Treatment persistence and exacerbations in patients with asthma initiating treatment with inhaled corticosteroids and beta-adrenergic agonists: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine treatment persistence and exacerbations in patients initiating inhaler treatment with fixed-dose combinations of inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting beta-2-adrenergic agonists (ICS/LABA) for the treatment of asthma. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study conducted by review of electronic medical records (database: Fundación RediSS). SETTING: Retrospective cohort study. The follow-up period was 1 year. PARTICIPANTS: The study included patients aged ≥18 years who started treatment with ICS/LABA and met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The study groups were fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL), beclomethasone/formoterol (BDP/FORM), budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FORM), fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) and fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/FORM). The main measurements were persistence, medication possession ratio (MPR) and exacerbations. Statistical significance was established as p<0.05. RESULTS: In total, 3203 patients were recruited for the study. By groups, 31.1% FP/SAL, 28.6% BDP/FORM, 25.0% BUD/FORM, 8.2% FF/VI and 7.0% FP/FORM. The mean age was 52.2 years, 60.8% were female and 44.9% had persistent-moderate asthma. Treatment persistence was 61.7% (95% CI 60.0% to 63.4%) and by study group it was FP/SAL: 60.7%, BDP/FORM: 61.2%, BUD/FORM: 60.3%, FF/VI: 66.7% and FP/FORM: 67.6% (p=0.046). MPR by study group was FP/SAL: 74.3%, BDP/FORM: 73.8%, BUD/FORM: 74.6%, FF/VI: 79.4% and FP/FORM: 80.6% (p=0.028). The mortality rate was 2.9%. By treatment group, exacerbations were FP/SAL: 21.9% (95% CI 19.3% to 24.5%), BDP/FORM: 22.2% (95% CI 19.5% to 24.9%), BUD/FORM: 22.8% (95% CI 19.9% to 25.7%), FF/VI: 17.9% (95% CI 14.9% to 20.7%) and FP/FORM: 16.0% (95% CI 12.2% to 19.3%), p=0.036. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing treatment with FP/FORM and FF/VI versus FP/SAL, BDP/FORM and BUD/FORM were associated with greater treatment adherence (persistence, MPR) and lower rates of exacerbations. However, further studies will be needed to strengthen the consistency of the results.

Low-Dose Methoxyflurane versus Standard of Care Analgesics for Emergency Trauma Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Pooled Data.

PURPOSE: Undertreatment of trauma-related pain is common in the pre-hospital and hospital settings owing to barriers to the use of traditional standard of care analgesics. Low-dose methoxyflurane is an inhaled non-opioid analgesic with a rapid onset of pain relief that is approved for emergency relief of moderate-to-severe trauma-related pain in adults. This analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of low-dose methoxyflurane with standard of care analgesics in adults with trauma-related pain. METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed on pooled data from randomized controlled trials identified via a systematic review. The primary endpoint was the pain intensity difference between baseline and various time intervals (5, 10, 15, 20, and 30 minutes) after initiation of treatment. RESULTS: The pain intensity difference was statistically superior with low-dose methoxyflurane compared with standard of care analgesics (overall estimated treatment effect=11.88, 95% CI=9.75-14.00; P<0.0001). The superiority of low-dose methoxyflurane was demonstrated at 5 minutes after treatment initiation and was maintained across all timepoints. Significantly more patients treated with methoxyflurane achieved response criteria of pain intensity ≤30 mm on a visual analog scale, and relative reductions in pain intensity of ≥30% and ≥50%, compared with patients who received standard of care analgesics. The median time to pain relief was shorter with methoxyflurane than with standard of care analgesics. The findings were consistent in a subgroup of elderly patients (aged ≥65 years). CONCLUSION: Methoxyflurane can be considered as an alternative to standard of care analgesics in pre-hospital and hospital settings for treatment of adult patients with acute trauma-related pain.

Association of Performance Status and Pain in Metastatic Bone Pain Management in the Spanish Clinical Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Bone metastasis is the most common cause of cancer-related pain, and metastatic bone pain (MBP) is not only severe but also progressive in many patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between pain management and performance status in patients with metastatic bone cancer in the Spanish clinical setting. METHODS: A 3-month follow-up prospective, epidemiologic, multicenter study was conducted in 579 patients to assess the evolution of their performance, the impact of pain control on sleep and functionality, and the degree of pain control according to analgesic treatment. RESULTS: In patients with MBP, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status (1.5 ± 0.7-1.3 ± 0.7 and 1.3 ± 0.8; p < 0.001) and pain (6.5 ± 1.4-2.8 ± 1.9 and 2.1 ± 1.9; p < 0.001) improved significantly from baseline to months 1 and 3, as did functionality and sleep, after a treatment change consisting of increasing the administration of opioids. Evolution of ECOG and pain were closely related. ECOG and pain outcomes were significantly more favorable in patients treated with opioids versus non-opioid treatment, and in patients who did not need rescue medication versus those who did. CONCLUSIONS: MBP is currently poorly managed in Spain. ECOG improvement is closely and directly related to pain management in MBP. Opioid treatment and a lack of requirements for rescue medication are associated with better ECOG and pain outcomes in MBP patients. FUNDING: Mundipharma Pharmaceuticals S.L.

Validation of the Short Form of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI-SF) in Spanish Patients with Non-Cancer-Related Pain.

The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) is a widely used pain measurement tool. There are 2 versions, the BPI Long Form (BPI-LF) and Short Form (BPI-SF), which share 2 core scales measuring pain severity and pain interference but which use different recall periods (24 hours vs. 1 week). To date, the BPI-SF has not been validated for use in Spain. This study investigated the psychometric properties of the BPI-SF Spanish version and compared results on the core scales between BPI-LF and BPI-SF. The data came from a 3-month observational study of 3,029 nononcologic patients managed in Spanish pain units. The BPI-SF's reliability, validity, and responsiveness were assessed. The effect of different recall periods was investigated by using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to determine the strength of correlation between BPI-LF and BPI-SF. The BPI-SF showed good reliability, with Cronbach's alphas of 0.931 for the severity and interference scales, which also discriminated well between patients reporting different levels of quality of life on EuroQol-5D dimensions (between group effect sizes [ESs] over 0.8). Substantial improvements were seen on both subscales after 3 months of treatment (ES of 1.76 for pain severity and 1.51 for pain interference). Recall period did not noticeably affect scores; ICCs (95% CI) between the long and short versions were 0.946 (0.938 to 0.954) and 0.929 (0.919 to 0.939) for the severity and interference subscales, respectively. The Spanish version of the BPI-SF is a valid and reliable instrument to measure pain severity and interference.