Picco Louisa, Jung Monica, Cangadis-Douglass Helena, Lam Tina, Nielsen Suzanne
Monash Addiction Research Centre, Peninsula Campus, Monash University, 47-49 Moorooduc Hwy Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia.
Centre for Medicine Use and Safety (CMUS), Parkville Campus, Monash University, 381 Royal Parade Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia.
Pharmacy (Basel). 2023 Oct 13;11(5):164. doi: 10.3390/pharmacy11050164.
Pharmacists adopt various approaches to identifying prescription-opioid-related risks and harms, including prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) and clinical screening tools. This study aims to compare 'at-risk' patients according to the published Australian PDMP algorithms with the validated Routine Opioid Outcome Monitoring (ROOM) clinical screening tool.
Data were used from an implementation study amongst people who had been prescribed regular opioids. We examined the results from ROOM and the patients' dispensing history over the previous 90 days. A chi-squared test was used to examine the association between risk according to (i) a PDMP alert and a clinical risk per ROOM; (ii) a PDMP alert and positive screening for opioid use disorder; and (iii) a PDMP 'high-dose' alert (average of >100 mg OME/day in the past 90 days) and any ROOM-validated risk.
No significant associations were found between being 'at-risk' according to any of the PDMP alerts and clinical risk as identified via the ROOM tool (x = 0.094, = 0.759). There was only minimal overlap between those identified as 'at-risk' via PDMP alerts and those meeting the clinical risk indicators; most patients who were 'at-risk' of clinical opioid-related risk factors were not identified as 'at-risk' based on PDMP alerts.
PDMP alerts were not predictive of clinical risk (as per the ROOM tool), as many people with well-established clinical risks would not receive a PDMP alert. Pharmacists should be aware that PDMPs are limited to identifying medication-related risks which are derived using algorithms; therefore, augmenting PDMP information with clinical screening tools can help create a more detailed narrative of patients' opioid-related risks.
药剂师采用多种方法来识别与处方类阿片相关的风险和危害,包括处方药监测计划(PDMPs)和临床筛查工具。本研究旨在根据已公布的澳大利亚PDMP算法,将“有风险”的患者与经过验证的常规阿片类药物结果监测(ROOM)临床筛查工具进行比较。
数据来自一项针对开具常规阿片类药物患者的实施研究。我们检查了ROOM的结果以及患者过去90天的配药历史。采用卡方检验来检查以下各项风险之间的关联:(i)PDMP警报与每个ROOM的临床风险;(ii)PDMP警报与阿片类药物使用障碍的阳性筛查;(iii)PDMP“高剂量”警报(过去90天内平均每天>100毫克口服吗啡当量)与任何经ROOM验证的风险。
根据任何PDMP警报判定为“有风险”与通过ROOM工具识别的临床风险之间未发现显著关联(χ² = 0.094,P = 0.759)。通过PDMP警报判定为“有风险”的患者与符合临床风险指标的患者之间只有极小的重叠;大多数存在临床阿片类药物相关风险因素“有风险”的患者并未基于PDMP警报被判定为“有风险”。
PDMP警报不能预测临床风险(如根据ROOM工具),因为许多有明确临床风险的人不会收到PDMP警报。药剂师应意识到,PDMP仅限于识别使用算法得出的与药物相关的风险;因此,用临床筛查工具补充PDMP信息有助于更详细地描述患者与阿片类药物相关的风险。