Literature DB >> 26352991

Variability in Opioid Equivalence Calculations.

Amanda Rennick1, Timothy Atkinson2, Nina M Cimino3, Scott A Strassels4, Mary Lynn McPherson3, Jeffrey Fudin5,6,7.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Equianalgesic conversion methods are commonly used to switch patients from one opioid to another due to suboptimal pain relief or adverse events. There is no universally accepted opioid conversion method, however, and there is often significant variability between conversion resources. As a result, patients are at risk for undertreated pain and serious adverse events. The purpose of this survey was to compare the equianalgesic conversion estimates between nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and physicians for commonly prescribed opioids.
METHODS: A survey form was developed using Survey Monkey. Participation was solicited by providing a link to the survey via social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.) and emailing professional organizations for sharing with their members and followers. Data collected included demographics and estimated morphine equivalents (MEQs) of hydrocodone 80 mg, fentanyl transdermal patches 1,800 mcg (as 75 mcg/hour), methadone 40 mg, oxycodone 120 mg, and hydromorphone 48 mg. Participants were also asked to provide their choice of reference utilized to complete the conversions, including personal knowledge. Descriptive analyses were performed using measures of central tendency. Hypothesis testing was performed using Pearson's chi-squared and Fisher's Exact Test for categorical data and the Kruskal-Wallis equality of populations rank test for continuous data to assess differences between median opioid doses by professional groups.
RESULTS: The total number of respondents included in the analysis was 319. Physicians, pharmacists, and nurse practitioners/physician assistants comprised 25.4%, 56.7%, and 16.3%, respectively, of respondents. The overall mean (± standard deviation) MEQ doses for fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, and oxycodone were: 176 (±117) mg, 88 (±42) mg, 192 (±55) mg, 193 (±201) mg, and 173 (±39) mg, respectively. For fentanyl, the mean (±standard deviation) MEQ doses were 180 (±122) mg, 178 (±128) mg, and 157 (±68) mg, for physicians, pharmacists, and nurse practitioners/physician assistants, respectively. For all three groups of clinicians, the median MEQ dose for fentanyl was 150 mg. The mean (±standard deviation) MEQ doses of methadone for physicians, pharmacists, and nurse practitioners/physician assistants were: 214 (±142) mg, 171 (±107) mg, and 185 (±129) mg, respectively. The median MEQ dose for methadone was 160 mg for each of the clinician groups.
CONCLUSIONS: As evidenced by large standard deviations, there was significant variation in mean opioid conversions to MEQ doses within each profession type, particularly for fentanyl and methadone. The median MEQ doses provided for opioid conversions were the same among each profession. No universal method exists that allows each of the five studied opioids to be accurately and consistently converted to another opioid (i.e., morphine). Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Conversion; Equivalence; Opioid; Variability

Year:  2015        PMID: 26352991     DOI: 10.1111/pme.12920

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain Med        ISSN: 1526-2375            Impact factor:   3.750


  19 in total

Review 1.  Labeling Morphine Milligram Equivalents on Opioid Packaging: a Potential Patient Safety Intervention.

Authors:  Alexander B Stone; Richard D Urman; Alan D Kaye; Michael C Grant
Journal:  Curr Pain Headache Rep       Date:  2018-05-31

2.  Analyzing Analgesic Medications in Community-Dwelling Older Adults.

Authors:  Ann L Horgas; Urszula Snigurska; Michelle Z Farland; Michael Marsiske
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 3.750

3.  Effect of an opioid management program for Colorado workers' compensation providers on adherence to treatment guidelines for chronic pain.

Authors:  Liliana Tenney; Lisa M McKenzie; Brenden Matus; Kathryn Mueller; Lee S Newman
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  2018-11-30       Impact factor: 2.214

Review 4.  Methadone as anticancer treatment: hype, hope, or hazard? : A series of case reports and a short review of the current literature and recommendations of the societies.

Authors:  Gudrun Kreye; Eva-Katharina Masel; Klaus Hackner; Beate Stich; Friedemann Nauck
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2018-02-19

5.  Medicate or Meditate? Greater Pain Acceptance is Related to Lower Pain Medication Use in Persons With Chronic Pain and Spinal Cord Injury.

Authors:  Anna L Kratz; John F Murphy; Claire Z Kalpakjian; Philip Chen
Journal:  Clin J Pain       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 3.442

6.  Opioid use among Danish patients with severe knee osteoarthritis: a drug utilization study.

Authors:  Matilde Lundberg; Melker Staffan Johansson; Jens Søndergaard; Jonas Bloch Thorlund
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2022-06-13       Impact factor: 3.064

7.  Opioid-Free Anesthesia in Bariatric Surgery: a Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Authors:  Alessandro Torre; Michele Marengo; Nicola S Ledingham; Costanza Ajani; Francesco Volontè; Fabio Garofalo; Francesco Mongelli
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2022-03-16       Impact factor: 3.479

8.  Multimodal Pain Management Protocol Versus Patient Controlled Narcotic Analgesia for Postoperative Pain Control after Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Thema Nicholson; Mitchell Maltenfort; Charles Getz; Mark Lazarus; Gerald Williams; Surena Namdari
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2018-05

9.  Using Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Data to Assess Likelihood of Incident Long-Term Opioid Use: a Statewide Cohort Study.

Authors:  Stephen G Henry; Susan L Stewart; Eryn Murphy; Iraklis Erik Tseregounis; Andrew J Crawford; Aaron B Shev; James J Gasper; Daniel J Tancredi; Magdalena Cerdá; Brandon D L Marshall; Garen J Wintemute
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  The MEDD myth: the impact of pseudoscience on pain research and prescribing-guideline development.

Authors:  Jeffrey Fudin; Jacqueline Pratt Cleary; Michael E Schatman
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2016-03-23       Impact factor: 3.133

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.