Safety of fentanyl initiation according to past opioid exposure among patients newly prescribed fentanyl patches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although a convenient opioid delivery system, transdermal fentanyl patches have caused several deaths and resulted in safety warnings reminding prescribers that fentanyl patches should be prescribed only for patients who have adequate prior exposure to opioids. We conducted a longitudinal analysis of the safety of fentanyl initiation by examining past opioid exposure among patients newly prescribed fentanyl patches. METHODS: We identified all patients in the province of Manitoba who were newly prescribed fentanyl patches between Apr. 1, 2001, and Mar. 31, 2013. We converted all prior opioid use to oral morphine equivalents and determined the average daily dose in the 7-30 days before initial fentanyl patch use. Fentanyl initiation was considered unsafe if the patient's pre-fentanyl opioid exposure was below the recommended level. RESULTS: We identified 11 063 patients who began using fentanyl patches during the study period. Overall, fentanyl initiation was deemed unsafe in 74.1% of cases because the patient's prior opioid exposure was inadequate. Women and patients 65 years of age and older were more likely than men and younger patients, respectively, to have inadequate prior opioid exposure (p < 0.001 for each comparison). The proportion of patients who had unsafe prescriptions for fentanyl patches decreased significantly over the study period, from 87.0% in 2001 to 50.0% in 2012 (p < 0.001). INTERPRETATION: The safety of fentanyl initiation improved over the study period, but still half of fentanyl patch prescriptions were written for patients with inadequate prior opioid exposure. Review of prior opioid exposure may be a simple but important way to improve the safe use of fentanyl patches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".