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

Major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality with opioids versus NSAIDs initiation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Assess major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) risk with opioids compared with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) METHODS: We conducted a new-user active comparator cohort study among patients with RA within FORWARD, The National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, with ≥1 year participation between 1998 and 2021. Each opioid initiator was matched to two NSAID initiators by propensity scores (PSs). Patients were followed until the occurrence of the composite endpoint of MACE (myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, cardiovascular disease (CVD) death, venous thromboembolism (VTE)) and all-cause mortality. The risk of outcomes was estimated using Cox proportional hazards with adjustment for PS weights and imbalanced covariables.

RESULTS

Among 6866 opioid initiators and 13 689 NSAID initiators, 212 vs 253 MACE (20.6/1000 person-years (PY) vs 18.9/1000 PY) and 144 vs 150 deaths (13.5/1000 PY vs 10.8/1000 PY) occurred, respectively. The risk of MACE with opioids was similar to NSAIDs (HR=1.02, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.22), whereas all-cause mortality with opioids was 33% higher than NSAIDs (HR=1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.67) in PS-weighted models. Among the individual outcomes of MACE, VTE risk tended to be higher in opioid initiators than NSAID initiators (HR=1.41, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.35). Strong opioids had a higher risk for all-cause mortality and VTE than weak opioids compared with NSAIDs suggesting a dose-dependent association.

CONCLUSION

Opioids had similar MACE risk compared with NSAIDs in patients with RA with increased all-cause mortality and likely VTE, which suggests that opioids are not safer than NSAIDs, as clinicians have perceived.

Interactions of Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs and Aspirin and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease in Patients With Osteoarthritis

Nonsteroidal antiinf lammatory drugs (NSAIDs) remain the mainstay of the pharmacologic management for relieving osteoarthritis pain, and low-dose aspirin is often prescribed to osteoarthritis patients who are at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). We conducted cohort studies using data from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database (2000-2019) to assess whether the relationship of initiation of naproxen or ibuprofen vs. initiation of other NSAIDs (excluding both naproxen and ibuprofen), respectively, to the risk of CVD was modified by coprescription of low-dose aspirin among the participants with osteoarthritis. Among participants without coprescription of aspirin, the risk of CVD was lower in naproxen initiators (10.3/1000 person-years) than in other NSAIDs initiators (13.2/1000 person-years; hazard ratio = 0.71, 95% confidence interval: 0.60, 0.85). Among participants with coprescription of aspirin, however, the risk of CVD was higher among naproxen initiators (36.9/1000 person-years) than that among other NSAIDs initiators (34.8/1000 person-years; hazard ratio = 1.48, 95% confidence interval: 1.12, 1.84). The association was significantly modified by coprescription of aspirin (P < 0.001). Similar findings were observed in the association of initiation of ibuprofen vs. other NSAIDs with the risk of CVD, which was significantly modified by coprescription of aspirin (P < 0.001). These findings suggest that osteoarthritis patients and clinicians should be aware of the potential CVD risk of concurrently taking naproxen or ibuprofen and low-dose aspirin.

Efficacy and Safety of Tramadol for Knee or Hip Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To examine efficacy and safety of tramadol for knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched up to May 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any of the following interventions: tramadol 100 mg/day, 200 mg/day, and 300 mg/day, and placebo for knee or hip OA. Pain and function were measured at or near 12 weeks for efficacy. Gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and central nervous system (CNS) adverse events (AEs), and withdrawals were measured for safety. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Six RCTs (3,611 participants) were included. Tramadol 100 mg/day (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.16 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -0.34, 0.00]), 200 mg/day (SMD -0.21 [95% CI -0.37, -0.06]), and 300 mg/day (SMD -0.30 [95% CI -0.48, -0.14]) were statistically more effective than placebo in pain relief, but only tramadol 300 mg/day was better than placebo in functional improvement (SMD -0.24 [95% CI -0.47, -0.03]). Tramadol 100 mg/day (relative risk [RR] 2.29 [95% credible interval (CrI) 1.22, 4.25]), 200 mg/day (RR 4.35 [95% CrI 2.31, 8.01]), and 300 mg/day (RR 6.02 [95% CrI 3.22, 11.1]) involved a higher risk of gastrointestinal AEs. Similarly, tramadol 100-300 mg/day showed a higher risk of CNS AEs and withdrawals. However, the risk of cardiovascular AEs remained unclear.

CONCLUSION

Only tramadol 300 mg/day showed minimal improvement in pain and function but with increasing AEs compared with placebo. Tramadol may not be sufficiently recommended for knee or hip OA based on the presented evidence, especially in patients with the risk of gastrointestinal and CNS AEs.

Increased Risk of COVID-19 in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A General Population-Based Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at an increased risk of acquiring infections owing to immunologic dysfunction and use of potent immunomodulatory medications; however, few data are available on their risk of COVID-19. We estimated the rate of COVID-19 among RA participants and compared it with that of the general population.

METHODS

Using the Health Improvement Network, we identified RA patients before February 2020 and followed them to September 2020. We calculated the rate of COVID-19 among participants with RA and compared it with that of the general population using a Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for potential confounders using overlap weighting of exposure score. We repeated the same analysis among participants with osteoarthritis, a nonautoimmune rheumatic disease, as a negative control exposure.

RESULTS

We identified 225 cases of suspected and confirmed COVID-19 among 17,268 RA patients, and 14,234 cases among 1,616,600 participants in the general population (1.4 versus 0.9/1,000 person-months), with the adjusted hazard ratio (HR_adj ) being 1.19 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.04-1.36). Confirmed COVID-19 cases developed in 46 RA participants and in 2,249 in the general population (0.3 versus 0.1/1,000 person-months), with the HR_adj being 1.42 (95% CI 1.01-1.95). No statistically significant difference was observed for suspected and confirmed (HR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93-1.07]) or confirmed (HR 1.08 [95% CI 0.92-1.27]) COVID-19 rates between participants with osteoarthritis and the general population.

CONCLUSION

RA, but not osteoarthritis, was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19. Our findings provide timely evidence to support recommendations that booster vaccines and priority access to anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody treatments should be encouraged for RA patients.

Genetic liability for prescription opioid use and risk of cardiovascular diseases: a multivariable Mendelian randomization study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Observational studies have yielded conflicting results on the association of prescription opioid use (POU) with the risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Residual confounding and potential reverse causality are inevitable in such conventional observational studies. This study used Mendelian randomization (MR) design to estimate the causal effect of POU on the risk of CVD, including coronary heart disease (CHD), myocardial infarction (MI) and ischemic stroke (IS), as well as their common risk factors.

DESIGN

We estimated the causal effect of genetic liability for POU on CVD in a two-sample MR framework. Complementary sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of our results.

SETTING

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) that were based on predominantly European ancestry.

PARTICIPANTS

The sample sizes of the GWAS used in this study ranged from 69 033 to 757 601 participants.

MEASUREMENTS

Genetic variants predictive of the POU and their corresponding summary-level information in the outcomes were retrieved and extracted from the respective GWAS.

FINDINGS

Using univariable MR, we found evidence for a causal effect of genetic liability for POU on an increased risk of CHD [odds ratio (OR) = 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.02-1.16; P = 0.008] and MI (OR = 1.13; 95% CI = 1.04-1.22; P = 0.002). In multivariable MR, the association remained after accounting for comorbid pain conditions, but was attenuated with adjustment for potential mediators, including body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC) and type 2 diabetes (T2D).

CONCLUSION

Mendelian randomization estimates provide robust evidence for the causal effects of genetic liability for prescription opioid use on an increased risk of coronary heart disease and myocardial infarction, which might be mediated by obesity-related traits.

Association of tramadol with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular diseases, venous thromboembolism, and hip fractures among patients with osteoarthritis: a population-based study

Background

The use of tramadol among osteoarthritis (OA) patients has been increasing rapidly around the world, but population-based studies on its safety profile among OA patients are scarce. We sought to determine if tramadol use in OA patients is associated with increased risks of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular diseases (CVD), venous thromboembolism (VTE), and hip fractures compared with commonly prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or codeine.

Methods

Using administrative health datasets from British Columbia, Canada, we conducted a sequential propensity score-matched cohort study among all OA patients between 2005 and 2013. The tramadol cohort (i.e., tramadol initiation) was matched with four comparator cohorts (i.e., initiation of naproxen, diclofenac, cyclooxygenase-2 [Cox-2] inhibitors, or codeine). Outcomes are all-cause mortality, first-ever CVD, VTE, and hip fractures within the year after the treatment initiation. Patients were followed until they either experienced an event, left the province, or the 1-year follow-up period ended, whichever occurred first. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios after adjusting for competing risk of death.

Results

Overall, 100,358 OA patients were included (mean age: 68 years, 63% females). All-cause mortality was higher for tramadol compared to NSAIDs with rate differences (RDs/1000 person-years, 95% CI) ranging from 3.3 (0.0–6.7) to 8.1 (4.9–11.4) and hazard ratios (HRs, 95% CI) ranging from 1.2 (1.0–1.4) to 1.5 (1.3–1.8). For CVD, no differences were observed between tramadol and NSAIDs. Tramadol had a higher risk of VTE compared to diclofenac, with RD/1000 person-years (95% CI) of 2.2 (0.7–3.7) and HR (95% CI) of 1.7 (1.3–2.2). Tramadol also had a higher risk of hip fractures compared to diclofenac and Cox-2 inhibitors with RDs/1000 person-years (95% CI) of 1.9 (0.4–3.4) and 1.7 (0.2–3.3), respectively, and HRs (95% CI) of 1.6 (1.2–2.0) and 1.4 (1.1–1.9), respectively. No differences were observed between tramadol and NSAIDs for all events.

Conclusions

OA patients initiating tramadol have an increased risk of mortality, VTE, and hip fractures within 1 year compared with commonly prescribed NSAIDs, but not with codeine.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13075-022-02764-3.

Association of Tramadol vs Codeine Prescription Dispensation With Mortality and Other Adverse Clinical Outcomes

IMPORTANCE

Although tramadol is increasingly used to manage chronic noncancer pain, few safety studies have compared it with other opioids.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the associations of tramadol, compared with codeine, with mortality and other adverse clinical outcomes as used in outpatient settings.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective, population-based, propensity score-matched cohort study using a primary care database with routinely collected medical records and pharmacy dispensations covering more than 80% of the population of Catalonia, Spain (≈6 million people). Patients 18 years or older with 1 or more year of available data and dispensation of tramadol or codeine (2007-2017) were included and followed up to December 31, 2017.

EXPOSURES

New prescription dispensation of tramadol or codeine (no dispensation in the previous year).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Outcomes studied were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, fractures, constipation, delirium, falls, opioid abuse/dependence, and sleep disorders within 1 year after the first dispensation. Absolute rate differences (ARDs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using cause-specific Cox models.

RESULTS

Of the 1 093 064 patients with a tramadol or codeine dispensation during the study period (326 921 for tramadol, 762 492 for codeine, 3651 for both drugs concomitantly), a total of 368 960 patients (184 480 propensity score-matched pairs) were included after study exclusions and propensity score matching (mean age, 53.1 [SD, 16.1] years; 57.3% women). Compared with codeine, tramadol dispensation was significantly associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (incidence, 13.00 vs 5.61 per 1000 person-years; HR, 2.31 [95% CI, 2.08-2.56]; ARD, 7.37 [95% CI, 6.09-8.78] per 1000 person-years), cardiovascular events (incidence, 10.03 vs 8.67 per 1000 person-years; HR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.05-1.27]; ARD, 1.36 [95% CI, 0.45-2.36] per 1000 person-years), and fractures (incidence, 12.26 vs 8.13 per 1000 person-years; HR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.37-1.65]; ARD, 4.10 [95% CI, 3.02-5.29] per 1000 person-years). No significant difference was observed for the risk of falls, delirium, constipation, opioid abuse/dependence, or sleep disorders.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this population-based cohort study, a new prescription dispensation of tramadol, compared with codeine, was significantly associated with a higher risk of subsequent all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, and fractures, but there was no significant difference in the risk of constipation, delirium, falls, opioid abuse/dependence, or sleep disorders. The findings should be interpreted cautiously, given the potential for residual confounding.

Tramadol versus codeine and the short-term risk of cardiovascular events in patients with non-cancer pain: A population-based cohort study

AIMS

The effect of tramadol on the cardiovascular system is largely unknown. There is concern that, with its multimodal mechanism of action to increase serotonin and norepinephrine levels in the body, it could increase the risk of arterial ischaemia and cardiovascular events. We aimed to compare the short-term risk of cardiovascular events with the use of tramadol to that of codeine among patients with non-cancer pain.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) with new users of tramadol or codeine from April 1998 to March 2017. Exposure was defined using an approach analogous to an intention-to-treat, with a maximum follow-up of 30 days. The primary endpoint was myocardial infarction, and secondary endpoints were unstable angina, ischaemic stroke, coronary revascularization, cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for high-dimensional propensity score.

RESULTS

The final cohort included 123 394 tramadol users and 914 333 codeine users. When tramadol was compared to codeine, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of myocardial infarction was 1.00 (95% CI 0.81-1.24). There was also no evidence of elevated risks of unstable angina (0.92; 95% CI 0.67-1.27), ischaemic stroke (0.98; 95% CI 0.82-1.17), coronary revascularization (0.97; 95% CI 0.69-1.38), cardiovascular death (1.07; 95% CI 0.93-1.23) or all-cause mortality (1.03; 95% CI 0.94-1.14) when tramadol was compared to codeine.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term use of tramadol, compared with codeine, was not associated with an increased risk of cardiac events among patients with non-cancer pain.

Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs and Susceptibility to COVID-19

Objective

To identify whether active use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increases susceptibility to developing suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) compared to the use of other common analgesics.

Methods

We performed a propensity score–matched cohort study with active comparators, using a large UK primary care data set. The cohort consisted of adult patients age ≥18 years with osteoarthritis (OA) who were followed up from January 30 to July 31, 2020. Patients prescribed an NSAID (excluding topical preparations) were compared to those prescribed either co‐codamol (paracetamol and codeine) or co‐dydramol (paracetamol and dihydrocodeine). A total of 13,202 patients prescribed NSAIDs were identified, compared to 12,457 patients prescribed the comparator drugs. The primary outcome measure was the documentation of suspected or confirmed COVID‐19, and the secondary outcome measure was all‐cause mortality.

Results

During follow‐up, the incidence rates of suspected/confirmed COVID‐19 were 15.4 and 19.9 per 1,000 person‐years in the NSAID‐exposed group and comparator group, respectively. Adjusted hazard ratios for suspected or confirmed COVID‐19 among the unmatched and propensity score–matched OA cohorts, using data from clinical consultations in primary care settings, were 0.82 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.62–1.10) and 0.79 (95% CI 0.57–1.11), respectively, and adjusted hazard ratios for the risk of all‐cause mortality were 0.97 (95% CI 0.75–1.27) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.61–1.20), respectively. There was no effect modification by age or sex.

Conclusion

No increase in the risk of suspected or confirmed COVID‐19 or mortality was observed among patients with OA in a primary care setting who were prescribed NSAIDs as compared to those who received comparator drugs. These results are reassuring and suggest that in the absence of acute illness, NSAIDs can be safely prescribed during the ongoing pandemic.

Update on pain in arthritis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Osteoarthritis is a degenerative joint disease that features pain as a hallmark symptom. This review summarises progress and obstacles in our understanding of pain mechanisms in arthritis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Pain phenotypes in osteoarthritis are poorly characterized in clinical studies and animal studies are largely carti-centric. Different animal models incur variable disease progression patterns and activation of distinct pain pathways, but studies reporting both structural and pain outcomes permit better translational insights. In patients, classification of osteoarthritis disease severity is only based on structural integrity of the joint, but pain outcomes do not consistently correlate with joint damage. The complexity of this relationship underlines the need for pain detection in criteria for osteoarthritis classification and patient-reported outcome measures.

SUMMARY

Variable inflammatory and neuropathic components and spatiotemporal evolution underlie the heterogeneity of osteoarthritis pain phenotypes, which must be considered to adequately stratify patients. Revised classification of osteoarthritis at different stages encompassing both structural and pain outcomes would significantly improve detection and diagnosis at both early and late stages of disease. These are necessary advancements in the field that would also improve trial design and provide better understanding of basic mechanisms of disease progression and pain in osteoarthritis.