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]

Background: While there is a substantial body of knowledge about acute COVID-19, less is known about long-COVID, where symptoms continue beyond 4 weeks. Aim: To describe longer-term effects of COVID-19 infection in children and young people (CYP) and identify their needs in relation to long-COVID. Design & setting: This study comprises an observational prospective cohort study and a linked qualitative study, identifying participants aged 8-17 years in the West Midlands of England. Method: CYP will be invited to complete online questionnaires to monitor incidences and symptoms of COVID-19 over a 12-month period. CYP who have experienced long-term effects of COVID will be invited to interview, and those currently experiencing symptoms will be asked to document their experiences in a diary. Professionals who work with CYP will be invited to explore the impact of long-COVID on the wider experiences of CYP, in a focus group. Descriptive statistics will be used to describe the incidence and rates of resolution of symptoms, and comparisons will be made between exposed and non-exposed groups. Logistic regression models will be used to estimate associations between candidate predictors and the development of long-COVID, and linear regression will be used to estimate associations between candidate predictors. Qualitative data will be analysed thematically using the constant comparison method. Conclusion: This study will describe features and symptoms of long-COVID and explore the impact of long-COVID within the lives of CYP and their families, to provide better understanding of long-COVID and inform clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]