Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as diagnostic criteria for diabetes: the optimal cut-off points values for the Pakistani population; a study from second National Diabetes Survey of Pakistan (NDSP) 2016–2017

Aim Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) cut-off values as diagnostic tool in diabetes and prediabetes with its concordance to oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in Pakistani population.Methodology Data for this substudy was obtained from second National Diabetes Survey of Pakistan (NDSP) 2016–2017. With this survey, 10 834 individuals were recruited and after excluding known subjects with diabetes, 6836 participants fulfilled inclusion criteria for this study. Demographic, anthropometric and biochemical parameters were obtained. OGTT was used as standard diagnostic tool to screen population and HbA1c for optimal cut-off values. Participants were categorized into normal glucose tolerance (NGT), newly diagnosed diabetes (NDD) and prediabetes.Results Out of 6836 participants, 4690 (68.6%) had NGT, 1333 (19.5%) had prediabetes and 813 (11.9%) had NDD by OGTT criteria with median (IQR) age of 40 (31–50) years. Optimal HbA1c cut-off point for identification of diabetes and prediabetes was observed as 5.7% ((AUC (95% CI)=0.776 (0.757 to 0.795), p<0.0001)) and 5.1% ((AUC (95% CI)=0.607 (0.590 to 0.624), p<0.0001)), respectively. However, out of 68.6% NGT subjects identified through OGTT, 24.1% and 9.3% participants were found to have prediabetes and NDD, respectively by using HbA1c criteria. By using both OGTT and HbA1c criteria, only 7.9% and 7.3% were observed as prediabetes and diabetes, respectively.Conclusion Findings from second NDSP demonstrated disagreement between findings of OGTT and HbA1c as diagnostic tool for Pakistani population. As compared with international guidelines, HbA1c threshold for prediabetes and NDD were lower in this part of world. HbA1c as diagnostic tool might require ethnic or regional-based modification in cut-off points, validated by relevant community-based epidemiological surveys