Does the Stopping Opioids After Surgery Score Perform Well Among Racial and Socioeconomic Subgroups?

BACKGROUND

The Stopping Opioids After Surgery (SOS) score is a validated tool that was developed to determine the risk of sustained opioid use after surgical interventions, including orthopaedic procedures. Despite prior investigations validating the SOS score in diverse contexts, its performance across racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic subgroups has not been assessed.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In a large, urban, academic health network, did the performance of the SOS score differ depending on (1) race and ethnicity or (2) socioeconomic status?

METHODS

This retrospective investigation was conducted using data from an internal, longitudinally maintained registry of a large, urban, academic health system in the Northeastern United States. Between January 1, 2018, and March 31, 2022, we treated 26,732 adult patients via rotator cuff repair, lumbar discectomy, lumbar fusion, TKA, THA, ankle or distal radius open reduction and internal fixation, or ACL reconstruction. We excluded 1% of patients (274 of 26,732) because of missing length of stay information, 0.06% (15) for missing discharge information, 1% (310) for missing medication information related to loss to follow-up, and 0.07% (19) who died during their hospital stay. Based on these inclusion and exclusion criteria, 26,114 adult patients were left for analysis. The median age in our cohort was 63 years (IQR 52 to 71), and most patients were women (52% [13,462 of 26,114]). Most patients self-reported their race and ethnicity as non-Hispanic White (78% [20,408 of 26,114]), but the cohort also included non-Hispanic Black (4% [939]), non-Hispanic Asian (2% [638]), and Hispanic (1% [365]) patients. Five percent (1295) of patients were of low socioeconomic status, defined by prior SOS score investigations as patients with Medicaid insurance. Components of the SOS score and the observed frequency of sustained postoperative opioid prescriptions were abstracted. The performance of the SOS score was compared across racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic subgroups using the c-statistic, which measures the capacity of the model to differentiate between patients with and without sustained opioid use. This measure should be interpreted on a scale between 0 and 1, where 0 represents a model that perfectly predicts the wrong classification, 0.5 represents performance no better than chance, and 1.0 represents perfect discrimination. Scores less than 0.7 are generally considered poor. The baseline performance of the SOS score in past investigations has ranged from 0.76 to 0.80.

RESULTS

The c-statistic for non-Hispanic White patients was 0.79 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.81), which fell within the range of past investigations. The SOS score performed worse for Hispanic patients (c-statistic 0.66 [95% CI 0.52 to 0.79]; p < 0.001), where it tended to overestimate patients' risks of sustained opioid use. The SOS score for non-Hispanic Asian patients did not perform worse than in the White patient population (c-statistic 0.79 [95% CI 0.67 to 0.90]; p = 0.65). Similarly, the degree of overlapping CIs suggests that the SOS score did not perform worse in the non-Hispanic Black population (c-statistic 0.75 [95% CI 0.69 to 0.81]; p = 0.003). There was no difference in score performance among socioeconomic groups (c-statistic 0.79 [95% CI 0.74 to 0.83] for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients; 0.78 [95% CI 0.77 to 0.80] for patients who were not socioeconomically disadvantaged; p = 0.92).

CONCLUSION

The SOS score performed adequately for non-Hispanic White patients but performed worse for Hispanic patients, where the 95% CI nearly included an area under the curve value of 0.5, suggesting that the tool is no better than chance at predicting sustained opioid use for Hispanic patients. In the Hispanic population, it commonly overestimated the risk of opioid dependence. Its performance did not differ among patients of different sociodemographic backgrounds. Future studies might seek to contextualize why the SOS score overestimates expected opioid prescriptions for Hispanic patients and how the utility performs among more specific Hispanic subgroups.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The SOS score is a valuable tool in ongoing efforts to combat the opioid epidemic; however, disparities exist in terms of its clinical applicability. Based on this analysis, the SOS score should not be used for Hispanic patients. Additionally, we provide a framework for how other predictive models should be tested in various lesser-represented populations before implementation.