Real-World Long-Term Ivacaftor for Cystic Fibrosis in France: Clinical Effectiveness and Healthcare Resource Utilization.

INTRODUCTION: Ivacaftor is a cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) potentiator that has demonstrated clinical benefits in phase 3 trials. We report results from a real-world study (BRIO) to assess the effectiveness of ivacaftor in people with cystic fibrosis (pwCF) in France. METHODS: BRIO was an observational study conducted at 35 centers in France. Both pwCF initiating ivacaftor treatment and those already taking ivacaftor were included and prospectively followed for 24 months. The primary objective was to evaluate the effect of ivacaftor on percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (ppFEV1); secondary objectives were evaluating the effect of ivacaftor on clinical effectiveness, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and safety. RESULTS: A total of 129 pwCF were enrolled; 58.9% were aged < 18 years; 64.3% had a G551D-CFTR allele. Mean age at ivacaftor initiation was 19.1 years (range, 2-64 years); ppFEV1 increased by a least squares mean of 8.49 percentage points in the first 6 months and was sustained through 36 months of ivacaftor use. Growth metrics increased during the first 12 months post-ivacaftor and remained stable. The rate of pulmonary exacerbations (PEx) decreased during the 12 months post-ivacaftor compared with the 12 months pre-ivacaftor; estimated rate ratios (95% CI) were 0.57 (0.43-0.75) for PEx events and 0.25 (0.13-0.48) for PEx requiring hospitalization. No new safety concerns were identified; no deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this real-world study of ivacaftor usage in France were consistent with prior clinical trial outcomes, confirming the clinical effectiveness of ivacaftor, as well as an associated reduction in HCRU.

Are there risk factors for musculoskeletal procedural pain? A national prospective multicentre study of procedural instantaneous pain and its recall after knee and spine injections.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the risk factors for procedural pain during spinal and joint injections. METHODS: In this prospective national multicentre study, procedural pain was investigated by rheumatologists who visited four consecutive patients undergoing synovial aspiration and infiltrations of the knee (K), and four consecutive patients undergoing spinal (S) injections. Pain assessments were carried out just before, during, and 48 hours after the procedure. RESULTS: The 249 rheumatologists enrolled 1350 patients (720 K and 630 S; 64 ± 14 years, 64.6% female). Instantaneous procedure-induced pain was reported in 76.1% of cases, was generally mild (mean 2.6 ± 2.5 on 10) and not different between the two sites. The frequency of procedure-induced pain increased significantly with pain related to the underlying disease and level of anxiety before the procedure. Procedure-induced pain was recalled after 48 hours later by 66.2% of the patients, with an intensity of 2.4 ± 2.6. The recall of procedure-induced pain increased with pain due to the underlying condition, with the intensity of instantaneous procedure-induced pain, with the level of anxiety, but was less frequent if the patient underwent the procedure for the first time. Patients' and physicians' estimates of procedural pain were poorly concordant (kappa coefficient 0.45), physicians tended to overestimate the frequency of pain but to underestimate its intensity. CONCLUSION: Procedural pain is common, but mild, in patients undergoing musculoskeletal injections. Instantaneous procedural pain and its recall 48 hours later depend principally on the level of underlying pain and anxiety, regardless of the injection site and the analgesic procedure performed.

Are joint and soft tissue injections painful? Results of a national French cross-sectional study of procedural pain in rheumatological practice.

BACKGROUND: Joint, spinal and soft tissue injections are commonly performed by rheumatologists in their daily practice. Contrary to other procedures, e.g. performed in pediatric care, little is known about the frequency, the intensity and the management of procedural pain observed in osteo-articular injections in daily practice. METHODS: This observational, prospective, national study was carried out among a French national representative database of primary rheumatologists to evaluate the prevalence and intensity of pain caused by intra-and peri-articular injections, synovial fluid aspirations, soft tissue injections, and spinal injections. For each physician, data were collected over 1 month, for up to 40 consecutive patients (>18-years-old) for whom a synovial fluid aspiration, an intra or peri-articular injection or a spinal injection were carried out during consultations. Statistical analysis was carried out in order to compare patients who had suffered from pain whilst undergoing the procedure to those who had not. Explanatory analyses were conducted by stepwise logistic regression with the characteristics of the patients to explain the existence of pain. RESULTS: Data were analysed for 8446 patients (64% female, mean age 62 +/- 14 years) recruited by 240 physicians. The predominant sites injected were the knee (45.5%) and spine (19.1%). Over 80% of patients experienced procedural pain which was most common in the small joints (42%) and spine (32%) Pain was severe in 5.3% of patients, moderate in 26.6%, mild in 49.8%, and absent in 18.3%. Pain was significantly more intense in patients with severe pain linked to their underlying pathology and for procedures performed in small joints.Preventative or post-procedure analgesia was rarely given, only to 5.7% and 36.3% of patients, respectively. Preventative analgesia was more frequently prescribed in patients with more severe procedural pain. CONCLUSION: Most patients undergoing intra-or peri-articular injections, synovial fluid aspirations and spine injections suffer from procedural pain. Most patients experience usually mild procedural pain and procedural pain management is uncommonly provided by physicians. Specific research and guidelines for the management of procedural pain related to rheumatologic care should be established to improve the quality of care provided by physicians.

Intravenous acetaminophen (paracetamol): comparable analgesic efficacy, but better local safety than its prodrug, propacetamol, for postoperative pain after third molar surgery.

We compared an acetaminophen (paracetamol) 1 g (n = 51) formulation for infusion with propacetamol 2 g (n = 51) and placebo (n = 50) in a randomized, controlled, double-blind, parallel group trial in patients with moderate-to-severe pain after third molar surgery. Treatment efficacy was assessed in house for 6 h after starting the 15-min infusion. Significant effects versus placebo (P < 0.01) were obtained with both active treatments on pain relief, pain intensity difference on a 100-mm visual analog scale, and on a categorical scale (except for propacetamol at 6 h). No significant differences were noted between active groups except at 1 h. Six-hour weighted sums of primary assessments showed significantly better efficacy than placebo (P < 0.0001) and no difference between active treatments. Median stopwatch time to onset of pain relief for active treatment was 6-8 min after infusion start. Active treatments showed comparable efficacy with a significantly longer duration of analgesia and better patients' global evaluation compared with placebo. The incidence of patients reporting local pain at the infusion site was significantly less frequent after IV acetaminophen or placebo (0%) in comparison with propacetamol (49%). In conclusion, acetaminophen 1 g and propacetamol 2 g were superior to placebo regarding analgesic efficacy, with a more frequent incidence of local pain at the infusion site for propacetamol.

Efficacy and safety of single and repeated administration of 1 gram intravenous acetaminophen injection (paracetamol) for pain management after major orthopedic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous acetaminophen injection (paracetamol) is marketed in Europe for the management of acute pain. A repeated-dose, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-parallel group study was performed to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of intravenous acetaminophen as compared with its prodrug (propacetamol) and placebo. Propacetamol has been available in many European countries for more than 20 yr. METHODS: After orthopedic surgery, patients reporting moderate to severe pain received either 1 g intravenous acetaminophen, 2 g propacetamol, or placebo at 6-h intervals over 24 h. Patients were allowed "rescue" intravenous patient-controlled analgesia morphine. Pain intensity, pain relief, and morphine use were measured at selected intervals. Safety was monitored through adverse event reporting, clinical examination, and laboratory testing. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-one patients (intravenous acetaminophen: 49; propacetamol: 50; placebo: 52) received at least one dose of study medication. The intravenous acetaminophen and propacetamol groups differed significantly from the placebo group regarding pain relief from 15 min to 6 h (P < 0.05) and median time to morphine rescue (intravenous acetaminophen: 3 h; propacetamol: 2.6 h; placebo: 0.8 h). Intravenous acetaminophen and propacetamol significantly reduced morphine consumption over the 24-h period: The total morphine doses received over 24 h were 38.3 +/- 35.1 mg for intravenous acetaminophen, 40.8 +/- 30.2 mg for propacetamol, and 57. 4 +/- 52.3 mg for placebo, corresponding to decreases of -33% (19 mg) and -29% (17 mg) for intravenous acetaminophen and propacetamol, respectively. Drug-related adverse events were reported in 8.2%, 50% (most of them local), and 17.3% of patients treated with intravenous acetaminophen, propacetamol, and placebo, respectively. CONCLUSION: Intravenous acetaminophen, 1 g, administered over a 24-h period in patients with moderate to severe pain after orthopedic surgery provided rapid and effective analgesia and was well tolerated.