Opioid therapy for osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain

Evaluating the association between opium abuse, blood lead levels, and the complexity of coronary artery disease

Opium abuse and exposure to heavy metals elevate the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD). Therefore, we aimed to determine the association between opium abuse and blood lead levels (BLLs) and the CAD complexity. We evaluated patients with acute coronary symptoms who underwent coronary angiography, and those with >50% stenosis in at least one of the coronary arteries were included. Furthermore, Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery I (SYNTAX I) score and BLLs were measured. Based on the opium abuse, 95 patients were subdivided into opium (45) and control (50) groups. Differences in demographics and CAD risk factors were insignificant between the two groups. The median BLLs were remarkably higher in the opium group than in controls (36 (35.7) and 20.5 μg/dL (11.45), respectively, p = 0.003). We also revealed no significant differences in SYNTAX score between the two groups (15.0 (9.0) and 17.5 (14.0), respectively, p = 0.28). Additionally, we found no significant correlation between BLLs and the SYNTAX scores (p = 0.277 and r = -0.113). Opium abuse was associated with high BLLs. Neither opium abuse nor high BLLs were correlated with the complexity of CAD. Further studies are warranted to establish better the relationship between opium abuse, BLLs, and CAD.

Treatment characteristics of chronic low back pain patients treated with buprenorphine buccal film or transdermal patch

Aims: Retrospective insurance claims analysis exploring treatment characteristics in chronic low back pain patients prescribed buprenorphine buccal film (Belbuca®) or transdermal patches. Patients and methods: The first buprenorphine prescription (buccal film or transdermal patch) was an index event. Patients were observed over 6 month pre- and post-index periods. Propensity score matching minimized the selection bias. Results: Buccal film patients had a higher buprenorphine daily dose (501.7 vs 270.9 µg; p < 0.001). The patch-to-film switching rate was higher than vice versa (11.5 vs 3.8%; p < 0.001). The buccal film showed a greater reduction in opioid prescriptions (-1.1 vs -0.7; p = 0.012), daily morphine milligram equivalents (-12.6 vs -7.3; p < 0.001) and opioid treatment duration (-13.4 vs -7.6 days; p = 0.022). Conclusion: Buccal film was associated with higher buprenorphine doses and a greater reduction of opioid burden.

Chronic low back pain comorbidity count and its impact on exacerbating opioid and non-opioid prescribing behavior

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to determine the characteristics of chronic low back pain (CLBP) comorbidity and its impact on opioid and non-opioid treatments among Chicagoland patients with CLBP.

DESIGN

A retrospective cross-sectional study comparing differences in comorbidity and treatment patterns among Chicagoland patients with CLBP against a matched control arm without chronic low back pain (NCLBP).

SETTING

Academic hospital system outpatient services.

PARTICIPANTS

Using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision codes (ICD 10) 9589 patients were identified with CLBP with a median age of 57 years old and 62.32% female distribution. The NCLBP group comprised 9589 age-, sex-, race-, and region-matched patients.

RESULTS

An increased prevalence across all 17 studied comorbidities was found in CLBP patients as compared to NCLBP patients. CLBP patients carried an average of 3.5 comorbidities compared with 2.4 comorbidities in NCLBP patients. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), joint arthritis, and obesity had the strongest relationship with CLBP. Additionally, we found that the most prescribed treatment for CLBP were opioids, which ranked above NSAIDs and physical therapy. 56% of CLBP patients were prescribed opioids as compared to 36% of NCLBP patients (Odds Ratio = 2.28, 95% CI: 2.16-2.42). Tramadol was the agent with the strongest relationship to CLBP. CLBP patients were more likely to use two or more opioids concomitantly. The number of total treatments was positively associated with the number of comorbidities in both CLBP and NCLBP patients (Cochran-Armitage trend test p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Chronic low back pain patients showed a higher number of comorbidities than their NCLBP counterparts. Comorbidity count trended positively with higher treatment burden with opioids being the most prescribed treatment, often with poly-opioid use, over conservative modalities such as NSAIDs and physical therapy.

Multi‐method quantitative benefit‐risk assessment of treatments for moderate‐to‐severe osteoarthritis

Objective

Demonstrate how benefit‐risk profiles of systemic treatments for moderate‐to‐severe osteoarthritis (OA) can be compared using a quantitative approach accounting for patient preference.

Study design and setting

This study used a multimethod benefit‐risk modelling approach to quantifiably compare treatments of moderate‐to‐severe OA. In total four treatments and placebo were compared. Comparisons were based on four attributes identified as most important to patients. Patient Global Assessment of Osteoarthritis was included as a favourable effect. Unfavourable effects, or risks, included opioid dependence, nonfatal myocardial infarction and rapidly progressive OA leading to total joint replacement. Clinical data from randomized clinical trials, a meta‐analysis of opioid dependence and a long‐term study of celecoxib were mapped into value functions and weighted with patient preferences from a discrete choice experiment.

Results

Lower‐dose NGFi had the highest weighted net benefit‐risk score (0.901), followed by higher‐dose NGFi (0.889) and NSAIDs (0.852), and the lowest score was for opioids (0.762). Lower‐dose NGFi was the highest‐ranked treatment option even when assuming a low incidence (0.34% instead of 4.7%) of opioid dependence (ie, opioid benefit‐risk score 808) and accounting for both the uncertainty in clinical effect estimates (first rank probability 46% vs 20% for NSAIDs) and imprecision in patient preference estimates (predicted choice probability 0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25‐0.28 vs 0.21, 95% CI 0.19‐0.23 for NSAIDs).

Conclusion

The multimethod approach to quantitative benefit‐risk modelling allowed the interpretation of clinical data from the patient perspective while accounting for uncertainties in the clinical effect estimates and imprecision in patient preferences.

Perspectives on the opioid crisis from pain medicine clinicians

Patients experiencing a terminal drug related event reflect a sentinel event. If this pharmacotherapy is a widely used agent, it may be viewed as a catastrophic problem. If patients are dying from illegal drug use when the medical establishment fails them by withdrawing or minimizing their medically prescribed medication, then the burden rests with their health care providers, legislation, and insurance carriers to actively participate in a collegial fashion to achieve parity. Causing a decay in functionality in previously functional patients, may occur with appropriately prescribed opioid medications addressing non-cancer pain when withdrawing or diminishing either with or without patient consent. The members of the medical profession have diminished their prescribing of opioids for their patients out of apparent fear of reprisal, state or federal government sanctions, and other concerned groups. Diminishing former dosages or deleting the opioid medication, preferably in concert with the patient, often results in inequitable patient care. Enforcing sanctioned decreases or ceasing to prescribe from their former required/established opioid medications precipitate patient discord. In absence of opioid misuse, abuse, diversion or addiction based upon medical "guidelines" and with a poor foundation of Evidence Based Medicine the CDC guidelines, it may be masked as a true guideline reflecting a decrement of clinical judgment, wisdom, and compassion. This article also discusses the role of pharmacy chains, insurance carriers, and their pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) contribution to this multidimensional problem. There may be a potential solution, identified in this paper, if all the associated political, medical and insurance groups work cohesively to improve patient care. This article and the CDC guidelines are not focused at hospice, palliative, end of life care pain management.

Long-term Safety and Efficacy of Tapentadol Extended Release Following up to 2 Years of Treatment in Patients With Moderate to Severe, Chronic Pain: Results of an Open-label Extension Trial

PURPOSE

Tapentadol extended release (ER) has demonstrated efficacy and safety for the management of moderate to severe, chronic pain in adults. This study evaluated the long-term safety and tolerability of tapentadol ER in patients with chronic osteoarthritis or low back pain.

METHODS

Patients were enrolled in this 1-year, open-label extension study after completing one of two 15-week, placebo-controlled studies of tapentadol ER and oxycodone controlled release (CR) for osteoarthritis knee pain (NCT00421928) or low back pain (NCT00449176), a 7-week crossover study between tapentadol immediate release and tapentadol ER for low back pain (NCT00594516), or a 1-year safety study of tapentadol ER and oxycodone CR for osteoarthritis or low back pain (NCT00361504). After titrating the drug to an optimal dose, patients received tapentadol ER (100-250 mg BID) for up to 1 year (after finishing treatment in the preceding studies); patients who were previously treated with tapentadol ER in the 1-year safety study received tapentadol ER continuously for up to 2 years in total.

FINDINGS

Of the 1,154 patients in the safety population, 82.7% were aged >65 years and 57.9% were female; 50.1% had mild baseline pain intensity. Mean (SD) pain intensity scores (11-point numerical rating scale) were 3.9 (2.38) at baseline (end of preceding study) and 3.7 (2.42) at end point, indicating that pain relief was maintained during the extension study. Improvements in measures of quality of life (eg, EuroQol-5 Dimension and the 36-item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]) health status questionnaires) achieved during the preceding studies were maintained during the open-label extension study. Tapentadol ER was associated with a safety and tolerability profile comparable to that observed in the preceding studies. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (incidence ≥10%; n = 1154) were headache (13.1%), nausea (11.8%), and constipation (11.1%). Similar efficacy and tolerability results were shown for patients who received up to 2 years of tapentadol ER treatment.

IMPLICATIONS

Pain relief and improvements in quality of life achieved during the preceding studies were maintained throughout this extension study, during which tapentadol ER was well tolerated for the long-term treatment of chronic osteoarthritis or low back pain over up to 2 years of treatment. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00487435.).

Using viscosupplementation to treat knee osteoarthritis

This article provides physicians specializing in nonsurgical sports medicine with an overview of viscosupplementation as a treatment for osteoarthritis (OA) pain. Osteoarthritis is a painful, disabling condition that is becoming more prevalent in patients and is generally treated using conservative nonpharmacologic measures. If conservative measures are unsuccessful at alleviating pain, current recommendations include prescribing acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to patients. However, long-term use of these agents increases the risk for liver, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and/or renal complications in patients. Viscosupplementation is the term used for intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid/hylans. Intra-articular injections of these agents have good safety profiles and have shown efficacy for treating knee OA pain. Viscosupplementation injections relieve pain for ≤ 26 weeks, which is longer than the short-term pain relief derived from nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroid injections. Additionally, viscosupplementation administered to patients in earlier stages of OA may be more beneficial than when given later in the treatment of OA. As part of a multimodal algorithm, viscosupplementation combined with conventional therapy or other pharmacologic agents has been shown to be more effective at managing OA than conventional care alone. This article reviews the evidence for using viscosupplementation as part of a comprehensive program for managing OA in patients.

Effectiveness and tolerability of tapentadol prolonged release compared with prior opioid therapy for the management of severe, chronic osteoarthritis pain

BACKGROUND

Tapentadol prolonged release (PR; 100-250 mg twice daily) has been efficacious and well tolerated for managing moderate-to-severe, chronic osteoarthritis hip or knee pain in phase 3 studies with washout of previous analgesic treatment.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of tapentadol PR (50-250 mg twice daily) after direct rotation from World Health Organization (WHO) step III opioids in patients with severe osteoarthritis knee pain who previously responded to WHO step III therapy but showed poor tolerability.

METHODS

This open-label, phase 3b study (NCT00982280) was conducted from October 2009 through June 2010 (prematurely terminated due to slow recruitment and study drug shortages) in clinical care settings in Europe and Australia. The study population included patients with severe, chronic osteoarthritis knee pain who had taken WHO step III opioids daily for ≥2 weeks before screening, responded to therapy (average pain intensity [11-point numerical rating scale-3 (NRS-3)] ≤5 at screening), and reported opioid-related adverse effects as their reason for changing analgesics. Patients switched directly from WHO step III therapy to tapentadol. Patients received oral tapentadol PR (50-250 mg twice daily) during 5-week titration and 7-week maintenance periods. Oral tapentadol immediate release (IR) was permitted (≤twice/day, ≥4 h apart) for acute pain episodes due to index pain or withdrawal symptoms following discontinuation of previous opioids (combined dose of tapentadol [PR and IR] ≤500 mg/day). This study was planned to evaluate conversion to tapentadol PR, based on responder rate 1 (percentage of patients with same/less pain [NRS-3] versus Week -1) at Week 6 (primary endpoint), adverse events (AEs), and discontinuation rates. Equianalgesic ratios were calculated for tapentadol prior to WHO step III opioids (PR and PR plus IR formulations).

RESULTS

Of 82 patients enrolled, 63 received study medication. In the per-protocol population, responder rate 1 at Week 6 (last observation carried forward) was 94.3 % (50/53; P < 0.0001 vs. the null hypothesis rate [<60 %]). Mean (standard deviation) pain intensity scores were 4.7 (0.66) at baseline, 2.5 (1.46) at Week 6, and 1.8 (1.41) at Week 12 in the main analysis population (change from baseline at Weeks 6 and 12, P < 0.0001). Tapentadol to transdermal buprenorphine equianalgesic ratios (PR [n = 48], 262.9:1; PR plus IR [n = 48], 281.1:1) and tapentadol to oral oxycodone equianalgesic ratios (PR [n = 4], 4.3:1; PR plus IR [n = 6], 4.6:1) were calculated for the main analysis population. In the safety population, prevalence of AEs reported as associated with prior opioids at Week -1 (reasons for rotation) and related to tapentadol treatment at Week 12 decreased over time; the most common were nausea (46.0 vs. 24.1 %) and constipation (31.7 vs. 7.4 %). Overall, 14.3 % of patients discontinued the study early; reasons included AEs (9.5 %), lack of efficacy (3.2 %), and withdrawal of consent (1.6 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant improvements in effectiveness were observed for tapentadol PR (50-250 mg twice daily) versus WHO step III opioids in patients with severe, chronic osteoarthritis knee pain who previously responded to WHO step III therapy. Equianalgesic ratios were calculated for tapentadol to transdermal buprenorphine and oral oxycodone and were in line with observations from previous phase 3 studies.

A review of pharmacotherapy for chronic low back pain with considerations for sports medicine

Up to 30% of athletes experience low back pain (LBP) depending on sport type, sex, training intensity and frequency, and technique. United States clinical guidelines define back pain as chronic if it persists for ≥ 12 weeks, and subacute if it persists 4 to < 12 weeks. Certain sports injuries are likely to lead to chronic pain. Persistent or chronic symptoms are frequently associated with degenerative lumbar disc disease or spondylolytic stress lesions. Exercise therapy is widely used and is the most conservative form of treatment for chronic LBP (cLBP). Pharmacotherapies for cLBP include acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and opioids. Acetaminophen is a well-tolerated first-line pharmacotherapy, but high-dose, long-term use is associated with hepatic toxicity. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can be an effective second-line option if acetaminophen proves inadequate but they have well-known risks of gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and other systemic adverse effects that increase with patient age, dose amount, and duration of use. The serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, duloxetine, has demonstrated modest efficacy and is associated with systematic adverse events, including serotonin syndrome, which can be dose related or result from interaction with other analgesics. Opioids may be an effective choice for moderate to severe pain but also have significant risks of adverse events and carry a substantial risk of addiction and abuse. Because the course of cLBP may be protracted, patients may require treatment over years or decades, and it is critical that the risk/benefit profiles of pharmacotherapies are closely evaluated to ensure that short- and long-term treatments are optimized for each patient. This article reviews the clinical evidence and the guideline recommendations for pharmacotherapy of cLBP.

Medical and psychological risks and consequences of long-term opioid therapy in women

BACKGROUND

Long-term opioid use has increased substantially over the past decade for U.S. women. Women are more likely than men to have a chronic pain condition, to be treated with opioids, and may receive higher doses. Prescribing trends persist despite limited evidence to support the long-term benefit of this pain treatment approach.

PURPOSE

To review the medical and psychological risks and consequences of long-term opioid therapy in women.

METHOD

Scientific literature containing relevant keywords and content were reviewed.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Long-term opioid use exposes women to unique risks, including endocrinopathy, reduced fertility, neonatal risks, as well as greater risk for polypharmacy, cardiac risks, poisoning and unintentional overdose, among other risks. Risks for women appear to vary by age and psychosocial factors may be bidirectionally related to opioid use. Gaps in understanding and priorities for future research are highlighted.

Duloxetine in the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain

Chronic musculoskeletal pain is among the most frequent painful complaints that healthcare providers address. The bulk of these complaints are chronic low back pain and chronic osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis is the most common form of arthritis in the United States. It is a chronic degenerative disorder characterized by a loss of cartilage, and occurs most often in older persons. The management of osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain may involve both nonpharmacologic (eg, weight loss, resistive and aerobic exercise, patient education, cognitive behavioral therapy) and pharmacologic approaches. Older adults with severe osteoarthritis pain are more likely to take analgesics than those with less severe pain. The pharmacologic approaches to painful osteoarthritis remain controversial, but may include topical as well as oral nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, duloxetine, and opioids. The role of duloxetine for musculoskeletal conditions is still evolving.