Comparative Safety of Short-Acting Opioid Dose Escalation and Long-Acting Opioid Initiation in Nursing Home Residents.

Anthony P Nunes, Heeyoon Jung, Yiyang Yuan, Jonggyu Baek, Jayne Pawasauskas, Anne L Hume, Shao-Hsien Liu, Kate L Lapane
{"title":"Comparative Safety of Short-Acting Opioid Dose Escalation and Long-Acting Opioid Initiation in Nursing Home Residents.","authors":"Anthony P Nunes, Heeyoon Jung, Yiyang Yuan, Jonggyu Baek, Jayne Pawasauskas, Anne L Hume, Shao-Hsien Liu, Kate L Lapane","doi":"10.1111/jgs.19417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>For patients with continued pain while receiving an initial course of a short-acting opioid (SAO), clinicians may intensify the opioid regimen by escalating the SAO dose or initiating a long-acting opioid (LAO). The objective of this study was to assess the comparative safety of opioid intensification regimens in nursing home residents with nonmalignant pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of US long-stay nursing home residents identified from the national Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 and linked Medicare data, 2011-2016. Opioid regimen changes were assessed using Part D claims to identify dose escalation of SAO, adding LAO to SAO, or a switch from SAO to LAO. The outcomes of interest were hospitalized falls/fractures and delirium identified in the MDS or hospitalization. Resident attributes were described by opioid regimen. Hazard ratios of study outcomes were quantified using as-treated (primary analysis) and intent-to-treat (secondary analysis) doubly robust inverse probability of treatment (IPT) weighted Fine & Gray regression models with a competing risk of death.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the as-treated analysis, relative to residents in the SAO escalation cohort, the hazard of delirium was elevated in the LAO cohorts (aHR [LAO switch]: 2.05, 95% CI: 1.57-2.67; aHR [LAO add-on]: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.23-1.96). Results for falls and fractures were inconclusive. We did not observe evidence of an association with falls and fractures in the primary as-treated analysis; however, the intent-to-treat analysis observed increased hazards in the LAO switch cohort relative to the SAO escalation cohort (aHR 2.86, 95% CI:1.64-4.99).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is limited evidence to inform the clinical judgment between escalating the SAO dose or incorporating a LAO. Our study suggests increased risks of delirium in nursing home residents with nonmalignant pain when switching or adding an LAO to the opioid regimen relative to increasing the dose of SAOs.</p>","PeriodicalId":94112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19417","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: For patients with continued pain while receiving an initial course of a short-acting opioid (SAO), clinicians may intensify the opioid regimen by escalating the SAO dose or initiating a long-acting opioid (LAO). The objective of this study was to assess the comparative safety of opioid intensification regimens in nursing home residents with nonmalignant pain.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of US long-stay nursing home residents identified from the national Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 and linked Medicare data, 2011-2016. Opioid regimen changes were assessed using Part D claims to identify dose escalation of SAO, adding LAO to SAO, or a switch from SAO to LAO. The outcomes of interest were hospitalized falls/fractures and delirium identified in the MDS or hospitalization. Resident attributes were described by opioid regimen. Hazard ratios of study outcomes were quantified using as-treated (primary analysis) and intent-to-treat (secondary analysis) doubly robust inverse probability of treatment (IPT) weighted Fine & Gray regression models with a competing risk of death.

Results: In the as-treated analysis, relative to residents in the SAO escalation cohort, the hazard of delirium was elevated in the LAO cohorts (aHR [LAO switch]: 2.05, 95% CI: 1.57-2.67; aHR [LAO add-on]: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.23-1.96). Results for falls and fractures were inconclusive. We did not observe evidence of an association with falls and fractures in the primary as-treated analysis; however, the intent-to-treat analysis observed increased hazards in the LAO switch cohort relative to the SAO escalation cohort (aHR 2.86, 95% CI:1.64-4.99).

Conclusions: There is limited evidence to inform the clinical judgment between escalating the SAO dose or incorporating a LAO. Our study suggests increased risks of delirium in nursing home residents with nonmalignant pain when switching or adding an LAO to the opioid regimen relative to increasing the dose of SAOs.

短效阿片类药物剂量递增与长效阿片类药物起始在养老院居民中的安全性比较。
背景:对于在接受短效阿片类药物(SAO)初始疗程时持续疼痛的患者,临床医生可以通过增加SAO剂量或开始长效阿片类药物(LAO)来加强阿片类药物治疗方案。本研究的目的是评估阿片类药物强化治疗方案在患有非恶性疼痛的养老院居民中的相对安全性。方法:我们对2011-2016年从国家最低数据集(MDS) 3.0和相关医疗保险数据中确定的美国长期养老院居民进行了回顾性队列分析。使用D部分声明评估阿片类药物方案的变化,以确定SAO的剂量递增,将LAO添加到SAO中,或从SAO切换到LAO。关注的结果是住院跌倒/骨折和谵妄在MDS或住院期间确定。以阿片类药物方案描述居民属性。研究结果的风险比使用治疗情况(主要分析)和治疗意向(次要分析)双鲁棒治疗逆概率(IPT)加权Fine & Gray回归模型进行量化,该模型具有竞争死亡风险。结果:在治疗分析中,相对于SAO升级队列中的居民,LAO队列中谵妄的危险升高(aHR [LAO switch]: 2.05, 95% CI: 1.57-2.67;aHR [LAO add-on]: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.23-1.96)。摔倒和骨折的结果尚无定论。在初步治疗分析中,我们没有观察到与跌倒和骨折相关的证据;然而,意向治疗分析发现,与SAO升级组相比,LAO切换组的风险增加(aHR 2.86, 95% CI:1.64-4.99)。结论:临床判断是增加SAO剂量还是合并LAO的证据有限。我们的研究表明,相对于增加SAOs的剂量,在阿片类药物方案中切换或添加LAO时,患有非恶性疼痛的养老院居民谵妄的风险增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信