Validity of the Postoperative Morbidity Survey after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair—a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is no standardised tool used to capture morbidity following abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. The aim of this prospective observational study was to validate the Postoperative Morbidity Survey (POMS) according to its two guiding principles: to only capture morbidity substantial enough to delay discharge from hospital and to be a rapid, simple screening tool. METHODS: A total of 64 adult patients undergoing elective infrarenal AAA repair participated in the study. Following surgery, the POMS was recorded daily, by trained research staff with the clinical teams blinded, until hospital discharge or death. We modelled the data using Cox regression, accounting for the competing risk of death, with POMS as a binary time-dependent (repeated measures) internal covariate. For each day for each patient, ‘discharged’ (yes/no) was the event, with the elapsed number of days post-surgery as the time variable. We derived the hazard ratio for any POMS morbidity (score 1–9) vs. no morbidity (zero), adjusted for type of repair (endovascular versus open), age and aneurysm size. RESULTS: The hazard ratio for alive discharge with any POMS-recorded morbidity versus no morbidity was 0.130 (95 % confidence interval 0.070 to 0.243). The median time-to-discharge was 13 days after recording any POMS morbidity vs. 2 days after scoring zero for POMS morbidity. Compliance with POMS completion was 99.5 %. CONCLUSIONS: The POMS is a valid tool for capturing short-term postoperative morbidity following elective infrarenal AAA repair that is substantial enough to delay discharge from hospital. Daily POMS measurement is recommended to fully capture morbidity and allow robust analysis. The survey could be a valuable outcome measure for use in quality improvement programmes and future research

Managing severe pain and abuse potential: the potential impact of a new abuse-deterrent formulation oxycodone/naltrexone extended-release product

Joseph V Pergolizzi, Jr,1 Robert Taylor Jr,1 Jo Ann LeQuang,1 Robert B Raffa2,3 On behalf of the NEMA Research Group 1NEMA Research Inc., Naples, FL, USA; 2University of Arizona College of Pharmacy, Tucson, AZ, USA; 3Temple University School of Pharmacy, Philadelphia, PA, USA Abstract: Proper management of severe pain represents one of the most challenging clinical dilemmas. Two equally important goals must be attained: the humanitarian/medical goal to relieve suffering and the societal/legal goal to not contribute to the drug abuse problem. This is an age-old problem, and the prevailing emphasis placed on one or the other goal has resulted in pendulum swings that have resulted in either undertreatment of pain or the current epidemic of misuse and abuse. In an effort to provide efficacious strong pain relievers (opioids) that are more difficult to abuse by the most dangerous routes of administration, pharmaceutical companies are developing products in which the opioid is manufactured in a formulation that is designed to be tamper resistant. Such a product is known as an abuse-deterrent formulation (ADF). ADF opioid products are designed to deter or resist abuse by making it difficult to tamper with the product and extracting the opioid for inhalation or injection. To date, less than a dozen opioid formulations have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to carry specific ADF labeling, but this number will likely increase in the coming years. Most of these products are extended-release formulations. Keywords: oxycodone/naltrexone, abuse-deterrent formulation, abuse-deterrent opioid, oxycodone, abuse liabilit