• Persistent pain after motor vehicle collision: comparative effectiveness of opioids vs nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs prescribed from the emergency department-a propensity matched analysis

      Beaudoin, Francesca L.; Gutman, Roee; Merchant, Roland C.; Clark, Melissa A.; Swor, Robert A.; Jones, Jeffrey S.; Lee, David C.; Peak, David A.; Domeier, Robert M.; Rathlev, Niels K.; et al. (2017-02-01)
      Each year millions of Americans present to the emergency department (ED) for care after a motor vehicle collision (MVC); the majority ( > 90%) are discharged to home after evaluation. Acute musculoskeletal pain is the norm in this population, and such patients are typically discharged to home with prescriptions for oral opioid analgesics or nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The influence of acute pain management on subsequent pain outcomes in this common ED population is unknown. We evaluated the effect of opioid analgesics vs NSAIDs initiated from the ED on the presence of moderate to severe musculoskeletal pain and ongoing opioid use at 6 weeks in a large cohort of adult ED patients presenting to the ED after MVC (n = 948). The effect of opioids vs NSAIDs was evaluated using an innovative quasi-experimental design method using propensity scores to account for covariate imbalances between the 2 treatment groups. No difference in risk for moderate to severe musculoskeletal pain at 6 weeks was observed between those discharged with opioid analgesics vs NSAIDs (risk difference = 7.2% [95% confidence interval: -5.2% to 19.5%]). However, at follow-up participants prescribed opioids were more likely than those prescribed NSAIDs to report use of prescription opioids medications at week 6 (risk difference = 17.5% [95% confidence interval: 5.8%-29.3%]). These results suggest that analgesic choice at ED discharge does not influence the development of persistent moderate to severe musculoskeletal pain 6 weeks after an MVC, but may result in continued use of prescription opioids. Supported by NIAMS R01AR056328 and AHRQ 5K12HS022998.
    • Rheumatoid arthritis triple therapy compared with etanercept: difference in infectious and gastrointestinal adverse events

      Quach, Lien T.; Chang, Bei-Hung; Brophy, Mary T.; Thwin, Soe Soe; Hannagan, Keri; O'Dell, James R. (2017-03-01)
      Objective.: The main aim of this study was to examine the differences between triple therapy (T: SSZ and HCQ added to MTX) and etanercept (E) added to MTX with regard to the infectious and gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs) reported in The Rheumatoid Arthritis Comparison of Active Therapies Trial. Methods.: The patients were 353 RA MTX incomplete responders who were randomized to T (n = 178) or E (n = 175). Of these, 88 patients were switched to the alternative treatment from the initial treatment (E or T) at 24 weeks per protocol. Infectious and GI serious AEs (SAEs) and non-serious AEs (NAEs) were reported during 48 and 4 weeks after the intervention period. Generalized linear models were used to estimate the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of AEs between the two therapies. Results.: Patients on E therapy were more likely to have infectious NAEs (IRR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.11, 2.19). There was a greater number of infectious SAEs that occurred when patients received E than T therapy [12 E (6.9%) vs 4 T (2.2%), P = 0.19]. Pneumonia was the most common infectious SAE for both treatments [6 E (3.4%) and 2 T (1.1%)]. Conversely, patients who were on E were less likely to have GI NAEs than those on T therapy (IRR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.40, 0.94). The most common GI SAE reported was GI haemorrhage, which occurred among three patients on E (1.7%). Conclusion.: This study provides evidence of different likelihoods of infectious and GI AEs associated with two common, equally effective treatments for RA patients who have had incomplete responses to MTX.