Malede Berihun Yismaw, Gregory M Peterson, Belayneh Kefale, Woldesellassie M Bezabhe
{"title":"Predictive Models for Identifying Adult Patients at High Risk of Developing Opioid-Related Harms: a Systematic Review.","authors":"Malede Berihun Yismaw, Gregory M Peterson, Belayneh Kefale, Woldesellassie M Bezabhe","doi":"10.1007/s40264-025-01563-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Opioids are the most frequently prescribed medications for managing moderate-to-severe pain and are associated with significant potential for harm. Several models have been developed to predict opioid-related harms (ORHs). This study aimed to describe and evaluate the methodological quality of predictive models for identifying patients at high risk of ORHs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline, we reviewed published studies on developing or validating models for predicting ORHs, identified through a literature search of Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. The quality of studies was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). The models were assessed by area under the curve (AUC) or c-statistic, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive or negative predictive value. The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42024540456).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 36 studies involving participants aged 18 years or older. The frequently modeled ORHs were opioid use disorder (12 studies), opioid overdose (8 studies), opioid-induced respiratory depression (6 studies), and adverse drug events (4 studies). In total, 16 studies (44.4%) developed and validated tools. Most studies measured predictive ability using AUC (31, 86.1%), and some only reported sensitivity (14, 38.9%), specificity (11, 30.6%), or accuracy (4, 11.1%). Of the 31 studies that reported AUC values, 29 (93.5%) had moderate-to-high predictive ability (AUC > 0.70). History of opioid use (66.7%), age (58.3%), comorbidities (41.7%), sex (41.7%), and drug abuse and psychiatric problems (36.1%) were typical factors used in developing models.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The included predictive models showed moderate-to-high discriminative ability for screening patients at risk of ORHs. However, future studies should refine and validate them in various settings before considering the translation into clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":11382,"journal":{"name":"Drug Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-025-01563-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Opioids are the most frequently prescribed medications for managing moderate-to-severe pain and are associated with significant potential for harm. Several models have been developed to predict opioid-related harms (ORHs). This study aimed to describe and evaluate the methodological quality of predictive models for identifying patients at high risk of ORHs.
Methods: Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline, we reviewed published studies on developing or validating models for predicting ORHs, identified through a literature search of Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. The quality of studies was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). The models were assessed by area under the curve (AUC) or c-statistic, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive or negative predictive value. The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42024540456).
Results: We included 36 studies involving participants aged 18 years or older. The frequently modeled ORHs were opioid use disorder (12 studies), opioid overdose (8 studies), opioid-induced respiratory depression (6 studies), and adverse drug events (4 studies). In total, 16 studies (44.4%) developed and validated tools. Most studies measured predictive ability using AUC (31, 86.1%), and some only reported sensitivity (14, 38.9%), specificity (11, 30.6%), or accuracy (4, 11.1%). Of the 31 studies that reported AUC values, 29 (93.5%) had moderate-to-high predictive ability (AUC > 0.70). History of opioid use (66.7%), age (58.3%), comorbidities (41.7%), sex (41.7%), and drug abuse and psychiatric problems (36.1%) were typical factors used in developing models.
Conclusions: The included predictive models showed moderate-to-high discriminative ability for screening patients at risk of ORHs. However, future studies should refine and validate them in various settings before considering the translation into clinical practice.
期刊介绍:
Drug Safety is the official journal of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance. The journal includes:
Overviews of contentious or emerging issues.
Comprehensive narrative reviews that provide an authoritative source of information on epidemiology, clinical features, prevention and management of adverse effects of individual drugs and drug classes.
In-depth benefit-risk assessment of adverse effect and efficacy data for a drug in a defined therapeutic area.
Systematic reviews (with or without meta-analyses) that collate empirical evidence to answer a specific research question, using explicit, systematic methods as outlined by the PRISMA statement.
Original research articles reporting the results of well-designed studies in disciplines such as pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacovigilance, pharmacology and toxicology, and pharmacogenomics.
Editorials and commentaries on topical issues.
Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in Drug Safety Drugs may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.