Suppr超能文献

阿片类药物管理:快速综述

Opioid Stewardship: Rapid Review

作者信息

Waldfogel Julie M., Rosen Michael, Sharma Ritu, Zhang Allen, Bass Eric B., Dy Sydney M.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Opioid stewardship interventions promote the appropriate use of prescribed and ordered opioids to reduce the risk of opioid adverse events. Our main objectives were to determine the effectiveness of these interventions in healthcare settings on opioid prescribing and clinical outcomes (e.g., number of opioid prescriptions, opioid dosage, overdose, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations) including unintended consequences (e.g., changes in patient-reported pain intensity), and ways these interventions can be effectively implemented.

METHODS

We followed rapid review processes of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center Program. We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library to identify eligible systematic reviews from January 2019 to April 2023 and primary studies published from January 2016 to April 2023, supplemented by targeted gray literature searches. We included systematic reviews and studies that addressed opioid stewardship interventions implemented in healthcare settings in the United States and that reported on opioid prescribing and clinical outcomes.

FINDINGS

Our search retrieved 6,431 citations, of which 34 articles were eligible (including 1 overview of systematic reviews, 13 additional systematic reviews, 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [reported in 14 articles] and 6 nonrandomized studies). Systematic reviews, mostly summarizing pre-post studies, included a wide variety of opioid stewardship practices that focused on patient and family engagement, healthcare organization policy, or clinician knowledge and behavior interventions, in inpatient, perioperative, emergency department, and ambulatory settings. RCTs addressed multicomponent interventions (typically a combination of prescriber education, care management and facilitated access to resources), and patient education and engagement, mainly in ambulatory chronic pain. Opioid stewardship practices involving clinical decision support or electronic health records, or multicomponent interventions (including for chronic pain) were associated with decreases in opioid prescribing or reduced doses and no increases in pain, emergency department visits, or hospitalizations (low strength of evidence for all outcomes). Patient engagement and education interventions had mixed results for opioid prescribing outcomes (insufficient strength of evidence) and no increases in pain, emergency department visits, or hospitalizations (low strength of evidence). The evidence was insufficient on other types of interventions and on outcomes of opioid refill requests and refills, patient satisfaction, or overdose. Barriers included lack of training, workload, gaps in communication, and inadequate access to nonpharmacological resources. Facilitators included clinician and patient acceptance of intervention components.

CONCLUSIONS

Selected opioid stewardship interventions may be effective for reducing opioid prescribing and dosing without adversely affecting clinical outcomes overall, although strength of evidence was low. Unintended consequences were often not measured or not measured rigorously. Interventions to reduce opioid use should monitor unintended consequences and include access to nonpharmacological pain management resources with appropriate patient education and engagement.

摘要

目标

阿片类药物管理干预措施可促进合理使用处方和医嘱阿片类药物,以降低阿片类药物不良事件的风险。我们的主要目标是确定这些干预措施在医疗环境中对阿片类药物处方和临床结局(如阿片类药物处方数量、阿片类药物剂量、过量用药、急诊就诊和住院)的有效性,包括意外后果(如患者报告的疼痛强度变化),以及这些干预措施能够有效实施的方式。

方法

我们遵循了医疗保健研究与质量机构循证实践中心计划的快速审查流程。我们检索了PubMed和Cochrane图书馆,以识别2019年1月至2023年4月符合条件的系统评价,以及2016年1月至2023年4月发表的原始研究,并辅以针对性的灰色文献检索。我们纳入了涉及在美国医疗环境中实施的阿片类药物管理干预措施且报告了阿片类药物处方和临床结局的系统评价和研究。

结果

我们的检索共获得6431条引文,其中34篇文章符合条件(包括1篇系统评价概述、13篇其他系统评价、13项随机对照试验(RCT)[在14篇文章中报告]和6项非随机研究)。系统评价大多总结前后对照研究,包括各种阿片类药物管理实践,这些实践侧重于患者和家属参与、医疗机构政策或临床医生知识与行为干预,涉及住院、围手术期、急诊和门诊环境。RCT主要针对多成分干预措施(通常是处方医生教育、护理管理和便利获取资源的组合)以及患者教育和参与,主要用于门诊慢性疼痛。涉及临床决策支持或电子健康记录的阿片类药物管理实践,或多成分干预措施(包括慢性疼痛的干预措施)与阿片类药物处方减少或剂量降低相关,且疼痛、急诊就诊或住院没有增加(所有结局的证据强度低)。患者参与和教育干预措施在阿片类药物处方结局方面结果不一(证据强度不足),且疼痛、急诊就诊或住院没有增加(证据强度低)。关于其他类型的干预措施以及阿片类药物续方请求和续方、患者满意度或过量用药的结局,证据不足。障碍包括缺乏培训、工作量、沟通差距以及无法充分获取非药物资源。促进因素包括临床医生和患者对干预措施组成部分的接受。

结论

尽管证据强度较低,但所选的阿片类药物管理干预措施可能有效减少阿片类药物处方和剂量,且总体上不会对临床结局产生不利影响。意外后果往往未被测量或未得到严格测量。减少阿片类药物使用的干预措施应监测意外后果,并包括提供非药物疼痛管理资源以及适当的患者教育和参与。

相似文献

8
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验