Prevalence of use of non-prescription analgesics in the Norwegian HUNT3 population: Impact of gender, age, exercise and prescription of opioids

Background There are concerns about potential increasing use of over-the-counter (OTC) analgesics. The aims of this study were to examine 1) the prevalence of self-reported use of OTC analgesics; 2) the prevalence of combining prescription analgesics drugs with OTC analgesics and 3) whether lifestyle factors such as physical activity were associated with prevalence of daily OTC analgesic use. Methods Questionnaire data from the Nord–Trøndelag health study (HUNT3, 2006–08), which includes data from 40,000 adult respondents. The questionnaire included questions on use of OTC analgesics, socioeconomic conditions, health related behaviour, symptoms and diseases. Data were linked to individual data from the Norwegian Prescription Database. A logistic regression was used to investigate the association between different factors and daily use of paracetamol and/or non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in patients with and without chronic pain. Results The prevalence of using OTC analgesics at least once per week in the last month was 47%. Prevalence of paracetamol use was almost 40%, compared to 19% and 8% for NSAIDs and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), respectively. While the use of NSAIDs decreased and the use of ASA increased with age, paracetamol consumption was unaffected by age. Overall more women used OTC analgesics. About 3-5% of subjects using OTC analgesics appeared to combine these with the same analgesic on prescription. Among subjects reporting chronic pain the prevalence of OTC analgesic use was almost twice as high as among subjects without chronic pain. Subjects with little physical activity had 1.5-4 times greater risk of daily use of OTC compared to physically active subjects. Conclusions Use of OTC analgesics is prevalent, related to chronic pain, female gender and physical inactivity

Clinical and ethical aspects of palliative sedation with propofol—A retrospective quantitative and qualitative study

Background The anesthetic propofol is often mentioned as a drug that can be used in palliative sedation. The existing literature of how to use propofol in palliative sedation is scarce, with lack of information about how propofol could be initiated for palliative sedation, doses and treatment outcomes. Aim To describe the patient population, previous and concomitant medication, and clinical outcome when propofol was used for palliative sedation. Methods A retrospective study with quantitative and qualitative data. All patients who during a 4.5‐year period received propofol for palliative sedation at the Department of palliative medicine, Akershus University Hospital, Norway were included. Results Fourteen patients were included. In six patients the main indication for palliative sedation was pain, in seven dyspnoea and in one delirium. In eight of these cases propofol was chosen because of the pharmacokinetic properties (rapid effect), and in the remaining cases propofol was chosen because midazolam in spite of dose titration failed to provide sufficient symptom relief. In all patients sedation and adequate symptom control was achieved during manual dose titration. During the maintenance phase three of 14 patients had spontaneous awakenings. At death, propofol doses ranged from 60 to 340 mg/hour. Conclusions Severe suffering at the end of life can be successfully treated with propofol for palliative sedation. This can be performed in palliative medicine wards, but skilled observation and dose titration throughout the period of palliative sedation is necessary. Successful initial sedation does not guarantee uninterrupted sedation until death

Clinical and ethical aspects of palliative sedation with propofol—A retrospective quantitative and qualitative study

Background The anesthetic propofol is often mentioned as a drug that can be used in palliative sedation. The existing literature of how to use propofol in palliative sedation is scarce, with lack of information about how propofol could be initiated for palliative sedation, doses and treatment outcomes. Aim To describe the patient population, previous and concomitant medication, and clinical outcome when propofol was used for palliative sedation. Methods A retrospective study with quantitative and qualitative data. All patients who during a 4.5‐year period received propofol for palliative sedation at the Department of palliative medicine, Akershus University Hospital, Norway were included. Results Fourteen patients were included. In six patients the main indication for palliative sedation was pain, in seven dyspnoea and in one delirium. In eight of these cases propofol was chosen because of the pharmacokinetic properties (rapid effect), and in the remaining cases propofol was chosen because midazolam in spite of dose titration failed to provide sufficient symptom relief. In all patients sedation and adequate symptom control was achieved during manual dose titration. During the maintenance phase three of 14 patients had spontaneous awakenings. At death, propofol doses ranged from 60 to 340 mg/hour. Conclusions Severe suffering at the end of life can be successfully treated with propofol for palliative sedation. This can be performed in palliative medicine wards, but skilled observation and dose titration throughout the period of palliative sedation is necessary. Successful initial sedation does not guarantee uninterrupted sedation until death

Ought the level of sedation to be reduced during deep palliative sedation? A clinical and ethical analysis

Background Deep palliative sedation (DPS) is applied as a response to refractory suffering at the end of life when symptoms cannot be relieved in an awake state. DPS entails a dilemma of whether to provide uninterrupted sedation—in which case DPS would turn into deep and continuous palliative sedation (DCPS) —to minimise the risk that any further intolerable suffering will occur or whether to pause sedation to avoid unnecessary sedation. DPS is problematic in that it leaves the patient ‘socially dead’ by eradicating their autonomy and conscious experiences. Aim To perform a normative ethical analysis of whether guidelines should recommend attempting to elevate consciousness during DPS. Design A structured analysis based on the four principles of healthcare ethics and consideration of stakeholders’ interests. Results When DPS is initiated it reflects that symptom relief is valued above the patient’s ability to exercise autonomy and experience social interaction. However, if a decrease in symptom burden occurs, waking could be performed without patients experiencing suffering. Such pausing of deep sedation would satisfy the principles of autonomy and beneficence. Certain patients require substantial dose increases to maintain sedation. Waking such patients risks causing distressing symptoms. This does not happen if deep sedation is kept uninterrupted. Thus, the principle of non-maleficence points towards not pausing sedation. The authors’ clinical ethics analysis demonstrates why other stakeholders’ interests do not appear to override arguments in favour of providing uninterrupted sedation. Conclusion Stopping or pausing DPS should always be considered, but should not be routinely attempted

Ought the level of sedation to be reduced during deep palliative sedation? A clinical and ethical analysis

Background Deep palliative sedation (DPS) is applied as a response to refractory suffering at the end of life when symptoms cannot be relieved in an awake state. DPS entails a dilemma of whether to provide uninterrupted sedation—in which case DPS would turn into deep and continuous palliative sedation (DCPS) —to minimise the risk that any further intolerable suffering will occur or whether to pause sedation to avoid unnecessary sedation. DPS is problematic in that it leaves the patient ‘socially dead’ by eradicating their autonomy and conscious experiences. Aim To perform a normative ethical analysis of whether guidelines should recommend attempting to elevate consciousness during DPS. Design A structured analysis based on the four principles of healthcare ethics and consideration of stakeholders’ interests. Results When DPS is initiated it reflects that symptom relief is valued above the patient’s ability to exercise autonomy and experience social interaction. However, if a decrease in symptom burden occurs, waking could be performed without patients experiencing suffering. Such pausing of deep sedation would satisfy the principles of autonomy and beneficence. Certain patients require substantial dose increases to maintain sedation. Waking such patients risks causing distressing symptoms. This does not happen if deep sedation is kept uninterrupted. Thus, the principle of non-maleficence points towards not pausing sedation. The authors’ clinical ethics analysis demonstrates why other stakeholders’ interests do not appear to override arguments in favour of providing uninterrupted sedation. Conclusion Stopping or pausing DPS should always be considered, but should not be routinely attempted

Persistent Use of Prescription Opioids Before and After Lumbar Spine Surgery: Observational Study With Prospectively Collected Data From Two Norwegian National Registries

Study Design - Prospective pharmacoepidemiologic study. Objective - To investigate clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with persistent opioid use in the years following spine surgery among patients with persistent opioid use preceding lumbar spine surgery. Summary of Background Data - It is unknown whether successful spine surgery leads to a cessation of preoperative persistent opioid use. Materials and Methods - Data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery and the Norwegian Prescription Database were linked for patients operated for degenerative lumbar spine disorders between 2007 and 2017. The primary outcome measure was persistent opioid use in the second year after surgery. Functional disability was measured with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Factors associated with persistent opioid use in the year before, and two years following, surgery were identified using multivariable logistic regression analysis. The variables included in the analysis were selected based on their demonstrated role in prior studies. Results - The prevalence of persistent opioid use was 8.7% in the year before surgery. Approximately two-thirds of patients also met the criteria for persistent opioid use the second year after surgery. Among patients who did not meet the criteria for persistent opioid use the year before surgery, 991 (3.3%) patients developed persistent opioid use in the second year following surgery. The strongest association was exhibited by high doses of benzodiazepines in the year preceding surgery (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.19, P Conclusion - A substantial proportion of patients reported sustained opioid use after surgery. Patients with persistent opioid use before surgery should be supported to taper off opioid treatment. Special efforts appear to be required to taper off opioid use in patients using high doses of benzodiazepines. Level of Evidence - 2; Prospective observational study