Search

Objective To determine how passively providing informational handouts and/or drug disposal kits affects rates of leftover prescription opioid disposal. Design A multi-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial with masked outcome assessment and computer-guided randomization. Setting Johns Hopkins Health System outpatient pharmacies. Subjects Individuals who filled ≥1 short-term prescription for an immediate-release opioid for themselves or a family member. Methods In June 2019, 499 individuals were randomized to receive an informational handout detailing U.S. Food and Drug Administration–recommended ways to properly dispose of leftover opioids (n = 188), the informational handout and a drug disposal kit with instructions on its use (n = 170), or no intervention (n = 141) at prescription pickup. Subjects were subsequently contacted by telephone, and outcomes were assessed by a standardized survey. The primary outcome was the use of a safe opioid disposal method. Results By 6 weeks after prescription pickup, 227 eligible individuals reported they had stopped taking prescription opioids to treat pain and had leftover medication. No difference in safe disposal was observed between the non-intervention group (10% [6/63]) and the group that received disposal kits (14% [10/73]) (risk ratio = 1.44; 95% confidence interval: 0.55 to 3.74) or the group that received a fact sheet (11% [10/91]) (risk ratio = 1.15; 95% confidence interval: 0.44 to 3.01). Conclusions These findings suggest that passive provision of a drug disposal kit at prescription pickup did not increase rates of leftover opioid disposal when compared with provision of a fact sheet alone or no intervention. Active interventions may deserve further investigation.

Purpose The opioid epidemic continues to result in significant morbidity and mortality even within hospitals where opioids are the second most common cause of adverse events. Opioid stewardship represents one model for hospitals to promote safe and rational prescribing of opioids to mitigate preventable adverse events in alliance with new Joint Commission standards. The purpose of this study was to identify the prevalence of current hospital practices to improve opioid use. Methods A cross-sectional survey of hospital best practices for opioid use was electronically distributed via electronic listservs in March 2018 to examine the presence of an opioid stewardship program and related practices, including formulary restrictions, specialist involvement for high-risk patients, types of risk factors screened, and educational activities. Results Among 133 included hospitals, 23% reported a stewardship program and 14% reported a prospective screening process to identify patients at high risk of opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs). Among those with a prospective screening process, there was variability in ORAE risk factor screening. Formulary restrictions were dependent on specific opioids and formulations. Patient-controlled analgesia was restricted at 45% of hospitals. Most hospitals reported having a pain management service (90%) and a palliative care service providing pain management (67%). Conclusion The absence of opioid stewardship and prospectively screening ORAEs represents a gap in current practice at surveyed hospitals. Hospitals have an opportunity to implement and refine best practices such as access to pain management specialists, use of formulary restrictions, and retrospective and prospective monitoring of adverse events to improve opioid use.

PurposeMillions of Americans who undergo surgical procedures receive opioid prescriptions as they return home. While some derive great benefit from these medicines, others experience adverse events, convert to chronic opioid use, or have unused medicines that serve as a reservoir for potential nonmedical use. Our aim was to investigate concepts and methods relevant to optimal opioid prescribing and pain treatment in the perioperative period.MethodsWe reviewed existing literature for trials on factors that influence opioid prescribing and optimization of pain treatment for surgical procedures and generated a conceptual framework to guide future quality, safety, and research efforts.ResultsOpioid prescribing and pain treatment after discharge from surgery broadly consist of 3 key interacting perspectives, including those of the patient, the perioperative team, and, serving in an essential role for all patients, the pharmacist. Systems-based factors, ranging from the organizational environment’s ability to provide multimodal analgesia and participation in enhanced recovery after surgery programs to other healthcare system and macro-level trends, shape these interactions and influence opioid-related safety outcomes.ConclusionsThe severity and persistence of the opioid crisis underscore the urgent need for interventions to improve postoperative prescription opioid use in the United States. Such interventions are likely to be most effective, with the fewest unintended consequences, if based on sound evidence and built on multidisciplinary efforts that include pharmacists, nurses, surgeons, anesthesiologists, and the patient. Future studies have the potential to identify the optimal amount to prescribe, improve patient-focused safety and quality outcomes, and help curb the oversupply of opioids that contributes to the most pressing public health crisis of our time.

Foreword {#article-title-2} The ASHP Research and Education Foundation (“the Foundation”) is pleased to present the seventh edition of the annual Pharmacy Forecast . We are again pleased to disseminate the Pharmacy Forecast through AJHP, providing readers with easy access to the report. The

Objective:To systematically assess the effect of pharmacologic treatments of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) on pain and quality of life.Methods:We searched PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for systematic reviews from 2011 to October 12, 2015, and PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for primary studies from January 1, 2013, to May 24, 2016. We searched Clinicaltrials.gov on March 9, 2016. Two reviewers independently evaluated studies for eligibility, serially abstracted data, and independently evaluated risk of bias and graded strength of evidence (SOE).Results:We updated a recently completed systematic review of 57 eligible studies with 24 additional published studies and 25 unpublished studies. For reducing neuropathy-related pain, the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors duloxetine and venlafaxine (moderate SOE), the anticonvulsants pregabalin and oxcarbazepine (low SOE), the drug classes tricyclic antidepressants (low SOE) and atypical opioids (low SOE), and botulinum toxin (low SOE) were more effective than placebo. We could not draw conclusions about quality of life due to incomplete reporting. All studies were short-term (less than 6 months), and all effective drugs had more than 9% dropouts from adverse effects.Conclusions:For reducing pain, duloxetine and venlafaxine, pregabalin and oxcarbazepine, tricyclic antidepressants, atypical opioids, and botulinum toxin were more effective than placebo. However, quality of life was poorly reported, studies were short-term, drugs had substantial dropout rates, and opioids have significant risks. Future studies should evaluate longer-term outcomes, use methods and measures recommended by pain organizations, and assess patients' quality of life.

End-of-life decision making in cancer can be a complicated process. Patients and families encounter multiple providers throughout their cancer care. When the efforts of these providers are not well coordinated in teams, opportunities for high-quality, longitudinal goals of care discussions can be missed. This article reviews the case of a 55-year-old man with lung cancer, illustrating the barriers and missed opportunities for end-of-life decision making in his care through the lens of team leadership, a key principle in the science of teams. The challenges demonstrated in this case reflect the importance of the four functions of team leadership: information search and structuring, information use in problem solving, managing personnel resources, and managing material resources. Engaging in shared leadership of these four functions can help care providers improve their interactions with patients and families concerning end-of-life care decision making. This shared leadership can also produce a cohesive care plan that benefits from the expertise of the range of available providers while reflecting patient needs and preferences. Clinicians and researchers should consider the roles of team leadership functions and shared leadership in improving patient care when developing and studying models of cancer care delivery.

Opioids remain the mainstay of treatment for severe cancer pain, but up to 20% of patients have persistent or refractory pain despite rapid and aggressive opioid titration, or develop refractory pain after long-term opioid use. In these scenarios, alternative agents and mechanisms for analgesia should be considered. This case report describes a 28-year-old man with metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine cancer with severe, intractable pain despite high-dose opioids including methadone and a hydromorphone patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). After treatment with short-course, low-dose ketamine, his opioid requirements decreased by 99% and pain ratings by 50%, with the majority of this decrease occurring in the first 48 hours. As this patient's pain and opioid regimen escalated, he likely experienced some component of central sensitization and hyperalgesia. Administration of ketamine reduced opioid consumption by 99% and potentially "reset" neuronal hyperexcitability and reduced pain signaling, allowing for improved pain control.

Palliative care arose from the modern hospice movement and has evolved significantly over the past 50 years.[1][1] Numerous definitions exist to describe palliative care, all of which focus on aggressively addressing suffering. The World Health Organization and the U.S. Department of Health and

Background One in 16 surgical patients prescribed opioids becomes a long-term user. Overprescribing opioids after surgery is common, and the lack of multidisciplinary procedure-specific guidelines contributes to the wide variation in opioid prescribing practices. We hypothesized that a single-institution, multidisciplinary expert panel can establish consensus on ideal opioid prescribing for select common surgical procedures. Study Design We used a 3-step modified Delphi method involving a multidisciplinary expert panel of 6 relevant stakeholder groups (surgeons, pain specialists, outpatient surgical nurse practitioners, surgical residents, patients, and pharmacists) to develop consensus ranges for outpatient opioid prescribing at the time of discharge after 20 common procedures in 8 surgical specialties. Prescribing guidelines were developed for opioid-naive adult patients without chronic pain undergoing uncomplicated procedures. The number of opioid tablets was defined using oxycodone 5 mg oral equivalents. Results For all 20 surgical procedures reviewed, the minimum number of opioid tablets recommended by the panel was 0. Ibuprofen was recommended for all patients unless medically contraindicated. The maximum number of opioid tablets varied by procedure (median 12.5 tablets), with panel recommendations of 0 opioid tablets for 3 of 20 (15%) procedures, 1 to 15 opioid tablets for 11 of 20 (55%) procedures, and 16 to 20 tablets for 6 of 20 (30%) procedures. Overall, patients who had the procedures voted for lower opioid amounts than surgeons who performed them. Conclusions Procedure-specific prescribing recommendations may help provide guidance to clinicians who are currently overprescribing opioids after surgery. Multidisciplinary, patient-centered consensus guidelines for more procedures are feasible and may serve as a tool in combating the opioid crisis.

Objective: To systematically assess benefits and harm of non-pharmacologic interventions for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) symptoms. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1966 to May 24, 2016 for randomized controlled trials. Two reviewers evaluated studies for eligibility, serially abstracted data, evaluated risk of bias, and graded strength of evidence (SOE) for critical outcomes (pain and quality-of-life). Results: Twenty-three trials were included. For pain, alpha-lipoic acid was more effective than placebo (moderate SOE) and frequency-modulated electromagnetic stimulation was more effective than sham (low SOE) in the short-term but not the long-term. Electrical stimulation (including transcutaneous) was not effective for pain (low SOE). Spinal cord stimulation was more effective than usual care for pain (low SOE), but had serious complications, and studies had no sham arm. Evidence for cognitive behavioral therapy and acupuncture was insufficient; no exercise or physical therapy trials met inclusion criteria. No interventions reported sufficient evidence on quality-of-life. Most studies were short-term with unclear risk of bias. Conclusions: Alpha-lipoic acid and spinal cord stimulation were effective for pain; studies were short-term with quality deficits. Spinal cord stimulation had serious adverse events. Further research should address long-term outcomes and other non-pharmacologic treatments.