Opioid prescriptions in patients with osteoarthritis: a population-based cohort study

Trends for opioid prescribing and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases between 2006 and 2021

OBJECTIVE

To investigate opioid prescribing trends and assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on opioid prescribing in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

METHODS

Adult patients with RA, PsA, axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA), SLE, OA and FM with opioid prescriptions between 1 January 2006 and 31 August 2021 without cancer in UK primary care were included. Age- and gender-standardized yearly rates of new and prevalent opioid users were calculated between 2006 and 2021. For prevalent users, monthly measures of mean morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day were calculated between 2006 and 2021. To assess the impact of the pandemic, we fitted regression models to the monthly number of prevalent opioid users between January 2015 and August 2021. The time coefficient reflects the trend pre-pandemic and the interaction term coefficient represents the change in the trend during the pandemic.

RESULTS

The study included 1 313 519 RMD patients. New opioid users for RA, PsA and FM increased from 2.6, 1.0 and 3.4/10 000 persons in 2006 to 4.5, 1.8 and 8.7, respectively, in 2018 or 2019. This was followed by a fall to 2.4, 1.2 and 5.9, respectively, in 2021. Prevalent opioid users for all RMDs increased from 2006 but plateaued or dropped beyond 2018, with a 4.5-fold increase in FM between 2006 and 2021. In this period, MME/day increased for all RMDs, with the highest for FM (≥35). During COVID-19 lockdowns, RA, PsA and FM showed significant changes in the trend of prevalent opioid users. The trend for FM increased pre-pandemic and started decreasing during the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

The plateauing or decreasing trend of opioid users for RMDs after 2018 may reflect the efforts to tackle rising opioid prescribing in the UK. The pandemic led to fewer people on opioids for most RMDs, providing reassurance that there was no sudden increase in opioid prescribing during the pandemic.

Core Recommendations for Osteoarthritis Care: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for interventions in management of osteoarthritis (OA) and to provide a synthesis of high-quality CPG recommendations.

METHODS

Five databases (OvidSP Medline, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature [CINAHL], Embase, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database [PEDro]) and 4 online guideline repositories were searched. CPGs for the management of OA were included if they were 1) written in English and published from January 2015 to February 2022, focused on adults age ≥18 years, and met the criteria of a CPG as defined by the Institute of Medicine; and 2) were rated as high quality on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. CPGs for OA were excluded if they were available via institutional access only, only addressed recommendations for the system/organization of care and did not include interventional management recommendations, and/or included other arthritic conditions.

RESULTS

Of 20 eligible CPGs, 11 were appraised as high quality and included in the synthesis. Of interest were the hip, knee, hand, and glenohumeral joints and/or polyarticular OA. Consistent recommendations were that care should be patient centered and include exercise, education, and weight loss (where appropriate). Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and surgical interventions were recommended for disabling OA that had not improved with nonsurgical care. Hand orthoses should be recommended for patients with hand OA.

CONCLUSION

This synthesis of high-quality CPGs for OA management offers health care providers with clear, simple guidance of recommended OA care to improve patient outcomes.

Opioids for Osteoarthritis: Cross-Sectional Survey of Patient Perspectives and Satisfaction

Patients often take opioids to relieve osteoarthritis (OA) pain despite limited benefits and potential harms. This study aimed to compare cross-sectional perspectives of patients that were taking prescription opioid (N = 471) or nonopioid medications (N = 185) for OA in terms of satisfaction, expectations of effectiveness, and concerns. Patients prescribed opioids (>7 days) reported more prior treatments (2.47 vs. 1.74), greater mean pain intensity (5.47 vs. 4.11), and worse quality of life (EQ-5D-5L index value mean 0.45 vs. 0.71) than patients prescribed nonopioid medications (all p < 0.0001). Based on linear regression models adjusting for demographics and pain intensity, patients prescribed opioids were less satisfied with overall regimen (3.40 vs. 3.67, p = 0.0322), had less belief that medications were meeting effectiveness expectations (2.72 vs. 3.13, p < 0.0001), and had more concerns about treatments being "not very good" (3.66 vs. 3.22, p = 0.0026) and addiction (3.30 vs. 2.65, p < 0.0001) than patients prescribed nonopioid regimens. When the models were replicated for subgroups with ≥30 days' medication regimen duration, the findings were consistent with the main analyses. Patients have concerns about the risk of opioid addiction, but those with greater disease burden and more prior treatments continue taking opioid regimens.

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.

Time trends in use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids one year after total hip arthroplasty due to osteoarthritis during 1996-2018: a population-based cohort study of 103,209 patients

OBJECTIVE

To examine time trends in the use of NSAIDs and opioids for patients with osteoarthritis undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) during 1996-2018.

METHOD

Using Danish population-based medical databases, we identified 103,209 THA patients. Prevalence rates of NSAID and opioid use among preoperative users and non-users were calculated in four quarters (Q1-Q4) after THA by calendar periods (1996-2000, 2001-2006, 2007-2012 and 2013-2018). Prevalence rate ratios (PRR) were adjusted for age and gender.

RESULTS

Among preoperative NSAID users and non-users, NSAID use in Q1 increased from 32.6% in 1996-2000 to 48.0% in 2013-2018 (PRR = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.42-1.55) and from 12.9% to 32.0% (PRR = 2.49 (2.32-2.67)), respectively. Among preoperative opioid users and non-users, opioid use in Q1 increased from 42.7% in 1996-2000 to 76.9% in 2013-2018 (PRR = 1.81 (1.73-1.89)) and from 15.2% to 58.2% (PRR = 3.85 (3.65-4.05)), respectively. NSAID use in Q4 decreased from 24.5% in 1996-2000 to 21.4% in 2013-2018 (PRR = 0.88 (0.83-0.93)) and from 6.9% to 5.6% (PRR = 0.81 (0.73-0.91)) in preoperative NSAIDs users and non-users, respectively. Opioid use in Q4 increased from 26.6% in 1996-2000 to 28.6% (PRR = 1.08 (1.02-1.15)) in 2013-2018 and from 4.1% to 5.0% (PRR = 1.25 (1.11-1.40)) in preoperative opioid users and non-users, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We observed up to a 4-fold increase in NSAID and opioid use in Q1 during 1996-2018, while usage in Q4 did not change substantially. However, 5-6% of the preoperative non-users of NSAIDs and opioids were users in Q4, which might relate to inaccurate indication for or timing of THA and the post-surgical phasing out of analgesics use.

Comparative risk-benefit profiles of weak opioids in the treatment of osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Despite their poor tolerance, weak opioids are still the most commonly-prescribed medicine for osteoarthritis (OA)-related pain. The objective of this network meta-analysis was to comparatively examine the efficacy and safety of weak opioids in OA treatment.

METHODS

Databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched from inception to August 5, 2020 to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing weak opioids with placebo or between one another in OA patients. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed on the following outcomes of interest, namely the change-from-baseline score in pain relief, gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs), central nervous system (CNS) AEs, and total number of AEs (i.e., the number of subjects experiencing any AE for at least once) during follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 14 RCTs involving four types of weak opioids were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to placebo, tramadol (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.34, 95% credible interval [CrI]: -0.53 to -0.18) and codeine (SMD = -0.39, 95% CrI: -0.79 to -0.04) were effective for pain relief, but involved a higher risk of GI AEs, CNS AEs and total number of AEs. Dextropropoxyphene demonstrated a significantly lower risk of GI AEs (OR = 0.28, 95%CrI: 0.17 to 0.51), CNS AEs (OR = 0.29, 95%CrI: 0.11 to 0.78) and total number of AEs (OR = 0.35, 95%CrI: 0.15 to 0.82) compared to codeine. Dihydrocodeine had a better safety profile in CNS AEs (SUCRA = 64.8%) and total number of AEs (SUCRA = 66.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study confirmed that tramadol and codeine were effective drugs for the treatment of OA, but involved considerable safety issues. Dextropropoxyphene and dihydrocodeine exhibited a relatively good safety profile but their efficacy still warrant further investigation.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2020

This paper is the forty-third consecutive installment of the annual anthological review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system, summarizing articles published during 2020 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides and receptors as well as effects of opioid/opiate agonists and antagonists. The review is subdivided into the following specific topics: molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors (1), the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia in animals (2) and humans (3), opioid-sensitive and opioid-insensitive effects of nonopioid analgesics (4), opioid peptide and receptor involvement in tolerance and dependence (5), stress and social status (6), learning and memory (7), eating and drinking (8), drug abuse and alcohol (9), sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (10), mental illness and mood (11), seizures and neurologic disorders (12), electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (13), general activity and locomotion (14), gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (15), cardiovascular responses (16), respiration and thermoregulation (17), and immunological responses (18).

Antidepressant and anticonvulsant prescription rates in patients with osteoarthritis: a population-based cohort study

Objectives

There are signs that antidepressants and anticonvulsants are being prescribed more often for OA patients, despite limited evidence. Our objectives were to examine prescription rates and time trends for antidepressants and anticonvulsants in OA patients, to assess the percentage of long-term prescriptions, and to determine patient characteristics associated with antidepressant or anticonvulsant prescription.

Methods

A population-based cohort study was conducted using the Integrated Primary Care Information database. First, episodic and prevalent prescription rates for antidepressants (amitriptyline, nortriptyline and duloxetine) and anticonvulsants (gabapentinoids) in OA patients were calculated for the period 2008–17. Logistic regression was used to assess which patient characteristics were associated with prescriptions.

Results

In total, 164 292 OA patients were included. The prescription rates of amitriptyline, gabapentin and pregabalin increased over time. The increase in prescription rates for pregabalin was most pronounced. Episodic prescription rate increased from 7.1 to 13.9 per 1000 person-years between 2008 and 2017. Amitriptyline was prescribed most (15.1 episodic prescriptions per 1000 person-years in 2017). Prescription rates of nortriptyline and duloxetine remained stable at 3.0 and 2.0 episodic prescriptions per 1000 person-years, respectively. For ≤3% of patients with incident OA, medication was prescribed long-term (≥3 months). In general, all medication was prescribed more frequently for older patients (except duloxetine), women, patients with OA in ≥2 joints, patients with spinal OA and patients with musculoskeletal disorders.

Conclusion

Prescription rates of amitriptyline, gabapentin and pregabalin increased over time. Since there is little evidence to support prescription in OA, caution is necessary when prescribing.

Opioidverordnungen bei Arthrose

Ärzte der Erasmus-Universität von Rotterdam untersuchten Inzidenz, Prävalenz und Trends von Opioidverordnungen sowie die langfristige Verschreibungsraten bei Arthrose-Patienten. Außerdem bewerteten sie die mit der Verschreibung von Opioiden verbundenen Patienteneigenschaften.

The evolution of nerve growth factor inhibition in clinical medicine

Nerve growth factor (NGF) is a neurotrophin that activates nociceptive neurons to transmit pain signals from the peripheral to the central nervous system and that exerts its effects on neurons by signalling through tyrosine kinase receptors. Antibodies that inhibit the function of NGF and small molecule inhibitors of NGF receptors have been developed and tested in clinical studies to evaluate the efficacy of NGF inhibition as a form of analgesia in chronic pain states including osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain. Clinical studies in individuals with painful knee and hip osteoarthritis have revealed that NGF inhibitors substantially reduce joint pain and improve function compared with NSAIDs for a duration of up to 8 weeks. However, the higher tested doses of NGF inhibitors also increased the risk of rapidly progressive osteoarthritis in a small percentage of those treated. This Review recaps the biology of NGF and the studies that have been performed to evaluate the efficacy of NGF inhibition for chronic musculoskeletal pain states. The adverse events associated with NGF inhibition and the current state of knowledge about the mechanisms involved in rapidly progressive osteoarthritis are also discussed and future studies proposed to improve understanding of this rare but serious adverse event.