A Novel Prescription Method Reduces Postoperative Opioid Distribution and Consumption: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

The Hand Pub Date : 2023-11-01 Epub Date: 2022-06-03 DOI:10.1177/15589447221096709
John M Yanik, Natalie A Glass, Lindsey S Caldwell, Joseph A Buckwalter V, Timothy P Fowler, Ericka A Lawler
{"title":"A Novel Prescription Method Reduces Postoperative Opioid Distribution and Consumption: A Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"John M Yanik, Natalie A Glass, Lindsey S Caldwell, Joseph A Buckwalter V, Timothy P Fowler, Ericka A Lawler","doi":"10.1177/15589447221096709","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prescription opioid abuse in the United States has risen substantially over the past 2 decades. Narcotic prescription refill restrictions may paradoxically be contributing to this epidemic. We investigated a novel, refill-based opioid prescription method to determine whether it would alter postoperative narcotic distribution or consumption.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this randomized controlled trial, patients undergoing internal fixation of distal radius fractures or thumb carpometacarpal joint arthroplasty received either a single prescription for all postoperative narcotics (control arm) or the same amount of pain medication divided into 3 equal prescriptions to be filled as needed (experimental arm). Outcomes included total narcotics dispensed, measured in morphine milligram equivalents (MME) through a prescription monitoring program, patient-reported opioid consumption versus opioid not consumed, and a satisfaction survey.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-eight participants were enrolled; 25 were randomized to the control arm and 23 to the experimental arm. At 8 weeks post-op, fewer opioids had been dispensed to the experimental arm (177 ± 94 vs 287 ± 123 MME, <i>P</i> = .0025). At 6-week follow-up, the experimental arm reported lower narcotic consumption (124 ± 105 vs 214 ± 110 MME, <i>P</i> = .0131). Subanalysis of the independent surgeries yielded similar results. Some patients reported insurance issues when filling subsequent prescriptions. Consequently, although 100% of control arm patients reported good pain control, only 82.6% of experimental arm patients said likewise (<i>P</i> = .0455).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This randomized clinical trial demonstrated that patients obtained and consumed fewer narcotics when postoperative opioids were given in a refill-based prescription method. More research is needed to determine whether this opioid distribution method is reproducible, translatable, and feasible.</p>","PeriodicalId":76630,"journal":{"name":"The Hand","volume":"1 1","pages":"1314-1322"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10617470/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Hand","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15589447221096709","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/6/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Prescription opioid abuse in the United States has risen substantially over the past 2 decades. Narcotic prescription refill restrictions may paradoxically be contributing to this epidemic. We investigated a novel, refill-based opioid prescription method to determine whether it would alter postoperative narcotic distribution or consumption.

Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, patients undergoing internal fixation of distal radius fractures or thumb carpometacarpal joint arthroplasty received either a single prescription for all postoperative narcotics (control arm) or the same amount of pain medication divided into 3 equal prescriptions to be filled as needed (experimental arm). Outcomes included total narcotics dispensed, measured in morphine milligram equivalents (MME) through a prescription monitoring program, patient-reported opioid consumption versus opioid not consumed, and a satisfaction survey.

Results: Forty-eight participants were enrolled; 25 were randomized to the control arm and 23 to the experimental arm. At 8 weeks post-op, fewer opioids had been dispensed to the experimental arm (177 ± 94 vs 287 ± 123 MME, P = .0025). At 6-week follow-up, the experimental arm reported lower narcotic consumption (124 ± 105 vs 214 ± 110 MME, P = .0131). Subanalysis of the independent surgeries yielded similar results. Some patients reported insurance issues when filling subsequent prescriptions. Consequently, although 100% of control arm patients reported good pain control, only 82.6% of experimental arm patients said likewise (P = .0455).

Conclusions: This randomized clinical trial demonstrated that patients obtained and consumed fewer narcotics when postoperative opioids were given in a refill-based prescription method. More research is needed to determine whether this opioid distribution method is reproducible, translatable, and feasible.

一种减少术后阿片类药物分布和消耗的新处方方法:一项随机临床试验。
背景美国处方类阿片类药物滥用在过去20年中大幅上升。矛盾的是,麻醉药品处方补充限制可能助长了这种流行病。我们研究了一种新的、基于补充的阿片类药物处方方法,以确定它是否会改变术后麻醉药品的分布或消耗。方法在这项随机对照试验中,接受桡骨远端骨折内固定术或拇指-腕掌关节置换术的患者接受了所有术后麻醉剂的单一处方(对照组)或相同量的止痛药,分为3个相等的处方,根据需要进行填充(实验组)。结果包括通过处方监测计划以吗啡毫克当量(MME)计量的总麻醉药品分配量、患者报告的阿片类药物消费量与未消费的阿片样药物消费量以及满意度调查。结果共有八名参与者被纳入研究;25人随机分配到对照组,23人随机分配给实验组。术后8周,给实验组分配的阿片类药物较少(177±94 vs 287±123 MME,P=0.0025)。在6周的随访中,实验组报告的麻醉剂消耗量较低(124±105 vs 214±110 MME,P=.0131)。对独立手术的亚分析得出了类似的结果。一些患者在开具后续处方时报告了保险问题。因此,尽管100%的对照组患者报告疼痛控制良好,但只有82.6%的实验组患者表示疼痛控制良好(P=.0455)。结论:该随机临床试验表明,当术后使用基于补充的处方方法给药阿片类药物时,患者获得和消耗的麻醉剂更少。需要更多的研究来确定这种阿片类药物分配方法是否可重复、可翻译和可行。
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
×
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