Profile of patients with type 2 diabetes and glycated haemoglobin ≥ 10% followed in general practice.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether profiles of patients with unbalanced type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥ 10% could be identified on the basis of socio-demographic, behavioural, clinical, and biological characteristics. METHODS: Retrospective, cross-sectional, factorial analysis study of patients with T2DM treated for at least 1 year, with HbA1c ≥ 10%. Patients were recruited via medical analysis laboratories, France. Patients were followed up in general practice with possible recourse to specialist consultations. Data were collected by means of self-administered questionnaires sent by post. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were included: 69 men and 35 women, with a median age of 66 ± 12 years, body mass index 30.7 ± 6.2kg/m2 and 47% in a vulnerable socio-economic situation. Fifty patients (48%) were followed exclusively by their general practitioners and only 30% had no compliance problems. Creatinuria was measured at least once during the year in 92% of patients, but microalbuminuria was measured in only 20%. Age, socio-economic precariousness, insulin treatment, and follow-up by several health professionals had a negative influence on quality of life (QoL). Two patient profiles were defined by factor analysis: (i) young, rural, smoker, socially isolated, precarious patient with poor compliance and QoL; and (ii) elderly, urban, regular physical activity, in a couple, without precariousness and with satisfactory QoL. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of the characteristics of patients with T2DM and glycaemic imbalance reveals profiles that are useful in clinical practice for a personalized approach to treatment and active prevention of diabetes complications.

Opioid epidemic: Does rheumatological practice favors risk for patients? National survey on rheumatologists' opioid prescriptions and compliance to guidelines for strong opioid prescription.

OBJECTIVES: Given the scope of rheumatology and its prevalence of pain, it seems needed that a study should focus on prescription habits, in the midst of the international opioid epidemic and given the moderate efficacy of strong opioids in chronic musculoskeletal conditions. We compared rheumatologists' opioid prescribing patterns in non-cancer pain with recommended practice. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of the French health insurance database, including all patients aged 16 years or over reimbursed for at least one strong opioid prescription from a rheumatologist in 2015. A nationwide survey of all registered rheumatologists in France was performed with a 47-item questionnaire in June 2015. RESULTS: Only 2.4% of the patients receiving a strong opioid in 2015 (n=700,946) had at least one prescription from a rheumatologist. Rheumatologists prescribed mostly morphine, and significantly less oxycodone and fentanyl (P<0.00001) than other specialists. Rheumatologists prescribed a mean of 35.8mg morphine equivalent/day. A response rate of 33.7% was obtained to the questionnaire. Acute musculoskeletal pain was the principal condition for strong opioids prescription, with 94.5% re-evaluating opioid treatment within two weeks of initiation. For efficacy, 80% said that they stopped treatment if no benefit was observed after a test period (mean=1.2 months). Rheumatologists with pain management training were significantly more likely to evaluate pain before prescribing strong opioids (P=0.001), evaluate efficacy within three months (P=0.01) and screen for risk factors for misuse at initiation (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: For non-cancer pain, rheumatologists generally prescribe opioids for short periods, at low doses, mostly according to national recommendations. Pain education strongly affected opioid prescription by rheumatologists.

Risk assessment of using off-label morphine sulfate in a population-based retrospective cohort of opioid-dependent patients.

AIMS: Several addictovigilance studies have described the off-label use of morphine sulfate (MS) for nonchronic pain in opioid use disorder (OUD) patients as an alternative to conventional opioid substitution treatments (OSTs). This study primarily sought to compare the incidence of unintentional opioid-related overdose in the year following the prescription initiation in off-label MS users, compared to OST-maintained patients. METHODS: Sequential cohorts of OUD patients who were regularly dispensed MS, buprenorphine, or methadone, between 1 April 2012 and 31 December 2014, were retrospectively identified using the French nationwide healthcare data system. The incidence of overdoses, deaths, doctor shopping, and complications of a viral, bacterial or thrombotic nature, was compared using the Cox regression method. RESULTS: Overall, 1075, 20 834 and 9778 OUD patients without chronic-pain were included in the MS, buprenorphine, and methadone cohorts, respectively. Overdose incidence was 3.8 (P < .01 [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.1-6.8]) and 2.0 (P = .02 [95%CI: 1.1-3.6]) higher in the MS cohort vs buprenorphine and methadone, respectively. Death incidence was 9.1 (P < .01 [95%CI: 3.2-25.9]) and 3.9 (P < .01 [95%CI: 1.4-10.7]) higher in the MS cohort vs buprenorphine and methadone, respectively. The incidences of other associated risks were significantly higher in the MS group vs OSTs, except for hepatitis C viral infection and thrombotic complications. CONCLUSION: This first French comprehensive nationwide study reveals increasing overdose, death, bacterial infection, abuse and diversion risks when off-label MS is initiated as alternative to OST. These results question the relevance of prescribing MS as a safe opioid maintenance treatment, considering its health risk profile.

Chronic Pain Opioid-Maintained Patients Receive Less Analgesic Opioid Prescriptions.

Treating pain and opioid use disorder represents a clinical challenge. While most studies that have assessed opioid analgesic use in opioid substitution treatment (OST) patients primarily address opioid analgesic misuse (1, 2), only few studies focused on OST patients assessed the prescription of analgesic opioids for chronic pain. We sought to compare the prevalence of analgesic opioid prescription (AOP) in two groups of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) patients: OST patients vs. the general population. This was a population-based cross-sectional study based on the French national healthcare claims database SNIIRAM (Système National d'Informations Inter-Régimes de l'Assurance Maladie) covering over 66 million people (98.8% of the French population). Overall, 67,173 participants ≥15 years old undergoing continuous OST in 2015 ("OST patients" group) were included and age- and gender-matched by means of a 1:1 ratio with 67,173 patients without OST ("control" group). In each group, patients with cancer conditions were excluded and those having received opioid and non-opioid analgesics for at least 3 months were identified (CNCP patients). Compared to control patients, CNCP OST patients received less AOP (47.8 vs. 68.0%, p < 0.0001) and more often non-opioid prescription (52.2 vs. 32.0%, p < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis, CNCP OST patients were 2.7 times less likely to be prescribed analgesic opioids (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 2.7 [2.42-3.01], p < 0.0001) than control patients. AOP correlated in CNCP OST patients with: age ≤ 40 years old, female gender, low-income status, methadone-maintained treatment, mental health disorder, hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, and alcohol abuse disorder. Opioid analgesics were less often prescribed in CNCP OST patients. AOP prevalence was 2.7-fold lower than in the general population. Chronic pain management in OST patients needs to be reinforced through additional physician training and a multidisciplinary approach.