RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Some have advocated that nabilone be used rather than opioids to manage chronic, noncancer pain, since the former drug may have a better safety profile. OBJECTIVE: We compared the safety of incident nabilone use relative to incident opioid use with respect to multiple clinically important outcomes. DESIGN: A population-based, retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Province of Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Persons aged 12 years and older, diagnosed with a musculoskeletal condition within the past 3 years prior to the index date. EXPOSURES: Incident nabilone use, with incident opioid use serving as the reference group. MEASUREMENTS: Within 3 months following the index date, we separately evaluated for pneumonia, motor vehicle accidents, falls or fractures, mental and behavioral disorder due to psychoactive substance use, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total of 18,863 incident nabilone users were propensity score matched to an equal number of opioid users. In the overall matched analysis, incident nabilone users vs. incident opioid users had significantly lower rates of pneumonia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78, 95% CI 0.63-0.96), falls or fractures (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.50-0.64), and all-cause mortality (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.95), but significantly higher rate of mental or behavioral disorder (HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.45-3.43). There was no significant difference between groups with respect to rate of motor vehicle accidents. LIMITATIONS: Unmeasured confounding may have influenced results. CONCLUSIONS: While usage of nabilone relative to opioids was associated with reduced rates of pneumonia, falls or fractures, and all-cause mortality, it was simultaneously associated with an increased rate of adverse mental health outcomes. This picture of mixed safety results raises concerns with the policy approach of broadly substituting use of opioids with nabilone. FUNDING SOURCE: Ontario Ministry of Health.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The risk of incident dementia after surgery in older adults is unclear. The study objective was to examine the rate of incident dementia among older adults after elective surgery compared with a matched nonsurgical control group. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, propensity-matched retrospective cohort study using data from linked administrative databases in Ontario, Canada. All community-dwelling individuals aged 66 years and older who underwent one of five major elective surgeries between April 1, 2007 and March 31, 2011 were included. Each surgical patient was matched 1:1 on surgical specialty of the surgeon at consultation, age, sex, fiscal year of entry, and propensity score with a patient who attended an outpatient visit with a surgeon of the same surgical specialty but did not undergo surgery. Patients were followed for up to 5 years after cohort entry for the occurrence of a new dementia diagnosis, defined from administrative data. Cause-specific hazard models were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the association between surgery and the hazard of incident dementia. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 27,878 individuals (13,939 matched pairs) were included in the analysis. A total of 640 (4.6%) individuals in the surgical group and 965 (6.9%) individuals in the control group developed dementia over the 5-year follow-up period. Individuals who underwent surgery had a reduced rate of incident dementia compared with their matched nonsurgical controls (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80-0.97; p = 0.01). This association was persistent in most subgroups and after sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Elective surgery did not increase the rate of incident dementia when compared with matched nonsurgical controls. This could be an important consideration for patients and surgeons when elective surgery is considered.