Search

Several professional organizations have recommended tramadol as one of the first-line or second-line therapies for patients with chronic noncancer pain and its prescription has been increasing rapidly worldwide; however, the safety profile of tramadol, such as risk of fracture, remains unclear. This study aimed to examine the association of tramadol with risk of hip fracture. Among individuals age 50 years or older without a history of hip fracture, cancer, or opioid use disorder in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database in the United Kingdom general practice (2000-2017), five sequential propensity score-matched cohort studies were assembled, ie, participants who initiated tramadol or those who initiated one of the following medications: codeine (n = 146,956) (another commonly used weak opioid), naproxen (n = 115,109) or ibuprofen (n = 107,438) (commonly used nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]), celecoxib (n = 43,130), or etoricoxib (n = 27,689) (cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors). The outcome was incident hip fracture over 1 year. After propensity-score matching, the included participants had a mean age of 65.7 years and 56.9% were women. During the 1-year follow-up, 518 hip fracture (3.7/1000 person-years) occurred in the tramadol cohort and 401 (2.9/1000 person-years) occurred in the codeine cohort. Compared with codeine, hazard ratio (HR) of hip fracture for tramadol was 1.28 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13 to 1.46). Risk of hip fracture was also higher in the tramadol cohort than in the naproxen (2.9/1000 person-years for tramadol, 1.7/1000 person-years for naproxen; HR = 1.69, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.03), ibuprofen (3.4/1000 person-years for tramadol, 2.0/1000 person-years for ibuprofen; HR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.39 to 1.96), celecoxib (3.4/1000 person-years for tramadol, 1.8/1000 person-years for celecoxib; HR = 1.85, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.44), or etoricoxib (2.9/1000 person-years for tramadol, 1.5/1000 person-years for etoricoxib; HR = 1.96, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.87) cohort. In this population-based cohort study, the initiation of tramadol was associated with a higher risk of hip fracture than initiation of codeine and commonly used NSAIDs, suggesting a need to revisit several guidelines on tramadol use in clinical practice. © 2020 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Inpatient zoledronic acid (IP-ZA) administered during the initial fracture hospitalization significantly improves the osteoporosis treatment rate. Clinical outcomes of IP-ZA after hip fracture remain uncertain. Here we report a cohort study that emulated a randomized controlled trial using real-world data and evaluated the risk of all-cause-mortality and radiologically confirmed subsequent new fractures among patients hospitalized for a hip fracture who had received IP-ZA as compared with propensity-matched controls. A total of 654 patients who had received IP-ZA and 6877 controls (for whom anti-osteoporosis treatment was indicated but no IP-ZA started during index hospitalization) were included in the study. The primary cohort comprised 652 IP-ZA patients (IP-ZA group) and 1926 matched controls (untreated group), with 71.7% female 92.1% White participants, with a mean age of 80.9 years. Cumulative all-cause mortality over the 24-month follow-up for the IP-ZA group was 12.3% and 20.7% for the untreated group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.78, p < .001). A total of 585 (89.7%) patients in IP-ZA group received only a single dose of ZA during the 24 months, and the death rate of this single dose group was 13.3%, which was significantly lower than that of the untreated group (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55-0.89, p = .003). Rates of radiologically confirmed cumulative subsequent new vertebral fractures were 2.0% in the IP-ZA group and 5.4% in the untreated group (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.71, p = .001). A similarly lower rate of new vertebral fractures was seen in the single dose subgroup (1.9% vs 5.4%; HR, 0.44; 95% 0.24-0.82, p = .008). IP-ZA, administered during the initial hospitalization for hip fracture, was associated with lower all-cause-mortality and risk of radiologically confirmed subsequent new vertebral fractures, and thus offers a mechanism to narrow the treatment gap in patients having sustained a hip fragility fracture. Lay Summary: Hip fracture is a serious complication of osteoporosis affecting approximately 300 000 Americans per year and is associated with a 20%-30% 1-year mortality rate. Most patients with hip fracture are elderly (average age, 80-81 years), with multiple underlying medical conditions and are often unable to timely attend post-hospitalization outpatient follow-up to initiate anti-osteoporosis treatment. As a result, only ~10% of post–hip fracture patients receive treatment for underlying osteoporosis. We have previously reported that zoledronic acid (ZA) administered during initial fracture hospitalization (IP-ZA) is safe and can effectively improve the osteoporosis treatment rate to 70%. The present study analyzed the clinical outcomes of 652 patients who had sustained hip fractures and were treated with IP-ZA and 1926 matched controls and revealed significantly reduced rates of all-cause mortality and vertebral compression fracture (VCF) during a 2-year follow-up period. Of note, nearly 90% of the treated patients received only a single dose of ZA (namely, IP-ZA), suggesting that, for most patients, the only opportunity to receive anti-osteoporosis treatment was during the index fracture hospitalization. Importantly, reduced mortality and VCF rates were readily seen in this single-dose group of patients. Our data suggest that IP-ZA is beneficial for osteoporotic hip fracture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. Results: Thirty‐five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first‐line SARD‐ILD treatment, treatment of SARD‐ILD progression despite first‐line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis–ILD as a first‐line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first‐line ILD treatment in all other SARDs. Conclusion: This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease. Methods: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation. Results: Fifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high‐resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs. Conclusion: This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Patient engagement is critical to clinical practice guideline (CPG) development. This work presents our approach to ascertaining patients' values and preferences to inform the American College of Rheumatology guidelines for screening, monitoring, and treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods: We conducted a cross‐sectional qualitative study of a purposefully sampled Patient Panel using a modified content analytic approach. The study team reviewed text transcripts from the Patient Panel discussion to identify themes and develop a clustered thematic schema. Results: Twenty‐one patients (75% women) participated, with a mean age of 53 years (range 33–73). Patients had one or more SARDs: systemic sclerosis (38%), Sjögren disease (38%), idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (33%), rheumatoid arthritis (24%), and mixed connective tissue disease (10%). We identified 10 themes in 4 thematic clusters: communication, screening and monitoring, treatment goals, and treatment adverse effects. Patients prioritized recognizing ILD symptoms, importance of ILD screening and close monitoring, goals of survival and improving quality of life, and willingness to accept treatment risks provided that there is close communication with providers. Patient representatives shared patients' priorities and insight at the Voting Panel meeting, influencing multiple guideline recommendations. Conclusion: Patient engagement fosters a holistic approach to CPG development, leading to recommendations aiming for the best clinical outcomes while prioritizing outcomes important for patients. The patient‐identified themes played a critical role in ILD guideline development and provide core elements for shared decision‐making as clinicians make management and therapeutic decisions with patients with SARD‐associated ILD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Feedback from fellows‐in‐training (FITs) is important for faculty development and to enrich clinical teaching. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of traditional online evaluations and a novel compiled verbal feedback mechanism. Methods: An annual feedback system was implemented in our rheumatology division in which FITs provided verbal feedback on all faculty to a facilitator who compiled, deidentified, and shared the feedback with individual faculty members. FITs also completed standard online annual evaluations of faculty. FITs and faculty completed surveys assessing the perceived effectiveness and confidentiality of each feedback mechanism. Results: Thirteen of 15 eligible faculty and all 4 eligible FITs completed both surveys. Responses by FITs and faculty regarding the quality of online evaluations were generally unfavorable or neutral. Faculty responses regarding compiled verbal feedback were more favorable in all questions and significantly more favorable with respect to the feedback's ability to explain strengths (54% favorable for online evaluations vs 100% for compiled verbal feedback), the feedback's specificity (0% vs 54%), and the feedback's actionable nature (15% vs 62%). All FITs' responses regarding quality of compiled verbal feedback were favorable. FITs had concerns regarding confidentiality with both online evaluations (0% favorable) and compiled verbal feedback (25% favorable), though FITs had less concern for future faculty interactions with compiled verbal feedback (100% favorable) than with online evaluations (0% favorable). Conclusion: Compiled verbal feedback by FITs produced more actionable and effective feedback for faculty, with less concerns regarding future faculty interactions compared with traditional online evaluations. Further study of this method across different programs and institutions is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction. In this study, we investigated the prevalence of depression, depression treatment, and symptom burden in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) and examined their associations with the center for epidemiologic studies depression scale revised (CESD-R) scores. Methods. The Prospective Registry in Scleroderma at Massachusetts General Hospital (PRISM) is a longitudinal registry of patients with SSc. Among participants with CESD-R score ≥ 16 , indicating possible depression, a chart review was performed for mental health diagnoses and treatments. We examined the relation of demographic and clinical factors to the presence of mental health diagnoses or treatment using logistic regression. We evaluated the association of SSc symptoms and the COVID-19 pandemic with a CESD-R score using quantile regression. Results. Of 214 patients enrolled in PRISM, 129 participants (38% diffuse and 59% limited) completed at least one CESD-R questionnaire. In the first survey, 29% had possible depression (CESD − R ≥ 16) and 16% had probable depression (CESD − R ≥ 23). Of 20 participants with probable depression, 90% received treatment for a mood disorder. In a multivariable logistic regression model among participants with CESD − R ≥ 16 , none of the evaluated variables (CESD-R score, age, gender, employment status, race, and ethnicity) was associated with mental health diagnosis or treatment. Higher baseline dyspnea index, modified Rodnan skin score, and the University of California Los Angeles Scleroderma Clinical Trials Consortium Gastrointestinal total score and subscores were associated with higher CESD-R score. Conclusion. In this single-center cross-sectional study, 16% of participants had significant depressive symptoms. Dyspnea, extent of skin involvement, and gastrointestinal symptoms were associated with depression symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Zoledronic acid (ZA) administered during the initial hospitalization for a fragility fracture improves the osteoporosis pharmacotherapy rate. Distinguishing the safety profile of inpatient ZA (IP-ZA) in this context is crucial if this approach is to be widely adopted. Objective: To study the acute safety profile of IP-ZA. Methods: An observational study of patients admitted to the Massachusetts General Hospital with fragility fractures who were eligible to receive IP-ZA. Patients were treated with or without IP-ZA. Acetaminophen, either as a single pre-ZA dose or standing multiple-doses-per-day regimen for 48 hours or longer after ZA infusion, was also administered along with protocolized vitamin D and calcium supplementation. Changes in body temperature, serum creatinine, and serum calcium were measured. Results: A total of 285 consecutive patients, meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria, are included in this analysis; 204 patients received IP-ZA. IP-ZA treatment was associated with a transient mean rise of body temperature of 0.31 °C on the day following its administration. Temperatures above 38 °C were seen in 15% of patients in the IP-ZA group and 4% in the nontreated group. Standing multiple-doses-per-day but not a single pre-ZA dose of acetaminophen effectively prevented this temperature increase. IP-ZA did not affect serum creatinine levels. Mean levels of serum total calcium and albumin-corrected calcium decreased by 0.54 mg/dL and 0.40 mg/dL, respectively, at their nadirs (Day 5). No patient experienced symptomatic hypocalcemia. Conclusion: IP-ZA along with standing multiple-doses-per-day acetaminophen, administered to patients in the immediate postfracture period, is not associated with significant acute adverse effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Telehealth is an essential facet of care delivery for patients with rheumatic diseases. The Association of American Medical College's (AAMC) telehealth competencies (TCs) define the skills required for delivering general telehealth care across the range of clinician experience. In this study, the American College of Rheumatology's (ACR) TCs working group aimed to adapt the AAMC TCs to rheumatology, outlining the skills acquisition unique to rheumatology with a focus on knowledge, skills, and behaviors expected of recent rheumatology fellowship graduates. Methods: Through a collaborative process, the working group adapted the AAMC TCs to the training structure and practice of rheumatology. The rheumatology TCs underwent peer review among recipients of the Clinician Scholar Educator Award and attendees at the ACR 2021 Convergence conference. Results: The rheumatology TCs define 24 essential skills required for synchronous telehealth care of patients with rheumatic diseases. The working group adapted the AAMC's 20 TCs organized within 6 domains, added 2 skills to the AAMC's domains of patient safety and appropriate use, and data collection and assessment, and created a novel domain of systems‐based requirements with 2 competencies. The rheumatology TCs define expected skill levels for recent rheumatology fellowship graduates and experienced rheumatology clinicians. Conclusion: The rheumatology TCs represent the first adaptation of the AAMC TCs to subspecialty care, expanding the scope to include rheumatology fellowship graduates and additional domains of rheumatology practice. These competencies can guide curricular innovations and measurements of proficiency in telehealth care delivery among rheumatology trainees and experienced clinicians, enhancing the care provided to patients with rheumatic diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) experience sleep disturbances, commonly attributed to joint pain. Sleep disturbances could also influence pain. One mechanism may be through dysregulated pain processing, manifested by enhanced pain sensitivity. The present study was undertaken to examine the role of pain sensitization, measured by quantitative sensory testing (QST), as a mediator in the pathway of sleep disturbance leading to subsequent pain. Methods: We used longitudinal data from 221 patients with active RA who were followed for 12 weeks after initiating a disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug. Baseline QST included pressure pain thresholds at articular (wrists, knees) and nonarticular (trapezius, thumbnails) sites, temporal summation (TS) at the wrist and forearm, and conditioned pain modulation (CPM). Baseline sleep disturbance and subsequent pain intensity were assessed using the Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). We evaluated correlations between sleep disturbance, QSTs, and subsequent pain intensity. Mediation analyses separately assessed each QST as a mediator, adjusting for baseline confounding factors. Results: Sleep disturbance was correlated with all QST measures except wrist TS and CPM. Sleep disturbance significantly predicted subsequent pain (coefficient for a meaningful increase of 5 units in sleep disturbance = 0.32 (95% confidence interval 0.11, 0.50) in multiple regression. QST mediated 10–19% of this effect. Conclusion: Pain sensitization may be one mechanism through which sleep disturbance contributes to pain. The small magnitude of association indicates that unmeasured pathways may contribute to this relationship. Intervention studies are needed to establish causality and determine whether improving sleep can improve pain in patients with RA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]