Dataset Information

Satisfaction, Adherence and Health-Related Quality of Life with Transdermal Buprenorphine Compared with Oral Opioid Medications in the Usual Care of Osteoarthritis Pain.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Osteoarthritis (OA) causes substantial pain and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQL). Although opioid analgesics are commonly used, the relative benefits of different opioids are poorly studied. Transdermal buprenorphine (TDB) offers an alternative to oral opioids for the treatment of moderate-to-severe chronic pain. This observational study of people with OA pain assessed satisfaction, HRQL and medication adherence.

Methods

Patients in the UK with self-reported knee and/or hip OA who had been receiving one or more of TDB, co-codamol (an oral paracetamol/codeine combination) and tramadol for at least 1 month completed an online or telephone questionnaire. Medication satisfaction scores, HRQL scores (Short-Form 36 [SF-36]), medication adherence (Morisky Medication Adherence Scale [MMAS™]), adverse events and treatment discontinuations were recorded. Linear and logistic regression models were used to compare the treatment effect of TDB with co-codamol or tramadol.

Results

Overall, 966 patients met the inclusion criteria; 701 were taking only one of the target medications (TDB: 85; co-codamol: 373; tramadol: 243). The largest age group was 50-59 years and 76.0 % of patients were female. The TDB group was younger, with more male patients, therefore the statistical models were adjusted for age and sex. Medication satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the TDB group than the other two groups (TDB vs. co-codamol: 3.56, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.90-6.68, p < 0.0001; TDB vs. tramadol: 3.22, 95 % CI 1.67-6.20, p = 0.0005). Physical Component Summary scores for HRQL and mean adherence were also higher in the TDB group, while Mental Component Summary HRQL scores were similar across the three groups.

Conclusions

Patients with knee and/or hip OA pain treated with TDB were more satisfied and more adherent with their medication, and reported higher Physical Component Summary HRQL scores than those treated with co-codamol or tramadol, although demographic differences were observed between groups.

SUBMITTER: Conaghan PG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4925685 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Satisfaction, Adherence and Health-Related Quality of Life with Transdermal Buprenorphine Compared with Oral Opioid Medications in the Usual Care of Osteoarthritis Pain.

Conaghan Philip G PG Serpell Michael M McSkimming Paula P Junor Rod R Dickerson Sara S

The patient 20160801 4

<h4>Background</h4>Osteoarthritis (OA) causes substantial pain and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQL). Although opioid analgesics are commonly used, the relative benefits of different opioids are poorly studied. Transdermal buprenorphine (TDB) offers an alternative to oral opioids for the treatment of moderate-to-severe chronic pain. This observational study of people with OA pain assessed satisfaction, HRQL and medication adherence.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients in the UK with self-reporte ...[more]

PMID: 27314487

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPain management in patients with hip fractures can be challenging. Poor pain control is associated with reduced mobility and increased morbidity. Inadequate analgesia in patients with dementia is a concern. After using several different alternatives, transdermal buprenorphine was chosen as a standardised approach for analgesia in patients with fragility fracture in our hospital. There is limited evidence on the use of buprenorphine in this population. Our aim was to investigate the safety and effectiveness of transdermal buprenorphine in patients with hip fractures.MethodsA review of consecutive patients presenting with a hip fracture from June 2018 to December 2018 was conducted using medical records. Our primary outcome was the incidence of complications as a consequence of transdermal buprenorphine. Our secondary outcome was adequate analgesia measured by reviewing the requirement for analgesia during the first week following the patient's admission. Analgesia demands were considered adequate if patients required less than 20 mg of oral morphine in total during the first week following injury.ResultsIn total, 148 patients presented with a hip fracture during the study period. 128 patients had documented evidence of buprenorphine patch application. Complete data was available for the primary outcome of complications in all cases. Data was available for the secondary outcome in 124 patients. Buprenorphine was discontinued in 24 patients (19%), most commonly due to due to concerns about contribution to hypoactive delirium (9%), and when strong analgesia was no longer required (4%). There were no severe complications. Adequate analgesia was achieved using this regime in 68% patients. 38 patients (32%) required more than 20 mg of oral morphine sulphate solution in the first week post-admission.ConclusionThis series suggests that transdermal buprenorphine is safe and effective in the management of pain following a neck of femur fragility fracture.

Project description:BackgroundExpanding access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), such as buprenorphine and extended release (XR) naltrexone, is critical to addressing the US opioid epidemic, but little is known about prescriber satisfaction with delivering these two types of MOUD. The current study describes the satisfaction of prescribers delivering buprenorphine and XR-naltrexone while examining whether satisfaction is associated with current patient census and organizational environment.MethodsAs part of a cluster randomized clinical trial (RCT) focused on expanding access to medication for opioid use disorder, 41 MOUD prescribers in Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin completed a web-based survey. The survey included measures of prescriber satisfaction with delivering buprenorphine treatment and XR-naltrexone. In addition, the survey measured several prescriber characteristics and their perceptions of the organizational environment.ResultsPrescribers were generally satisfied with their work in delivering these two types of MOUD. Prescribers reporting a greater number of patients (r = .46, p = .006), those who would recommend the center to others (r = .56, p < .001), and those reporting positive relationships with staff (r = .56, p < .001) reported significantly greater overall satisfaction with delivering buprenorphine treatment. Prescribers who more strongly endorsed feeling overburdened reported lower overall buprenorphine satisfaction (r = -.37, p = .02). None of the prescriber characteristics or perceptions of the organizational environment were significantly associated with overall satisfaction with delivering XR-naltrexone treatment.ConclusionsThe generally high levels of satisfaction with both types of MOUD is notable given that prescriber dissatisfaction can lead to turnover and impact intentions to leave the profession. Future research should continue to explore the prescriber characteristics and organizational factors associated with satisfaction in providing different types of MOUD.RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov. NCT02926482. Date of registration: September 9, 2016. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02926482 .

Project description:Importance: Limited evidence is available regarding long-term outcomes of opioids compared with nonopioid medications for chronic pain.Objective: To compare opioid vs nonopioid medications over 12 months on pain-related function, pain intensity, and adverse effects.Design, setting, and participants: Pragmatic, 12-month, randomized trial with masked outcome assessment. Patients were recruited from Veterans Affairs primary care clinics from June 2013 through December 2015; follow-up was completed December 2016. Eligible patients had moderate to severe chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain despite analgesic use. Of 265 patients enrolled, 25 withdrew prior to randomization and 240 were randomized.Interventions: Both interventions (opioid and nonopioid medication therapy) followed a treat-to-target strategy aiming for improved pain and function. Each intervention had its own prescribing strategy that included multiple medication options in 3 steps. In the opioid group, the first step was immediate-release morphine, oxycodone, or hydrocodone/acetaminophen. For the nonopioid group, the first step was acetaminophen (paracetamol) or a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. Medications were changed, added, or adjusted within the assigned treatment group according to individual patient response.Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was pain-related function (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI] interference scale) over 12 months and the main secondary outcome was pain intensity (BPI severity scale). For both BPI scales (range, 0-10; higher scores = worse function or pain intensity), a 1-point improvement was clinically important. The primary adverse outcome was medication-related symptoms (patient-reported checklist; range, 0-19).Results: Among 240 randomized patients (mean age, 58.3 years; women, 32 [13.0%]), 234 (97.5%) completed the trial. Groups did not significantly differ on pain-related function over 12 months (overall P = .58); mean 12-month BPI interference was 3.4 for the opioid group and 3.3 for the nonopioid group (difference, 0.1 [95% CI, -0.5 to 0.7]). Pain intensity was significantly better in the nonopioid group over 12 months (overall P = .03); mean 12-month BPI severity was 4.0 for the opioid group and 3.5 for the nonopioid group (difference, 0.5 [95% CI, 0.0 to 1.0]). Adverse medication-related symptoms were significantly more common in the opioid group over 12 months (overall P = .03); mean medication-related symptoms at 12 months were 1.8 in the opioid group and 0.9 in the nonopioid group (difference, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5]).Conclusions and relevance: Treatment with opioids was not superior to treatment with nonopioid medications for improving pain-related function over 12 months. Results do not support initiation of opioid therapy for moderate to severe chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain.Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01583985.

Project description:BackgroundTapentadol 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.ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsThis 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).ResultsOf 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 %).ConclusionsSignificant 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.

Dataset Information

Satisfaction, Adherence and Health-Related Quality of Life with Transdermal Buprenorphine Compared with Oral Opioid Medications in the Usual Care of Osteoarthritis Pain.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Satisfaction, Adherence and Health-Related Quality of Life with Transdermal Buprenorphine Compared with Oral Opioid Medications in the Usual Care of Osteoarthritis Pain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets