使用丁丙诺啡或口服阿片类药物治疗慢性腰背痛患者的严重治疗突发不良事件:一项回顾性商业索赔分析。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of comparative effectiveness research Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-16 DOI:10.57264/cer-2023-0183
Filip Stanicic, Dimitrije Grbic, Djurdja Vukicevic, Vladimir Zah
{"title":"使用丁丙诺啡或口服阿片类药物治疗慢性腰背痛患者的严重治疗突发不良事件:一项回顾性商业索赔分析。","authors":"Filip Stanicic, Dimitrije Grbic, Djurdja Vukicevic, Vladimir Zah","doi":"10.57264/cer-2023-0183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> Explore the safety of Belbuca® (buprenorphine buccal film), buprenorphine transdermal patches and oral opioids for chronic low back pain (cLBP) treatment. <b>Methods:</b> The retrospective analysis of the MarketScan Commercial database (2018-2021) included treatment-naive cLBP adults. The first date of buprenorphine (Belbuca and transdermal patch) or opioid prescription was index date. Cohorts were defined based on the index medication. Observation included a 6-month pre-index period, while post-index lasted until the end of continuous insurance coverage. There were 44 relevant treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) identified in the literature. Incidence rate ratio (IRR) and incidence rate difference (IRD) were used to compare serious TEAE rates (in 1000 person-years) between cohorts. Propensity-score matching minimized the selection bias. <b>Results:</b> Buprenorphine had lower rates of 15 serious TEAEs than oral opioids (all p ≤ 0.037), while higher rates only for serious dizziness (IRR 2.44, p = 0.011; driven by Belbuca), opioid abuse/dependence (IRR 3.13, p = 0.004; driven by patches) and cholecystitis (IRD 20.25, p = 0.044; an outlier). Additionally, a comparison between Belbuca and oral opioids showed lower rates of 13 serious TEAEs (all p ≤ 0.024) and a higher serious dizziness rate (IRR 3.17, p = 0.024). Although the rates of serious opioid abuse/dependence were similar (24.60 vs 26.93, p = 0.921), all Belbuca patients and none of the opioid patients had a positive history of these events. Belbuca also had lower rates of five serious TEAEs than transdermal patches (all p ≤ 0.018), including a serious opioid abuse/dependence (IRR 0.04, p < 0.001), but higher rates of serious cholecystitis (IRD 52.17, p = 0.035; an outlier) and suicidal ideation (IRD 156.50, p < 0.001; an outlier). <b>Conclusion:</b> Buprenorphine had a better safety profile than oral opioids in cLBP treatment. Belbuca showed a more favorable TEAE profile than buprenorphine transdermal patches and oral opioids.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11284811/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Serious treatment-emergent adverse events in chronic low back pain patients treated with buprenorphine or oral opioids: a retrospective commercial claims analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Filip Stanicic, Dimitrije Grbic, Djurdja Vukicevic, Vladimir Zah\",\"doi\":\"10.57264/cer-2023-0183\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> Explore the safety of Belbuca® (buprenorphine buccal film), buprenorphine transdermal patches and oral opioids for chronic low back pain (cLBP) treatment. <b>Methods:</b> The retrospective analysis of the MarketScan Commercial database (2018-2021) included treatment-naive cLBP adults. The first date of buprenorphine (Belbuca and transdermal patch) or opioid prescription was index date. Cohorts were defined based on the index medication. Observation included a 6-month pre-index period, while post-index lasted until the end of continuous insurance coverage. There were 44 relevant treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) identified in the literature. Incidence rate ratio (IRR) and incidence rate difference (IRD) were used to compare serious TEAE rates (in 1000 person-years) between cohorts. Propensity-score matching minimized the selection bias. <b>Results:</b> Buprenorphine had lower rates of 15 serious TEAEs than oral opioids (all p ≤ 0.037), while higher rates only for serious dizziness (IRR 2.44, p = 0.011; driven by Belbuca), opioid abuse/dependence (IRR 3.13, p = 0.004; driven by patches) and cholecystitis (IRD 20.25, p = 0.044; an outlier). Additionally, a comparison between Belbuca and oral opioids showed lower rates of 13 serious TEAEs (all p ≤ 0.024) and a higher serious dizziness rate (IRR 3.17, p = 0.024). Although the rates of serious opioid abuse/dependence were similar (24.60 vs 26.93, p = 0.921), all Belbuca patients and none of the opioid patients had a positive history of these events. Belbuca also had lower rates of five serious TEAEs than transdermal patches (all p ≤ 0.018), including a serious opioid abuse/dependence (IRR 0.04, p < 0.001), but higher rates of serious cholecystitis (IRD 52.17, p = 0.035; an outlier) and suicidal ideation (IRD 156.50, p < 0.001; an outlier). <b>Conclusion:</b> Buprenorphine had a better safety profile than oral opioids in cLBP treatment. Belbuca showed a more favorable TEAE profile than buprenorphine transdermal patches and oral opioids.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15539,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of comparative effectiveness research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11284811/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of comparative effectiveness research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2023-0183\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2023-0183","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:探讨贝尔布卡®(丁丙诺啡口腔胶片)、丁丙诺啡透皮贴剂和口服阿片类药物治疗慢性腰背痛(cLBP)的安全性。方法:对MarketScan商业数据库(2018-2021年)进行的回顾性分析纳入了无治疗症状的cLBP成人。丁丙诺啡(贝尔布卡和透皮贴剂)或阿片类药物处方的首个日期为索引日期。根据指数药物定义组群。观察期包括指数前的 6 个月,而指数后的观察期则持续到连续保险覆盖期结束。文献中确定了 44 种相关的治疗突发不良事件 (TEAE)。采用发病率比(IRR)和发病率差(IRD)来比较不同组群之间的严重TEAE发生率(以1000人年计)。倾向分数匹配将选择偏差降至最低。结果显示与口服阿片类药物相比,丁丙诺啡的 15 种严重 TEAE 发生率较低(所有 p 均小于 0.037),而只有严重头晕(IRR 2.44,p = 0.011;由 Belbuca 引起)、阿片类药物滥用/依赖(IRR 3.13,p = 0.004;由贴片引起)和胆囊炎(IRD 20.25,p = 0.044;异常值)的发生率较高。此外,贝布卡与口服阿片类药物的比较显示,13 种严重 TEAEs 的发生率较低(所有 p ≤ 0.024),严重头晕发生率较高(IRR 3.17,p = 0.024)。虽然严重阿片滥用/依赖的发生率相似(24.60 vs 26.93,p = 0.921),但所有贝尔布卡患者和阿片患者都没有发生过此类事件。与透皮贴剂相比,贝尔布卡的五种严重TEAEs发生率也更低(所有P均≤0.018),其中包括一种严重阿片类药物滥用/依赖(IRR 0.04,P 结论:贝尔布卡的TEAEs发生率低于透皮贴剂(所有P均≤0.018):与口服阿片类药物相比,丁丙诺啡在治疗cLBP方面具有更好的安全性。与丁丙诺啡透皮贴剂和口服阿片类药物相比,贝布卡的TEAE情况更佳。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Serious treatment-emergent adverse events in chronic low back pain patients treated with buprenorphine or oral opioids: a retrospective commercial claims analysis.

Aim: Explore the safety of Belbuca® (buprenorphine buccal film), buprenorphine transdermal patches and oral opioids for chronic low back pain (cLBP) treatment. Methods: The retrospective analysis of the MarketScan Commercial database (2018-2021) included treatment-naive cLBP adults. The first date of buprenorphine (Belbuca and transdermal patch) or opioid prescription was index date. Cohorts were defined based on the index medication. Observation included a 6-month pre-index period, while post-index lasted until the end of continuous insurance coverage. There were 44 relevant treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) identified in the literature. Incidence rate ratio (IRR) and incidence rate difference (IRD) were used to compare serious TEAE rates (in 1000 person-years) between cohorts. Propensity-score matching minimized the selection bias. Results: Buprenorphine had lower rates of 15 serious TEAEs than oral opioids (all p ≤ 0.037), while higher rates only for serious dizziness (IRR 2.44, p = 0.011; driven by Belbuca), opioid abuse/dependence (IRR 3.13, p = 0.004; driven by patches) and cholecystitis (IRD 20.25, p = 0.044; an outlier). Additionally, a comparison between Belbuca and oral opioids showed lower rates of 13 serious TEAEs (all p ≤ 0.024) and a higher serious dizziness rate (IRR 3.17, p = 0.024). Although the rates of serious opioid abuse/dependence were similar (24.60 vs 26.93, p = 0.921), all Belbuca patients and none of the opioid patients had a positive history of these events. Belbuca also had lower rates of five serious TEAEs than transdermal patches (all p ≤ 0.018), including a serious opioid abuse/dependence (IRR 0.04, p < 0.001), but higher rates of serious cholecystitis (IRD 52.17, p = 0.035; an outlier) and suicidal ideation (IRD 156.50, p < 0.001; an outlier). Conclusion: Buprenorphine had a better safety profile than oral opioids in cLBP treatment. Belbuca showed a more favorable TEAE profile than buprenorphine transdermal patches and oral opioids.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of comparative effectiveness research
Journal of comparative effectiveness research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides a rapid-publication platform for debate, and for the presentation of new findings and research methodologies. Through rigorous evaluation and comprehensive coverage, the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides stakeholders (including patients, clinicians, healthcare purchasers, and health policy makers) with the key data and opinions to make informed and specific decisions on clinical practice.
期刊最新文献
Dependent censoring bias assessment using inverse probability of censoring weights: Type 2 diabetes mellitus risk in patients initiating bisoprolol versus other antihypertensives in a Clinical Practice Research Datalink cohort study. Access in all areas? A round up of developments in market access and HTA: part 5. Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening with volume computed tomography in Portugal. Use of transportability methods for real-world evidence generation: a review of current applications. Ravulizumab for adults with generalized myasthenia gravis: a plain language summary of three studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1