Trends in gabapentinoid prescribing in patients with osteoarthritis: a United Kingdom national cohort study in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate trends in gabapentinoid prescribing in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Patients aged 40 years and over with a new OA diagnosis recorded between 1995 and 2015 were identified in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and followed to first prescription of gabapentin or pregabalin, or other censoring event. We estimated the crude and age-standardised annual incidence rates of gabapentinoid prescribing, stratified by patient age, sex, geographical region, and time since OA diagnosis, and the proportion of prescriptions attributable to OA, or to other conditions representing licensed and unlicensed indications for a gabapentinoid prescription. RESULTS: Of 383,680 newly diagnosed OA cases, 35,031 were prescribed at least one gabapentinoid. Irrespective of indication, the annual age-standardised incidence rate of first gabapentinoid prescriptions rose from 1.6 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.3, 2.0] per 1000 person-years in 2000, to 27.6 (26.7, 28.4) in 2015, a trend seen across all ages and not explained by length of follow-up. Rates were higher among women, younger patients, and in Northern Ireland, Scotland and the North of England. Approximately 9% of first prescriptions could be attributed to OA, a further 13% to comorbid licensed or unlicensed indications. CONCLUSION: Gabapentinoid prescribing in patients with OA increased dramatically between 1995 and 2015. In most cases, diagnostic codes for licensed or unlicensed indications were absent. Gabapentinoid prescribing may be attributable to OA in a significant proportion but evidence for their effectiveness in OA is lacking. Further research to investigate clinical decision making around prescribing these expensive and potentially harmful medicines is recommended.

Increased risk of reproductive dysfunction in women prescribed long-term opioids for musculoskeletal pain: A matched cohort study in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

BACKGROUND: One-fifth of primary care attendees suffer chronic noncancer pain, with musculoskeletal conditions the leading cause. Twelve percent of patients with chronic noncancer pain are prescribed strong opioids. Evidence suggests long-term opioid use is related to hypogonadism in men, but the relationship in women is unclear. Our aim was to investigate reproductive dysfunction in women prescribed long-term opioids for musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: We undertook a matched (matched 1:1; for year of birth, year of start of follow-up and practice) cohort study of women aged 18-55 years old, with musculoskeletal pain and an opioid prescription in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (a primary care database) between 2002 and 2013. Long-term opioid users (≥90 days) were compared with short-term opioid users (<90 days) for four reproductive conditions (abnormal menstruation, low libido, infertility and menopause) using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: A total of 44,260 women were included; the median cohort age at baseline was 43 years (Interquartile Range 36-49). Long-term opioid use was associated with an increased risk of altered menstruation (hazard ratio 1.13 95% CI 1.05-1.21) and with an increased risk of menopause (hazard ratio 1.16 95% CI 1.10-1.23). No significant association was found for libido (hazard ratio 1.19 95% CI 0.96-1.48) or infertility (hazard ratio 0.82 95% CI 0.64-1.06). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of menopause and abnormal menstruation was increased in long-term opioid users. This has implications for clinicians as reproductive dysfunction will need to be considered when prescribing long-term opioids to women with musculoskeletal conditions. SIGNIFICANCE: This is a large-scale cohort examining the relationship between long-term opioid use and reproductive dysfunction using a UK national primary care database. There is an increased risk of reproductive dysfunction associated with long-term opioid use.

Effect of a model consultation informed by guidelines on recorded quality of care of osteoarthritis (MOSAICS): a cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a model osteoarthritis (OA) consultation (MOAC) informed by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations compared with usual care on recorded quality of care of clinical OA in general practice. DESIGN: Two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Eight general practices in Cheshire, Shropshire, or Staffordshire UK. PARTICIPANTS: General practitioners and nurses with patients consulting with clinical OA. INTERVENTION: Following six-month baseline period practices were randomised to intervention (n = 4) or usual care (n = 4). Intervention practices delivered MOAC (enhanced initial GP consultation, nurse-led clinic, OA guidebook) to patients aged ≥45 years consulting with clinical OA. An electronic (e-)template for consultations was used in all practices to record OA quality care indicators. OUTCOMES: Quality of OA care over six months recorded in the medical record. RESULTS: 1851 patients consulted in baseline period (1015 intervention; 836 control); 1960 consulted following randomisation (1118 intervention; 842 control). At baseline wide variations in quality of care were noted. Post-randomisation increases were found for written advice on OA (4-28%), exercise (4-22%) and weight loss (1-15%) in intervention practices but not controls (1-3%). Intervention practices were more likely to refer to physiotherapy (10% vs 2%, odds ratio 5.30; 95% CI 2.11, 13.34), and prescribe paracetamol (22% vs 14%, 1.74; 95% CI 1.27, 2.38). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention did not improve all aspects of care but increased core NICE recommendations of written advice on OA, exercise and weight management. There remains a need to reduce variation and uniformly enhance improvement in recorded OA care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN06984617.

Quality indicators for the primary care of osteoarthritis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify valid and feasible quality indicators for the primary care of osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic reference databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC, PsychINFO), quality indicator repositories, subject experts. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible articles referred to adults with OA, focused on development or implementation of quality indicators, and relevant to UK primary care. An English language restriction was used. The date range for the search was January 2000 to August 2013. The majority of OA management guidance has been published within this time frame. DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant studies were quality assessed using previous quality indicator methodology. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Articles were assessed through the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology filter; indicators were mapped to management guidance for OA in adults. A narrative synthesis was used to combine the indicators within themes. RESULTS: 10,853 articles were identified from the search; 32 were included in the review. Fifteen indicators were considered valid and feasible for implementation in primary care; these related to assessment non-pharmacological and pharmacological management. Another 10 indicators were considered less feasible, in various aspects of assessment and management. A small number of recommendations had no published corresponding quality indicator, such as use of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. No negative ('do not do') indicators were identified. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: There are well-developed, feasible indicators of quality of care for OA which could be implemented in primary care. Their use would assist the audit and quality improvement for this common and frequently disabling condition.

Osteoarthritis and the rule of halves.

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic osteoarthritis poses a major challenge to primary health care but no studies have related accessing primary care ('detection'), receiving recommended treatments ('treatment'), and achieving adequate control ('control'). OBJECTIVE: To provide estimates of detection, treatment, and control within a single population adapting the approach used to determine a Rule of Halves for other long-term conditions. SETTING: General population. PARTICIPANTS: 400 adults aged 50+ years with prevalent symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. DESIGN: Prospective cohort with baseline questionnaire, clinical assessment, and plain radiographs, and questionnaire follow-up at 18 and 36 months and linkage to primary care medical records. OUTCOME MEASURES: 'Detection' was defined as at least one musculoskeletal knee-related GP consultation between baseline and 36 months. 'Treatment' was self-reported use of at least one recommended treatment or physiotherapy/hospital specialist referral for their knee problem at all three measurement points. Pain was 'controlled' if characteristic pain intensity <5 out of 10 on at least two occasions. RESULTS: In 221 cases (55.3%; 95%CI: 50.4, 60.1) there was evidence that the current problem had been detected in general practice. Of those detected, 164 (74.2% (68.4, 80.0)) were receiving one or more of the recommended treatments at all three measurement points. Of those detected and treated, 45 (27.4% (20.5, 34.3)) had symptoms under control on at least two occasions. Using narrower definitions resulted in substantially lower estimates. CONCLUSION: Osteoarthritis care does not conform to a Rule of Halves. Symptom control is low among those accessing health care and receiving treatment.

Factors associated with primary care prescription of opioids for joint pain.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are commonly prescribed in primary care and can offer pain relief but may also have adverse effects. Little is known about the characteristics of people likely to receive an opioid prescription in primary care. The aim is to identify what factors are associated with primary care prescribing of high-strength analgesics in a community sample of older people with joint pain. METHODS: A prospective two-stage postal survey completed at baseline and 3-year follow-up in a population aged 50 and over registered with eight general practitioner (GP) practices in North Staffordshire (North Staffordshire Osteoarthritis Project cohorts) linked with data from medical records. Participants were selected who reported joint pain in one or more joints at baseline. Outcome measures were the number of prescriptions for high-strength pain medication (opioids) in the following 3 years. Socio-demographic and health status factors associated with prescription were assessed using a zero-inflated Poisson model. RESULTS: 873 (19%) people were prescribed opioids (out of 4652 providing complete data) ranging from 1 to 76 prescriptions over 3 years. Baseline factors significantly associated with increased rates of prescription were younger age group [65-74 group: incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.26 (1.18-1.35)], male gender [IRR = 1.17 (1.12-1.23)], severe joint pain [IRR = 1.19 (1.12-1.26)] poor physical function [IRR = 0.99 (0.99-0.99)] and lower frequency of alcohol consumption [once/twice a year: IRR = 1.13 (1.06-1.21), never: IRR = 1.14 (1.06-1.22)]. Restricting the analysis to those without prior prescriptions for strong opioids showed similar results. CONCLUSION: Poor physical function and participation restrictions were strongly associated with prescriptions of stronger opioids in addition to several socio-demographic and lifestyle factors. Given the uncertainties over the effectiveness and risks of opioid use, future research could investigate decision making of GPs, exploring reasons for prescribing them.

The effectiveness of national guidance in changing analgesic prescribing in primary care from 2002 to 2009: an observational database study.

BACKGROUND: Numerous national guidelines have been issued to assist general practitioners' safe analgesic prescribing. Their effectiveness is unclear. The objective of this study was to examine trends in general practitioners' prescribing behaviour in relation to national guidelines. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational database study of registered adult patients prescribed an analgesic (2002-2009) from the Consultations in Primary Care Archive--12 North Staffordshire general practices. Prescribing guidance from the UK Medicines Regulatory Health Authority (MHRA) regarding non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and co-proxamol, and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) osteoarthritis (OA) management guidelines were considered. Analgesic prescribing rates were examined, arranged according to a classification of six equipotent medication groups: (1) basic analgesics; (2)-(5) increasingly potent opioids and (6) NSAIDs. In each quarter from 2002 to 2009, the number of patients per 10,000 registered population receiving a prescription for the first time from each group was determined. Quarters associated with significant changes in the underlying prescribing trend were determined using joinpoint regression. RESULTS: A significant decrease in incident co-proxamol and Cox-2 prescribing occurred around the time of the first MHRA advice to stop using them and were rarely prescribed thereafter. The new prescribing of weak analgesics (e.g., co-codamol 8/500) increased at this same time. Initiating topical NSAIDs significantly increased around the time of the NICE OA guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Significant prescribing changes occurred when national advice and guidelines were issued. The effectiveness of this advice may vary depending upon the content and method of dissemination. Further evaluation of the optimal methods for delivering prescribing guidance is required.

Interferência de introdutores reprocessados na oclusão da artéria radial após cateterismo cardíaco / Interference of reprocessed introducers in radial artery occlusion after cardiac catheterization

INTRODUÇÃO: A oclusão da artéria radial (OAR) é uma complicação clinicamente silenciosa do cateterismo transradial, mas pode predispor à isquemia da mão. Fatores associados a essa complicação conhecidos são o calibre dos introdutores e cateteres, a dose de heparina utilizada, o número de reutilizações da artéria radial e o tipo de curativo compressivo aplicado. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar se existe associação entre a utilização de introdutores vasculares hidrofílicos reprocessados e a OAR. MÉTODOS: Pacientes submetidos a cateterismo transradial foram randomizados para introdutores novos (Grupo I - GI) ou reprocessados (Grupo II - GII). A presença de OAR foi avaliada em 24 horas (precoce) e 30 dias (tardia), por meio do teste de Barbeau reverso. RESULTADOS: Foram alocados 228 pacientes no GI (n = 100) e no GII (n = 128). A idade foi de 60,1 ± 10,6 anos vs. 59,4 ± 10,9 anos (P = 0,64), 49% vs. 35,2% (P = 0,03) eram do sexo feminino e 25% vs. 27,3% (P = 0,70) eram diabéticos. Observaram-se incidências totais de OAR precoce de 10,5% e de 9,1% para OAR tardia. Dez pacientes do GI (10%) apresentaram OAR precoce, comparados a 14 (10,9%) do GII (χ² = 0,05; RR = 1,09; P = 0,82). Na avaliação de 30 dias, foi encontrada OAR em 6 pacientes do GI (7,5%) comparados a 11 pacientes (10,4%) do GII (χ² = 0,45; RR = 1,38; P = 0,50). CONCLUSÕES: Na casuística estudada, não foi encontrada associação entre a reutilização de introdutores vasculares e a OAR precoce e tardia em pacientes submetidos a cateterismo cardíaco.

BACKGROUND: Radial artery occlusion (RAO) is a clinically silent complication of transradial catheterization but may predispose to hand ischemia. Factors associated with this complication are the diameter of catheters and sheaths, the dose of heparin, repeated transradial procedures and the type of compressive dressing applied. The objective of this study was to evaluate if there is an association between reused hydrophilic vascular introducers and RAO. METHODS: Patients undergoing transradial catheterization were randomized to receive brand new introducers (Group I - GI) or reprocessed introducers (Group II - GII). The presence of RAO was evaluated at 24 hours (early) and day 30 (late) with the reverse Barbeau test. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-eight patients were assigned to GI (n = 100) and GII (n = 128). Mean age was 60.1 ± 10.6 years vs. 59.4 ± 10.9 years (P = 0.64), 49% vs. 35.2% (P = 0.03) were female and 25% vs. 27.3% (P = 0.70) were diabetic. An total early RAO incidence of 10.5% and a late RAO incidence of 9.1% were observed. Ten GI patients (10%) had early RAO when compared to 14 (19.9%) in GII (χ² = 0.05; HR: 1.09; P = 0.82). On the 30-day follow-up RAO was observed in 6 GI patients (7.5%) when compared to 11 GII patients (10.4%) (χ² = 0.45; HR = 1.38; P = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: In our study no association was found between reused vascular introducers and early and late RAO in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization.

The association between pain intensity and the prescription of analgesics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

BACKGROUND: It is not known whether general practitioners (GPs) prescribe analgesic medication according to intensity of pain or a hierarchical prescribing regimen. AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the association of strength of pain-relief medication prescribed by the GP with the strength of previous prescription and pain level. METHODS: The PROG-RES study collected data on pain intensity in 428 patients aged ≥50 years with non-inflammatory musculoskeletal pain during a consultation with their GP. Prescriptions for analgesics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were identified on the day of the consultation and in the previous year and were classified as basic, moderate or strong analgesic or NSAID. Regression models were used to assess the association of strength of analgesia and prescription of a NSAID with the strength of previous prescription and the level of pain. RESULTS: The majority of patients were not prescribed medication for their pain at the index consultation, but had such a prescription the previous year. There was an association between strength of analgesic and intensity of pain: more intense pain resulted in a stronger drug. This association was attenuated by adjustment for prescribed analgesia in the previous year. There was no association between intensity of pain and NSAID prescription, but previous NSAID prescription predicted another such prescription. CONCLUSION: GPs do not always issue prescriptions for musculoskeletal pain. In cases where a prescription is issued, this is more strongly influenced by previous prescriptions than the patient's pain level. GPs adopt an individualized approach to the treatment of musculoskeletal pain in older adults.

How do GPs use x rays to manage chronic knee pain in the elderly? A case study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether clinical signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis influence general practitioners' (GPs) decisions about x raying older patients with knee pain and whether x ray reports alter their initial treatment or referral plan. METHODS: A cross sectional survey of 1000 GPs in England and Wales using "paper cases" in three questionnaires mailed at two-weekly intervals. The first questionnaire assessed GPs' management of patients with knee pain using four case scenarios, two with features of clinical knee osteoarthritis. The second questionnaire contained the same scenarios with information on x ray findings added. The third questionnaire considered management of knee pain in general. RESULTS: 447 GPs responded to questionnaire 1, 316 (71%) to questionnaire 2, 287 (64%) to questionnaire 3. 106 responders (25%) would have x rayed all four patients and 64 (15%) none. Choosing to carry out an x ray examination was not influenced by the presence of clinical signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis but was linked to other management choices, such as referral to orthopaedics (odds ratio (OR) 2.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.62 to 2.81). The strongest predictor in questionnaire 2 of a treatment or referral was whether it had been chosen in the first survey. However, the x ray report was associated with a significant change in treatment and referrals. Where radiographic osteoarthritis was present, GPs were less likely to refer to a physiotherapist (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.83) or rheumatologist (OR 0.15; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.28), and more likely to refer to an orthopaedic surgeon (OR 31.34; 95% CI 21.51 to 45.66). Questionnaire 3 showed that GPs' general views on the use of x rays correlated with the frequency of their choosing to x ray in the four individual case scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: A GP's choice to x ray older people with knee symptoms is linked with decisions on treatment and referral even before the x ray result is known, but it does not appear to be influenced by clinical features of osteoarthritis. The presence of radiographic osteoarthritis has a marked impact on the decision to refer to secondary care. More evidence on the outcome of management without x rays is needed to help GPs in decision making.

Factors affecting over-the-counter use of aspirin in the secondary prophylaxis of cardiovascular disease.

Little is known about the contribution of over-the-counter (OTC) aspirin to cardiovascular prophylaxis. To investigate this, a two-phase cross-sectional study was carried out in nine general practices in North Staffordshire. In the first phase, all patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) were identified from computer searches using morbidity registers and drug searches. The search also identfied the subgroup receiving prescribed prophylactic aspirin. In the second phase, a questionnaire was posted to all patients with CVD who were not on prescribed aspirin to establish their current use of OTC aspirin. Overall, 69% of the CVD group used aspirin, with 26% of aspirin being OTC. OTC aspirin use was more common in those aged under 65 years, men, and the more affluent. Also, there were significant differences in OTC aspirin use between the various practices. This study shows that a considerable amount of aspirin is used OTC in those with CVD. Its use is influenced by several factors that could be addressed when considering attempts to improve the overall uptake of aspirin.