Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence and clinical correlates of impaired sleep quality and excessive daytime sleepiness among patients receiving methadone for opioid use disorder (OUD). METHODS:Patients receiving methadone (n = 164) completed surveys assessing sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index [PSQI]), daytime sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale [ESS]), and related comorbidities. We used bivariate and multivariable linear regression models to evaluate correlates of sleep quality and daytime sleepiness. RESULTS:Ninety percent of patients had poor sleep quality (PSQI >5), and the mean PSQI was high (11.0 ±4). Forty-six percent reported excessive daytime sleepiness (ESS > 10). In multivariable analyses, higher PSQI (worse sleep quality) was significantly associated with pain interference (coefficient = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.18-0.62; β = 0.31), somatization (coefficient = 2.2; 95% CI = 0.75-3.6; β = 0.26), and negatively associated with employment (coefficient = - 2.6; 95% CI = - 4.9 to - 0.19; β = - 0.17). Greater sleepiness was significantly associated with body mass index (coefficient = 0.32; 95% CI = 0.18-0.46; β = 0.33), and there was a non-significant association between sleepiness and current chronic pain (coefficient = 1.6; 95% CI = 0.26-3.5; β = 0.13; p value = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS:Poor sleep quality and excessive daytime sleepiness are common in patients receiving methadone for OUD. Chronic pain, somatization, employment status, and obesity are potentially modifiable risk factors for sleep problems for individuals maintained on methadone. People with OUD receiving methadone should be routinely and promptly evaluated and treated for sleep disorders.

Sleep disruption caused by obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) may be associated with hyperalgesia and may contribute to poor pain control and use of prescription opioids. However, the relationship between OSA and opioid prescription is not well described. We examine this association using cross-sectional data from a national cohort of veterans from recent wars enrolled from October 1, 2001 to October 7, 2014. The primary outcome was the relative risk ratio (RRR) of receiving opioid prescriptions for acute (<90 days/year) and chronic (≥90 days/year) durations compared with no opioid prescriptions. The primary exposure was a diagnosis of OSA. We used multinomial logistic regression to control for factors that may affect diagnosis of OSA or receipt of opioid prescriptions. Of the 1,149,874 patients (mean age 38.0 ± 9.6 years) assessed, 88.1% had no opioid prescriptions, 9.4% had acute prescriptions, and 2.5% had chronic prescriptions. Ten percent had a diagnosis of OSA. Patients with OSA were more likely to be older, male, nonwhite, obese, current or former smokers, have higher pain intensity, and have medical and psychiatric comorbidities. Controlling for these differences, patients with OSA were more likely to receive acute (RRR 2.02 [95% confidence interval 1.98-2.06]) or chronic (RRR 2.15 [2.09-2.22]) opioids. Further dividing opioid categories by high vs low dosage did not yield substantially different results. Obstructive sleep apnea is associated with a two-fold likelihood of being prescribed opioids for pain. Clinicians should consider incorporating OSA treatment into multimodal pain management strategies; OSA as a target for pain management should be further studied.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) effectively prevent recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, it is unknown which agents should be used to prevent recurrent VTE and which patients with unprovoked VTE should receive extended anticoagulation. We therefore sought to compare the efficacy and safety among DOACs for secondary prevention of VTE. We also determined a risk-adapted threshold for initiating extended anticoagulation based on the likelihood of VTE recurrence (without treatment) and bleeding (with treatment) in patients with unprovoked VTE. METHODS:Our systematic review of randomized controlled trials compares extended anticoagulation with DOACs to another DOAC, aspirin, or placebo for the prevention of recurrent VTE. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in October 2018. Our outcomes of interest were VTE recurrence, major bleeding, and all clinically relevant bleeding. We used network meta-analysis to make indirect comparisons among DOACs. We populated the threshold decision-analytic model with data from our meta-analysis to determine the risk of VTE recurrence above which the benefits of extended anticoagulation outweigh the harms compared with no treatment. RESULTS:We included four, high-quality, randomized trials comprising 8386 participants. Low-dose apixaban, full-dose apixaban, low-dose rivaroxaban, full-dose rivaroxaban, and dabigatran reduce VTE recurrence compared with placebo (RR = 0.19, 95% CI, 0.12-0.31; RR = 0.20, 95% CI, 0.12-0.32; RR = 0.08, 95% CI, 0.03-0.27; RR = 0.14, 95% CI, 0.06-0.35; RR = 0.19, 95% CI, 0.09-0.40, respectively). No DOACs increased major bleeding risk compared with placebo. A VTE recurrence risk above 0.3% to 0.4% at approximately 1 year is the threshold to treat a patient with unprovoked VTE with extended anticoagulation (with any DOAC). CONCLUSIONS:All DOACs exhibit comparable efficacy for the prevention of recurrent VTE. Given that the risk of VTE recurrence is much higher than the calculated threshold for treatment, extended thromboprophylaxis should be considered in all patients with unprovoked VTE who do not have increased bleeding risk.

Student-run clinics are settings in which learners are empowered to design service delivery. Despite shared challenges faced by these clinics in improving clinical and educational programming, information exchange and collaboration between clinics of different institutions and professions are inefficiently facilitated by existing platforms. An abridged, one-hour hackathon event was piloted at the Society of Student-Run Free Clinics' 2018 Annual Conference. During the event, interprofessional teams were guided through defining a problem, ideating and prototyping possible solutions, and sharing them with the larger group. There were 23 participants representing 16 institutions and 5 professions; most had never discussed their clinic's problems with members of other institutions before. Teams generated novel ideas that culminated from a combination of existing local best practices or focused on developing infrastructure between clinics. Feedback of the event was positive; participants felt confident to design and implement solutions and collaborate with other clinics after the event. The abridged hackathon shows promise to facilitate communication and innovation among diverse groups across institutions.