Anaesthetics

To the Editor: There is a new player in the treatment of opioid use disorder: extended‐release depot buprenorphine. This has been hailed “a game changer”1 and has proven to be of great benefit, particularly during the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. Depot buprenorphine has an impact on presentations to hospital and health services, meaning that all clinicians must be familiar with the advantages and disadvantages (Box) as well as the formulations. Opioid use disorder is a complex, chronic, relapsing health condition that requires lengthy management and is over‐represented in incarcerated people. Opioid treatment successfully reduces illicit use, overdose deaths, and costs. In Australia, there are opioid treatment programs for incarcerated persons, improving individual and community wellbeing and social functioning following release. However, until recently, the treatment perpetuated a daily drug pattern and risks, such as diversion to others, injecting opioid treatments, overdose risks and violent behaviour.2 What changed the game and model of care in Australia is the development of extended‐release depot buprenorphine. The Australian game has two products: one is available as weekly and monthly injection options and the other as a monthly injection. Depot buprenorphine is a subcutaneous injection and must be administered by a health care professional, as inadvertent injection into other structures forms a depot gel that will not provide slow release of the medication and depot gels in a vein may cause serious, life‐threatening health problems.3 Weekly or monthly doses of depot buprenorphine are provided following stabilisation using sublingual buprenorphine, most often for 7 days, and may be started the day after the last daily sublingual buprenorphine. Dose conversion tables exist to match depot buprenorphine to the sublingual buprenorphine dose. Steady state equilibrium is achieved after three to four doses.3 Hospital and health service clinicians must be aware that all buprenorphine formulations complicate routine opioid analgesia for acute pain management, and consideration of other non‐opioid‐adjuvant analgesics is needed (Box).3 Uptake of depot buprenorphine has been welcomed by patients, the community and correctional programs, with many who have transitioned reporting positive outcomes, including reduction in cravings, anxiety, improved attitude, relationships, and general mood.4 The timing of this game changing depot buprenorphine has enabled remote health care and ongoing availability of opioid therapy in the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic.5 Box – Advantages and disadvantages of depot buprenorphine Advantages of depot buprenorphine: it provides greater convenience and does not require attendance for daily dosing it reduces the treatment cost for clients and service providers it has less risk of diversion and non-medical use of the medication it has greater medication adherence and enhanced treatment outcomes it opens opportunities for normal life and to consider employment, study and travel it removes risks related to takeaway opioid treatment doses it reduces stigma and discrimination and has a positive impact on the way that people with opioid use problems are perceived Disadvantages of depot buprenorphine: ul#arrow { position: relative; list-style: none; } ul#arrow li::before { content: '▶ '; position: relative; left: 0; } it complicates routine opioid analgesia in the management of severe acute pain: it may require the use of higher doses of traditional opioids such as morphine; and it may require the use of a mu opioid receptor super agonist such as fentanyl and/or the use of non-opioid analgesic approaches (eg, ketamine infusions or regional analgesia) it provides reduced patient health care, social interactions and support opportunities it results in a loss of control over how the patient manages their dose (especially takeaways)

Katerina Lagios

The safety and value of reducing opioid use are recognised, but difficult conversations and less accessible alternatives are barriers

Hester Wilson

In the absence of evidence of benefit for acute low back pain, its over-the-counter availability should be reconsidered

Chris Hayes · Jennifer H Martin

Practitioners who prescribe opioid medications for people with chronic non‐cancer pain must navigate increasingly stringent policy requirements,1 research findings questioning the benefit of opioids for such patients,2 and patients who fear uncontrolled pain if opioids are withdrawn.3 In Australia and New Zealand, people with chronic non‐cancer pain may be referred to specialist pain management services, most of which participate in the electronic Persistent Pain Outcomes Collaboration (ePPOC; https://www.uow.edu.au/ahsri/eppoc), an initiative for collecting standardised information about their patients, the services they provide, and the outcomes of treatment. This information is used at point of care, and for reporting, benchmarking, and research. To explore the impact of changes in opioid use on outcomes for patients, we analysed ePPOC data collected at 67 pain services (online Supporting Information) during January 2015 – June 2020. We extracted data for all patients with completed episodes of care and who had answered questions about opioid use at referral and episode end. We summarised their characteristics and outcomes as means with standard deviations (SDs). All analyses were conducted in SAS 9.4. Our study was approved by the University of Wollongong and Illawarra and Shoalhaven Local Health District health and medical human research ethics committee; reference, 2019/ETH03804). The mean age of the 10 302 patients who provided information at both referral and at the end of their treatment episodes was 49.5 years (SD, 14.4 years); 5807 were women (56.4%), and 3490 had experienced their pain for more than five years (33.9%). The most frequent site of their main pain was the back (3936 patients; 38.2%). A total of 6340 patients (61.5%) were using opioid medications at referral (Box 1); their mean oral morphine equivalent daily dose4 was 56.3 mg (SD, 75.3 mg), the median daily dose was 31.0 mg (interquartile range [IQR], 15–75 mg). They reported higher mean pain scores than patients not using opioids at referral (6.2 [SD, 1.6] v 5.8 [SD, 1.7]) and greater interference in daily activities (7.2 [SD, 1.8] v 6.5 [SD, 2.0]; each measured with the Brief Pain Inventory5). Mean values for depression, anxiety, stress, pain catastrophising, and pain self‐efficacy were also worse for people using opioid medications (data not shown). The most frequent service events were individual appointments with medical and allied health staff (35 678 of 55 012 events, 65%) and group pain programs (18 841 events, 34%); there were 493 procedural interventions (1%). The median episode length was 175 days (IQR, 99–322 days). Opioid prescribing varies between pain services, including direct prescribing by the pain specialist and recommendations to patients’ general practitioners. However, a major focus of multidisciplinary care is supporting patients to reduce their opioid use, which typically involves collaboration between the patient, their GP, and the pain service. By the end of their treatment episodes, 1724 patients who reported using opioids at referral (27.2%) had stopped doing so, 1234 patients (19.5%) had reduced their dose by at least 50% and 3382 patients (53.3%) had either not changed, increased, or reduced opioid use by less than 50%. For each group, scores had improved in each clinical domain, and the changes were greatest for patients who had ceased opioid use, as were the proportions experiencing clinically significant improvement. Scores for measures specifically related to pain experience (pain severity, interference, catastrophising and self‐efficacy) at the end of treatment were similar to or better than those of patients who had not been using opioids at referral, despite greater initial pain severity. Conversely, the smallest mean improvements were for the patients who had not reduced opioid use by at least 50% (Box 2). Although our study was limited by its retrospective nature, the lack of follow‐up of patients who did not complete treatment, and its restriction to specialist pain practices, our findings are encouraging. We found that significant clinical improvements are possible for people with chronic non‐cancer pain attending multidisciplinary pain management services in Australia and New Zealand, even as they discontinue opioid medications. The challenge is to extend these services and supported self‐management skills to primary and community care. Box 1 – Opioid use by patients at referral and at the end of treatment in specialist pain clinics * Opioid therapy was initiated for 536 of patients who had not being using opioid medications at referral (13.5%). † Opioid use had been reduced by less than 50% for 1025 patients (30.3%), not changed for 878 patients (26.0%), and increased for 1479 patients (43.7%). Box 2 – Mean pain and psychometric scores, and changes in scores between referral and end of treatment (with standard deviations), by opioid use at the two time points table#t2 tbody td:nth-child(n+2) P. Pleft { text-align: center; } Clinical domain Patients not using opioids at referral Patients who were using opioids at referral Ceased taking opioids Reduced opioid use by at least 50% Other* Total number of patients 3962 1724 1234 3382 Pain severity (BPI5) 3787 1646 1174 3215 Referral 5.8 (1.7) 6.1 (1.7) 6.3 (1.6) 6.3 (1.6) Episode end 4.9 (2.0) 4.9 (2.0) 5.5 (1.8) 5.8 (1.7) Change in score –0.9 (1.7) –1.2 (1.8) –0.8 (1.6) –0.5 (1.5) Clinically significant improvement† 817/2997 (27%) 459/1410 (33%) 231/1035 (22%) 436/2827 (15%) Pain interference (BPI5) 3905 1702 1219 3316 Referral 6.5 (2.0) 7.1 (1.8) 7.3 (1.7) 7.2 (1.9) Episode end 4.9 (2.4) 5.0 (2.4) 5.7 (2.3) 6.2 (2.2) Change in score –1.6 (2.2) –2.1 (2.3) –1.6 (2.1) –1.0 (2.0) Clinically significant improvement† 2050/3279 (63%) 1062/1546 (69%) 679/1133 (60%) 1481/3003 (49%) Depression (DASS‐216) 3827 1673 1201 3240 Referral 17.8 (12.1) 20.2 (12.4) 20.9 (12.6) 20.7 (12.4) Episode end 12.8 (11.1) 13.8 (11.6) 15.6 (12.0) 16.6 (11.9) Change in score –5.0 (10.1) –6.4 (11.0) –5.3 (10.7) –4.0 (10.2) Clinically significant improvement† 1308/2231 (59%) 662/1100 (60%) 434/810 (54%) 1042/2190 (48%) Anxiety (DASS‐216) 3821 1676 1191 3233 Referral 12.1 (10.2) 13.3 (10.4) 14.1 (10.4) 13.7 (10.3) Episode end 10.1 (9.5) 10.9 (9.7) 11.9 (9.7) 12.5 (10.1) Change in score –2.0 (8.2) –2.4 (8.7) –2.2 (8.4) –1.2 (8.0) Clinically significant improvement† 858/1972 (44%) 438/962 (46%) 288/716 (40%) 662/1904 (35%) Stress (DASS‐216) 3818 1660 1191 3226 Referral 19.8 (11.0) 21.1 (10.8) 21.9 (10.9) 21.2 (11.1) Episode end 15.6 (10.6) 16.6 (10.7) 17.9 (10.5) 18.6 (10.8) Change in score –4.1 (9.6) –4.5 (10.2) –4.0 (9.3) –2.6 (9.2) Clinically significant improvement† 1154/1936 (60%) 553/905 (61%) 387/710 (55%) 898/1828 (49%) Pain catastrophising (PCS7) 3796 1649 1174 3204 Referral 26.3 (13.3) 28.1 (13.4) 28.5 (13.4) 28.3 (13.3) Episode end 18.3 (13.3) 17.9 (13.5) 20.9 (13.6) 22.1 (13.6) Change in score –8.0 (11.6) –10.2 (12.2) –7.6 (11.1) –6.2 (11.2) Clinically significant improvement† 1425/2513 (57%) 714/1164 (61%) 435/841 (52%) 1056/2308 (46%) Pain self‐efficacy (PSEQ8) 3860 1685 1210 3262 Referral 24.0 (12.6) 20.6 (12.0) 18.6 (11.0) 18.9 (11.9) Episode end 32.1 (14.4) 32.0 (14.4) 26.9 (13.1) 24.0 (13.1) Change in score +8.1 (12.7) +11.5 (14.0) +8.3 (12.7) +5.1 (12.1) Clinically significant improvement† 1433/2796 (51%) 827/1382 (60%) 504/1058 (48%) 1015/2773 (37%) BPI = Brief Pain Inventory (range, 0–10); DASS‐21 = Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale (range, 0–42); PCS = Pain Catastrophising Scale (range, 0–52); PSEQ = Pain Self‐Efficacy Questionnaire (range, 0–60; higher scores indicate greater self‐efficacy). * Opioid use by patients had been reduced by less than 50%, not changed, or increased. † For patients who reported at least moderate symptom severity at referral (see Supporting Information for definitions of clinically significant improvement).

Hilarie Tardif · Christopher Hayes · Samuel F Allingham

Community naloxone supply to prevent fatal overdose needs to consider patients using pharmaceutical opioids Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) opioid prescriptions in Australia have increased from 2.4 million in 1992 to 7 million in 2007 to 15 million prescriptions in 2016.1 The corresponding rate of opioid mortality over this time almost doubled from 3.8 deaths per 100 000 Australians in 2007 to 6.7 in 2017,2 with fatal opioid overdoses increasing from 482 in 2002 per 100 000 Australians to 900 in 2018.3 Most of these deaths involved prescription opioids, and contrary to what many assume, only one‐third of prescription opioid‐related deaths involved intravenous drug use.4 Among deaths associated with common prescription opioids (including fentanyl, morphine, oxycodone, tramadol and codeine), 49% involved people with chronic pain.4 Naloxone, a rapidly acting semi‐synthetic opioid antagonist, has an important role in reducing opioid overdoses by acting as an emergency reversal agent.5 It is currently available in Australia for intramuscular injection or nasal spray. The intranasal formulation was listed on the PBS in November 2019 as an unrestricted General Schedule medication. New South Wales, Western Australia and South Australia are trialling a program of take‐home naloxone available free to people using prescription or illicit opioids and at risk of opioid‐related death or those who may witness an overdose.5 Various aspects of patient history including current opioid medications (especially if the opioids are higher doses or slow release preparations) and comorbidities (such as complex diseases, mental illnesses or respiratory conditions) can help identify people who should be recommended to carry naloxone.5 Take‐home naloxone provided to laypeople to administer in the event of overdose was found to successfully reverse more than 96% of community overdoses in a systematic review.6 The evidence of naloxone’s therapeutic effect and life‐saving role has resulted in the drug being carried in most emergency medical kits and included on the World Health Organization Model Lists of Essential Medicines (https://www.who.int/groups/expert-committee-on-selection-and-use-of-essential-medicines/essential-medicines-lists). Community members, general practitioners and pharmacists frequently perceive naloxone as a medication for people who use illicit opioids, namely heroin.7 However, opioid‐related mortality in people taking pharmaceutical opioids for chronic pain is common. There is a clear evidence–practice gap demonstrating the need for increased discussion about opioid‐related risks and naloxone in this population. In the context of rising pharmaceutical opioid harm, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provided recommendations for co‐prescribing naloxone for at‐risk patients with chronic pain; such patients include those taking an oral daily morphine equivalent dose of 50 mg or more, taking concurrent benzodiazepines with opioids, having a history of substance use disorder, or having a history of overdose.8 Using these indications, an Australian study reported that 78% of patients on Schedule 8 opioids for chronic non‐cancer pain qualified for take‐home naloxone.8,9 Yet current national data show that less than 3% of all naloxone supplied is on individual PBS prescriptions, with most naloxone prescriptions accounted for by harm reduction programs.10 An additional negligible amount of naloxone is sold over the counter by pharmacists.10 Between 2014 and 2018, an estimated 10 642 units of naloxone were supplied in Australia. Even if a large proportion of this were dispensed to people taking pharmaceutical opioids for chronic pain, it would be vastly insufficient given the 300 000 Australians receiving long term opioids each year.10,11 The majority of Australian patients on pharmaceutical opioids who are at risk of overdose do not appear to be prescribed this emergency medication. Health care provider attitudes towards pharmaceutical opioid‐related risk may be contributing to low naloxone prescribing rates. In qualitative work, Australian GPs described hesitancy in prescribing opioids to younger and middle‐aged patients with chronic pain due to perceived risks of opioid‐related harm.12 In contrast, GPs were more comfortable prescribing opioids for older patients, as they believed there was a lower risk of serious opioid‐related harm in this population.12 These findings highlight doctors’ subjective judgements of overdose risk, which may be a barrier to recognising patients who would benefit from take‐home naloxone. Similar qualitative work highlighted that the biggest barriers to naloxone prescribing were low levels of awareness about naloxone, and unwillingness by doctors to prescribe it.7 This may be driven by incorrect beliefs that patients on pharmaceutical opioids are at low risk of overdose, lack of knowledge, and incorrect patient reporting of actual opioid use.7 GPs and pharmacists are ideally placed to provide and advocate for routine take‐home naloxone. GPs prescribe just over half of all opioids in Australia13 and are the main health care professional seen regularly by people taking opioids for chronic pain. Conversations about naloxone initiated by health care providers present an opportunity to highlight proactive steps to reduce opioid‐related risk, and also raise awareness of overdose management. Unfortunately, community knowledge about opioid‐related risk is low, and most people prescribed opioids for pain are unable to identify common signs of potentially fatal opioid toxicity.14 Improved naloxone prescribing alone is therefore unlikely to be effective without education and increased awareness of opioid overdose signs by patients, family members, friends and carers — who are the expected administrators of naloxone in the event of overdose. One commonly cited barrier to prescribing take‐home naloxone is fear that patients may be offended by the offer or recommendation.7,14 However, Australian research shows that when informed about naloxone, most people prescribed opioids for pain would want or in fact expect their doctor to prescribe it to them.14 Sensitivity around language is key to openly communicating with patients about this issue. Terms like “overdose” still carry considerable stigma and are poorly understood by laypeople. A more patient‐centred approach (and to avoid having important health messages dismissed as irrelevant by patients), might involve changing our language to use terms like “severe opioid‐related side effects” or “life‐threatening opioid toxicity” instead of “drug overdose” to explain the same concept. Discussing naloxone may also help patients recognise the level of harm associated with non‐indicated opioids. The therapeutic benefit of opioids for chronic pain is limited and guidelines strongly caution their use.13 Presenting naloxone as a necessary medication for people on long term opioids may help patients better understand the implications of taking these strong analgesics. This may intuitively encourage patients to request opioid deprescribing or dose reductions. Conversely, increased prescribing of naloxone may risk providers (and patients) justifying high dose opioid prescriptions by relying on naloxone as a safety net. These fears are common with opioid harm minimisation efforts but are not supported by evidence6 and should not detract from the expected number of lives that could be saved by naloxone. A novel approach may be to consider routine co‐prescription of naloxone for patients on strong long term opioids. Laxatives and antiemetics are commonly co‐prescribed with opioids by providers cognisant of common opioid side effects; however, this concept does not seem to extend to naloxone. Take‐home naloxone for people on opioids is analogous to intramuscular glucagon for patients with diabetes on insulin, or auto‐injectable adrenaline for anaphylaxis. Most people are unlikely to need these emergency medications, but in the case of profoundly dangerous adverse events, naloxone, like glucagon or adrenaline, has a life‐saving role. Changing the narrative around take‐home naloxone from “overdose treatment” to “routinely prescribed emergency medication” may help provider attitudes and encourage the normalisation of naloxone prescribing. Our conservative estimate suggests that about 200 000 naloxone scripts would be indicated annually using this approach, at a cost of $40–50 each on the PBS.8 This is comparable with the PBS cost of an adrenaline auto‐injector or glucagon, which are both listed at $40.15 The estimated volumes of naloxone required would also be similar to combined PBS prescription volumes of glucagon (about 44 000 prescriptions) and adrenaline auto‐injectors (about 110 000 adult prescriptions and 28 000 paediatric prescriptions) according to Medicare statistics of PBS prescriptions from July 2019 to June 2020, excluding doctor’s bag prescriptions.15 We present these comparisons between naloxone and other widely accepted emergency medications to show the severity of current naloxone under‐prescribing. From a health economics perspective, increased naloxone prescribing at the rates we suggest would cost the Australian a similar amount to glucagon and adrenaline combined through PBS reimbursement. Further, naloxone would still cost only a fraction of current PBS‐subsidised opioid prescriptions (oxycodone alone costing over $61 million in 2018–201915) and overdose‐related hospitalisation costs. Naloxone may assist with reducing opioid prescription rates and cost, and most importantly would save lives. GPs and pharmacists should consider discussing and co‐prescribing take‐home naloxone with opioids for patients with chronic pain. Australia’s increasing prescription opioid overdoses demands this conversation. However, normalising the role of naloxone as a routinely co‐prescribed emergency medication will require major changes in community and health care provider attitudes, improved awareness of the role of naloxone, and reduction of overdose‐associated stigma. Ongoing collaborative efforts are needed to embrace higher prescribing and dispensing of naloxone.

Pallavi Prathivadi · Suzanne Nielsen

Objective: To assess the analgesic efficacy and safety of single‐dose oral cannabidiol (CBD) as an adjunct to standard care for patients presenting to an emergency department with acute low back pain. Design: Randomised, double blinded, placebo‐controlled clinical trial. Setting: The tertiary emergency department of Austin Hospital, Melbourne. Participants: Patients who presented with acute, non‐traumatic low back pain between 21 May 2018 and 13 June 2019. Intervention: One hundred eligible patients were randomised to receiving 400 mg CBD or placebo in addition to standard emergency department analgesic medication. Main outcome measures: Pain score two hours after administration of study agent, on a verbal numerical pain scale (range, 0‒10). Secondary outcomes were length of stay, need for rescue analgesia, and adverse events. Results: The median age of the 100 participants was 47 years (IQR, 34‒60 years); 44 were women. Mean pain scores at two hours were similar for the CBD (6.2 points; 95% CI, 5.5–6.9 points) and placebo groups (5.8 points; 95% CI, 5.1–6.6 points; absolute difference, –0.3 points; 95% CI, –1.3 to 0.6 points). The median length of stay was 9.0 hours (IQR, 7.4‒12 hours) for the CBD group and 8.5 hours (IQR, 6.5‒21 hours) for the placebo group. Oxycodone use during the four hours preceding and the four hours after receiving CBD or placebo was similar for the two groups, as were reported side effects. Conclusion: CBD was not superior to placebo as an adjunct medication for relieving acute non‐traumatic low back pain in the emergency department. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12618000487213 (prospective).

Bronwyn Bebee · David M Taylor · Elyssia Bourke · Kimberley Pollack · Lian Foster · Michael Ching · Anselm Wong

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol as an analgesic medication in a range of painful conditions. Study design: Systematic review of systematic reviews of the analgesic effects of paracetamol in randomised, placebo‐controlled trials. Conduct of systematic reviews was assessed with AMSTAR‐2; confidence in effect estimates (quality of evidence) was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; systematic reviews published 1 January 2010 – 30 April 2020. Data synthesis: We extracted pain and adverse events outcomes from 36 systematic reviews that assessed the efficacy of paracetamol in 44 painful conditions. Continuous pain outcomes were expressed as mean differences (MDs; standardised 0–10‐point scale); dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratios (RRs). There is high quality evidence that paracetamol provides modest pain relief for people with knee or hip osteoarthritis (MD, –0.3 points; 95% CI, –0.6 to –0.1 points) and after craniotomy (MD, –0.8 points; 95% CI, –1.4 to –0.2 points); there is moderate quality evidence for its efficacy in tension‐type headache (pain‐free at 2 hours: RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1–1.4) and perineal pain soon after childbirth (patients experiencing 50% pain relief: RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5–3.8). There is high quality evidence that paracetamol is not effective for relieving acute low back pain (MD, 0.2 points; 95% CI, –0.1 to 0.4 points). Evidence regarding efficacy in other conditions was of low or very low quality. Frequency of adverse events was generally similar for people receiving placebo or paracetamol, except that transient elevation of blood liver enzyme levels was more frequent during repeated administration of paracetamol to patients with spinal pain (RR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.9–7.4). Conclusions: For most conditions, evidence regarding the effectiveness of paracetamol is insufficient for drawing firm conclusions. Evidence for its efficacy in four conditions was moderate to strong, and there is strong evidence that paracetamol is not effective for reducing acute low back pain. Investigations that evaluate more typical dosing regimens are required. PROSPERO registration: CRD42015029282 (prospective).

Christina Abdel Shaheed · Giovanni E Ferreira · Alissa Dmitritchenko · Andrew J McLachlan · Richard O Day · Bruno Saragiotto · Christine Lin · Vicki Langendyk · Fiona Stanaway · Jane Latimer · Steven Kamper · Hanan McLachlan · Harbeer Ahedi · Christopher G Maher

To the Editor: Palliative radiotherapy is effective for symptomatic management of bone metastases in cancer patients. However, it may take 2–4 weeks after completion of radiotherapy to achieve maximal clinical response.1 Radiotherapy can be delivered as a single fraction treatment (SFRT), or over a more protracted course of multifraction treatment (MFRT).2 Randomised trials have consistently shown that SFRT and MFRT provide equally effective symptom control,3 and SFRT is associated with lower medical and societal cost,4 allowing for better health services utilisation. Hence, in patients with poor prognosis, the use of SFRT over MFRT should be encouraged to minimise the time patients spend on treatment at the end of life without compromising efficacy. Using the population‐based Victorian Cancer Registry data linked to the Victorian Radiotherapy Minimum Data Set, we evaluated the use of SFRT for bone metastases at the end of life. The study sample included all cancer patients who received radiotherapy for bone metastases between 2013 and 2016, and died within 30 days of commencing radiotherapy. The primary outcome was SFRT use and the associated factors. The Cochrane–Armitage test for trend was used to evaluate temporal changes in SFRT use over time. Logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with SFRT use; variables with a P value below 0.1 in univariate analyses were included in multivariate model, which employed the robust standard error, with analyses clustered on patient identifiers to allow for clustering of patients who had multiple courses of radiotherapy. The study was approved by the Austin Health Human Research Ethics Committee (LNR/18/Austin/34). A total of 1069 patients received 1359 courses of radiotherapy for bone metastases at the end of life, of which 396 courses (29%) were SFRT, and 963 (71%) were MFRT (Box). There was no significant change in SFRT use over time: from 30% in 2013 to 32% in 2016. SFRT was more commonly used closer to death: 49%, 29% and 25% of radiotherapy courses delivered within 7 days, 8–14 days, and 15–30 days of death, respectively. There were large institutional provider variations in SFRT use: 33% and 19% of radiotherapy delivered in public and private institutions, respectively. In multivariate analyses, the site of bone metastases, time between radiotherapy and death, and treatment institution type were independently associated with SFRT use. Overall, in this large Victorian population‐based study, less than one in three courses of radiotherapy for bone metastases at the end of life were SFRT, and about one in two courses of radiotherapy delivered in the last week of life were MFRT, meaning that these cancer patients spent multiple days in their final week of life receiving radiotherapy. Acknowledging that estimation of prognosis towards the end of life can be difficult, there are models (eg, the TEACHH model)5 that can be useful in guiding clinicians in this process. Nonetheless, given the large body of evidence supporting the use of SFRT for bone metastases, there is a need to raise awareness of the recommendation to use of SFRT instead of MFRT, especially at the end of life, among radiation oncologists, other health professionals and patients. This can be achieved through health education initiatives such as the Choosing Wisely campaign (https://www.choosingwisely.org.au/). Box – Factors associated with single fraction palliative radiotherapy (SFRT) for bone metastases at the end of life in Victoria, 2013–2016 (1359 courses of radiotherapy) Variable SFRT (n = 396, 29%) MFRT (n = 963, 71%) Multivariate analysis (odds ratio [95%CI]) P Age (years) Mean (SD) 71.7 (11.9) 70.1 (12.3) < 60 62 (24%) 192 (76%) 1 60–69 95 (27%) 252 (73%) 1.04 (0.67–1.61) 0.9 70–79 149 (32%) 312 (68%) 1.29 (0.83–1.99) 0.3 ≥ 80 90 (30%) 207 (70%) 1.17 (0.73–1.88) 0.5 Sex Men 247 (28%) 622 (72%) Women 149 (30%) 341 (70%) Primary cancer type Lung 163 (30%) 373 (70%) Prostate 49 (29%) 118 (71%) Breast 32 (29%) 77 (71%) Gastrointestinal 53 (28%) 138 (72%) Melanoma 21 (25%) 62 (75%) Other 78 (29%) 195 (71%) Target site of radiotherapy Spine 202 (27%) 545 (73%) 1 Skull 9 (6%) 147 (94%) 0.15 (0.06–0.38) <0.001 Rib 35 (51%) 33 (49%) 3.82 (2.10–6.95) <0.001 Shoulder 35 (49%) 36 (51%) 2.80 (1.44–5.42) 0.002 Hip 19 (36%) 34 (64%) 1.67 (0.78–3.54) 0.2 Pelvic bone 20 (27%) 54 (73%) 1.10 (0.57–2.14) 0.8 Extremities 42 (52%) 39 (48%) 3.04 (1.74–5.29) <0.001 Multiple site 34 (31%) 75 (69%) 1.25 (0.73–2.14) 0.4 Time between radiotherapy start date and death 1–7 days 92 (49%) 97 (51%) 1 8–14 days 99 (29%) 246 (71%) 0.40 (0.25–0.65) < 0.001 15–30 days 205 (25%) 620 (75%) 0.33 (0.21–0.51) < 0.001 Socio‐economic status 1st quintile (most disadvantaged) 103 (35%) 194 (65%) 1 2nd quintile 63 (32%) 137 (69%) 0.88 (0.55–1.40) 0.6 3rd quintile 70 (26%) 203 (74%) 0.73 (0.46–1.17) 0.2 4th quintile 55 (22%) 194 (78%) 0.63 (0.39–1.02) 0.06 5th quintile (least disadvantaged) 105 (31%) 235 (69%) 1.00 (0.62–1.61) 0.9 Remoteness of area of residency Major city 262 (28%) 668 (72%) Inner regional 109 (31%) 241 (69%) Outer regional/ remote 25 (32%) 54 (68%) Treatment institution type Public 317 (33%) 633 (67%) 1 Private 79 (19%) 330 (81%) 0.44 (0.29–0.65) < 0.001 Treatment institution location Metropolitan 280 (27%) 746 (73%) 1 Regional 116 (35%) 217 (65%) 1.02 (0.71‐1.47) 0.9 Year of radiotherapy 2013 115 (30%) 262 (70%) 2014 93 (28%) 243 (72%) 2015 84 (26%) 241 (74%) 2016 104 (32%) 217 (68%) MFRT = multifraction radiotherapy.

Wee Loon Ong · Farshad Foroudi · Roger L Milne · Jeremy L Millar

A 73-year-old man underwent a right total right knee replacement for osteoarthritis

Suran L Fernando · Marc J Capon · Sarah L Green · Michael J Boyle

A 46-year-old man with a history of chronic hepatitis B and alcohol misuse presented with acute abdominal pain

Yoen Young Chuah · Yeong Yeh Lee

To the Editor: We write in reference to the recommendations published by Brewster and colleagues1 to report our centre’s experience with tracheal intubation in adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) in Australia. Intubating patients with COVID‐19 requires careful balance between providing adequate pre‐oxygenation while concurrently maintaining staff safety through minimising aerosolisation. Guidelines from the Safe Airway Society (SAS),1 the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society,2 and overseas3 emphasised rapid sequence induction techniques with the minimisation of bag valve mask ventilation. Our institution developed a specific tracheal intubation protocol for the intubation of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID‐19 incorporating the recommendations of the SAS.1 Eight patients with confirmed COVID‐19 have been intubated in our intensive care unit. The demographic characteristics of these patients are similar to those reported internationally,4,5 with a male predominance (seven out of eight) and a mean age of 69 years (range, 52–77 years). Before intubation, each patient was receiving high flow nasal oxygenation, with flow rates of 15–50 L/min and fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) 60–100%. All patients were pre‐oxygenated via bag valve mask with a positive end expiratory pressure valve in the assembly, as per the SAS recommended circuit set‐up.1 Video laryngoscopy with indirect view was used and a full view of the glottis was established for six of the eight patients; in the other two patients only the epiglottis was seen. All patients were intubated successfully on the first attempt with a bougie. During intubation, desaturation to peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (Spo2) 70% or less occurred in six of the eight patients, although the Spo2 recovered to more than 90% within one minute of being connected to the ventilator in five patients and within several minutes in the remaining patient. No patient received manual ventilation, and none of the patients developed haemodynamic instability during the intubation period. Our centre’s experience, while modest in number, highlights the significant risk of desaturation during intubation for patients with respiratory failure and COVID‐19 using a conservative approach to pre‐oxygenation and apnoeic oxygenation that minimises aerosolisation. We note the now updated SAS statement saying that “patients with severe disease are likely to require manual ventilation to prevent profound oxygen desaturation”.1 Whether manual ventilation, alternative pre‐oxygenation methods, or other strategies, such as potentially tolerating desaturation as transient and expected, is the most suitable method for patients with COVID‐19 remains to be determined.

Katherine E Triplett · Luke W Collett

In reply

David J Brewster · Christopher J Groombridge · Jonathan J Gatward

Objectives: To evaluate whether educating junior doctors and hospital pharmacists about analgesic prescribing improved discharge prescribing of opioids for opioid‐naïve patients after surgical admissions. Design: Cluster randomised controlled trial, undertaken during the first half of 2019. Setting: The Alfred Hospital, a major Melbourne teaching hospital with 13 surgical units. Participants: Opioid‐naïve patients discharged from surgical units after a stay of at least 24 hours. Intervention: Surgical units were randomised to the intervention or control arms. Interns, residents, and clinical pharmacists assigned to intervention arm units attended education sessions, presented by the hospital analgesic stewardship pharmacist, about appropriate analgesic prescribing for patients in hospital surgical units. Main outcome measures: The patients prescribed slow release opioids on discharge from hospital during the baseline (1 February – 30 April 2018) and post‐intervention periods (17 February – 30 April 2019). Results: During the baseline period, 1369 intervention unit and 1014 control unit admissions were included in our analysis; during the evaluation period, 973 intervention unit and 706 control unit episodes were included. After adjusting for age, length of stay, pain score, acute pain service involvement, and use of immediate release opioids prior to admission, patients in the intervention group were prescribed slow release opioids at discharge less frequently than patients in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.52; 95% CI, 0.35–0.77) and were more frequently discharged without any prescribed opioids following the intervention (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.24–2.30). Providing de‐escalation plans was more frequent for intervention than control group patients prescribed slow release opioids on discharge post‐intervention (OR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.25–4.45). Conclusions: Specific education for clinicians and pharmacists about appropriate analgesic prescribing for surgical patients is effective in reducing prescribing of opioids at discharge. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12618000876291 (prospective).

Ria E Hopkins · Thuy Bui · Alex H Konstantatos · Carolyn Arnold · Dianna J Magliano · Danny Liew · Michael J Dooley

Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is a contagious disease that is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). Health care workers are at risk of infection from aerosolisation of respiratory secretions, droplet and contact spread. There are a number of procedures that represent a high risk of aerosol generation during cardiothoracic surgery. It is important that adequate training, equipment and procedures are in place to reduce that risk. Recommendations: We provide a number of key recommendations, which reduce the risk of aerosol generation during cardiothoracic surgery and help protect patients and staff. These include general measures such as patient risk stratification, appropriate use of personal protective equipment, consideration to delay surgery in positive patients, and careful attention to theatre planning and preparation. There are also recommended procedural interventions during airway management, transoesophageal echocardiography, cardiopulmonary bypass, chest drain management and specific cardiothoracic surgical procedures. Controversies exist regarding the management of low risk patients undergoing procedures at high risk of aerosol generation, and recommendations for these patients will change depending on the regional prevalence, risk of community transmission and the potential for asymptomatic patients attending for these procedures. Changes in management as a result of this statement: This statement reflects changes in management based on expert opinion, national guidelines and available evidence. Our knowledge with regard to COVID‐19 continues to evolve and with this, guidance may change and develop. Our colleagues are urged to follow national guidelines and institutional recommendations regarding best practices to protect their patients and themselves. Endorsed by: Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons and the Anaesthetic Continuing Education Cardiac Thoracic Vascular and Perfusion Special Interest Group.

Joanne F Irons · Warren Pavey · Jayme S Bennetts · Emily Granger · Elli Tutungi · Aubrey Almeida

Fit testing of respirators is recommended to ensure proper fit for individual health care workers and is required to comply with respirator standards

Adrian Regli · Britta S Ungern‐Sternberg

Introduction: This statement was planned on 11 March 2020 to provide clinical guidance and aid staff preparation for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic in Australia and New Zealand. It has been widely endorsed by relevant specialty colleges and societies. Main recommendations: Generic guidelines exist for the intubation of different patient groups, as do resources to facilitate airway rescue and transition to the “can't intubate, can't oxygenate” scenario. They should be followed where they do not contradict our specific recommendations for the COVID‐19 patient group. Consideration should be given to using a checklist that has been specifically modified for the COVID‐19 patient group. Early intubation should be considered to prevent the additional risk to staff of emergency intubation and to avoid prolonged use of high flow nasal oxygen or non‐invasive ventilation. Significant institutional preparation is required to optimise staff and patient safety in preparing for the airway management of the COVID‐19 patient group. The principles for airway management should be the same for all patients with COVID‐19 (asymptomatic, mild or critically unwell). Safe, simple, familiar, reliable and robust practices should be adopted for all episodes of airway management for patients with COVID‐19. Changes in management as a result of this statement: Airway clinicians in Australia and New Zealand should now already be involved in regular intensive training for the airway management of the COVID‐19 patient group. This training should focus on the principles of early intervention, meticulous planning, vigilant infection control, efficient processes, clear communication and standardised practice.

David J Brewster · Nicholas Chrimes · Thy BT Do · Kirstin Fraser · Christopher J Groombridge · Andy Higgs · Matthew J Humar · Timothy J Leeuwenburg · Steven McGloughlin · Fiona G Newman · Chris P Nickson · Adam Rehak · David Vokes · Jonathan J Gatward

Upscheduling has not led to substitution with higher strength analgesics, and has reduced the misuse of codeine- containing preparations

Malcolm D Dobbin

Objective: To investigate changes in sales to pharmacies of over‐the‐counter (OTC) and prescription analgesics, cold and flu products, and cough suppressants after the rescheduling of codeine as a prescription only medicine in February 2018. Design: Interrupted time series analysis of sales to pharmacies. Setting: Pharmaceutical sales to community pharmacies in Australia, March 2015 – March 2019. The period January 2017 (month after rescheduling was announced) to January 2018 (month before rescheduling was implemented) was excluded from the time series analysis. Main outcome measures: Monthly pack and tablet sales per 10 000 population of OTC and prescription analgesics, cold and flu products, and cough suppressants. Results: During 2016, 7586 packs and 248 127 tablets of OTC codeine per 10 000 population were sold to pharmacies; in the 14 months after rescheduling, a small level increase in monthly prescription codeine sales was evident (2247 tablets/capsules per 10 000 population; 95% CI, 1231–3264 per 10 000 population). Monthly OTC analgesic sales increased by 258 (95% CI, 151–365) packs per 10 000 population and 37 856 (95% CI, 26 143–49 569) tablet/capsules per 10 000 population. Monthly sales of single ingredient paracetamol (41 415 [95% CI, 31 374–51 456] tablets/capsules per 10 000 population), ibuprofen (1392 [95% CI 916–1868] tablets/capsules per 10 000 population), paracetamol/ibuprofen (1618 tablets [95% CI, 1567–1669] tablets/capsules per 10 000 population), and other paracetamol combinations (233 [95% CI, 112–353] tablets/capsules per 10 000 population) all increased, but not those of prescription analgesic products not containing codeine. Rises for OTC cold/flu products containing the opioid derivative dextromethorphan were small; sales of OTC cough suppressants containing opioid derivatives (dextromethorphan, pholcodine, dihydrocodeine) did not change. Conclusions: The rescheduling of codeine was followed by increased sales to pharmacies of paracetamol, ibuprofen, and paracetamol combination products. While these products carry no risk of dependence, their inappropriate use is also associated with harms that warrant adverse event monitoring.

Andrea L Schaffer · Rose Cairns · Jared A Brown · Natasa Gisev · Nicholas A Buckley · Sallie‐Anne Pearson

If I am allowed to anaesthetise again, I'll share a few quiet reassuring words with my patients I had spent the past 25 years working in hospitals, intensive care units (ICUs) and theatres. So many thousands of operations on so many patients, and yet here I was, fearful and frankly embarrassed. I lay motionless, face fixed in an unconvincing grin for the benefit of former colleagues as I floated past them, a single off‐white sheet covering my goosebumps. Just another patient this time. Paraded down the corridor; relatives and staff trying to guess whether you were haemorrhoids or a vasectomy. I was no longer the operating room DJ, “gasman” and “wannabe comedian”. Rather than choosing a playlist and sipping the first of many espressos that morning, I had stiffly, illegibly signed a consent form and wet my parched lips from a plastic cup. The last time consent for surgery had been requested, it had been during an emergency helicopter flight, given by my shell‐shocked wife, thousands of miles away. She had tearfully agreed to the trauma team's plans to stabilise my broken neck and jaw, sew my ear back on and drain my exploded right chest, ruptured lung and kidney. The good news was that the pulverised hands and multiple lumbar fractures could wait for another day. It hadn't been clear at that stage if walking was going to be an option, nor whether the brutal deceleration would take a longer term toll upon my brain. It would be a week in the ICU, ventilated and restrained, plus many months of interminable rehabilitation before anyone would know for certain. I remembered accelerating down that long steep hill into Apollo Bay, tucking low on the frame, not even having to pedal to gain speed rapidly, looking ahead for the group I had lost contact with. I flew past other riders, cautiously feathering their brakes on the descent. My eyes watered in the chill jet stream and the bike's carbon wheels chattered on the gleaming tarmac. Then darkness. Silence. Darkness. A large, calloused hand gently, insistently squeezed mine. Like waking from a deep restful sleep, I realised that I had been aware of the pressure on my palm for some time before I understood to try to respond. Slowly, hesitantly, I opened my eyes. The voice was deep, resonant and strangely familiar. It was my son. The brain damage that I sustained on that cold morning in Melbourne, head on into a street pole at 65 km/h tossed me onto the other side of life's road. Each of us doctors spends our training and junior years formulating our own personal and crucially professional identity. Born from repetitive, regular crises of confidence through patient deaths, personal errors and sometimes just promotion to the next terrifying level of responsibility. It wasn't so much learning what to do to be a competent doctor; it was more learning what it was to be a doctor, how we saw ourselves and how society regarded us. I realised that I could no longer muster that theatre blues’ confidence, that surgical squad strut. Laying on a theatre trolley, in a queue for the lifts, I was just another tremulous punter, nervous about the loss of control. I was most afraid of the drug‐induced, return to the darkness. The maxillofacial surgeon had asked me, many weeks after the plates and metalwork had been screwed in, between loosening yanks on the wires holding my face together, if I remembered the accident. I gargled denial noises, my mouth jammed open. “That's a good job,” she laughed. “What a mess!” Operating lists had been my working day and I missed them and my colleagues too, diligent and quirky, good‐hearted and generous. I watched them quietly busy around me, hushed and focused as they made their last detailed preparations. Part of me was ashamed that I knew so little about each of them individually, especially since so many had spontaneously sought me out, given me support and warmth during my months in rehabilitation. Perhaps there was more to medicine than just caring for people. Health teams build something together. Trust, empathy, a united resolve to do the best we can. It looked simple enough when you saw staff doing the same operation a thousand times, but it was the commitment to excellence and good outcomes that defined these humble, generous people. Many of the staff knew me that day as I arrived in the cool clinical space, air conditioner humming, the last stop before the deep dive. A familiar face checked me in for the final time. Knowing her well as I did, I was fleetingly relieved that it was my arm, and not some more delicate area that had been crushed as I was catapulted from the bike. I lay there quietly and felt the emotions rise again, tears welling up. The crash trauma and the rehabilitation had made me afraid of the absence, the journey into that anaesthetic void. I could picture the theatre scene on the day of the accident. Probably not much different to today really. Relaxed, professional and all quite routine. Shredded Lycra, chest drains, ruptured organs and the rest. Sometimes, when I had been the boss, patients would get worried when I told them that things were routine. That wasn't to say we weren't concentrating, it's just that we had done it many times before. I would deliberately avoid the patient's back story just to keep my own anxiety at bay, ignore the injustice and bypass the random cruelty of their situation. Just put an airway into them and keep them asleep while the damaged bits got sorted. No doubt, when they lay my broken body onto a theatre table after the crash, it was much the same. Maybe some passing banter about the weekend's footy results, the crappy Melbourne weather and “middle‐aged men in Lycra” who really should know better. How ironic it would have been had I not hit the pole with my chin, but with my forehead and pithed my brain. Imagine the plaudits for the State Medical Director for DonateLife who felt so impassioned about saving other people's lives through organ donation, that he selflessly became a donor himself. Surely at least an Order of Australia for me? It could have been one of my team informing my family, hands held tight, that their husband and father was not going to make it but that he could save other people's lives. Drugs now flowed into a vein. I often tried to excel at the flippant and the ridiculous in the face of the worst of emergency situations, but not today, not on the other side, a scared patient. “Another one bites the dust” had always got a giggle if I played it from my Spotify favourites, just before sleep time. I used to jokingly tell patients before I put them under that being worried was quite understandable and that if anything bad happened, they would never know because they'd be dead. Strangely, that didn't seem funny anymore. Perhaps if I am allowed to anaesthetise again, once my brain is straight, I'll just share a few quiet reassuring words with my patients, tell them that it's okay to be frightened, that they're safe and that I won't leave their side until they awake. I used to pat myself on the back when a patient left my ICU. Now I have seen that leaving the ICU is not the end of the journey but the start of a new journey. I tried to explain through the mist of my confusion to the nurse caring for me that without her company and support, I wouldn't have survived. She started to cry. I hadn't meant to upset her but I wanted her to know that I was grateful. The outpatients’ clinic since then has been shocking and revelatory. I was the only one not in a wheelchair and for that I felt terrible guilt. Proper patients with proper injuries, courage and optimism by the bucketload have been a sombre reminder of what might have been. I have no memory of those first few steps, my wife's tears or the cheers from my hemiplegic room‐mate as I edged back onto my bed for a well earned rest. Because of the brain injuries, the thought of anaesthetising someone now fills me with an unfamiliar fear. It took me all my waking hours to craft this cast‐iron professional identity of mine and an instant to fatally fracture it. I even had the Rod of Asclepius tattooed on my biceps on my 50th birthday just to affirm a life's commitment to medicine. The supreme irony that I may never practise again and the loss of that coveted persona have been the most traumatic part. Who am I now? I used to be a doctor until that day on the Great Ocean Road. Not anymore. Perhaps one day I will accept the crash and its consequences; move on with my life. Not quite yet.

Bruce Powell

To the Editor: The editorial by Murnion and Conigrave1 and the article by Crossin and colleagues2 on the dangers of misuse of pregabalin are a timely warning to all prescribers. The black market utility (based on testimonies) and frequent misuse of pregabalin is well known both academically and to prescribers in prison environments.3,4 Harm relating to gabapentinoid use is noted to be increasing globally. A 2017 case–control study showed a dramatic increase in relative risk of death with opioid and gabapentinoid versus opioid alone.5 People leaving prison are at a higher risk of opioid overdose death, partly because of loss of tolerance.6,7 This will likely be compounded by inappropriate gabapentinoid prescribing. In New South Wales prisons, the Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network sees many patients who present seeking pregabalin and other prescription drugs in our health clinics. Patients often enter custody using high doses of medications prescribed in the community, including gabapentinoids, benzodiazepines and opiates. The Network applies a multidisciplinary team approach between primary care, pharmacy, and drug, alcohol and mental health services for these complex patients. Furthermore, clinicians undertake regular medication reviews of patients; medications that are not indicated are deprescribed to reduce potential harm to patients.8,9 The Network has developed management guidelines around gabapentinoid use, including regular review of prescriptions by general practitioners and the clinical director. Off‐label use is discouraged. Pregabalin is always a supervised medication, and dose limits and deprescribing programs are in place to limit availability if not indicated. Alternate medications for the management of diagnosed neuropathic pain are effective and may pose less risk in prison environments.8,9 Gabapentinoid drugs are not used as an alternative to opiate pain medications in NSW prisons. Patients are assessed and given appropriate medications according to the quality and safe use of medicines approach, and medication charts are regularly audited to ensure safe prescription of medications. There has been an overall reduction in actual gabapentinoid prescribing in NSW prisons in recent years. We encourage all Australian prescribers to ensure care around prescribing of gabapentinoid and other medications, especially for complex patients with drug and alcohol misuse and polypharmacy issues.

Gary Nicholls · Peter Samios · Stephen Hampton

Despite the evolving needs of patients and changing societal expectations, Australasian intensive care continues to provide a world leading service to patients and the broader society

Stephen Warrillow · Raymond Raper

Understanding how to identify acid-base disorders is essential, as their consequences can be life-threatening

KJ Farley · Elisa Licari

We are not viewed or valued by our community through a lens of disease, machines and location

Neil R Orford

Routine screening of older ICU patients for frailty could improve outcome prediction and inform health care planning

Jai N Darvall · Rinaldo Bellomo · Eldho Paul · Ashwin Subramaniam · John D Santamaria · Sean M Bagshaw · Sumeet Rai · Ruth E Hubbard · David Pilcher