Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Jun 4;19(6):e0304100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304100

The persistent benefits of decreasing default pill counts for postoperative narcotic prescriptions

Nathan Coppersmith 1,*,#, Joshua Sznol 1,#, Andrew Esposito 1, Emily Flom 1, Alexander Chiu 2, Peter Yoo 3
Editor: Guilherme Antonio Moreira de Barros4
PMCID: PMC11149874  PMID: 38833500

Abstract

Background

In 2017, a university-based academic healthcare system changed the opioid default pill count from 30 to 12 pills. Modifying the electronic default pill count influences short-term clinician prescribing practices. We sought to understand the long-term impact on postoperative opioid prescribing habits after an opioid default pill count reduction.

Materials and methods

A retrospective electronic medical record system (EMRS) review was conducted in a healthcare system comprised of seven affiliated hospitals. Patients who underwent a surgical procedure and were prescribed an opioid on discharge between 2017–2021 were evaluated. All prescriptions were converted into morphine equivalents (MME). Analyses were performed with the chi-square test and Bonferonni adjusted t-test.

Results

191,379 surgical procedures were studied. The average quantity of opioids prescribed decreased from 32 oxycodone 5 mg tablets in 2017 to 21 oxycodone 5 mg tablets in 2021 (236 MME to 154 MME, p<0.001). The percentage of patients obtaining a refill within 90 days of surgery varied between 18.3% and 19.9% (p<0.001). Patients with a pre-existing opioid prescription and opioid-naïve patients both had significant reductions in prescription quantities above the default MME (79.7% to 60.6% vs. 65.3% to 36.9%, p<0.001). There was no significant change in refills for both groups (pre-existing 36.7% to 38.3% (p = 0.1) vs naïve 15.0% to 15.3% (p = 0.29)).

Conclusions

The benefits of decreasing the default opioid pill count continue to accumulate long after the original change. Physician uptake of small changes to default EMRS practices represents a sustainable and effective intervention to reduce the quantities of postoperative opioids prescribed without deleterious effects on outpatient opiate requirements.

Introduction

Prior research has demonstrated variable and excessive opioid prescribing habits after general surgery procedures [1]. Further work has revealed that the risk of patients developing new persistent opioid use disorder after surgery is increased with the size of opioid prescription [2]. In an effort to reduce the volume of unnecessary and problematic opioid prescriptions, multiple studies have demonstrated that decreasing the auto-populated default number of pills to be prescribed in the electronic medical record system (EMRS) leads to decreased opioid prescription quantities [3, 4].

Decreasing quantities of opioids prescribed after surgery raised concerns about adequacy of analgesia and the clerical burden of refilling inadequate prescriptions. However, it has been established that despite reductions in the size of opioid prescriptions after a default change, there have not been significant increases in the prescription refill rates and no changes in the proportion of patients who reported using half or less of the total opioids prescribed [3, 5]. Additional work evaluating outcomes has not found a relationship between patient satisfaction after surgery and opioid prescription size, and there were similar levels of high satisfaction when patients who were prescribed opioids after surgery were compared to those who were not prescribed any opioids [6, 7]. Together, this evidence supports the minimization of postoperative opioid prescriptions without causing deleterious effects on patient postoperative pain control.

Multiple national and state level measures have been introduced to address the opioid use epidemic [8, 9]. Efforts to reduce the opioid epidemic from a policy level have had mixed results, but guideline and policy implementations were noted to reduce opioid prescription use by 15% and reduce multiple-provider episodes by up to 62%. Overall, the daily dose of opioid prescriptions decreased by 16.9% from 2010 to 2015 [10]. However, the total amount of opioids prescribed in 2015 was still three times higher than in 1999 [10] and recent clinical management pathways have sought to reduce or eliminate opioid medications from postoperative care when appropriate [11].

The three-month impact of an EMRS default change from thirty pills to twelve pills in a large academic health system comprising both independent and academic centers was previously studied by Chiu et al. and showed a significant reduction in postoperative opioid prescriptions after the default change without a concurrent increase in refills [3]. That study examined patients undergoing the ten most common operations across the healthcare system who were discharged by postoperative day 1. However, the long-term impact of this same, or any, default pill count change on prescribing practices over multiple years has not been examined. Therefore, it is not clear if a default pill count change represents an intervention that produces long-term effects towards reducing excessive opioid prescribing practices, or if prescribing practices regress over time back to habits that existed prior to the intervention. In this study, we evaluated the long-term effects of modifying opioid defaults in a large academic health system comprising both independent and academic centers.

Materials and methods

The default pill count was changed in the EMRS from 30 to 12 pills in May 2017. 12 pills was chosen at the time in order to provide a 5 mg oxycodone immediate relief tablet every six hours for three days. All patients who underwent a surgical procedure and were prescribed an opioid on discharge regardless of discharge date between May 2017 and December 2021 were evaluated in a retrospective review at a large academic health system comprising seven independent and academic hospitals. Both inpatient and outpatient surgeries were included. Opioid prescriptions included all formulations that contained codeine, hydrocodone, hydromorphone HCl, morphine sulfate, oxycodone, and tramadol HCl. Demographics, surgical procedure, admissions characteristics, active outpatient narcotic prescriptions, and refills within 90 days of discharge were obtained. A 90-day refill cut-off was chosen to coincide with the Federal Controlled Substances Act [12]. The data were accessed for research purposes on May 9, 2022 and July 17, 2022. The raw data were pulled from the electronic medical record system by the university data analytics team in accordance with university policy. This study was deemed exempt by the Yale University Institutional Review Board. The Yale University Institutional Review Board waived the requirement for informed consent for this study. The authors had access to information that could identify participants during data collection and the data was anonymized for analysis.

All prescriptions were converted into morphine equivalents (MME) using the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention morphine milligram equivalent doses [13]. Prescriber narcotic patterns were categorized as above, equal to, or below the default MME (90 MME). The default of 90 MME is equivalent to 12 oxycodone 5 mg immediate-release tablets. Patients were categorized as opiate naïve if they did not have an active outpatient opiate prescription on admission. Univariate statistics were calculated for the sample. Comparisons between opioid naive status, prescription year, and prescriber pattern were compared with chi-square analysis. Comparisons between each year were performed with a Bonferonni adjusted t-test. SAS Enterprise version 9.4 was used for statistical analyses.

Results

Demographics

Between May 2017 to December 2021, 191,379 surgical procedures were studied. The patient demographics are provided in Table 1. Patients were discharged home or to hospice after 91.7% of the procedures. 17.95% of patients had a pre-existing opioid prescription.

Table 1. Patient demographics.

Percent of Patients (N = 191,379)
Age
Average 51.1 years (±19.6)
Gender
Female 59.8% (114,411)
Male 40.2% (79,968)
Length of Stay
Average 2.7 days (±6.02)
Discharge Disposition
Home/Hospice 91.7% (175,206)
Against Medical Advice 0.04% (81)
Other Healthcare 8.3% (15,786)
Race
American Indian or Alaska Native 0.3% (583)
Asian 2.1% (3,913)
Black or African American 14.1% (27,015)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.2% (464)
Other 12.9% (24,691)
White or Caucasian 70.4% (134,672)
Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino 15.6% (29,498)
Non-Hispanic 84.4% (159,652)
Prior Opioid Use
Opioid Naïve 82.1% (157,027)
Pre-existing Opioid Prescription 17.95% (34,352)

Impact of default change

From 2017–2021, the average MME of opioids prescribed on discharge decreased from 236 to 154 (p<0.001) (Fig 1). In terms of 5 mg oxycodone immediate-release tablets, this translates to a decrease from an average prescriptions size of 32 oxycodone tablets in 2017 to an average prescription size of 21 oxycodone tablets in 2021. Additionally, the proportion of opioids prescribed greater than the default MME decreased from 67.9% in 2017 to 41.6% in 2021, the proportion prescribed at the default increased from 14.2% to 23.8%, and the proportion prescribed below the default increased from 17.8% to 34.6% (p<0.001) (Fig 2).

Fig 1. Mean postoperative opioid quanities prescribed.

Fig 1

The mean postoperative opioid quantity prescribed (MME) from 2017–2021 compared to the default opioid quantity (MME), * = p<0.001.

Fig 2. Comparing quantities of postoperative opioids prescribed.

Fig 2

The percent of postoperative opioid prescriptions at the default MME, higher than the default MME, lower than the default MME, and resulting in refills from 2017–2021, * = p<0.001.

The percentage of patients over the five years obtaining a refill within 90 days of surgery varied between 18.3% and 19.9% (Table 2), (p<0.001). The average number of patients with prior opioid prescriptions also varied by year, ranging from 16.3% to 19.8% (p<0.001).

Table 2. The raw quantities of 90-day opioid refills and the 90-day refills as a percentage of total annual prescriptions.

Year Raw Quantity of 90-Day Refills 90-Day Refills as a Percentage of Total Prescriptions
2017 6,223 19.0%
2018 8,285 18.8%
2019 7,672 18.3%
2020 6,564 19.2%
2021 7,616 19.9%

Opioid naïve versus pre-existing opioid prescription patients

A subgroup analysis of patients with a pre-existing opioid prescription compared to opioid-naïve patients showed that both groups had significant reductions over this time period in prescription quantities above the default MME (79.7% to 60.6% vs. 65.3% to 36.9%, p<0.001) (Table 3). This decrease in prescriptions greater than the default quantity was matched with significant increases in prescriptions at or below the default quantity (Table 3). Despite the reduction in overall prescription size, patients with a pre-existing opioid prescription were consistently prescribed higher quantities of opioids compared to opioid-naïve patients.

Table 3. Opioid prescription size relative to the default quantity between patients who had a pre-existing opioid prescription (prior opioid) and patients who were opioid naïve and the 90-day prescription refill rate of prior opioid patients and opioid naïve patients.

Prescription Size Relative to Default Quantity 2017 Percent of Prescriptions (N) 2021 Percent of Prescriptions (N) Change in Percentage p-value
Greater than Default 79.7% (4,847) 60.6% (4,604) -19.1% p<0.001
Prior Opioid
Greater than Default 65.3% (17,383) 36.9% (11,331) -28.4% p<0.001
Opioid Naïve
At Default 10.6% (643) 17.5% (1,332) +6.9% p<0.001
Prior Opioid
At Default 15.0% (4,007) 25.3% (7,759) +10.3% p<0.001
Opioid Naïve
Less than Default 9.7% (592) 21.9% (1,662) +12.2% p<0.001
Prior Opioid
Less than Default 19.7% (5,246) 37.8% (11,595) +18.1% p<0.001
Opioid Naïve
2017 90-Day Prescription Refill Rate 2021 90-Day Prescription Refill Rate Change in Percentage p-value
Refill Rate 36.7% 38.3% +1.6% p = 0.1
Prior Opioid
Refill Rate 15.0% 15.3% +0.3% p = 0.29
Opioid Naïve

Patients with a pre-existing opioid prescription also had a consistently higher 90-day prescription refill rate. The percentage of patients with a pre-existing opioid prescription who obtained refills changed from 36.7% to 38.3% from 2017 to 2021, although this trend did not reach significance (p = 0.1). For opioid naïve patients, the percentage of refills slightly increased from 15.0% to 15.3%, although this increase was not statistically significant (p = 0.29). For both groups of patients, the overall prescription quantities decreased, but the rates of prescription refills were stable during the study period.

Discussion

This study demonstrates the long-term effect of decreasing the default pill count in an electronic medication record system (EMRS). Prior research has only evaluated the short-term impact of default changes and this study provides the novel finding that a default pill count change leads to sustained and profound effects on prescriber practices across a healthcare system over multiple years. The five years since the default change saw a 35% reduction in the average postoperative opioid prescription size, which represents a large quantity of opioid pills that were not prescribed. While the risk of developing a new persistent opioid use after surgery is small, for opioid-naïve patients, larger post-operative prescriptions are associated with an increased risk of developing a new persistent opioid use [14] and reducing the default pill count and reducing post-op opioid prescription sizes can hopefully help to mitigate this risk.

The trends we saw in our data mirror those seen in Connecticut during the same time period. Data from the Connecticut Prescription Monitoring and Reporting System (CPMRS) system shows that in Connecticut, the number of opioid prescriptions in the state fell from 2,169,959 in 2017 to 1,731,539 in 2021 [15]. This represents a 20% reduction in the number of opioid prescriptions in 2021 compared to 2017. The quantity of opioid prescriptions in Connecticut for greater than 90 MME also fell from 8% in 2017 [16] to 2% in 2021 [17], suggesting that clinicians are prescribing fewer opioids. Interestingly, the largest decrease in prescription quantity was between 2017 and 2018 and then the magnitude of the decrease became smaller each year afterwards, suggesting that the average prescription quantity could be approaching almost an asymptotic relationship with the default quantity. This asymptote may represent the appropriate mix of prescription quantities for different patients to receive, and may in part reflect the provider comfort with specific quantities of pills relative to the default.

Despite the steadily decreasing quantities of opioid pills prescribed, the refill rate remained stable over the five years, suggesting that patients were not under-prescribed pain control medications even as the quantities of pills prescribed continued to decrease. That said, the data did demonstrate a significant rebound in the quantities of 90-day prescription refills. After an initial decrease in the number of opioid prescription refills from 2019 to 2020, there was an increase in refills in 2021. We hypothesize that this fluctuation in raw quantities of refills was due to the decrease in surgeries in 2020 at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, with a subsequent increase in surgeries again in 2021. Despite the changes in raw quantities of refills each year from 2017–2021, refills as a percentage of total prescriptions each year only fluctuated by 1.6% from each other at most. We believe that this demonstrates that there was not great change in the actual proportion of patients who received a refill each year.

The sub-analysis also showed that patients with a pre-existing opioid prescription were consistently more likely to be prescribed quantities of opioids above the default and to have a higher refill rate, suggesting that their opioid requirements are understandably different than opioid-naïve patients. Patients with prior opioid use have been found to have a higher risk of developing persistent postoperative opioid use and can have worse postsurgical outcomes compared to opioid naïve patients, suggesting that these patients require particular attention in the perioperative period [18, 19]. However, patients with pre-existing opioid prescriptions had decreasing quantities of opioid prescriptions across the span of five years, similar to the opioid-naïve cohort. Both of these reductions in prescription sizes were not accompanied by significant changes in the 90-day prescription refill rate.

This study has several limitations. While our conclusions utilize administrative data and inferences based on the data, this study lacks patient-reported outcomes regarding pain control and satisfaction. We also did not assess for the use of non-opioid pain control and how those prescribing practices could have impacted opioid prescribing habits. The past several years have also seen increased awareness of the opioid epidemic and the dangers of opioid overprescription. We were not able to quantify the extent to which other potential interventions to reduce opioid overprescription and increased awareness of overprescription may have impacted prescribing habits. That said, no intervention towards reducing opioid overprescription across this healthcare system was as broad reaching across sites and providers as the EMRS default pill count change.

These results show that physician uptake of small changes to default EMRS practices continues to grow over time and default changes to opioid prescription quantities represent a sustainable and effective intervention to reduce the quantities of postoperative opioids prescribed without deleterious effects on outpatient opiate requirements. The default change is a relatively blunt instrument to impact prescribing habits, but it is effective in pushing broad swaths of prescribers towards lowering quantities of opioid prescriptions. The use of multimodal analgesia at different points in the perioperative period has been shown in multiple clinical scenarios to reduce the use of postoperative opioids [20–23] and incorporating multimodal analgesia plans into surgical patient care can pair with a lower default count to reduce the quantities of postoperative opioids needed. In the future, default changes could be combined with prescribing recommendations and multimodal analgesia plans targeted to specific patients and procedures in order to find the optimal pain control for each individual patient and operation.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Patient demographics.

Patient demographics as overall and broken down by year.

(DOCX)

pone.0304100.s001.docx (80.9KB, docx)
S2 Table. Quantities of postoperative opioids prescribed.

The raw count and percent of postoperative opioid prescriptions at the default MME, higher than the default MME, lower than the default MME, and resulting in refills from 2017–2021 based on prior opioid use or opioid naïve.

(DOCX)

pone.0304100.s002.docx (17.2KB, docx)
S3 Table. Quantities of postoperative opioid refills prescribed.

The raw quantities of 90-day opioid refills and the 90-day refills as a percentage of total annual prescriptions based on prior opioid prescription or opioid-naïve patients.

(DOCX)

pone.0304100.s003.docx (16.6KB, docx)
S1 File. Postoperative opioid prescription raw data file.

The raw data file that contains year of surgery, demographic information, length of stay and opioid prescription data.

(XLSX)

pone.0304100.s004.xlsx (13.1MB, xlsx)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Hill MV, McMahon ML, Stucke RS, Barth RJ Jr. Wide variation and excessive dosage of opioid prescriptions for common general surgical procedures. Annals of surgery. 2017. Apr 1;265(4):709–14. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001993 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Howard R, Brown CS, Lai YL, Gunaseelan V, Brummett CM, Englesbe M, et al. Postoperative opioid prescribing and new persistent opioid use: the risk of excessive prescribing. Annals of surgery. 2022. Mar 9. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005392 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Chiu AS, Jean RA, Hoag JR, Freedman-Weiss M, Healy JM, Pei KY. Association of lowering default pill counts in electronic medical record systems with postoperative opioid prescribing. JAMA surgery. 2018. Nov 1;153(11):1012–9. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.2083 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Delgado MK, Shofer FS, Patel MS, Halpern S, Edwards C, Meisel ZF, et al. Association between electronic medical record implementation of default opioid prescription quantities and prescribing behavior in two emergency departments. Journal of general internal medicine. 2018. Apr;33:409–11. doi: 10.1007/s11606-017-4286-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Schwartz GD, Harding AM, Donaldson SR, Greene SL. Modifying emergency department electronic prescribing for outpatient opioid analgesia. Emergency Medicine Australasia. 2019. Jun;31(3):417–22. doi: 10.1111/1742-6723.13192 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Fry BT, Howard RA, Gunaseelan V, Lee JS, Waljee JF, Englesbe MJ, et al. Association of postoperative opioid prescription size and patient satisfaction. Annals of surgery. 2022. Dec 1;276(6):e1064–9. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004784 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Howard R, Brown CS, Lai YL, Gunaseelan V, Chua KP, Brummett C, et al. The association of postoperative opioid prescriptions with patient outcomes. Annals of Surgery. 2022. Dec 28;276(6):e1076–82. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004965 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Strickler GK, Kreiner PW, Halpin JF, Doyle E, Paulozzi LJ. Opioid prescribing behaviors—prescription behavior surveillance system, 11 states, 2010–2016. MMWR surveillance summaries. 2020. Jan 1;69(1):1. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6901a1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Heins SE, Castillo RC. Changes in opioid prescribing following the implementation of state policies limiting morphine equivalent daily dose in a commercially insured population. Medical care. 2021. Sep 9;59(9):801. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001587 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Guy GP Jr, Zhang K, Bohm MK, Losby J, Lewis B, Young R, et al. Vital signs: changes in opioid prescribing in the United States, 2006–2015. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2017. Jul 7;66(26):697. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6626a4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kang R, Read JT, Glaser AC, Barth RJ Jr. Eliminating opioids from breast conserving surgery: perioperative pain management pathway. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2020. Jun 1;230(6):975–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2020.03.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Gabay M. Federal controlled substances act: controlled substances prescriptions. Hospital pharmacy. 2013. Aug;48(8):644–5. doi: 10.1310/hpj4808-644 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Dowell D. CDC clinical practice guideline for prescribing opioids for pain—United States, 2022. MMWR. Recommendations and reports. 2022;71. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.rr7103a1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Howard R, Brown CS, Lai YL, Gunaseelan V, Brummett CM, Englesbe M, et al. Postoperative opioid prescribing and new persistent opioid use: the risk of excessive prescribing. Annals of surgery. 2023. Jun 1;277(6):e1225–31. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005392 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Connecticut Prescription Monitoring and Reporting System (CPMRS). PMP Data Presentations, 2022 CPMRS Statistics [cited 12 April 2024]. https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/dcp/drug_control/pmp/statistics/2022/cpmrs-2022-data.pdf.
  • 16.Connecticut Prescription Monitoring and Reporting System (CPMRS). PMP Data Presentations, 2018 CPMRS Statistics [cited 12 April 2024]. https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/dcp/drug_control/pmp/statistics/2017-stats_final_updated_09-2018.pdf.
  • 17.Connecticut Prescription Monitoring and Reporting System (CPMRS). PMP Data Presentations, 2021 CPMRS Statistics [cited 12 April 2024]. https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/dcp/drug_control/pmp/statistics/2021/cpmrs-2021-data-naloxone.pdf.
  • 18.Katzman C, Harker EC, Ahmed R, Keilin CA, Vu JV, Cron DC, et al. The association between preoperative opioid exposure and prolonged postoperative use. Annals of Surgery. 2021. Nov 1;274(5):e410–6. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003723 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Frangakis SG, Kavalakatt B, Gunaseelan V, Lai Y, Waljee J, Englesbe M, et al. The Association of Preoperative Opioid Use with Post-Discharge Outcomes: A Cohort Study of the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative. Annals of Surgery. 2024. Mar 14:10–97. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006265 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Warren JA, Stoddard C, Hunter AL, Horton AJ, Atwood C, Ewing JA, et al. Effect of multimodal analgesia on opioid use after open ventral hernia repair. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery. 2017. Oct 1;21(10):1692–9. doi: 10.1007/s11605-017-3529-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gedda C, Nygren J, Garpenbeck A, Hoffström L, Thorell A, Soop M. Multimodal Analgesia Bundle and Postoperative Opioid Use Among Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery. JAMA Network Open. 2023. Sep 5;6(9):e2332408. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.32408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Morin C, Patel Y, Javid M, Tevis SE, Fortes T, Flom P. Opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia protocol for lumpectomy patients results in superior postoperative pain control. Annals of surgical oncology. 2021. Oct;28(11):5855–64. doi: 10.1245/s10434-021-09963-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Haffner M, Saiz AM Jr, Nathe R, Hwang J, Migdal C, Klineberg E, et al. Preoperative multimodal analgesia decreases 24-hour postoperative narcotic consumption in elective spinal fusion patients. The Spine Journal. 2019. Nov 1;19(11):1753–63. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2019.07.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Guilherme Antonio Moreira de Barros

5 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-43929The Persistent Benefits of Decreasing Default Pill Counts for Postoperative Narcotic PrescriptionsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Coppersmith,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

This is an interesting piece of work demonstrating how simple attitudes, such as reducing the number of prescribed opioid tablets in the postoperative period, can result in lower long-term usage risks. I find the study to be well-designed and presented; however, there is a need to enhance the discussion by comparing the obtained results with factors determining postoperative chronic opioid usage, as well as local characteristics of opioid abuse found in official local statistics and any available literature. I believe the discussion is incomplete and does not fully reflect the interesting findings demonstrated.

I also request that you pay attention to the reviewers' comments and respond to all queries if you agree to resubmit the study for review.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 19 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Guilherme Antonio Moreira de Barros, M.D., M.Sc., Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear author, although this work is very interesting and important to the scientific community, specially dealing with opioid addiction, there are some considerations that I would like to highlight:

Opioid consumption must be related to the type of surgery. I have not seen, in the table, this variable. Probably, would be a heterogeneous group, and tissue trauma can vary as well as the intensity of pain . In addition, there was no control of the use of other analgesics that could increase or reduce opioid consumption. Besides that, gender, race, social, educational and economic level, anxiety and other psychological and psychiatric comorbidities and other variables were not controlled.

There was no mention of risk stratification and the impact on opioid consumption

I think that the use of opioid have to be a rational, based on specific circumstances, and you have to discuss and suggest how to deal with a well done postoperative analgesia . Reducing the number of pills, or the the need for more over time can not be seen as an isolated event nor as a solution to the opioid crisis

Reviewer #2: The manuscript describes a practical synthesis of effect simply reducing the number of opioid analgesic pills in the treatment of postoperative pain in the period 2017 until 2021.

Some questions about this paper

Any rational for reducing 30 pills to 12 pills? why not reduces 30-50% to opioids pill? Can you explain us more?

Page 5: Did not mention the calculation for converting each analgesic to morphine (MME), as depending on the reference, the values ​​vary for the calculations.

Page 6: Some studies/papers report a cut off of 80-90 MME, why did they choose 90 MME? There is no consensus among the opioids guidelines as to which dose of morphine would be a cut off, most cite 90 mme

Page 6: It was not mentioned which surgeries were included in the research, we know that there are surgeries that have greater painful potential than others

As a suggestion too, include the percentages of outpatient surgeries or separate them by surgical specialty

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Jun 4;19(6):e0304100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304100.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 Apr 2024

Yale School of Medicine

333 Cedar Street

New Haven, CT 06510

April 1, 2024

Guilherme Antonio Moreira de Barros, M.D., M.Sc., Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Moreira de Barros,

Thank you for the opportunity to submit revisions to this manuscript, entitled “The Persistent Benefits of Decreasing Default Pill Counts for Postoperative Narcotics Prescriptions.”

The review provided very helpful thoughts and suggestions, we are grateful for the excellent comments and feedback. Based on the reviews, we have made several important improvements to the manuscript which are outlined individually below. We hope you will find that the manuscript addresses the concerns of the reviewers satisfactorily.

Once again, our research team is grateful for the ongoing interest of the PLOS ONE in our work.

Best wishes,

Nathan Coppersmith, MD, MHS

Yale School of Medicine

Yale University

New Haven, CT

Editor:

This is an interesting piece of work demonstrating how simple attitudes, such as reducing the number of prescribed opioid tablets in the postoperative period, can result in lower long-term usage risks.

• Thank you for this feedback.

I find the study to be well-designed and presented; however, there is a need to enhance the discussion by comparing the obtained results with factors determining postoperative chronic opioid usage, as well as local characteristics of opioid abuse found in official local statistics and any available literature. I believe the discussion is incomplete and does not fully reflect the interesting findings demonstrated.

• Thank you for this feedback. A discussion has been added regarding the risks of developing chronic postoperative opioid usage. Furthermore, the discussion has been enhanced to look at the local and regional trends regarding opioid prescribing habits.

Reviewer #1:

Dear author, although this work is very interesting and important to the scientific community, specially dealing with opioid addiction, there are some considerations that I would like to highlight: Opioid consumption must be related to the type of surgery. I have not seen, in the table, this variable. Probably, would be a heterogeneous group, and tissue trauma can vary as well as the intensity of pain.

• Thank you for this feedback. Due to the heterogeneity of surgeries performed across the 191,379 surgical procedures performed during this time period we did not break the data down by type of procedure performed. With such a large variety of surgeries performed, we were more interested in the overall trend of opioid prescription across the healthcare system because change in volume or prescription habits to one or a few particular types of surgeries would not influence the overall trend of such a large volume of surgeries.

In addition, there was no control of the use of other analgesics that could increase or reduce opioid consumption. Besides that, gender, race, social, educational and economic level, anxiety and other psychological and psychiatric comorbidities and other variables were not controlled.

• Thank you for this feedback. The trend over time of use of other analgesics that could influence post-op opioid consumption is a very interesting and valuable idea. This data was not included in our data pull. There were not large changes in the demographics of gender and race in the population over the study period as demonstrated in the supplementary table 1. The influence of other psychological and psychiatric comorbidities in the population is an interesting point and a data point that was not collected in our data pull.

There was no mention of risk stratification and the impact on opioid consumption

• Thank you for this feedback. We have incorporated a discussion of patients who are higher risk for developing persistent postoperative opioid use into the discussion as well as risk of worse postoperative outcomes based on prior opioid use.

I think that the use of opioid have to be a rational, based on specific circumstances, and you have to discuss and suggest how to deal with a well done postoperative analgesia . Reducing the number of pills, or the the need for more over time can not be seen as an isolated event nor as a solution to the opioid crisis

• Thank you for this feedback. We concur that reducing the number of pills is not in isolation a solution to the opioid crisis. The discussion has been enriched to further elaborate on multi-modal pain control strategies, intra-operative pain control strategies, and targeting pill counts to specific procedures that can all be combined in order to potentially reduce the use of post-operative opioids.

Reviewer #2:

The manuscript describes a practical synthesis of effect simply reducing the number of opioid analgesic pills in the treatment of postoperative pain in the period 2017 until 2021.

Any rational for reducing 30 pills to 12 pills? why not reduces 30-50% to opioids pill? Can you explain us more?

• Thank you for this feedback. 12 pills was chosen as a quantity to provide one tablet every six hours for three days. This decision was made in 2017 by the healthcare system opioid stewardship committee. This has been added to the manuscript.

Page 5: Did not mention the calculation for converting each analgesic to morphine (MME), as depending on the reference, the values vary for the calculations.

• Thank you for this feedback. The calculation for converting each analgesic to morphine (MME) was based on the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention morphine milligram equivalent doses for commonly prescribed opioids for pain management (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/rr/rr7103a1.htm#T1_down). This has been added to the manuscript.

Page 6: Some studies/papers report a cut off of 80-90 MME, why did they choose 90 MME? There is no consensus among the opioids guidelines as to which dose of morphine would be a cut off, most cite 90 mme.

• Thank you for this feedback. The cutoff of 90 MME was used as it is the equivalent of the default quantity of 12 oxycodone 5 mg immediate-release tablets using the MME conversion of factor of 1.5 for oxycodone based on the CDC MME table.

Page 6: It was not mentioned which surgeries were included in the research, we know that there are surgeries that have greater painful potential than others. As a suggestion too, include the percentages of outpatient surgeries or separate them by surgical specialty

• Thank you for this feedback. As this included all surgeries performed in the healthcare system, we evaluated the data at a macro level, and we did not evaluate particular surgeries as we felt that the quantity of surgeries is large enough that individual types of surgeries would not influence the overall trend significantly. An interesting follow up study would be to interrogate the trends in prescribing habits of the most frequently performed surgeries, which surgeries had the greatest decrease in post-op opioids prescribed, if any actually had an increase, and which may not have had a decrease.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0304100.s005.docx (19.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Guilherme Antonio Moreira de Barros

7 May 2024

The persistent benefits of decreasing default pill counts for postoperative narcotic prescriptions

PONE-D-23-43929R1

Dear Dr. Coppersmith,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Guilherme Antonio Moreira de Barros, M.D., M.Sc., Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Dr. Coppersmith,

Congratulation for the great improvement and for the answers to the questions formulated by the reviewers.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Guilherme Antonio Moreira de Barros

24 May 2024

PONE-D-23-43929R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Coppersmith,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Guilherme Antonio Moreira de Barros

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Patient demographics.

    Patient demographics as overall and broken down by year.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0304100.s001.docx (80.9KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Quantities of postoperative opioids prescribed.

    The raw count and percent of postoperative opioid prescriptions at the default MME, higher than the default MME, lower than the default MME, and resulting in refills from 2017–2021 based on prior opioid use or opioid naïve.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0304100.s002.docx (17.2KB, docx)
    S3 Table. Quantities of postoperative opioid refills prescribed.

    The raw quantities of 90-day opioid refills and the 90-day refills as a percentage of total annual prescriptions based on prior opioid prescription or opioid-naïve patients.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0304100.s003.docx (16.6KB, docx)
    S1 File. Postoperative opioid prescription raw data file.

    The raw data file that contains year of surgery, demographic information, length of stay and opioid prescription data.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0304100.s004.xlsx (13.1MB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0304100.s005.docx (19.2KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES