scholarly journals POS1089 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PAIN SEVERITY AND HEALTHCARE UTILIZATION IN AN OSTEOARTHRITIS POPULATION: AN 18-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 824.1-824
Author(s):  
J. Graham ◽  
T. Novosat ◽  
H. Sun ◽  
B. Piper ◽  
J. Boscarino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pain Score ◽  
Financial Support ◽  
Severe Pain ◽  
Healthcare Resource ◽  
Healthcare Resource Utilization ◽  
Pain Severity ◽  
Treatment Utilization ◽  
Research Support ◽  
P Values ◽  
Pain Scores

Background:Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common disease that varies in severity among patients. A standardized definition to classify patients into different severity levels is lacking, however, due to the disease’s complex pathogenesis and presentation. Prior studies have shown associations between pain severity and higher healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs. We investigated an association between pain severity and higher healthcare resource utilization by examining the use of specific OA-related treatments across pain intensity levels in a large, integrated health system’s OA population over an 18-year period.Objectives:Our aim was to compare use of medications and other treatments among OA patients experiencing mild, moderate, or severe pain.Methods:This was a retrospective study of electronic health records from 2001 to 2018 at Geisinger, an integrated health system in Pennsylvania. Patients were included with a diagnosis code for OA (ICD-9: 715.*, ICD-10 M15-19) on a problem list or encounter or an OA-specific procedure (hip or knee replacement, arthroscopy or injection). We examined pain scores (0-10 scale, with 10 being worst pain) taken after the first OA diagnosis date and defined pain episodes starting on the pain score’s date and lasting for 90 days. If a new pain score was measured before 90 days elapsed, the episode was extended for an additional 90 days, with this process repeated as necessary. Each episode was categorized as mild (pain score 0-3), moderate (4-6), or severe (7-10) based on initial score, and patients could contribute multiple episodes to the analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to quantify treatment utilization during each patients’ mild, moderate and severe episodes. Percentages of patients who had any use of 10 medication types (tramadol, non-tramadol opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), injectable corticosteroids, acetaminophen, salicylates, duloxetine, homeopathic medications, other topical medications, and other over-the-counter (OTC) medications were compared across pain episode types. Percentages of patients with knee or hip surgeries, spine or joint imaging procedures (x-ray, computed tomography or magnetic resonance) and consults to OA-related care (pain management, orthopedics or physical medicine and rehabilitation) were also compared. All analyses used logistic regression with p-values <0.05 considered significant.Results:We identified 290,897 patients with OA, representing 34% of the health system population in 2018; 58% were female with mean age of 49 years and mean BMI of 30.5 kg/m2. A total of 801,144 pain episodes were defined, with 75% of patients having at least one pain score. The two most frequently occurring pain scores were 0 (17%) and 5 (13%), and pain episodes were classified as 43% mild, 32% moderate and 25% severe. Significantly higher percentages of patients used certain medication types (NSAIDs, injectable corticosteroids, non-tramadol opioid, duloxetine) in both moderate and severe pain episodes as compared to mild episodes, but other medication types were less likely to be used as pain severity increased (acetaminophen, salicylates, homeopathic medications, other OTC medications). Knee or hip surgeries, imaging, and consults to OA-related specialists were all consistently significantly more likely to occur in patients during moderate or severe pain episodes versus mild episodes (relative risk ratios of 1.76, 1.25 and 1.35 for moderate vs mild, respectively, and 2.00, 1.44 and 1.46 for severe vs mild, all p-values <0.05).Conclusion:While pain is generally recognized to be a subjective measure that could be influenced by other unmeasured factors and can be confounded with treatment effectiveness, it is nevertheless the primary symptom of OA. It is important to understand the relationship between pain intensity and treatment utilization, and our results support an overall association between pain and utilization but provide new details on the extent to which it depends on specific utilization type.Acknowledgements:Pfizer and Eli Lilly and Company for sponsoring this study.Disclosure of Interests:Jove Graham Grant/research support from: I am an employee of Geisinger which received financial support from Pfizer and Eli Lilly and Company in connection with the development of this abstract, Tonia Novosat Grant/research support from: I am an employee of Geisinger which received financial support from Pfizer and Eli Lilly and Company in connection with the development of this abstract, Haiyan Sun Grant/research support from: I am an employee of Geisinger which received financial support from Pfizer and Eli Lilly and Company in connection with the development of this abstract, Brian Piper Grant/research support from: I am an employee of Geisinger which received financial support from Pfizer and Eli Lilly and Company in connection with the development of this abstract, Joseph Boscarino Grant/research support from: I am an employee of Geisinger which received financial support from Pfizer and Eli Lilly and Company in connection with the development of this abstract, Vanessa Duboski Grant/research support from: I am an employee of Geisinger which received financial support from Pfizer and Eli Lilly and Company in connection with the development of this abstract, Melissa Kern Grant/research support from: I am an employee of Geisinger which received financial support from Pfizer and Eli Lilly and Company in connection with the development of this abstract, Eric Wright Grant/research support from: I am an employee of Geisinger which received financial support from Pfizer and Eli Lilly and Company in connection with the development of this abstract, Rebecca Robinson Shareholder of: Eli Lilly & Co., Employee of: Eli Lilly & Co., Edward Casey Shareholder of: Pfizer, Inc., Paid instructor for: As an employee of Pfizer, Inc. this is part of my role., Employee of: Pfizer, Inc., Craig Beck Shareholder of: Pfizer, Inc., Employee of: Pfizer, Inc., Jerry Hall Shareholder of: Eli Lilly & Co., Employee of: Eli Lilly & Co., Patricia Schepman Shareholder of: Pfizer, Inc., Employee of: Pfizer, Inc.

scholarly journals MP10: Does arrival pain severity predict stone characteristics or short-term outcomes in emergency department patients with acute renal colic?

CJEM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (S1) ◽  
pp. S45-S46
Author(s):  
G. Splinter ◽  
K. Gourlay ◽  
J. Hayward ◽  
G. Innes
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Severe Pain ◽  
Renal Colic ◽  
Pain Severity ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Advanced Imaging ◽  
Stone Size ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Imaging Results ◽  
Stone Characteristics

Introduction: Renal colic is among the most painful conditions that patients experience. The main outcome determinants for patients with renal colic are stone size, location and hydronephrosis; however, little is known about the association of pain with these parameters. Our objective was to determine whether more severe pain is associated with larger stones, more proximal stones or more severe hydronephrosis, findings that might suggest the need for advanced imaging, hospitalization or early intervention. Methods: We used administrative data and structured chart review to study all adult emergency department (ED) patients in two cities with a renal colic diagnosis over one-year. Patients with missing imaging results or pain scores were excluded. Triage nurses recorded numeric rating scale (NRS) pain scores on arrival. We stratified patients into mild (NRS <4), moderate (NRS 4-7) and severe (NRS 8-10) pain groups, as per CTAS guidelines. Stone size (mm) and location (proximal, middle, distal ureter, or renal) were abstracted from imaging reports, while index admissions were determined from hospital discharge abstracts. We used multivariable linear regression to determine the association of arrival pain with stone characteristics and hydronephrosis severity (primary outcome), and we used multivariable logistic regression to determine the association of pain with index hospitalization (secondary outcome). We also performed a stratified analysis looking at ureteral vs. kidney (intrarenal) stones. Results: We studied 1053 patients, 66% male, with a mean age of 48 years. After controlling for patient and disease characteristics, we found no significant association between pain severity and stone size (b=−0.0004; 95%CI = -0.0015, 0.0008) or stone location (b = 0.0045; 95%CI: -0.020, 0.029). Nor did we find an association between pain and hydronephrosis severity (b = 0.016; 95%CI: -0.053, 0.022, p = 0.418). Stratified analyses using a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons revealed the same absence of associations in the kidney and ureteral stone subgroups. Arrival pain did not predict index admission (OR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.59, 1.16). Conclusion: Arrival pain scores are not associated with stone size, stone location or hydronephrosis severity, and do not predict index visit hospitalization in ED patients with renal colic. Severe pain should motivate efforts to minimize treatment delays, but do not suggest the need to modify advanced imaging or admission decisions.

scholarly journals Pain severity and healthcare resource utilization in patients with osteoarthritis in the United States

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Sri Nalamachu ◽  
Rebecca L. Robinson ◽  
Lars Viktrup ◽  
Joseph C. Cappelleri ◽  
Andrew G. Bushmakin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Resource Utilization ◽  
Healthcare Resource ◽  
The United States ◽  
Healthcare Resource Utilization ◽  
Pain Severity

OP07 On the effectiveness and costs of inhaled methoxyflurane versus usual analgesia for prehospital injury and trauma

2021 ◽  
Vol 38 (9) ◽  
pp. A4.1-A4
Author(s):  
Murray D Smith ◽  
Aloysius Niroshan Siriwardena ◽  
Robert Spaight ◽  
Elise Rowan
Keyword(s):  
Severe Pain ◽  
Traumatic Injury ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Severe Trauma ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Limited Evidence ◽  
P Values ◽  
Scenario Analyses ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Maximum Pain

BackgroundAcute pain is often inadequately treated in adults with traumatic injury. Inhaled methoxyflurane, newly licensed in Europe for this indication, has limited evidence of clinical effectiveness in the prehospital setting. We aimed to investigate clinical effectiveness and costs of methoxyflurane administered by ambulance staff compared with usual analgesic practice (UAP) for patients with trauma.MethodsWe used a non-randomised control group pragmatic design comparing methoxyflurane versus Entonox® and parenteral analgesics. Verbal numerical pain scores (VNPS) were gathered over time in adults with moderate to severe trauma pain attended by ambulance staff trained in administering and supplied with methoxyflurane. Comparator VNPS were obtained from database records of UAP in similar patients. Clinical efficacy was tested using an Ordered Probit panel regression model of pain linked by observational rules to VNPS. Scenario analyses were used to compare durations under analgesia spent in severe pain, and costs.ResultsOver 12 months, 96 trained paramedics and technicians prepared 510 doses of methoxyflurane for administration to 483 patients. 32 patients reported side-effects, 19 of whom discontinued early. 13 patients, 10 aged over 75 years, were nonadherent to inhaler use instructions.Modelling results showed statistically significant clinical effectiveness of methoxyflurane over each comparator (all p-values<0.001). Methoxyflurane’s time to achieve maximum pain relief was significantly faster (all p-values<0.001): 26.4 mins (95%CI 25.0-27.8) versus Entonox® 44.4 (39.5-49.3); 26.5 (25.0-27.9) versus IV morphine sulfate 41.8 (38.9-44.7); 26.5 (25.1-28.0) versus IV paracetamol 40.8 (34.7-46.9).Scenario analyses of durations spent in severe pain were significantly less for methoxyflurane to comparators. Benefits of methoxyflurane were achieved at higher cost to comparators.ConclusionsMethoxyflurane reduced pain more rapidly and to a greater extent than Entonox® and more quickly than parenteral analgesics in adults with moderate or severe pain due to trauma attended by ambulance clinicians. Methoxyflurane provides a useful addition to prehospital analgesia.

scholarly journals P248 Subcutaneous secukinumab 150 mg provides rapid and sustained relief in total and nocturnal back pain, morning stiffness and fatigue in patients with active AS over 4 years

Rheumatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Helena Marzo-Ortega ◽  
Corinne Miceli-Richard ◽  
Sonja Gill ◽  
Marina Magery ◽  
Paula G. P Machado ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Pain Score ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
Morning Stiffness ◽  
Stock Ownership ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Tnf Inhibitor ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Chronic Inflammatory Condition

Abstract Background Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a chronic inflammatory condition with pain, stiffness and fatigue reported as the most troubling symptoms. Early and sustained relief of these symptoms is essential for effective management. Secukinumab provided sustained relief from pain and fatigue in AS patients over 2 years in the MEASURE 2 study. We report the effect of subcutaneous secukinumab 150 mg on key clinical symptoms (pain, morning stiffness and fatigue) in AS patients over 208 weeks in MEASURE 2. Methods This post-hoc analysis of MEASURE 2 assessed mean change from baseline to Week 208 in total and nocturnal back pain scores (by VAS [0-100]; ASAS outcome component), overall level of spinal pain (neck, back or hip) from BASDAI scores, and morning stiffness (overall level; mean of question 5 and 6 of BASDAI score). Additionally, the SF-36 physical component summary score, overall level of fatigue (BASDAI question 1), FACIT-Fatigue score and patients meeting minimal clinically important difference (MCID) criteria across multiple clinical domains were assessed. Data are shown for patients originally randomised to secukinumab 150 mg and placebo. Data are reported as observed for the overall population and by prior TNF inhibitor (TNFi) therapy status (naive vs inadequate response [IR]). Results Baseline characteristics were comparable across secukinumab 150 mg (N = 72) and placebo (N = 74) groups; total mean back pain score was 67.7±17.79, nocturnal back pain score was 64.9±19.58 and morning stiffness was 6.5±2.11. Secukinumab 150 mg-treated patients reported rapid and early reductions in pain scores by Week 4, which were sustained through Week 208 (Table 1). Improvements with secukinumab 150 mg were reported for all key clinical symptoms by Week 4, which were sustained at Week 208. A higher proportion of secukinumab 150 mg-treated patients met MCID criteria at Week 16 vs placebo across multiple clinical domains, which was sustained or further improved through Week 208. Improvements were observed in TNFi-naive and -IR patients, with a greater magnitude of improvement in TNFi-naive patients. Conclusion Secukinumab 150 mg was associated with rapid and clinically meaningful improvements in total and nocturnal back pain, morning stiffness and fatigue, with improvements sustained over 4 years of treatment. Disclosures H. Marzo-Ortega: Consultancies; AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. Member of speakers’ bureau; AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. Grants/research support; Janssen, Novartis. C. Miceli-Richard: Consultancies; Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Wyeth, Merck. Member of speakers’ bureau; Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, Wyeth. Grants/research support; AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, Wyeth. S. Gill: Consultancies; AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Amgen, Sanofi-Genzyme. Other; AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Amgen, Sanofi-Genzyme. M. Magery: Consultancies; Eli Lilly, Novartis. Grants/research support; AbbVie, UCB, Amgen. P.G.P. Machado: Shareholder/stock ownership; Novartis. Other; Employee of Novartis. A. Shete: Shareholder/stock ownership; Novartis. Other; Employee of Novartis. J. Wang: Other; Employee of Novartis. S. Rohrer: Shareholder/stock ownership; Novartis. Other; Employee of Novartis. A. Deodhar: Consultancies; AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. Grants/research support; Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB.

AN AUDIT OF THE MANAGEMENT OF ACUTE PAIN IN CHILDREN

2016 ◽  
Vol 101 (9) ◽  
pp. e2.3-e2
Author(s):  
Junndeep Sidhu ◽  
Neil Tickner
Keyword(s):  
Pain Score ◽  
Respiratory Depression ◽  
Acute Pain ◽  
Pain Assessment ◽  
Clinical Management ◽  
Severe Pain ◽  
Opioid Analgesia ◽  
Moderate Pain ◽  
Strong Opioid ◽  
Pain Scores

AimTo evaluate clinical management of acute pain with respect to pain assessment, scoring and timing of analgesia and whether appropriate supportive medicines were prescribed alongside strong opiates. A previous pain audit found dosing of analgesia was appropriate but did not assess clinical management against pain scores. Our paediatric guideline does not currently stipulate guidance on appropriate time frames to administer analgesia and re-assess pain. Standards were developed with a multidisciplinary team to audit against.MethodsData were collected over two weeks on paediatric wards excluding intensive care and day surgery. Inclusion criteria: Pain score of ≥1 during admission, or clear documentation of pain prior to ward admission, and analgesia prescribed for the indication of pain relief. Pain assessment was audited based on recorded pain scores on observation charts. Analgesia prescribed and administered was audited from drug charts. Audit standards:(1) Following a pain score of ≥1 (out of 3), subsequent dosing and assessment of pain scores must be achieved in 80% of patients as follows:(a) Severe/worst pain (score 3): Should receive appropriate analgesia within 20 minutes of assessment and pain re-evaluated within 5-minute intervals for intravenous and intranasal route or within 30 minutes of receiving oral analgesia.(b) Mild/moderate pain (score 1–2): Should receive appropriate analgesia within 30 minutes of assessment and pain re-evaluated within 60 minutes of receiving analgesia.(2) 80% of patients prescribed regular analgesia should have their pain score assessed at least 4-hourly.(3) 90% of patients prescribed strong opioid analgesia should be co-prescribed naloxone prn for respiratory depression and pruritus/urinary retention.ResultsTwenty-five patients were audited. In total there were 59 severe pain scores and 92 mild/moderate. Observation charts allowed for documentation of pain scores at 15-minute intervals but only hourly recordings were observed throughout the audit period. 58% (34/59) and 30% (28/92) of pain scores indicating severe or mild/moderate pain respectively received analgesia in the same hour the pain score was recorded. In total there were 71 analgesia administrations for severe pain and 92 for mild/moderate pain. 52% (37/71) and 34% (31/92) of analgesia administrations after severe or mild/moderate pain scores respectively had a pain score re-assessed within 60 minutes.Eighteen patients were prescribed regular analgesia of whom 15 (83%) had pain assessed a minimum of every 4 hrs. Eleven patients were prescribed strong opioid analgesia, 45% of whom were not prescribed any naloxone, 27% had naloxone fully prescribed (pruritus and respiratory depression), and 27% had naloxone prescribed for respiratory depression alone.ConclusionDespite lack of guidance around timing of pain assessment and administration of drugs, pain scores were being recorded regularly and acted upon, although not within a structured time frame. Observation charts allowed for assessment of pain scores at 15-minute intervals but only ‘on the hour’ documentation were observed. Specific guidance around timing of analgesia administration and assessment will be introduced to the revised guideline with medical and nurse training sessions to standardise practice and improve management of pain, in addition to safe prescribing of opiates.

scholarly journals Participants with mild, moderate, or severe pain following total hip arthroplasty. A sub-study of the PANSAID trial on paracetamol and ibuprofen for postoperative pain treatment

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Luma Mahmoud Issa ◽  
Kasper Højgaard Thybo ◽  
Daniel Hägi-Pedersen ◽  
Jørn Wetterslev ◽  
Janus Christian Jakobsen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Severe Pain ◽  
Pain Treatment ◽  
Opioid Analgesic ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Mild Pain ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Pain Scores

AbstractObjectivesIn this sub-study of the ‘Paracetamol and Ibuprofen in Combination’ (PANSAID) trial, in which participants were randomised to one of four different non-opioids analgesic regimen consisting of paracetamol, ibuprofen, or a combination of the two after planned primary total hip arthroplasty, our aims were to investigate the distribution of participants’ pain (mild, moderate or severe), integrate opioid use and pain to a single score (Silverman Integrated Approach (SIA)-score), and identify preoperative risk factors for severe pain.MethodsWe calculated the proportions of participants with mild (VAS 0–30 mm), moderate (VAS 31–60 mm) or severe (VAS 61–100 mm) pain and the SIA-scores (a sum of rank-based percentage differences from the mean rank in pain scores and opioid use, ranging from −200 to 200%). Using logistic regression with backwards elimination, we investigated the association between severe pain and easily obtainable preoperative patient characteristics.ResultsAmong 556 participants from the modified intention-to-treat population, 33% (95% CI: 26–42) (Group Paracetamol + Ibuprofen (PCM + IBU)), 28% (95% CI: 21–37) (Group Paracetamol (PCM)), 23% (95% CI: 17–31) (Group Ibuprofen (IBU)), and 19% (95% CI: 13–27) (Group Half Strength-Paracetamol + Ibuprofen (HS-PCM + IBU)) experienced mild pain 6 h postoperatively during mobilisation. Median SIA-scores during mobilisation were: Group PCM + IBU: −48% (IQR: −112 to 31), Group PCM: 40% (IQR: −31 to 97), Group IBU: −5% (IQR: −57 to 67), and Group HS-PCM + IBU: 6% (IQR: −70 to 74) (overall difference: p=0.0001). Use of analgesics before surgery was the only covariate associated with severe pain (non-opioid: OR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.29–0.82, weak opioid 0.56, 95% CI: 0.28–1.16, reference no analgesics before surgery, p=0.02).ConclusionsOnly one third of participants using paracetamol and ibuprofen experienced mild pain after total hip arthroplasty and even fewer experienced mild pain using each drug alone as basic non-opioid analgesic treatment. We were not able, in any clinically relevant way, to predict severe postoperative pain. A more extensive postoperative pain regimen than paracetamol, ibuprofen and opioids may be needed for a large proportion of patients having total hip arthroplasty. SIA-scores integrate pain scores and opioid use for the individual patient and may add valuable information in acute pain research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document