Factors associated with persistent opioid use after an upper extremity fracture

Analgesic consumption in a large sample of people in musculoskeletal rehabilitation: A descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Consumption of opioids is increasing worldwide in people with chronic non-cancer pain, although their effectiveness is debated.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the current study was to evaluate analgesic consumption and its association with different variables (demographic variables, pain, anxiety/depression, catastrophism, and kinesiophobia), in the field of musculoskeletal rehabilitation, where no data are available.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study over a period of 8 years on people hospitalised for rehabilitation after injury. Participants were classified into 3 categories: no analgesics (NA), non-opioid analgesics (NOA), and opioid analgesics (OPA). ANOVA or chi-squared tests were used to compare the 3 groups.

RESULTS

A total of 4,350 people (84% men; mean [SD] age, 44 [11] years) were included. In total, 20% were taking OPA, 40% NOA and 40% NA. In the OPA group, tramadol was mainly used, and the morphine equivalent median dose was 8.3 mg/day. In the NOA group, paracetamol and ibuprofen were mostly used. Symptoms increased progressively across the 3 groups (NA/NOA/OPA), with increased levels of pain severity/interference, anxiety/depression and catastrophizing, and a higher prevalence of neuropathic pain in the OPA group versus the others.

CONCLUSIONS

These results are consistent with those found in groups of people with chronic pain taking larger doses of opioids and following opioid reduction or cessation programs. Opioid prescription did not increase over the 8 years, which was reassuring. These factors are important to emphasise because they can be modified in the rehabilitation setting with interdisciplinary management.

REGISTRATION

Our database was registered on Mendeley Data.

Study on proximal humerus evaluation of effective treatment (SPHEER) - what is the effect of rehabilitation compliance on clinical outcomes of proximal humerus fractures

INTRODUCTION

Proximal humeral fractures (PHFs) are 3rd commonest fragility fractures and cause significant functional impairment. This paper sought to determine impact of rehabilitation compliance on the clinical outcomes for non-surgically managed PHFs, while ascertaining reasons for non-compliance which can be addressed to improve compliance.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study of patients undergoing non-surgical treatment for PHFs from August 2017 to April 2020 in a tertiary trauma centre was performed. Data was collected via questionnaire: patient demographic data, PHF injury details, clinical outcome measures, therapist-reported (Sport Injury Rehabilitation Adherence Scale [SIRAS]) and patient-reported (subjective compliance, frequency of exercise) rehabilitation compliance measures. Data was analysed using multiple linear regression model to account for confounding variables.

RESULTS

107 participants attended physical therapy follow-up for mean 137.8 days. 6-week SIRAS strongly predicted 3-month Constant score (p = 0.023; 95%CI = 0.265,3.423), OSS (p = 0.038; 95%CI = 0.049,1.634), flexion ROM (p < 0.001; 95%CI = 2.872,8.982), extension ROM (p = 0.035; 95%CI = 0.097,2.614), abduction ROM (p = 0.002;95%CI = 1.995,8.466) and achievement of functional active ROM at 3-months (p = 0.049; 95%CI = 1.001,1.638). Pain was the top reason impairing rehabilitation compliance from therapist (43.9% at 6-weeks and 20.6% at 3-months) and patient-perspective (33.6% at 6-weeks, 24.3% at 3-months). Author-developed patient-reported compliance measures had good correlation with validated SIRAS score (subjective compliance: p < 0.001 frequency of exercise: p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Rehabilitation compliance predicts short-term clinical outcomes up to 3-months and potentially 1-year outcomes. Pain control should be optimised to maximise rehabilitation compliance and improve PHF outcomes. There is lack of consensus definition for rehabilitation compliance measures; patient-reported measures used have good correlation to existing validated measures and could serve as a steppingstone for further research.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II, cohort study.

Preoperative Patient-Reported Data Indicate the Risk of Prolonged Opioid Use After Hand and Upper Extremity Surgeries

PURPOSE

Opioids play an important role in pain management after surgery but also increase the risk of prolonged opioid use in patients. The identification of patients who are more likely to use opioids after intended short-term treatment is critical for employing alternative management approaches or targeted interventions for the prevention of opioid-related problems. We used patient-reported data (PRD) and electronic health record information to identify factors predictive of prolonged opioid use after surgery.

METHODS

We used our institutional registry containing data on all patients who underwent elective upper extremity surgeries. We evaluated factors associated with prolonged opioid use in the cohort from the year 2018 to 2019. We then validated our results using the 2020 cohort. The predictive variables included preoperative PRD and electronic health record data. Opioid use was determined based on patient reports and/or filled opioid prescriptions 3 months after surgery. We conducted bivariate regression, followed by multivariable regression analyses, and model validation using area under the receiver operating curve.

RESULTS

We included 2,114 patients. In our final model on the 2018-2019 electronic health records and PRD data (n = 1,589), including numerous patient-reported outcome questionnaire scores, patients who were underweight and had undergone trauma-related surgery had higher odds of being on opioids at 3 months. Additionally, each 5-unit decrease in the preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Physical Health score was associated with a 30% increased odds of being on opioids at 3 months. The area under the receiver operating curve of our model was 70.4%. On validation using data from the 2020 cohort, the area under the receiver operating curve was 60.3%. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test indicated a good fit.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that preoperative questionnaire scores were associated with prolonged postoperative opioid use, independent of other variables. Furthermore, PRD may provide unique patient-level insights, alongside other factors, to improve our understanding of postsurgical pain management.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic II.

Psychiatric Comorbidities Associated with Persistent Postoperative Opioid Use

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review outlines the psychiatric comorbidities associated with persistent opioid use in the postoperative period. We finish our analysis with evidence-based, patient-centered interventions that can be rendered in the perioperative setting to decrease postoperative opioid requirements.

RECENT FINDINGS

Opioids are overprescribed in the USA, especially in the postoperative setting. Excess opioids can result in diversion and contribute to the ongoing opioid epidemic. Mental health and substance use disorders can contribute to persistent postoperative opioid use. Adequately managing these disorders preoperatively promises to reduce persistent postoperative opioid use. Due to the lack of homogenous, evidence-based recommendations on the appropriate quantity and duration of postoperative opioid therapy, there is wide variability in provider prescribing habits. Further research is needed to establish surgery-specific postoperative opioid therapy protocols. Opioids continue to be a mainstay in the treatment of postoperative pain. Unmonitored postoperative opioid use can lead to opioid use disorder. Mental health disorders increase susceptibility to persistent postoperative opioid use. By managing these psychiatric illnesses preoperatively, clinicians have the ability to decrease opioid consumption postoperatively. Lastly, given the healthcare burden of opioid misuse and abuse, it is important to establish concrete protocols to guide provider-prescribing habits.

PROMIS Depression and Anxiety in shoulder surgery patients

AIMS

The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms in patients undergoing shoulder surgery using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Depression and Anxiety computer adaptive tests, and to determine the factors associated with more severe symptoms. Additionally, we sought to determine whether PROMIS Depression and Anxiety were associated with functional outcomes after shoulder surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of 293 patients from an urban population who underwent elective shoulder surgery from 2015 to 2018. Survey questionnaires included preoperative and two-year postoperative data. Bivariate analysis was used to identify associations and multivariable analysis was used to control for confounding variables.

RESULTS

Mean two-year PROMIS Depression and Anxiety scores significantly improved from preoperative scores, with a greater improvement observed in PROMIS Anxiety. Worse PROMIS Depression and Anxiety scores were also significantly correlated with worse PROMIS Physical Function (PF) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (ASES). After controlling for confounding variables, worse PROMIS Depression was an independent predictor of worse PROMIS PF, while worse PROMIS Anxiety was an independent predictor of worse PROMIS PF and ASES scores.

CONCLUSION

Mean two-year PROMIS Depression and Anxiety scores improved after elective shoulder surgery and several patient characteristics were associated with these scores. Worse functional outcomes were associated with worse PROMIS Depression and Anxiety; however, more severe two-year PROMIS Anxiety was the strongest predictor of worse functional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(4):479-485.

Are There Distinct Statistical Groupings of Mental Health Factors and Pathophysiology Severity Among People with Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis Presenting for Specialty Care?

BACKGROUND

There is mounting evidence that objective measures of pathophysiology do not correlate well with symptom intensity. A growing line of inquiry identifies statistical combinations (so-called "phenotypes") of various levels of distress and unhelpful thoughts that are associated with distinct levels of symptom intensity and magnitude of incapability. As a next step, it would be helpful to understand how distress and unhelpful thoughts interact with objective measures of pathologic conditions such as the radiologic severity of osteoarthritis. The ability to identify phenotypes of these factors that are associated with distinct levels of illness could contribute to improved personalized musculoskeletal care in a comprehensive, patient-centered model.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) When measures of mental health are paired with radiologic osteoarthritis severity, are there distinct phenotypes among adult patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis? (2) Is there a difference in the degree of capability and pain self-efficacy among the identified mental health and radiologic phenotypes? (3) When capability (Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function [PROMIS PF]) is paired with radiographic osteoarthritis severity, are there distinct phenotypes among patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis? (4) Is there a difference in mental health among patients with the identified capability and radiologic phenotypes?

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of data from a study of 119 patients who presented for musculoskeletal specialty care for hip or knee osteoarthritis. Sixty-seven percent (80 of 119) of patients were women, with a mean age of 62 ± 10 years. Seventy-six percent (91 of 119) of patients had knee osteoarthritis, and 59% (70 of 119) had an advanced radiographic grade of osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 3 or higher). This dataset is well-suited for our current experiment because the initial study had broad enrollment criteria, making these data applicable to a diverse population and because patients had sufficient variability in radiographic severity of osteoarthritis. All new and returning patients were screened for eligibility. We do not record the percentage of eligible patients who do not participate in cross-sectional surveys, but the rate is typically high (more than 80%). One hundred forty-eight eligible patients started the questionnaires, and 20% (29 of 148) of patients did not complete at least 60% of the questionnaires and were excluded, leaving 119 patients available for analysis. We measured psychologic distress (Patient Health Questionnaire-2 [PHQ-2] and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 questionnaire [GAD-2]), unhelpful thoughts about pain (Pain Catastrophizing Scale-4 [PCS-4]), self-efficacy when in pain (Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire-2), and capability (PROMIS PF). One of two arthroplasty fellowship-trained surgeons assigned the Kellgren-Lawrence grade of osteoarthritis based on radiographs in the original study. We used a cluster analysis to generate two sets of phenotypes: (1) measures of mental health (PHQ-2, GAD-2, PCS-4) paired with the Kellgren-Lawrence grade and (2) capability (PROMIS PF) paired with the Kellgren-Lawrence grade. We used one-way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis H tests to assess differences in capability and self-efficacy and mental health, respectively.

RESULTS

When pairing measures of psychologic distress (PHQ-2 and GAD-2) and unhelpful thoughts (catastrophic thinking) with the grade of radiographic osteoarthritis, six distinct phenotypes arose. These groups differed in terms of capability and pain self-efficacy (for example, mild pathology/low distress versus average pathology/high distress [PROMIS PF, mean ± standard deviation]: 43 ± 6.3 versus 33 ± 4.8; p = 0.003). When pairing the degree of capability (PROMIS PF) with the Kellgren-Lawrence grade, four distinct phenotypes arose. Patients in three of these did not differ in terms of disease severity but had notable variation in the degree of limitations. Patients with these radiologic and capability phenotypes differed in terms of distress and unhelpful thoughts (for example, moderate pathology/low capability versus mild pathology/high capability [PHQ-2, median and interquartile range]: 3 [1 to 5] versus 0 [0 to 0]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Statistical groupings ("phenotypes") that include both measures of pathology and mental health are associated with differences in symptom intensity and magnitude of incapability and have the potential to help musculoskeletal specialists discern mental and social health priorities. Future investigations may test whether illness phenotype-specific comprehensive biopsychosocial treatment strategies are more effective than treatment of pathology alone.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, prognostic study.