An Overview of Opioid Prescription Patterns among Non-Opioid Users Following Emergency Department Admission.

The evolving landscape of opioid prescription practices necessitates a comprehensive understanding of emerging patterns, particularly among new opioid users discharged from emergency departments. This study delves into the intricate realm of opioid utilization by elucidating the prevalence of their prescriptions. A retrospective analysis of electronic health records was conducted, including a cohort of 71 patients who received opioid prescriptions upon discharge from emergency departments from 1 January 2022 to 30 June 2022. Demographic characteristics and prescription details were systematically examined. This study illuminates tramadol's prominence, with 84% of prescriptions and a Defined Daily Dose (DDD) morphine equivalent of 60 mg, as the primary choice as a new opioid, a finding that draws attention due to the closely aligned dosages with morphine equivalents. This discovery prompts a critical reassessment of tramadol's therapeutic role, considering its multifaceted nature encompassing serotonergic effects and heightened fall risks. This study advocates for a nuanced and vigilant approach to tramadol prescription, cognizant of its potential risks and therapeutic implications, and highlights the imperative of optimizing data quality and traceability within electronic health records to enhance patient care and facilitate future research endeavors.

How to treat chronic pain in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) - A pharmacological review.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain is a common symptom of rheumatic diseases that impacts patients' quality of life. While non-pharmacological approaches are often recommended as first-line treatments, pharmacological interventions are important for pain management. However, the effectiveness and safety of different pharmacological treatments for chronic pain in rheumatic diseases are unclear. METHODS: This review critically synthesizes the current evidence base to guide clinicians in selecting appropriate pharmacological treatments for their patients, considering the expected benefits and potential risks and side effects. RESULTS: For osteoarthritis, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, opioids, and antidepressants are commonly used, with NSAIDs being the most recommended. In addition, topical agents, such as topical NSAIDs, are recommended for localized pain relief. For fibromyalgia, amitriptyline, serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and gabapentinoids are commonly used, with SNRIs being the most recommended. For back pain, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, opioids are used only for acute of flare-up pain, whereas neuropathic pain drugs are only used for chronic radicular pain. For inflammatory rheumatic diseases, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biological agents are recommended to slow disease progression and manage symptoms. CONCLUSION: While DMARDs and biological agents are recommended for inflammatory rheumatic diseases, pharmacological treatments for other rheumatic diseases only alleviate symptoms and do not provide a cure for the underlying condition. The use of pharmacological treatments should be based on the expected benefits and evaluation of side effects, with non-pharmacological modalities also being considered, especially for fibromyalgia.

Validation in the ESPOIR cohort of vitamin K-dependent protein S (PROS) as a potential biomarker capable of predicting response to the methotrexate/etanercept combination.

BACKGROUND: To validate the ability of PROS (vitamin K-dependent protein S) and CO7 (complement component C7) to predict response to the methotrexate (MTX)/etanercept (ETA) combination in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who received this therapeutic combination in a well-documented cohort. METHOD: From the ESPOIR cohort, RA patients having received the MTX/ETA or MTX/adalimumab (ADA) combination as a first-line biologic treatment were included. Serum concentrations of PROS and CO7 were measured by ELISA prior to the initiation of ETA or ADA, at a time where the disease was active (DAS28 ESR > 3.2). The clinical efficacy (response/non-response) of both combinations has been evaluated after at least 6 months of treatment, according to the EULAR response criteria with some modifications. RESULTS: Thirty-two were treated by MTX/ETA; the numbers of responders and non-responders were 24 and 8, respectively. Thirty-three patients received the MTX/ADA combination; 27 and 5 patients were respectively responders and non-responders. While there were no differences for demographic, clinical, biological, and X-rays data, as well as for CO7, serum levels of PROS tended to be significantly higher in responders to the MTX/ETA combination (p = 0.08) while no difference was observed in the group receiving MTX/ADA. For PROS, the best concentration threshold to differentiate both groups was calculated at 40 µg/ml using ROC curve. The theranostic performances of PROS appeared better for the ETA/MTX combination. When considering the response to this combination, analysis of pooled data from ESPOIR and SATRAPE (initially used to validate PROS and CO7 as potential theranostic biomarkers) cohorts led to a higher theranostic value of PROS that became significant (p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: PROS might be one candidate of a combination of biomarkers capable of predicting the response to MTX/ETA combination in RA patients refractory to MTX. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT03666091 and NCT00234234 .