Psychiatric risk factors for chronic high-dose opioid prescribing: register-based cohort study

Background Chronic high-dose (CHD) prescription opioid use is a major public health concern. Although CHD opioid use has been associated with psychiatric disorders, the causality could go both ways. Some studies have already linked psychiatric disorders to an increased risk of transitioning to chronic opioid use, and longitudinal data identifying psychiatric disorders as predictors of CHD opioid use could shed further light on this issue. Aims To prospectively examine the relationship between the presence of a psychiatric disorder and subsequent development of CHD opioid use in primary care patients newly receiving opioids. Method Data were included from 137 778 primary care patients in The Netherlands. Cox regression modelling was used to examine the association between psychiatric disorders prior to a new opioid prescription and subsequent CHD opioid use (≥90 days; ≥50 mg/day oral morphine equivalents) in the subsequent 2 years. Results Of all patients receiving a new opioid prescription, 2.0% developed CHD opioid use. A psychiatric disorder before the start of an opioid prescription increased the risk of CHD opioid use (adjusted hazard ratio HR = 1.74; 95% CI 1.62–1.88), specifically psychotic disorders, substance use disorders, neurocognitive disorders and multiple co-occurring psychiatric episodes. Similarly, pharmacotherapy for psychosis, substance use disorders and mood and/or anxiety disorders increased the risk of CHD opioid use. Psychiatric polypharmacy conferred the greatest risk of developing CHD opioid use. Conclusions Psychiatric disorders increase the risk of developing CHD opioid use in patients newly receiving prescription opioids. To reduce the public health burden of CHD opioid use, careful monitoring and optimal treatment of psychiatric conditions are advised when opioid therapy is initiated

Prediction of clinically relevant adverse drug events in surgical patients

Background Risk stratification of hospital patients for adverse drug events would enable targeting patients who may benefit from interventions aimed at reducing drug-related morbidity. It would support clinicians and hospital pharmacists in selecting patients to deliver a more efficient health care service. This study aimed to develop a prediction model that helps to identify patients on the day of hospital admission who are at increased risk of developing a clinically relevant, preventable adverse drug event during their stay on a surgical ward. Methods Data of the pre-intervention measurement period of the P-REVIEW study were used. This study was designed to assess the impact of a multifaceted educational intervention on clinically relevant, preventable adverse drug events in surgical patients. Thirty-nine variables were evaluated in a univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis, respectively. Model performance was expressed in the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics. Bootstrapping was used for model validation. Results 6780 admissions of patients at surgical wards were included during the pre-intervention period of the PREVIEW trial. 102 patients experienced a clinically relevant, adverse drug event during their hospital stay. The prediction model comprised five variables: age, number of biochemical tests ordered, heparin/LMWH in therapeutic dose, use of opioids, and use of cardiovascular drugs. The AUROC was 0.86 (95% CI 0.83–0.88). The model had a sensitivity of 80.4% and a specificity of 73.4%. The positive and negative predictive values were 4.5% and 99.6%, respectively. Bootstrapping generated parameters in the same boundaries. Conclusions The combined use of a limited set of easily ascertainable patient characteristics can help physicians and pharmacists to identify, at the time of admission, surgical patients who are at increased risk of developing ADEs during their hospital stay. This may serve as a basis for taking extra precautions to ensure medication safety in those patients

Gender differences in the use of cardiovascular interventions in HIV-positive persons; the D:A:D Study

Peer reviewe

Is Europe facing an opioid crisis like the US? An analysis of opioid use and related adverse effects in 19 European countries between 2010 and 2018

Background and Aims Given the ongoing opioid crisis in the United States (US), we investigated the opioid situation in Europe. The aims of the study are to provide an overview of trends in prescription opioid use and opioid related adversities between 2010 and 2018 for different opioids in 19 European countries and to present a comparison with similar data from the US. Methods A multi-source database study with national data from 19 European countries evaluating trends between 2010 and 2018 in (1) prescription opioid (PO) consumption, (2) high-risk (HR) opioid users, (3) opioid-related hospital admissions, (4) opioid-related overdose deaths, (5) opioid use disorder treatment entries, and (6) patients in opioid substitution therapy (OST). Within and between-country comparisons and comparisons with data from the US were made. Results There was considerable variation between European countries. Most countries showed increased PO consumption with the largest increase and the highest consumption in the United Kingdom (UK) compared to the rest of Europe and the US in 2018 (UK: 58,088 defined daily doses for statistical purposes/1000 population/day). In 2018 Scotland had the highest rates (per 100,000 population) of HR opioid users (16.2), opioid-related hospital admissions (118), opioid-related deaths (22.7), opioid use disorder treatment admissions (190), and OST patients (555) of all included European countries. These rates were similar or even higher than those in the US in 2018. Other countries with high rates of opioid-related adversities were Northern-Ireland (synthetic and 'other' opioids), Ireland (heroin and methadone), and England (all opioids). All other countries had no or little increase in opioid-related adversities. Conclusions Apart from the British Isles and especially Scotland, there is no indication of an opioid crisis comparable to that in the US in the 19 European countries that were part of this study. More research is needed to identify drivers and develop interventions to stop the emerging opioid crisis in the UK and Ireland

Opioid prescribing in the Netherlands during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national register-based study

Objectives The COVID-19 pandemic and related lockdown measures disrupted global healthcare provision, including opioid prescribing. In North America, opioid sales declined while opioid-related deaths increased. In Europe, the effect of the pandemic on prescribing is not yet known. Given the ongoing increase in opioid-related harm and mortality, it is crucial to analyse the impact of the COVID-19 crisis and lockdown measures on opioid prescribing. Therefore, the objective of this study was to characterise opioid prescribing in the Netherlands during the COVID-19 pandemic.Design A nationwide register-based study characterising opioid prescribing using aggregated insurance reimbursement data.Setting Dutch healthcare during the first 2 years of the COVID lockdown.Participants The whole Dutch population.Primary and secondary outcome measures Comparing the number of opioid prescriptions during the pandemic with a prepandemic period using a risk ratio (RR), with separate analysis on the prescription type (first-time or repeat prescription), patients’ sex, age and socioeconomic status. We also explored lockdown effects.Results During the first lockdown, the total number of new opioid prescriptions and prescriptions to young patients (briefly) decreased (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.89 and RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.75, respectively), but the overall number of opioid prescriptions remained stable throughout the pandemic compared with prepandemic. Women, older patients and patients living in lower socioeconomic areas received more opioids per capita, but the pandemic did not amplify these differences.Conclusions The pandemic appears to have had a limited impact on opioid prescribing in the Netherlands. Yet, chronic use of opioids remains an important public health issue

Monitoring Opioids in Europe: The Need for Shared Definitions and Measuring Drivers of Opioid Use and Related Harms

The past 20 years, the USA is facing a serious opioid crisis initiated by an increase in prescription opioid use. Europe has also seen an increase in prescription opioid use, but the extent of related harm is still largely unknown. Given the impact of the US opioid epidemic, it is important to closely monitor signs of emerging opioid-related problems to guarantee early warnings and timely actions. Shared and meaningful definitions for opioid use and related harms, and relevant information about specific drivers for opioid use and related problems are needed for an adequate policy response. In this commentary, we discuss these definitions, the need to know more about the specific drivers for increased opioid use, its related harm, and proposals for strategies to move forward. Policy recommendations include making a distinction between licit and illicit opioids when monitoring and reporting on opioid-related harm, and using oral morphine equivalents to quantify prescription opioid use in a clinically relevant and comparable manner. A major topic of further research is exploring unique and universal drivers of prescription opioid (mis)use across Europe, in particular the role of opioid diversion

The effects of substitution of hospital ward care from medical doctors to physician assistants on non-adherence to guidelines on medication prescribing.

AIM:This study determined the effect of substitution of inpatient care from medical doctors (MDs) to physician assistants (PAs) on non-adherence to guidelines on medication prescribing. METHODS:A multicenter matched-controlled study was performed comparing wards on which PAs provide medical care in collaboration with MDs (PA/MD model), with wards on which only MDs provide medical care (MD model). A set of 17 quality indicators to measure non-adherence to guidelines on medication prescribing by PAs and MDs was composed by 14 experts in a modified Delphi procedure. The indicators covered different pharmacotherapeutic subjects, such as gastric protection in case of use of NSAID or prevention of obstipation in case of use of opioids. These indicators were expressed in proportions by dividing the number of patients in which the prescriber did not adhere to a guideline, by all patients that were applicable. Multivariable regression analysis was performed in order to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS:1021 patients from 17 hospital wards in the 'PA/MD model' group and 1286 patients from 17 hospital wards in the 'MD model' group were included. Two of the 17 quality indicators showed significantly less non-adherence to guidelines for the PA/MD model; the indicators concerning prescribing gastric protection in case of use of NSAID in combination with corticosteroids (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19-0.90) and in case of use of NSAID in patients older than 70 years (OR 0.47, 95% 0.23-0.95). For none of the other quality indicators for prescribing of medication a difference between the MD model and the PA/MD model was found. CONCLUSION:This study suggests that the non-adherence to guidelines on medication prescribing on wards with the PA/MD model does not differ from wards with traditional house staffing by MDs only. Further research is needed to determine quality, efficiency and safety of prescribing behavior of PAs