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

Tract‐specific analysis and neurocognitive functioning in sickle cell patients without history of overt stroke

International audienceSickle cell disease (SCD) is a hereditary blood disorder in which the oxygen‐carrying hemoglobin molecule in red blood cells is abnormal. SCD patients are at increased risks for strokes and neurocognitive deficit, even though neurovascular screening and treatments have lowered the rate of overt strokes. Tract‐specific analysis (TSA) is a statistical method to evaluate microstructural WM damage in neurodegenerative disorders, using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). We utilized TSA and compared 11 major brain WM tracts between SCD patients with no history of overt stroke, anemic controls, and healthy controls. We additionally examined the relationship between the most commonly used DTI metric of WM tracts and neurocognitive performance in the SCD patients and healthy controls. Disruption of WM microstructure orientation‐dependent metrics for the SCD patients was found in the genu of the corpus callosum (CC), cortico‐spinal tract, inferior fronto‐occipital fasciculus, right inferior longitudinal fasciculus, superior longitudinal fasciculus, and left uncinate fasciculus. Neurocognitive performance indicated slower processing speed and lower response inhibition skills in SCD patients compared to controls. TSA abnormalities in the CC were significantly associated with measures of processing speed, working memory, and executive functions. Decreased DTI‐derived metrics were observed on six tracts in chronically anemic patients, regardless of anemia subtype, while two tracks with decreased measures were unique to SCD patients. Patients with WMHs had more significant FA abnormalities. Decreased FA values in the CC significantly correlated with all nine neurocognitive tests, suggesting a critical importance for CC in core neurocognitive processes

Residential household yard care practices along urban-exurban gradients in six climatically-diverse U.S. metropolitan areas.

Residential land is expanding in the United States, and lawn now covers more area than the country's leading irrigated crop by area. Given that lawns are widespread across diverse climatic regions and there is rising concern about the environmental impacts associated with their management, there is a clear need to understand the geographic variation, drivers, and outcomes of common yard care practices. We hypothesized that 1) income, age, and the number of neighbors known by name will be positively associated with the odds of having irrigated, fertilized, or applied pesticides in the last year, 2) irrigation, fertilization, and pesticide application will vary quadratically with population density, with the highest odds in suburban areas, and 3) the odds of irrigating will vary by climate, but fertilization and pesticide application will not. We used multi-level models to systematically address nested spatial scales within and across six U.S. metropolitan areas-Boston, Baltimore, Miami, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Phoenix, and Los Angeles. We found significant variation in yard care practices at the household (the relationship with income was positive), urban-exurban gradient (the relationship with population density was an inverted U), and regional scales (city-to-city variation). A multi-level modeling framework was useful for discerning these scale-dependent outcomes because this approach controls for autocorrelation at multiple spatial scales. Our findings may guide policies or programs seeking to mitigate the potentially deleterious outcomes associated with water use and chemical application, by identifying the subpopulations most likely to irrigate, fertilize, and/or apply pesticides

Randomized placebo-controlled study of lovastatin in children with neurofibromatosis type 1

ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of lovastatin on visuospatial learning and attention for treating cognitive and behavioral deficits in children with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1).MethodsA multicenter, international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted between July 2009 and May 2014 as part of the NF Clinical Trials Consortium. Children with NF1 aged 8-15 years were screened for visuospatial learning or attention deficits (n = 272); 146 children demonstrated deficits at baseline and were randomly assigned to lovastatin (n = 74; 40 mg/d) or placebo (n = 70). Treatment was administered once daily for 16 weeks. Primary outcomes were total errors on the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery Paired Associate Learning task (visuospatial learning) and the Score subtest from the Test of Everyday Attention for Children (sustained attention). Secondary outcomes measured executive function, attention, visuospatial skills, behavior, and quality of life. Primary analyses were performed on the intention-to-treat population.ResultsLovastatin had no significant effect on primary outcomes after 16 weeks of treatment: visuospatial learning (Cohen d = -0.15, 95% confidence interval -0.47 to 0.18) or sustained attention (Cohen d = 0.19, 95% confidence interval -0.14 to 0.53). Lovastatin was well tolerated, with no increase in reported adverse events compared to placebo.ConclusionsLovastatin administered once daily for 16 weeks did not improve visuospatial learning or attention in children with NF1 and is not recommended for amelioration of cognitive deficits in this population.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierThis study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00853580) and Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12607000560493).Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class I evidence that for children with NF1, lovastatin does not improve visuospatial learning or attention deficits

Randomized placebo-controlled study of lovastatin in children with neurofibromatosis type 1

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of lovastatin on visuospatial learning and attention for treating cognitive and behavioral deficits in children with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). METHODS: A multicenter, international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted between July 2009 and May 2014 as part of the NF Clinical Trials Consortium. Children with NF1 aged 8–15 years were screened for visuospatial learning or attention deficits (n = 272); 146 children demonstrated deficits at baseline and were randomly assigned to lovastatin (n = 74; 40 mg/d) or placebo (n = 70). Treatment was administered once daily for 16 weeks. Primary outcomes were total errors on the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery Paired Associate Learning task (visuospatial learning) and the Score subtest from the Test of Everyday Attention for Children (sustained attention). Secondary outcomes measured executive function, attention, visuospatial skills, behavior, and quality of life. Primary analyses were performed on the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Lovastatin had no significant effect on primary outcomes after 16 weeks of treatment: visuospatial learning (Cohen d = −0.15, 95% confidence interval −0.47 to 0.18) or sustained attention (Cohen d = 0.19, 95% confidence interval −0.14 to 0.53). Lovastatin was well tolerated, with no increase in reported adverse events compared to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Lovastatin administered once daily for 16 weeks did not improve visuospatial learning or attention in children with NF1 and is not recommended for amelioration of cognitive deficits in this population. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00853580) and Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12607000560493). CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that for children with NF1, lovastatin does not improve visuospatial learning or attention deficits