Search

Objectives Despite little evidence that analgesics are effective in inflammatory arthritis (IA), studies report substantial opioid prescribing. The extent this applies to other analgesics is uncertain. We undertook a comprehensive evaluation of analgesic prescribing in patients with IA in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum to evaluate this. Methods From 2004 to 2020, cross-sectional analyses evaluated analgesic prescription annual prevalence in RA, PsA and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), stratified by age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation and geography. Joinpoint regression evaluated temporal prescribing trends. Cohort studies determined prognostic factors at diagnosis for chronic analgesic prescriptions using Cox proportional hazards models. Results Analgesic prescribing declined over time but remained common: 2004 and 2020 IA prescription prevalence was 84.2/100 person-years (PY) (95% CI 83.9, 84.5) and 64.5/100 PY (64.2, 64.8), respectively. In 2004, NSAIDs were most prescribed (56.1/100 PY; 55.8, 56.5), falling over time. Opioids were most prescribed in 2020 (39.0/100 PY; 38.7, 39.2). Gabapentinoid prescribing increased: 2004 prevalence 1.1/100 PY (1.0, 1.2); 2020 prevalence 9.9/100 PY (9.7, 10.0). Most opioid prescriptions were chronic (2020 prevalence 23.4/100 PY [23.2, 23.6]). Non-NSAID analgesic prescribing was commoner in RA, older people, females and deprived areas/northern England. Conversely, NSAID prescribing was commoner in axSpA/males, varying little by deprivation/geography. Peri-diagnosis was high-risk for starting chronic opioid/NSAID prescriptions. Prognostic factors for chronic opioid/gabapentinoid and NSAID prescriptions differed, with NSAIDs having no consistently significant association with deprivation (unlike opioids/gabapentinoids). Conclusion IA analgesic prescribing of all classes is widespread. This is neither evidence-based nor in line with guidelines. Peri-diagnosis is an opportune moment to reduce chronic analgesic prescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives PMR causes pain, stiffness and disability in older adults. Measuring the impact of the condition from the patient's perspective is vital to high-quality research and patient-centred care, yet there are no validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for PMR. We set out to develop and psychometrically evaluate a PMR-specific PROM. Methods Two cross-sectional postal surveys of people with a confirmed diagnosis of PMR were used to provide data for field testing and psychometric evaluation. A total of 256 participants completed the draft PROM. Distribution of item responses was examined, and exploratory factor analysis and Rasch analysis were used to inform item reduction, formation of dimension structure and scoring system development. Some 179 participants completed the PROM at two time points, along with comparator questionnaires and anchor questions. Test–retest reliability, construct validity and responsiveness were evaluated. Results Results from the field-testing study led to the formation of the PMR-Impact Scale (PMR-IS), comprising four domains (symptoms, function, psychological and emotional well-being, and steroid side effects). Construct validity and test–retest reliability met accepted quality criteria for each domain. There was insufficient evidence from this study to determine its ability to detect flares/deterioration, but the PMR-IS was responsive to improvements in the condition. Conclusion The PMR-IS offers researchers a new way to assess patient-reported outcomes in clinical studies of PMR. It has been developed robustly, with patient input at every stage. It has good construct validity and test–retest reliability. Further work is needed to fully establish its responsiveness and interpretability parameters, and to assess its real-world clinical utility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]