Analgesic Use and Risk for Acute Coronary Events in Patients With Osteoarthritis: A Population-based, Nested Case-control Study

Pathogenesis of sleep disordered breathing in the setting of opioid use: A multiple mediation analysis using physiology

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Opioid medications are commonly used and are known to impact both breathing and sleep, and are linked with adverse health outcomes including death. Clinical data indicate that chronic opioid use causes central sleep apnea, and might also worsen obstructive sleep apnea. The mechanisms by which opioids influence sleep-disordered breathing pathogenesis are not established.

METHODS

Patients who underwent clinically-indicated polysomnography confirming sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) (AHI≥5/hr) were included. Each patient using opioids was matched by sex, age, and BMI to three control individuals not using opioids. Physiology known to influence SDB pathogenesis were determined from validated polysomnography-based signal analysis. PSG and physiology paramters of interest were compared between opioid and control individuals, adjusted for covariates. Mediation analysis was used to evaluate the link between opioids, physiology, and polysomnographic metrics.

RESULTS

178 individuals using opioids were matched to 534 controls (median [IQR] age 59 [50,65] years, BMI 33 [29,41] kg/m2, 57% female, daily morphine equivalent 30 [20,80] mg). Compared with controls, opioids were associated with increased central apneas (2.8 vs 1.7 events/hr; p=0.001) and worsened hypoxemia (5 vs 3% sleep with SpO2<88%; p=0.013), with similar overall AHI. Use of opioids was associated with higher loop gain, a lower respiratory rate and higher respiratory rate variability. Higher loop gain and increased respiratory rate variability mediated the effect of opioids on central apnea, but did not mediate the effect on hypoxemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Opioids have multi-level effects impacting SDB. Targeting these factors may help mitigate deleterious respiratory consequences of chronic opioid use.

How to treat chronic pain in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) - A pharmacological review

INTRODUCTION

Chronic pain is a common symptom of rheumatic diseases that impacts patients' quality of life. While non-pharmacological approaches are often recommended as first-line treatments, pharmacological interventions are important for pain management. However, the effectiveness and safety of different pharmacological treatments for chronic pain in rheumatic diseases are unclear.

METHODS

This review critically synthesizes the current evidence base to guide clinicians in selecting appropriate pharmacological treatments for their patients, considering the expected benefits and potential risks and side effects.

RESULTS

For osteoarthritis, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, opioids, and antidepressants are commonly used, with NSAIDs being the most recommended. In addition, topical agents, such as topical NSAIDs, are recommended for localized pain relief. For fibromyalgia, amitriptyline, serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and gabapentinoids are commonly used, with SNRIs being the most recommended. For back pain, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, opioids are used only for acute of flare-up pain, whereas neuropathic pain drugs are only used for chronic radicular pain. For inflammatory rheumatic diseases, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biological agents are recommended to slow disease progression and manage symptoms.

CONCLUSION

While DMARDs and biological agents are recommended for inflammatory rheumatic diseases, pharmacological treatments for other rheumatic diseases only alleviate symptoms and do not provide a cure for the underlying condition. The use of pharmacological treatments should be based on the expected benefits and evaluation of side effects, with non-pharmacological modalities also being considered, especially for fibromyalgia.

Prevalence of Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs Prescribed for Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

OBJECTIVE

Our systematic review aimed to investigate the proportion of participants with osteoarthritis who were prescribed nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) by their health care provider.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for observational studies reporting NSAID prescribing to participants with diagnosed osteoarthritis of any region. Risk of bias was assessed using a tool designed for observational studies measuring prevalence. Random and fixed-effects meta-analysis was used. Meta-regression investigated study-level factors associated with prescribing. The overall evidence quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria.

RESULTS

Fifty-one studies were included, published between 1989 and 2022, with 6,494,509 participants. The mean age of participants was 64.7 years (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 62.4, 67.0; n = 34 studies). Most studies were from Europe and Central Asia (n = 23 studies), and North America (n = 12 studies). Most studies were judged to be at low risk of bias (75%). Heterogeneity was eliminated when removing studies with a high risk of bias, to give a pooled estimate of NSAIDs prescribing to participants with osteoarthritis of 43.8% (95% CI 36.8, 51.1; moderate quality of evidence). Meta-regression determined that prescribing was associated with year (decreased prescribing over time; P = 0.05) and geographic region (P = 0.03; higher in Europe and Central Asia and in South Asia than in North America) but not with clinical setting.

CONCLUSION

Data from over 6.4 million participants with osteoarthritis between 1989 and 2022 indicate that NSAID prescribing has decreased over time and that prescribing differs between geographic locations.

Association of opioid use disorder with outcomes of hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction in the United States

OBJECTIVE

While Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) has been linked to inferior clinical outcomes, studies examining the clinical outcomes and readmission of OUD patients experiencing Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) remain lacking. The authors analyze the clinical and financial outcomes of OUD in a contemporary cohort of AMI hospitalizations.

METHODS

All non-elective adult (≥ 18 years) hospitalizations for AMI were tabulated from the 2016‒2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database using relevant International Classification of Disease codes. Patients were grouped into OUD and non-OUD cohorts. Bivariate and regression analyses were performed to identify the independent association of OUD with outcomes after non-elective admission for AMI, as well as subsequent readmission.

RESULTS

Of an estimated 3,318,257 hospitalizations for AMI meeting study criteria, 36,057 (1.1%) had a concomitant diagnosis of OUD. While OUD was not significantly associated with mortality, OUD patients experienced superior cardiovascular outcomes compared to non-OUD. However, OUD was linked to increased odds of non-cardiovascular complications, length of stay, costs, non-home discharge, and 30-day non-elective readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with OUD presented with AMI at a significantly younger age than non-OUD. While OUD appears to have a cardioprotective effect, it is associated with several markers of increased resource use, including readmission. The present findings underscore the need for a multifaceted approach to increasing social services and treatment for OUD at index hospitalization.

Association of Nonacute Opioid Use and Cardiovascular Diseases: A Scoping Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND In this scoping review, we identified and reviewed 23 original articles from the PubMed database that investigated the relationship between nonacute opioid use (NOU) and cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS We defined NOU to include both long-term opioid therapy and opioid use disorder. We summarized the association between NOU and 5 classes of cardiovascular disease, including infective endocarditis, coronary heart disease (including myocardial infarction), congestive heart failure, cardiac arrythmia (including cardiac arrest), and stroke. The most commonly studied outcomes were coronary heart disease and infective endocarditis. There was generally consistent evidence of a positive association between community prevalence of injection drug use (with opioids being the most commonly injected type of drug) and community prevalence of infective endocarditis, and between (primarily medically indicated) NOU and myocardial infarction. There was less consensus about the relationship between NOU and congestive heart failure, cardiac arrhythmia, and stroke. CONCLUSIONS There is a dearth of high-quality evidence on the relationship between NOU and cardiovascular disease. Innovative approaches to the assessment of opioid exposure over extended periods of time will be required to address this need.

A Retrospective Database Study of Gastrointestinal Events and Medical Costs Associated with Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs in Japanese Patients of Working Age with Osteoarthritis and Chronic Low Back Pain

CONTEXT

The real-world burden of gastrointestinal (GI) events associated with the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in Japanese patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and/or chronic low back pain (CLBP) remains unreported.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the incidence and economic burden of NSAID-induced GI events by using data from large-scale real-world databases.

METHODS

We used the Japanese Medical Data Center database to retrospectively evaluate anonymized claims data of medical insurance beneficiaries employed by middle- to large-size Japanese companies who were prescribed NSAIDs for OA and/or CLBP between 2009 and 2018.

RESULTS

Overall, 180,371 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 32.9% had OA, 53.8% had CLBP, and 13.4% had both OA and CLBP. NSAIDs were administered as first-line analgesics to 161,152 (89.3%) of the patients in the sample, in oral form to 90.3% and as topical patches to 80.4%. A total of 65.1% used combined oral/topical patches. Of the 21.0% of patients consistently using NSAIDs (percentage of days supplied ≥70%), 54.5% received patches. A total of 51.5% patients used NSAIDs for >1 to ≤6 months. The incidence of GI events was 9.97 per 10,000 person-years (95% confidence interval: 8.92-11.03). The risk of developing GI events was high in elderly patients and patients with comorbidities and remained similar for patients receiving oral vs. topical NSAIDs. Longer treatment duration and consistent NSAID use increased the risk of GI events. The cost (median [interquartile range]) of medications (n = 327) was US$ 80.70 ($14.10, $201.40), that of hospitalization (n = 33) was US$ 2,035.50 ($1,517.80, $2,431.90), and that of endoscopic surgery (n = 52) was US$ 418.20 ($418.20, $418.20).

CONCLUSION

NSAID-associated GI toxicity imposes a significant health and economic burden on patients with OA and/or CLBP, irrespective of whether oral or topical NSAIDs are used.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients awaiting spinal cord stimulation surgery in the United Kingdom: a multi-centre patient survey

Introduction

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a recommended treatment for chronic refractory neuropathic pain. During the COVID-19 pandemic, elective procedures have been postponed indefinitely both to provide capacity to deal with the emergency caseload and to avoid exposure of elective patients to COVID-19. This survey aimed to explore the effect of the pandemic on chronic pain in this group and the views of patients towards undergoing SCS treatment when routine services should resume.

Methods

This was a prospective, multi-centre telephone patient survey that analysed data from 330 patients with chronic pain who were on an SCS waiting list. Questions focussed on severity of pain, effect on mental health, medication consumption and reliance on support networks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Views towards undergoing SCS therapy were also ascertained. Counts and percentages were generated, and chi-square tests of independence explored the impact of COVID-19 risk (very high, high, low) on survey responses.

Results

Pain, mental health and patient's ability to self-manage pain deteriorated in around 47%, 50% and 38% of patients, respectively. Some patients reported increases in pain medication consumption (37%) and reliance on support network (41%). Patients showed a willingness to attend for COVID-19 testing (92%), self-isolate prior to SCS (94%) and undergo the procedure as soon as possible (76%).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that even during the COVID-19 pandemic, there remains a strong clinical need for patients with chronic pain identified as likely SCS responders to be treated quickly. The current prioritisation of new SCS at category 4 (delayed more than 3 months) is challenged judging by this national survey. These patients are awaiting SCS surgery to relieve severe intractable neuropathic pain. A priority at category 3 (delayed up to 3 months) or in some selected cases, at category 2 are the appropriate priority categories.

Adverse drug reactions

An adverse drug reaction (ADR) is defined as a response to a medicinal product which is noxious and unintended. ADRs are an important cause of morbidity and mortality and increase health costs. The pharmacovigilance systems allow the identification and prevention of the risks associated with use of a drug, especially of recently marketed drugs; they detect signals from data of the global ADR register and also support decisions taken by regulatory agencies in different countries. Only a few drugs are withdrawn from the market, mainly due to hepatotoxicity. Spontaneous notification of ADR is the cheapest, simplest and most used method to recognize new safety drug problems, under-reporting being its main limitation. The future of pharmacovigilance and ADRs will include a higher involvement of patients, doctors, health authorities and pharmaceutical companies, and the use of new technologies.

Association of tramadol with risk of myocardial infarction among patients with osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

Tramadol has been widely used among patients with osteoarthritis (OA); however, there is paucity of information on its cardiovascular risk. We aimed to examine the association of tramadol with risk of myocardial infarction (MI) among patients with OA.

DESIGN

Among OA patients aged 50-90 years without history of MI, cancer, or opioid use disorder in The Health Improvement Network database in the United Kingdom (2000-2016), three sequential propensity-score matched cohort studies were assembled, i.e., (1) patients who initiated tramadol or naproxen (negative comparator); (2) patients who initiated tramadol or diclofenac (positive comparator); and (3) patients who initiated tramadol or codeine (a commonly used weak opioid). The outcome was incident MI over six-months.

RESULTS

Among tramadol and naproxen initiators (n = 33,024 in each cohort), 77 (4.8/1000 person-years) and 46 (2.8/1000 person-years) incident MI occurred, respectively. The rate difference (RD) and hazard ratios (HR) for incident MI with tramadol initiation were 1.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6 to 2.3)/1000 person-years and 1.68 (95% CI 1.16 to 2.41) relative to naproxen initiation, respectively. Among tramadol and diclofenac initiators (n = 18,662 in each cohort), 58 (6.4/1000 person-years) and 47 (5.1/1000 person-years) incident MIs occurred, respectively. The corresponding RD and HR for incident MI were 1.2 (95%CI -2.1 to 14.1)/1000 person-years and 1.24 (95%CI 0.84 to 1.82), respectively. Among tramadol and codeine initiators (n = 42,722 in each cohort), 127 (6.1/1000 person-years) and 103 (5.0/1000 person-years) incident MI occurred, respectively, and the corresponding RD and HR were 1.1 (95%CI:-0.3 to 2.5)/1000 person-years and 1.23 (95%CI:0.95 to 1.60), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population-based cohort of patients with OA, the six-month risk of MI among initiators of tramadol was higher than that of naproxen, but comparable to, if not lower than, those of diclofenac or codeine.

Patterns of drug treatment in patients with osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain in Japan: a retrospective database study

Purpose: Musculoskeletal diseases, including osteoarthritis (OA) and low back pain (LBP), are the leading causes of years lived with disability, and are associated with lowered quality-of-life, lost productivity, and increased healthcare costs. However, information publicly available regarding the Japanese real-world usage of prescription medications is limited. This study aimed to describe the clinical characteristics of patients with OA and chronic LBP (CLBP), and to investigate the patterns of medications and opioid use in Japanese real-world settings.

Materials and methods: A retrospective study was conducted using a Japanese administrative claims database between 2013 and 2017. The outcomes were patient characteristics and prescription medications, and they were evaluated separately for OA and CLBP.

Results: The mean age of 118,996 patients with OA and 256,402 patients with CLBP was 68.8±13.1 years and 64.8±16.4 years, respectively. Approximately 90% of patients with OA and CLBP were prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Other prescriptions included hyaluronate injection (35.6%), acetaminophen (21.4%), and steroid injection (20.0%) in patients with OA, and pregabalin (39.0%) and acetaminophen (22.4%) in patients with CLBP. Weak opioids were prescribed to 10.7% and 20.6% of patients with OA and CLBP, respectively. The prescription of COX-2 inhibitors (OA: +6.5%; CLBP: +6.7%) and acetaminophen (OA: +16.4%; CLBP: +14.4%) increased between 2013 and 2017. The first commonly prescribed medication among patients with OA and CLBP were NSAIDs; hyaluronate injection (patients with OA) and pregabalin (patients with CLBP) were also common first-line medications. Acetaminophen, steroid injection (patients with OA), and weak opioids were prescribed more in the later phases of treatment.

Conclusion: Most patients were prescribed limited classes of pain drugs, with NSAIDs being the most common pain medication in Japan for patients with OA and CLBP. Opioid prescription was uncommon, and were weak opioids when prescribed.

Cardiovascular Risk of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs and Classical and Selective Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors: A Meta-analysis of Observational Studies

The purpose of this study was to review the published evidence on the clinical use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and to assess the cardiovascular risk (CVR) of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (coxibs), excluding aspirin, by means of a meta-analytic procedure. A search was conducted on MEDLINE and EMBASE databases between October 1999 and June 2018. Cohort and case-control studies showing CVR as relative risk (RR), odds ratio, hazard ratio, or incidence rate ratio associated with NSAIDs versus no treatment were selected. We estimated the pooled RR and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for all NSAIDs as a whole and individually. Eighty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, NSAIDs were found to be associated with a statistically significantly increased CVR (RR, 1.24 [95%CI, 1.19-1.28]). The risk was slightly higher for coxibs (RR, 1.22 [95%CI, 1.17-1.28]) as compared with nonselective NSAIDs (RR, 1.18 [95%CI, 1.12-1.24]). Data analysis by drug disclosed that rofecoxib (RR, 1.39 [95%CI, 1.31-1.47]), followed by diclofenac (RR, 1.34 [95%CI, 1.26-1.42]) and etoricoxib (RR, 1.27 [95%CI, 1.12-1.43]) were the NSAIDs associated with the highest CVR. Analysis by type of event showed that the highest risk corresponded to vascular events for both coxibs (RR, 2.18 [95%CI, 1.72-2.78]) and nonselective NSAIDs (RR, 2.46 [95%CI, 2.00-3.02]). The meta-analysis results suggest that the use of the marketed coxibs celecoxib and etoricoxib would be related to a statistically significant CVR increase. Etoricoxib CVR could be higher than that for celecoxib. This increment would be similar to classical NSAID CVR.