Impacts of Initial Prescription Length and Prescribing Limits on Risk of Prolonged Postsurgical Opioid Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In response to concerns about opioid addiction following surgery, many states have implemented laws capping the days supplied for initial postoperative prescriptions. However, few studies have examined changes in the risk of prolonged opioid use associated with the initial amount prescribed. Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the risk of prolonged opioid use associated with the length of initial opioid prescribed and the potential impact of prescribing limits. Research design: Using Medicare insurance claims (2007-2017), we identified opioid-naive adults undergoing surgery. Using G-computation methods with logistic regression models, we estimated the risk of prolonged opioid use (≥1 opioid prescription dispensed in 3 consecutive 30-d windows following surgery) associated with the varying initial number of days supplied. We then estimate the potential reduction in cases of prolonged opioid use associated with varying prescribing limits. Results: We identified 1,060,596 opioid-naive surgical patients. Among the 70.0% who received an opioid for postoperative pain, 1.9% had prolonged opioid use. The risk of prolonged use increased from 0.7% (1 d supply) to 4.4% (15+ d). We estimated that a prescribing limit of 4 days would be associated with a risk reduction of 4.84 (3.59, 6.09)/1000 patients and would be associated with 2255 cases of prolonged use potentially avoided. The commonly used day supply limit of 7 would be associated with a smaller reduction in risk [absolute risk difference=2.04 (-0.17, 4.25)/1000]. Conclusions: The risk of prolonged opioid use following surgery increased monotonically with increasing prescription duration. Common prescribing maximums based on days supplied may impact many patients but are associated with relatively low numbers of reduced cases of prolonged use. Any prescribing limits need to be weighed against the need for adequate pain management.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".