin (BTX) has become a widely used treatment in several dystonic conditions, but the evidence for its efficacy has largely come from open trials and expert opinion. This systematic review examined the efficacy and safety of BTX in the treatment of Focal Hand Dystonia (FHD) in Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs).

Methods:

We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, SPORT Discus, SCOPUS, Web of Science, PEDro, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for randomized, placebo-controlled trials on the use of BTX for FHD.

Results:

Of 1,116 publications retrieved from the databases searched, three publications were included. The evidence identified pertains to focal task-specific hand dystonias. Sixty-nine participants were involved in the three RCTs with a mean duration of symptoms of 7.5 years. Participants were assessed using a combination of self-reported and functional performance outcome measures following injections of BTX subtype A (BTX-A) or placebo. The Oxford Quality Scale was used to assess the included studies, and the three studies each scored 3/5 or above. The included studies reported no adverse events with BTX-A use, other than muscle weakness and pain at the injection sites.

Conclusion:

The number of participants included in these three trials is too small to draw dependable conclusions about the efficacy and safety of BTX-A for FHD. There is currently not enough evidence to recommend the routine use of BTX-A for FHD.

Experiential knowledge of risk and support factors for physician performance in Canada: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To identify, understand and explain potential risk and protective factors that may influence individual and physician group performance, by accessing the experiential knowledge of physician-assessors at three medical regulatory authorities (MRAs) in Canada.

DESIGN

Qualitative analysis of physician-assessors' interview transcripts. Telephone or in-person interviews were audio-recorded on consent, and transcribed verbatim. Interview questions related to four topics: Definition/discussion of what makes a 'high-quality physician;' factors for individual physician performance; factors for group physician performance; and recommendations on how to support high-quality medical practice. A grounded-theory approach was used to analyse the data.

SETTING

Three provinces (Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario) in Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-three (11 female, 12 male) physician-assessors from three MRAs in Canada (the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Alberta, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario).

RESULTS

Participants outlined various protective factors for individual physician performance, including: being engaged in continuous quality improvement; having a support network of colleagues; working in a defined scope of practice; maintaining engagement in medicine; receiving regular feedback; and maintaining work-life balance. Individual risk factors included being money-oriented; having a high-volume practice; and practising in isolation. Group protective factors incorporated having regular communication among the group; effective collaboration; a shared philosophy of care; a diversity of physician perspectives; and appropriate practice management procedures. Group risk factors included: a lack of or ineffective communication/collaboration among the group; a group that doesn't empower change; or having one disruptive or 'risky' physician in the group.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first qualitative inquiry to explore the experiential knowledge of physician-assessors related to physician performance. By understanding the risk and support factors for both individual physicians and groups, MRAs will be better-equipped to tailor physician assessments and limited resources to support competence and enhance physician performance.

Honorary authorship in postgraduate medical training

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether postgraduate medical trainees are exposed to honorary authorship, whether they are aware of the topic and if they believe that further support and education concerning this issue is needed.

METHODS

Postgraduate medical trainees were contacted by email with a link to our questionnaire on two occasions (2 and 26 February 2014) and then contacted in person (June-November 2014). The questionnaire topics included demographics, authorship practice beliefs and experience, and authorship policy-related questions. We also determined the proportion of perceived, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)-defined and unperceived honorary authorship in the respondent group.

RESULTS

The response rate was 27.7%. The prevalence of perceived, ICMJE-defined and unperceived honorary authorship was 38.1%, 57.3% and 24.2%, respectively; 90.1% were unaware of the ICMJE authorship criteria, 92.6% were unaware of a support system for authorship disputes, but 91.8% believed such a system should be implemented and 93.3% believed medical trainees and faculty should be instructed on authorship guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

A paradigm shift from the current system is needed, where enforcement of ethical authorship practices is shifted away from journal editors. Instruction on the topic should be provided to medical trainees throughout medical school and continued during further training. A process should also be outlined to resolve authorship disputes. These measures may encourage researchers to have an open discussion on the topic prior to the commencement of a research project, and to resolve authorship conflicts in a constructive manner. We also hope this paper encourages further work on the topic.

Ultrasound-guided hip joint injections are more accurate than landmark-guided injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To compare the accuracy of ultrasound (US)-guided versus landmark-guided hip joint injections.

METHODS

PubMed, Medline and Cochrane libraries were searched up to 31 July 2014. Two independent authors selected studies assessing accuracy of intra-articular hip injections based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Selected papers were then evaluated for quality and a meta-analysis of accuracy was performed using random effects models.

RESULTS

4 US-guided (136 hip injections) and 5 landmark-guided (295 hip injections) studies were reviewed. The weighted means for US-guided and landmark-guided hip injection accuracies were 100% (95% CI 98% to 100%) and 72% (95% CI 56% to 85%), respectively. US-guided hip injection accuracy was significantly higher than landmark-guided accuracy (p<0.0001).

SUMMARY

This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of US-guided versus landmark-guided hip joint injections that has revealed that US-guided injections are significantly more accurate than those that are landmark guided. Future studies should compare US with fluoroscopic-guided hip joint injections for accuracy, efficacy, safety profile, cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction.

Upper-Extremity Functional Electric Stimulation–Assisted Exercises on a Workstation in the Subacute Phase of Stroke Recovery

OBJECTIVE

To test the efficacy of functional electric stimulation (FES)-assisted exercise therapy (FES-ET) on a workstation in the subacute phase of recovery from a stroke.

DESIGN

Single-blind, randomly controlled comparison of high- and low-intensity treatment.

SETTING

Laboratory in a rehabilitation hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Nineteen stroke survivors (10 men, 9 women; mean age +/- standard deviation, 60.6+/-5.8y), with upper-extremity hemiplegia (mean poststroke time, 48+/-17d). The main inclusion criteria were: stroke occurred within 3 months of onset of trial and resulted in severe upper-limb dysfunction, and FES produced adequate hand opening.

INTERVENTION

An FES stimulator and an exercise workstation with instrumented objects were used by 2 groups to perform specific motor tasks with their affected upper extremity. Ten subjects in the high-intensity FES-ET group received FES-ET for 1 hour a day on 15 to 20 consecutive workdays. Nine subjects in the low-intensity FES-ET group received 15 minutes of sensory electric stimulation 4 days a week and on the fifth day they received 1 hour of FES-ET.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measure included the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT). Secondary outcome measures included the Motor Activity Log (MAL), the upper-extremity portion of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), and the combined kinematic score (CKS) derived from workstation measurements. The WMFT, MAL, and FMA were used to assess function in the absence of FES whereas CKS was used to evaluate function assisted by FES.

RESULTS

Improvements in the WMFT and CKS were significantly greater in the high-intensity group (post-treatment effect size, .95) than the low-intensity group (post-treatment effect size, 1.3). The differences in MAL and FMA were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Subjects performing high-intensity FES-ET showed significantly greater improvements on the WMFT than those performing low-intensity FES-ET. However, this was not reflected in subjects' self-assessments (MAL) or in their FMA scores, so the clinical significance of the result is open to debate. The CKS data suggest that high-intensity FES-ET may be advantageous in neuroprosthetic applications.

Local corticosteroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome is a clinical syndrome manifested by signs and symptoms of irritation of the median nerve at the carpal tunnel in the wrist. Local corticosteroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome has been studied but its effectiveness is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of local corticosteroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome versus placebo injection or other non-surgical interventions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Trials register (searched May 2006), MEDLINE (searched January 1966 to May 2006), EMBASE (searched January 1980 to May 2006) and CINAHL (searched January 1982 to May 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently selected the trials and rated their overall quality. Relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each trial and summary relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were also calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies with altogether 671 participants. Two high quality randomized controlled trials with altogether 141 participants demonstrated clinical improvement of carpal tunnel syndrome at one month or less following local corticosteroid compared to placebo injection (relative risk 2.58 (95% confidence intervals 1.72 to 3.87)). One trial compared local corticosteroid injection to oral corticosteroid and at 12 weeks after treatment there was significantly more improvement in the injection group (mean difference -7.10 (95% confidence intervals -11.68 to -2.52)). In one trial, the rate of improvement after one month was greater after local than systemic corticosteroid injection (relative risk 3.17 (95% confidence intervals 1.02 to 9.87)). In one trial, symptoms did not improve significantly more in the injection group at eight weeks after injection compared to treatment with anti-inflammatory medication and splinting (mean difference 0.10 (95% confidence intervals -0.33 to 0.53)). Two injections versus one injection of local corticosteroid did not provide further clinical improvement, mean difference -3.80 (95% CI -9.27 to 1.67).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Local corticosteroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome provides greater clinical improvement in symptoms one month after injection compared to placebo. Significant symptom relief beyond one month has not been demonstrated. Local corticosteroid injection provides significantly greater clinical improvement than oral corticosteroid for up to three months. Local corticosteroid injection does not significantly improve clinical outcome compared to either anti-inflammatory treatment and splinting after eight weeks or Helium-Neon laser treatment after six months. Two local corticosteroid injections do not provide significant added clinical benefit compared to one injection.

Reliability of the visual assessment of cervical and lumbar lordosis: how good are we?

STUDY DESIGN

Blinded test-retest design.

OBJECTIVE

To measure the intrarater and interrater reliability of the visual assessment of cervical and lumbar lordosis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Cervical and lumbar lordoses are frequently evaluated using visual assessment, but little attempt has previously been made to measure the reliability of visual assessment.

METHODS

Twenty-eight chiropractors, physical therapists, physiatrists, rheumatologists, and orthopedic surgeons were recruited to evaluate the posture of photographed subjects (with and without back pain). Each clinician rated the lordosis of the cervical and lumbar spines as normal, increased, or decreased. Kappa coefficients (kappa) were calculated to determine intrarater and interrater reliability.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight clinicians evaluated photographs of 36 individuals (17 with back pain, 19 without). Mean intrarater reliability was kappa = 0.50 (95% confidence interval 0.02-0.98) and mean interrater reliability was kappa = 0.16 (95% confidence interval 0.00-0.48). No statistically significant difference existed among the five groups of clinicians or between the evaluation of the subjects with and without back pain.

CONCLUSION

Intrarater reliability of the visual assessment of cervical and lumbar lordosis was statistically fair, whereas interrater reliability was poor.

Local corticosteroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome is a clinical syndrome manifested by signs and symptoms of irritation of the median nerve at the level of the carpal tunnel in the wrist. Local corticosteroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome has been studied but its effectiveness and duration of benefit of local corticosteroid injection for Carpal tunnel syndrome remain unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of local steroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome versus placebo injection or other non-surgical interventions in improving clinical outcome and to determine the length of symptom relief.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group register (searched June 2002), MEDLINE (searched January 1966 to May 2002), EMBASE (searched January 1980 to May 2002)and CINAHL(searched January 1982 to May 2002).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized or quasi-randomized studies of participants with carpal tunnel syndrome treated with local corticosteroid injection. The primary outcome measure was clinical improvement.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three reviewers independently selected the trials to be included rated for their overall quality. Relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each trial and summary relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were also calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine randomized controlled trials. Four were excluded. One trial demonstrated clinical improvement of carpal tunnel syndrome at one month following local corticosteroid compared to placebo injection (Relative risk 3.83 (95% confidence intervals 1.82 to 8.05)). One trial compared local corticosteroid injection to oral steroid and at three months after treatment there was a significant improvement in the injection group (mean difference -7.00 (95% confidence intervals -11.58 to -2.42)). In one trial the rate of improvement after one month was greater after local than systemic corticosteroid injection (Relative risk 3.17(95% confidence intervals 1.02 to 9.87)). In one trial symptoms did not improve significantly for the injection group at eight weeks after injection compared to treatment with anti-inflammatory medication and splinting (mean difference 0.10 (95% confidence intervals -0.33 to 0.53)). Although local steroid injection did provide benefit compared to Helium-Neon Laser treatment at two weeks after onset of treatment (Relative risk 0.27 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.83), this effect did not hold at six months follow-up (Relative risk 0.76 (95% confidence intervals 0.48 to 1.21).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Local corticosteroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome provides greater clinical improvement in symptoms one month after injection compared to placebo. Symptom relief beyond one month compared to placebo has not been demonstrated. Local corticosteroid injection provides significantly greater clinical improvement compared to oral steroid up to three months after treatment. Local corticosteroid injection does not provide improved clinical outcome compared to either anti-inflammatory treatment and splinting after eight weeks or Helium -Neon laser treatment after six months.