Pain Medication and Pain Intensity Following Hip Fractures-Analyses Based on the ProFem Cohort Study.

IF 2.4 4区医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1002/pds.5865

Kathrin Jobski, Michaela Ritschel, Katja Pöggel-Krämer, Daniela Anheier, Burkhard Haastert, Veronika Gontscharuk, Werner Arend, Marion Baltes, Astrid Stephan, Gabriele Meyer, Birgit Klüppelholz, Joachim Windolf, Simon Thelen, Carina Jaekel, Silke Andrich, Andrea Icks, Falk Hoffmann

{"title":"Pain Medication and Pain Intensity Following Hip Fractures-Analyses Based on the ProFem Cohort Study.","authors":"Kathrin Jobski, Michaela Ritschel, Katja Pöggel-Krämer, Daniela Anheier, Burkhard Haastert, Veronika Gontscharuk, Werner Arend, Marion Baltes, Astrid Stephan, Gabriele Meyer, Birgit Klüppelholz, Joachim Windolf, Simon Thelen, Carina Jaekel, Silke Andrich, Andrea Icks, Falk Hoffmann","doi":"10.1002/pds.5865","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Pain is a common symptom following proximal femoral fractures (PFF), however, information on its treatment in terms of agents and type of use (scheduled vs. pro re nata [PRN]) is scarce. The main objective of this study was to examine pain medication regimens according to pain intensity following PFF. Furthermore, we explored the utilization of medication plans.Methods: The \"ProFem\"-study on healthcare provision, functional ability, and quality of life after PFF is a German population-based prospective cohort study based on statutory health insurance data and individually linked survey data from different time points including information on the currently used medication. This present analysis refers to the participants' baseline interviews (about 3 months following PFF) conducted from 2018 to 2019 in the participants' private surroundings.Results: The study population comprised 444 participants (mean age: 81.2 years, 71.0% female). Half of them reported high intensity pain, and the mean value for the EuroQol visual analogue scale was 50.8. Most commonly used analgesics were metamizole and tilidine/naloxone. Among participants with high intensity pain, 21.9% received only PRN pain medication and 17.2% no pain medication at all. Overall, 61.5% of participants presented any (printed) medication plan and only 25.2% a \"federal standardized medication plan\" (BMP).Conclusion: As a substantial number of patients reports high intensity pain about 3 months following a PFF, the large proportion of those receiving no or only PRN pain medication raises questions regarding the appropriateness of the therapy. The overall low utilization of the BMP indicates potential for improvement.","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"33 8","pages":"e5865"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.5865","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Pain is a common symptom following proximal femoral fractures (PFF), however, information on its treatment in terms of agents and type of use (scheduled vs. pro re nata [PRN]) is scarce. The main objective of this study was to examine pain medication regimens according to pain intensity following PFF. Furthermore, we explored the utilization of medication plans.

Methods: The "ProFem"-study on healthcare provision, functional ability, and quality of life after PFF is a German population-based prospective cohort study based on statutory health insurance data and individually linked survey data from different time points including information on the currently used medication. This present analysis refers to the participants' baseline interviews (about 3 months following PFF) conducted from 2018 to 2019 in the participants' private surroundings.

Results: The study population comprised 444 participants (mean age: 81.2 years, 71.0% female). Half of them reported high intensity pain, and the mean value for the EuroQol visual analogue scale was 50.8. Most commonly used analgesics were metamizole and tilidine/naloxone. Among participants with high intensity pain, 21.9% received only PRN pain medication and 17.2% no pain medication at all. Overall, 61.5% of participants presented any (printed) medication plan and only 25.2% a "federal standardized medication plan" (BMP).

Conclusion: As a substantial number of patients reports high intensity pain about 3 months following a PFF, the large proportion of those receiving no or only PRN pain medication raises questions regarding the appropriateness of the therapy. The overall low utilization of the BMP indicates potential for improvement.

查看原文本刊更多论文

髋部骨折后的止痛药和疼痛强度--基于 ProFem 队列研究的分析。

目的：疼痛是股骨近端骨折（PFF）后的常见症状，但有关其治疗药物和使用类型（计划用药与临时用药 [PRN]）的信息却很少。本研究的主要目的是根据股骨近端骨折后的疼痛强度研究止痛药物治疗方案。此外，我们还探讨了用药计划的使用情况：ProFem "研究是一项基于德国人口的前瞻性队列研究，研究对象包括法定医疗保险数据和不同时间点的个人关联调查数据，包括当前使用药物的信息。本分析是指2018年至2019年在参与者的私人周围对参与者进行的基线访谈（PFF后约3个月）：研究对象包括 444 名参与者（平均年龄：81.2 岁，71.0% 为女性）。其中半数人报告了高强度疼痛，EuroQol视觉模拟量表的平均值为50.8。最常用的镇痛药是甲氰咪胍和替利定/纳洛酮。在高强度疼痛的参与者中，21.9%的人只接受了临时止痛药物治疗，17.2%的人没有接受任何止痛药物治疗。总体而言，61.5%的参与者提交了任何（打印的）用药计划，只有25.2%的参与者提交了 "联邦标准化用药计划"（BMP）：结论：由于相当多的患者在接受 PFF 治疗后 3 个月左右会出现剧烈疼痛，因此不接受或仅接受临时止痛药物治疗的患者比例较高，这不禁让人质疑治疗的适当性。BMP的总体使用率较低，这表明该疗法还有改进的余地。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 医学-药学

CiteScore

4.80

自引率

7.70%

发文量

173

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： The aim of Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety is to provide an international forum for the communication and evaluation of data, methods and opinion in the discipline of pharmacoepidemiology. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed reports of original research, invited reviews and a variety of guest editorials and commentaries embracing scientific, medical, statistical, legal and economic aspects of pharmacoepidemiology and post-marketing surveillance of drug safety. Appropriate material in these categories may also be considered for publication as a Brief Report. Particular areas of interest include: design, analysis, results, and interpretation of studies looking at the benefit or safety of specific pharmaceuticals, biologics, or medical devices, including studies in pharmacovigilance, postmarketing surveillance, pharmacoeconomics, patient safety, molecular pharmacoepidemiology, or any other study within the broad field of pharmacoepidemiology; comparative effectiveness research relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices. Comparative effectiveness research is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition, as these methods are truly used in the real world; methodologic contributions of relevance to pharmacoepidemiology, whether original contributions, reviews of existing methods, or tutorials for how to apply the methods of pharmacoepidemiology; assessments of harm versus benefit in drug therapy; patterns of drug utilization; relationships between pharmacoepidemiology and the formulation and interpretation of regulatory guidelines; evaluations of risk management plans and programmes relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices.