0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.196.119.149. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Original Investigation |

The Comparative Safety of Opioids for Nonmalignant Pain in Older Adults FREE

Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH; Jeremy A. Rassen, ScD; Robert J. Glynn, PhD, ScD; Katie Garneau, BA; Raisa Levin, MSc; Joy Lee, BA; Sebastian Schneeweiss, MD, ScD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Divisions of Pharmacoepidemiology (Drs Solomon, Rassen, Glynn, and Schneeweiss and Mss Levin and Lee) and Rheumatology (Dr Solomon and Ms Garneau), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.


Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(22):1979-1986. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.450.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  Severe nonmalignant pain affects a large proportion of adults. Optimal treatment is not clear, and opioids are an important option for analgesia. However, there is relatively little information about the comparative safety of opioids. Therefore, we sought to compare the safety of opioids commonly used for nonmalignant pain.

Methods  We devised a propensity-matched cohort analysis that used health care utilization data collected from January 1, 1996, through December 31, 2005. Study participants were Medicare beneficiaries from 2 US states who were new initiators of opioid therapy for nonmalignant pain, including codeine phosphate, hydrocodone bitartrate, oxycodone hydrochloride, propoxyphene hydrochloride, and tramadol hydrochloride; none had a cancer diagnosis, and none were using hospice or nursing home care. Our main outcome measures were incidence rates and rate ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for cardiovascular events, fractures, gastrointestinal events, and several composite end points.

Results  We matched 6275 subjects in each of the 5 opioid groups. The groups were well matched on baseline characteristics. The risk of cardiovascular events was similar across opioid groups 30 days after the start of opioid therapy, but it was elevated for codeine (RR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.27-2.06) after 180 days. Compared with hydrocodone, after 30 days of opioid exposure the risk of fracture was significantly reduced for tramadol (RR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.16-0.28) and propoxyphene (0.54; 0.44-0.66) users. The risk of gastrointestinal safety events did not differ across opioid groups. All-cause mortality was elevated after 30 days for oxycodone (RR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.47-4.00) and codeine (2.05; 1.22-3.45) users compared with hydrocodone users.

Conclusions  The rates of safety events among older adults using opioids for nonmalignant pain vary significantly by agent. Causal inference requires experimental designs, but these results should prompt caution and further study.

Figures in this Article

Over the past decade, clinicians have received mixed messages about opioids. On the one hand, the World Health Organization suggested that too little attention was being paid to pain, with excessively restrictive opioid prescribing for nonmalignant pain1; on the other hand, the US Food and Drug Administration issued warnings about the dangers of opioids and required manufacturers to document safety through new Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies.2 Despite this confusion, there has been a 50% to 100% increase in the use of opioids in recent years.3,4

Although much attention has been paid to the comparative safety of various selective and nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), relatively little attention has been paid to the comparative safety of opioids. The metabolism and pharmacological properties vary between opioids,5 and previous studies note differences in opioids' relative sedating and constipating effects.69 However, almost no information exists about the comparative safety of opioids regarding serious adverse events, such as fractures, cardiovascular events, hospitalizations for gastrointestinal toxic effects, or mortality. This vacuum of information presents a major problem for patients and providers, who have been warned about the toxicity of NSAIDs. Moreover, expert groups' recommendations include opioid therapy for nonmalignant pain among patients with risk factors for NSAID toxic effects.10,11

Because almost all trials of analgesics are short-term with relatively few patients, the comparative safety of opioid therapy is unlikely to ever be subjected to a randomized controlled trial. With this in mind, we designed an observational study comparing the safety of opioid therapy for nonmalignant pain in older adults. The safety events that were examined included several specific events, such as fracture, cardiovascular events, and gastrointestinal bleeding or bowel obstruction. As well, we examined several composite safety events, including toxic effects leading to hospitalization or death and all-cause mortality.

STUDY COHORT

The cohort consisted of Medicare beneficiaries from 2 US states who qualified for pharmaceutical assistance programs for low-income older adults between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2005. These state-run programs provide medication insurance coverage for all drugs without restriction. From the eligible pool of subjects, we selected adults who had filled at least 1 prescription for an opioid. To restrict use to nonmalignant indications, persons with a diagnosis of cancer in the 365 days before the prescription date were excluded. We required subjects to demonstrate consistent health care system use in the preceding 365 days, as noted by a health care or pharmacy claim in each of the four 3-month periods before the start of an opioid. To maximize comparability of study subjects, we further excluded individuals who had filled a prescription in the preceding 365 days for an NSAID (selective or nonselective) or an opioid. Finally, subjects with any evidence of hospice or nursing home care in the preceding 365 days were excluded (Figure 1).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Assembly of the study cohort. Coxib indicates selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor; NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

Graphic Jump Location
PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING

We matched subjects prescribed the 5 most common opioids used for nonmalignant pain—hydrocodone bitartrate, codeine phosphate, oxycodone hydrochloride, propoxyphene hydrochloride, and tramadol hydrochloride—using a propensity score constructed from the subjects' baseline covariates.12 A propensity score estimates the probability of receiving 1 treatment exposure vs a reference exposure; matching on a propensity score balances the treated and reference subjects with respect to the score's components. Four separate propensity scores were estimated using multivariate logistic regression models. Each opioid group was compared with the referent exposure, hydrocodone. Matching was accomplished using a “greedy” matching routine13 by finding a subject starting therapy with a different opioid who had a propensity score identical to the fifth decimal place; if no match was found, we then searched the fourth, third, second, and first decimal places. If no match was found, the exposed subject was dropped from the analysis. Because the four 2-way propensity score models shared a common reference group, we created exposure cohorts comparable across baseline covariates by restricting to matched pairs in which the subject in the hydrocodone group was successfully matched to all the other 4 opioid arms.

The propensity scores were based on variables that can be measured in claims data (demographics, diagnoses, surgical procedures, and pharmacy dispensings) and may predict any of the clinically significant safety events we studied (Table 1 provides a list of covariates included in the propensity score, and eTable 1 gives their diagnosis codes). Variables were determined from data for the 365 days before the start of analgesic exposure—the index date. The calendar year of the index date was also included in the propensity score.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Baseline Characteristics of Propensity Score–Matched Older Adults Initiating an Opioid for Nonmalignant Paina

A study protocol was developed before the analyses were performed. The study was approved by the Partners Healthcare Institutional Review Board.

SAFETY EVENTS

Several adverse events were of particular interest to us, including fracture, cardiovascular events, and gastrointestinal bleeding or bowel obstruction. We also attempted to capture the composite safety of these drugs by assessing the data for any adverse event leading to hospitalization, any adverse event leading to death, and all-cause mortality. For the composite safety events, other common drug-associated adverse events were also included, such as kidney insufficiency,14 hepatotoxic effects, or falls. Thus, subjects were considered to have experienced a composite safety event if they had an individual safety event leading to hospitalization or death or if they died.

Each of these outcomes was defined on the basis of health care utilization data, using diagnosis and procedure codes (eTable 1 provides a list of all codes used and supporting studies). Our definition of fractures included hip, pelvis, wrist, and humerus fractures15 but not spine fractures because new vertebral compression fractures cannot be reliably identified in claims data.16 Cardiovascular events included myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, revascularization, and out-of-hospital cardiac death.1720 Out-of-hospital cardiac death was based on an algorithm we developed that uses health care utilization data in which a death is noted in a subject with known cardiovascular disease but no previous cancer or human immunodeficiency virus infection. Gastrointestinal outcomes included upper and lower gastrointestinal tract bleeding and bowel obstruction.21

OPIOID EXPOSURE

Data on the opioid exposures, as well as other medications, came from pharmacy dispensing data. The pharmacy data include drug name, daily dosage, and days of supply. The primary analyses considered subjects as being opioid-exposed from the day after the first dispensing through 7 days after the last available dose. This definition of exposure is often described as “treated.” If a second type of opioid was received, that subject was censored at the date the second opioid was dispensed. In secondary analyses, this period after the last available dose was varied from 7 to 3 days. Other censoring events included end of eligibility, death, switching to another opioid, or the event of interest. Subjects were not censored at the first of any event to allow for competing risks to be fully captured in a given end point analysis.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

We compared the baseline characteristics of the propensity score–matched cohorts. Incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for all safety events for each of the 5 opioid cohorts. The primary analysis estimated the relative risk for each serious safety event, as well as the composite safety measures, by calculating the incidence rate ratio (RR), ending follow-up after 30 and 180 days of opioid exposure.

Secondary analyses were performed to examine whether the primary findings were robust. First, a dosage analysis was performed that categorized the starting dosage of each opioid as low, medium, high, or very high (eTable 2 provides dosage categories). Second, analyses were performed that allowed for as much follow-up time as was available (vs ending follow-up 30 or 180 days after initiation of opioid therapy). Third, we conducted analyses that considered subjects as treated even after no further drug was available, truncating at 30 or 180 days after initiation of therapy. This conservative type of analysis mirrors an intention-to-treat analysis in which the influence of biases occurring after the initiation of drug therapy is limited. Fourth, we varied the allowable gap after an opioid prescription ends until censoring from 7 days (primary analysis) to 3 days. Fifth, we began follow-up with the second opioid prescription. All the aforementioned secondary analyses calculated incidence rate ratios as an estimate of the RR. Finally, because many opioid preparations include acetaminophen, this was added as a covariate when it was part of the initial prescription, and relative risks were calculated in Cox proportional hazards regression models.

The study cohort was assembled from a very large pool of Medicare beneficiaries who also had drug benefits and had evidence of opioid use during the study period, 1995 to 2005 (n = 541 867). After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 143 482 (26.5%) potentially eligible subjects were available for matching (Figure 1). We were able to match 6275 subjects in each of the 5 opioid groups, resulting in inclusion of 5.8% of the potentially eligible subjects.

After matching, the baseline characteristics for the matched cohorts were well balanced across opioid exposures (Table 1). The groups had a mean age of 79 years; 80.9% were women and 91.0% were white. The mean number of comorbid conditions was 1.7. The mean number of acute care hospital days was slightly higher for oxycodone users than for users of the other opioids, and fewer oxycodone users were women.

Although the median supply of opioids was for between 2 and 6 weeks, some subjects received opioids for many months (eTable 3). The incidence rates for all 6 of the safety events were high after 30 days of opioid use (Table 2). Hydrocodone was used as the reference exposure, and RRs were calculated across all 6 safety events after 30 and 180 days of opioid exposure (Table 2 and Table 3). The risk of cardiovascular events was similar across opioid groups in the 30-day analysis. However, by 180 days, it was elevated for codeine (RR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.27-2.06). During the first 30 days of opioid treatment, the risk of fracture was significantly reduced for tramadol users (RR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.16-0.28) and propoxyphene users (0.54; 0.44-0.66). The risk of gastrointestinal safety events did not differ across opioid groups at either time point. All-cause mortality was elevated after only 30 days for oxycodone users (RR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.47-4.00) and codeine users (2.05; 1.22-3.45).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. IRs, RRs, and RDs for Safety Events Among Older Adults Starting Opioid Therapy for Nonmalignant Pain, Truncating Follow-up 30 Days After the Start of Opioid Therapya
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. IRs, RRs, and RDs for Safety Events Among Older Adults Starting Opioid Therapy for Nonmalignant Pain, Truncating Follow-up 180 Days After the Start of Opioid Therapya

In secondary analyses, we found results consistent with the main findings (Figure 2). There was no clear gradient of risk across dosages except for the fracture end point, for which the high-dosage relative risks regressed toward the null. An alternative dosage analysis categorized dosages according to equi-analgesic levels and found similar results (data not shown). Further secondary analyses tested whether the results were sensitive to different assumptions regarding the exposure period. eFigure 1 displays results for the 6 safety events across different assumptions and finds small differences in relative risk. One notable exception is that, when follow-up began with the second prescription, the results for fractures all regressed to the null (eFigure 1). Varying the period after the last available opioid dose before censoring from 7 to 3 days made no important difference in our results (eTable 4). A further secondary analysis included acetaminophen as an indicator term in Cox proportional hazards regression models and found no substantial change in the relative risks from the original analyses while observing subjects for as long as their opioid treatment continued (eTable 5).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Effect of opioid dosage on the hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) in Cox proportional hazards regression models with truncation after 30 days. See eTable 2 for dosage categories. A, Composite cardiovascular outcome. B, Composite fracture outcome. C, Composite gastrointestinal outcome. D, Adverse events leading to hospitalization. E, Adverse events leading to death. F, All-cause mortality. Hydrocodone bitartrate is the reference exposure for all analyses.

Graphic Jump Location

Many older adults received prescriptions for opioid analgesics for nonmalignant pain, but little is known about their relative safety. We compared the safety of opioid analgesics for nonmalignant pain among older adults, using data from large health care–utilization databases. We found that the relative risks varied by opioid and by adverse event and even varied by treatment duration. Notable relative risks included an elevated risk of cardiovascular events for codeine users after 180 days, a reduced risk of fracture for tramadol and propoxyphene users after 30 and 180 days, and an increased risk in all-cause mortality after only 30 days for oxycodone and codeine users. This study's findings do not agree with a commonly held belief that all opioids are associated with similar risk.

The results of this study need to be considered in light of the limitations of our methods. First, we analyzed typical practice data from a nonrandomized setting. Thus, these results may be biased by residual confounding, in which factors influence the prescription of a given opioid and the safety events in question. This potential confounding bias limits the causal inference and renders this a study of associations. Although this is a serious limitation of our method, we doubt that the comparative safety of multiple opioids will ever be adequately tested in a randomized controlled trial. We matched subjects in each of the 5 opioid groups using a propensity score that takes into account many of the measured confounders available in the study database. The list of variables included in the propensity score is based on our desire to create a common propensity score across outcomes. As Table 1 demonstrates, after matching, the measured characteristics of subjects were similar across the 5 groups. Differences persisted in some variables, especially those that occurred with low frequency. Second, the study database was limited because it consisted of health care and pharmacy utilization data without information about cause of death from death certificates, pain levels, functional status, aspirin or tobacco use, or over-the-counter medication use. This may have led to some misclassification of exposures and outcomes. Because opioids are dispensed only with a prescription, exposure misclassification should be minimal. As far as outcomes, the vast majority of the disease definitions have been found to be accurately coded in this type of data. Moreover, we anticipate that misclassification of outcomes would be random. Third, we studied a group of older low-income adults; thus, the generalizability of our results need to be proved in other cohorts. Finally, we observed a limited number of events in several outcome-exposure relationships. Thus, our ability to prove the safety of a given opioid for a specific outcome is limited; this is clear from the width of the 95% CIs for some of the relative risks provided in Tables 2 and 3.

Our study exhibits a number of important strengths. The use of the propensity score–matched cohorts provides for well-balanced study cohorts, facilitating the calculation of incidence rates and risk differences. The risk differences can be used to calculate numbers needed to treat, a useful metric for clinicians considering how to apply epidemiologic results to practice. As well, the matched cohort design allows one to examine the comparative effectiveness of multiple exposures across many outcomes. Such a “matrix design” might be considered for further comparative effectiveness studies. In addition, we pursued several types of secondary analyses that yielded small but predictable differences. While the use of multiple analytic strategies may seem to be a weakness, each analysis asks the same question but in slightly different terms. When there is consistency in the findings, the results should be considered more robust.

Several of our findings require discussion. We found an increased risk of cardiovascular events among codeine and propoxyphene users compared with hydrocodone users. We are not aware that differences in cardiovascular risk have been reported among opioids. However, at least 1 study observed an increased risk of cardiovascular death among subjects with unstable angina who received morphine.22 Our group previously observed an increased risk of cardiovascular events in opioid users compared with nonselective NSAID users.23 This finding may be confounded, but Table 1 does not suggest this possibility.

The reduced risk of fracture among tramadol users compared with hydrocodone users is also a novel finding. Previous studies have shown an increased risk of fracture among opioid users compared with nonusers.2426 One study compared codeine users with propoxyphene users and found no difference in risk.24 Opioids may cause fractures through at least 2 mechanisms—an increased risk of falls27 and an effect of opioids on bone metabolism through androgens.28 It is possible that either or both mechanisms may underpin the reduced risk of fractures we observed among tramadol users, perhaps the increased risk of falls being important in the 30-day analysis and the effects on bone metabolism influencing the longer-term analyses. Finally, the increased all-cause mortality we observed for codeine and oxycodone users may relate to cardiovascular events or other unmeasured confounders. We did find that relative risk decreased in the high-dosage categories, suggesting that the risk of opioid use may equalize when used at such dosages. This result also requires confirmation in other data sets.

In summary, we explored possible differences in risk between opioids commonly used for nonmalignant pain and found that the risk varied by agent across many of the adverse events examined. The risks were not explained by the dosage being prescribed and did not vary across a range of sensitivity analyses. The risks were substantial and translated into numbers needed to treat that would be considered clinically significant. Our findings regarding cardiovascular risk were surprising and require validation in other data sets.

Correspondence: Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, Division of Rheumatology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, PBB-B3, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115 (dsolomon@partners.org).

Accepted for Publication: October 5, 2010.

Author Contributions: Dr Solomon had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Solomon, Rassen, and Schneeweiss. Acquisition of data: Solomon and Levin. Analysis and interpretation of data: Solomon, Rassen, Glynn, Garneau, Levin, Lee, and Schneeweiss. Drafting of the manuscript: Solomon and Garneau. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Solomon, Rassen, Glynn, Levin, Lee, and Schneeweiss. Statistical analysis: Solomon, Rassen, Glynn, and Schneeweiss. Obtained funding: Solomon. Administrative, technical, and material support: Lee and Schneeweiss. Study supervision: Solomon.

Financial Disclosure: Dr Solomon reports serving as an unpaid member of a celecoxib trial executive committee sponsored by Pfizer and also as an unpaid member of the Data Safety Monitoring Board for an analgesic trial sponsored by Pfizer.

Funding/Support: This study was supported under contract 290-05-00XX-1 27EHC from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, US Department of Health and Human Services, as part of the Developing Evidence to Inform Decisions about Effectiveness (DECIDE) program.

Role of the Sponsors: The authors of this report are responsible for its content. Statements in the report should not be construed as endorsement by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Online-Only Material: The eTables and eFigure are available at http://www.archinternmed.com.

World Health Organization,  WHO Normative Guidelines on Pain Management.   Geneva, Switzerland WHO2007;
 US Food and Drug Administration. Opioid drugs and risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMs). FDA Web site. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/InformationbyDrugClass/ucm163647.htm. Accessed April 9, 2010
Caudill-Slosberg  MASchwartz  LMWoloshin  S Office visits and analgesic prescriptions for musculoskeletal pain in US: 1980 vs. 2000. Pain 2004;109 (3) 514- 519
PubMed
Boudreau  DVon Korff  MRutter  CM  et al.  Trends in long-term opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer pain. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2009;18 (12) 1166- 1175
PubMed
Smith  HS Opioid metabolism. Mayo Clin Proc 2009;84 (7) 613- 624
PubMed
Benyamin  RTrescot  AMDatta  S  et al.  Opioid complications and side effects. Pain Physician 2008;11 (2) ((suppl)) S105- S120
PubMed
Chou  RClark  EHelfand  M Comparative efficacy and safety of long-acting oral opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manage 2003;26 (5) 1026- 1048
PubMed
Furlan  ADSandoval  JAMailis-Gagnon  ATunks  E Opioids for chronic noncancer pain: a meta-analysis of effectiveness and side effects. CMAJ 2006;174 (11) 1589- 1594
PubMed
Noble  MTregear  SJTreadwell  JRSchoelles  K Long-term opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety. J Pain Symptom Manage 2008;35 (2) 214- 228
PubMed
Trescot  AMHelm  SHansen  H  et al.  Opioids in the management of chronic non-cancer pain: an update of American Society of the Interventional Pain Physicians' (ASIPP) Guidelines. Pain Physician 2008;11 (2) ((suppl)) S5- S62
PubMed
Rabin  R Chronic pain guidelines suggest opioids. New York Times. May12 2009;§D:6
Rubin  DB Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med 1997;127 (8, pt 2) 757- 763
PubMed
Parsons  LS Reducing bias in a propensity score matched-pair sample using greedy matching techniques. 2001;http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi26/p214-26.pdf. Accessed October 1, 2010
Winkelmayer  WCSchneeweiss  SMogun  HPatrick  ARAvorn  JSolomon  DH Identification of individuals with CKD from Medicare claims data: a validation study. Am J Kidney Dis 2005;46 (2) 225- 232
PubMed
Ray  WAGriffin  MRFought  RLAdams  ML Identification of fractures from computerized Medicare files. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45 (7) 703- 714
PubMed
Curtis  JRMudano  ASSolomon  DHXi  JMelton  MESaag  KG Identification and validation of vertebral compression fractures using administrative claims data. Med Care 2009;47 (1) 69- 72
PubMed
Kiyota  YSchneeweiss  SGlynn  RJCannuscio  CCAvorn  JSolomon  DH Accuracy of Medicare claims-based diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction: estimating positive predictive value on the basis of review of hospital records. Am Heart J 2004;148 (1) 99- 104
PubMed
Birman-Deych  EWaterman  ADYan  YNilasena  DSRadford  MJGage  BF Accuracy of ICD-9-CM codes for identifying cardiovascular and stroke risk factors. Med Care 2005;43 (5) 480- 485
PubMed
Bernatsky  SHudson  MSuissa  S Anti-rheumatic drug use and risk of hospitalization for congestive heart failure in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2005;44 (5) 677- 680
PubMed
Solomon  DHAvorn  JStürmer  TGlynn  RJMogun  HSchneeweiss  S Cardiovascular outcomes in new users of coxibs and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs: high-risk subgroups and time course of risk. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54 (5) 1378- 1389
PubMed
Ray  WAChung  CPStein  CM  et al.  Risk of peptic ulcer hospitalizations in users of NSAIDs with gastroprotective cotherapy versus coxibs. Gastroenterology 2007;133 (3) 790- 798
PubMed
Meine  TJRoe  MTChen  AY  et al. CRUSADE Investigators, Association of intravenous morphine use and outcomes in acute coronary syndromes: results from the CRUSADE Quality Improvement Initiative. Am Heart J 2005;149 (6) 1043- 1049
PubMed
Solomon  DHRassen  JAGlynn  RJLee  JLevin  RSchneeweiss  S The comparative safety of analgesics in older adults with arthritis. Arch Intern Med 2010;170 (22) 1968- 1978
Shorr  RIGriffin  MRDaugherty  JRRay  WA Opioid analgesics and the risk of hip fracture in the elderly: codeine and propoxyphene. J Gerontol 1992;47 (4) M111- M115
PubMed
Ensrud  KEBlackwell  TMangione  CM  et al. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group, Central nervous system active medications and risk for fractures in older women. Arch Intern Med 2003;163 (8) 949- 957
PubMed
Vestergaard  PRejnmark  LMosekilde  L Fracture risk associated with the use of morphine and opiates. J Intern Med 2006;260 (1) 76- 87
PubMed
Ensrud  KEBlackwell  TLMangione  CM  et al. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group, Central nervous system–active medications and risk for falls in older women. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002;50 (10) 1629- 1637
PubMed
Daniell  HW Hypogonadism in men consuming sustained-action oral opioids. J Pain 2002;3 (5) 377- 384
PubMed

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Assembly of the study cohort. Coxib indicates selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor; NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Effect of opioid dosage on the hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) in Cox proportional hazards regression models with truncation after 30 days. See eTable 2 for dosage categories. A, Composite cardiovascular outcome. B, Composite fracture outcome. C, Composite gastrointestinal outcome. D, Adverse events leading to hospitalization. E, Adverse events leading to death. F, All-cause mortality. Hydrocodone bitartrate is the reference exposure for all analyses.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Baseline Characteristics of Propensity Score–Matched Older Adults Initiating an Opioid for Nonmalignant Paina
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. IRs, RRs, and RDs for Safety Events Among Older Adults Starting Opioid Therapy for Nonmalignant Pain, Truncating Follow-up 30 Days After the Start of Opioid Therapya
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. IRs, RRs, and RDs for Safety Events Among Older Adults Starting Opioid Therapy for Nonmalignant Pain, Truncating Follow-up 180 Days After the Start of Opioid Therapya

References

World Health Organization,  WHO Normative Guidelines on Pain Management.   Geneva, Switzerland WHO2007;
 US Food and Drug Administration. Opioid drugs and risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMs). FDA Web site. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/InformationbyDrugClass/ucm163647.htm. Accessed April 9, 2010
Caudill-Slosberg  MASchwartz  LMWoloshin  S Office visits and analgesic prescriptions for musculoskeletal pain in US: 1980 vs. 2000. Pain 2004;109 (3) 514- 519
PubMed
Boudreau  DVon Korff  MRutter  CM  et al.  Trends in long-term opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer pain. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2009;18 (12) 1166- 1175
PubMed
Smith  HS Opioid metabolism. Mayo Clin Proc 2009;84 (7) 613- 624
PubMed
Benyamin  RTrescot  AMDatta  S  et al.  Opioid complications and side effects. Pain Physician 2008;11 (2) ((suppl)) S105- S120
PubMed
Chou  RClark  EHelfand  M Comparative efficacy and safety of long-acting oral opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manage 2003;26 (5) 1026- 1048
PubMed
Furlan  ADSandoval  JAMailis-Gagnon  ATunks  E Opioids for chronic noncancer pain: a meta-analysis of effectiveness and side effects. CMAJ 2006;174 (11) 1589- 1594
PubMed
Noble  MTregear  SJTreadwell  JRSchoelles  K Long-term opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety. J Pain Symptom Manage 2008;35 (2) 214- 228
PubMed
Trescot  AMHelm  SHansen  H  et al.  Opioids in the management of chronic non-cancer pain: an update of American Society of the Interventional Pain Physicians' (ASIPP) Guidelines. Pain Physician 2008;11 (2) ((suppl)) S5- S62
PubMed
Rabin  R Chronic pain guidelines suggest opioids. New York Times. May12 2009;§D:6
Rubin  DB Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med 1997;127 (8, pt 2) 757- 763
PubMed
Parsons  LS Reducing bias in a propensity score matched-pair sample using greedy matching techniques. 2001;http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi26/p214-26.pdf. Accessed October 1, 2010
Winkelmayer  WCSchneeweiss  SMogun  HPatrick  ARAvorn  JSolomon  DH Identification of individuals with CKD from Medicare claims data: a validation study. Am J Kidney Dis 2005;46 (2) 225- 232
PubMed
Ray  WAGriffin  MRFought  RLAdams  ML Identification of fractures from computerized Medicare files. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45 (7) 703- 714
PubMed
Curtis  JRMudano  ASSolomon  DHXi  JMelton  MESaag  KG Identification and validation of vertebral compression fractures using administrative claims data. Med Care 2009;47 (1) 69- 72
PubMed
Kiyota  YSchneeweiss  SGlynn  RJCannuscio  CCAvorn  JSolomon  DH Accuracy of Medicare claims-based diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction: estimating positive predictive value on the basis of review of hospital records. Am Heart J 2004;148 (1) 99- 104
PubMed
Birman-Deych  EWaterman  ADYan  YNilasena  DSRadford  MJGage  BF Accuracy of ICD-9-CM codes for identifying cardiovascular and stroke risk factors. Med Care 2005;43 (5) 480- 485
PubMed
Bernatsky  SHudson  MSuissa  S Anti-rheumatic drug use and risk of hospitalization for congestive heart failure in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2005;44 (5) 677- 680
PubMed
Solomon  DHAvorn  JStürmer  TGlynn  RJMogun  HSchneeweiss  S Cardiovascular outcomes in new users of coxibs and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs: high-risk subgroups and time course of risk. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54 (5) 1378- 1389
PubMed
Ray  WAChung  CPStein  CM  et al.  Risk of peptic ulcer hospitalizations in users of NSAIDs with gastroprotective cotherapy versus coxibs. Gastroenterology 2007;133 (3) 790- 798
PubMed
Meine  TJRoe  MTChen  AY  et al. CRUSADE Investigators, Association of intravenous morphine use and outcomes in acute coronary syndromes: results from the CRUSADE Quality Improvement Initiative. Am Heart J 2005;149 (6) 1043- 1049
PubMed
Solomon  DHRassen  JAGlynn  RJLee  JLevin  RSchneeweiss  S The comparative safety of analgesics in older adults with arthritis. Arch Intern Med 2010;170 (22) 1968- 1978
Shorr  RIGriffin  MRDaugherty  JRRay  WA Opioid analgesics and the risk of hip fracture in the elderly: codeine and propoxyphene. J Gerontol 1992;47 (4) M111- M115
PubMed
Ensrud  KEBlackwell  TMangione  CM  et al. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group, Central nervous system active medications and risk for fractures in older women. Arch Intern Med 2003;163 (8) 949- 957
PubMed
Vestergaard  PRejnmark  LMosekilde  L Fracture risk associated with the use of morphine and opiates. J Intern Med 2006;260 (1) 76- 87
PubMed
Ensrud  KEBlackwell  TLMangione  CM  et al. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group, Central nervous system–active medications and risk for falls in older women. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002;50 (10) 1629- 1637
PubMed
Daniell  HW Hypogonadism in men consuming sustained-action oral opioids. J Pain 2002;3 (5) 377- 384
PubMed

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

The Comparative Safety of Opioids for Nonmalignant Pain in Older Adults
Arch Intern Med.2010;170(22):1979-1986.eTables eFigure

ETABLES AND EFIGURE -Download PDF (98 KB). This file requires Adobe Reader®.

eTable 1. List of diagnostic codes used for defining inclusion and exclusion criteria, covariates, andendpoints.

eTable 2. Daily dosage categories for opioids.

eTable 3. Follow-up time (days) by opioid for the safety events of interest.

eTable 4. Incidence rates, rate ratios, and risk differences for safety events among older adultsstarting opioids for non-malignant pain.

eTable 5. Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for safety events among propensity score–matched older adults with initiating an opioid for nonmalignant pain.

eFigure. A series of forest plots of the sensitivity analyses demonstrating the hazard ratios (95%CI) in Cox regression models.
Supplemental Content

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 50

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles