Abstract
Introduction: Adverse effects of opioids are common among older individuals, and undertreatment as well as overuse can be an issue. Epidemiological data on opioid use in older individuals are available, but scarce in hospitalized patients.Aims: The aim of this study is to examine the one-day prevalence of opioid use among older inpatients and identify the factors associated with both opioid use and dosage.Materials and methods: One-day cross-sectional study with data collected from geriatric units across 14 Belgian hospitals. The primary focus of the study is to assess the prevalence of opioid use and dosage, along with identifying associated factors. To achieve this, a multiple binary logistic regression model was fitted for opioid use, and a multiple linear regression model for opioid dose.Results: Opioids were used in 24.4% of 784 patients, of which 57.9% was treated with tramadol, 13.2% with oxycodone or morphine and 28.9% with transdermal buprenorphine or fentanyl. The odds for opioid use were 4.2 times higher in patients in orthogeriatric units compared to other patients (OR=4.2, 95% CI=2.50-7.05). The prevalence of opioid use was 34% higher in patients without dementia compared to patients with dementia (OR=0.66, 95% CI=0.46-0.95). The overall mean daily dosage was 14.07mg subcutaneous morphine equivalent. After adjustment for age, gender and dementia, dosage was only associated with type of opioid: the estimated mean opioid dose was 70% lower with tramadol (mean ratio=0,30,95% CI=0,23-0,39) and 67% lower with oxycodone and morphine (mean ratio=0,33, 95% CI=0,22-0,48) compared to transdermal buprenorphine and transdermal fentanyl.Conclusions: One in four patients received opioid treatment. It is not clear whether this reflects under- or overtreatment, but these results can serve as a benchmark for geriatric units to guide future pain management practices. The utilization of transdermal fentanyl and buprenorphine, resulting in higher doses of morphine equivalent, poses significant risks for side effects.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Ethics approval statement
The study was approved by the central ethics committee (Ghent University Hospital, Belgian Registration number BC-11504) as well as all local ethics committees.
Patient consent statement
Informed consent was waived due to the noninterventional nature of the study and the assurance of strict anonymity during data processing.
Author contributions
Janssens WH was responsible for study concept and design, data acquisition, data analysis and interpretation, as well as writing the manuscript.
Van Den Noortgate NJ and Piers RD made significant contributions to the study concept and design, as well as analysis and interpretation of data.
Mouton V, Desmet P, Van Puyvelde K, Steen E, Maere C, Van Mulders K, De Raes E, Dekoninck J, Kympers C, Werbrouck B and Delaere J played substantial roles in the acquisition of data.
All authors (Janssens WH, Van Den Noortgate NJ, Mouton V, Desmet P, Van Puyvelde K, Steen E, Maere C, Van Mulders K, De Raes E, Dekoninck J, Kympers C, Werbrouck B, Delaere J and Piers RD) critically revised the article and provided final approval for its publication.
Data availability statement
Full trial protocol and all data are accessible on request to the corresponding author.