Mathieson Stephanie, Valenti Lisa, Maher Christopher G, Britt Helena, Li Qiang, McLachlan Andrew J, Lin Chung-Wei Christine
Musculoskeletal Health Sydney, School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, 2050, Australia.
Family Medicine Research Centre, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia.
Eur Spine J. 2018 May;27(5):1136-1145. doi: 10.1007/s00586-017-5178-4. Epub 2017 Jun 21.
Limited evidence exists on secular trends of analgesics for spinal pain. We investigated general practitioner's (GP) recommendations of analgesic medicines for spinal pain and investigated characteristics associated with their recommendation.
We accessed data on spinal pain consultations from the Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health (BEACH) database, a nationally representative database on GP activity in Australia. Data extracted included consultation details and management provided. Medicines recommended were grouped as simple analgesics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioid analgesics or neuropathic pain medicines. Multivariate logistic regression determined if patient characteristics and GP characteristics were associated with medication recommendations.
We analysed BEACH data for 9100 GPs who managed 39,303 patients with spinal pain between 2004 and 2014. Over the decade, analgesic recommendations increased. After accounting for patient and GP characteristics, there was a significant increase in the rate single-ingredient opioid analgesics [annual relative increase of 6% (RR 1.06 (95% CI 1.05-1.07), P < 0.001)] and neuropathic pain medicines [annual relative increase of 19% (RR 1.19 (95% CI 1.16-1.22), P < 0.001)] were recommended; and a significant decrease in the rate NSAIDs were recommended [annual relative decrease of 4% (RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.95-0.97), P < 0.001)]. Logistic regression identified several patient and GP characteristics associated with medicine recommendations, e.g. stronger opioids were less likely recommended for Indigenous patients [odds ratio 0.15 (95% CI 0.04-0.56)].
GP's analgesic recommendations for spinal pain have become increasingly divergent from guideline recommendations over time.
关于脊柱疼痛镇痛药的长期趋势的证据有限。我们调查了全科医生(GP)对脊柱疼痛镇痛药的推荐,并研究了与其推荐相关的特征。
我们从“改善健康评估与护理”(BEACH)数据库获取了脊柱疼痛会诊数据,该数据库是澳大利亚具有全国代表性的全科医生活动数据库。提取的数据包括会诊细节和提供的治疗措施。推荐的药物分为简单镇痛药、非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)、阿片类镇痛药或神经性疼痛药物。多变量逻辑回归确定患者特征和全科医生特征是否与药物推荐相关。
我们分析了2004年至2014年间9100名管理39303例脊柱疼痛患者的全科医生的BEACH数据。在这十年间,镇痛药推荐有所增加。在考虑患者和全科医生特征后,单成分阿片类镇痛药的推荐率显著增加[年相对增长率为6%(RR 1.06(95%CI 1.05 - 1.07),P < 0.001)],神经性疼痛药物的推荐率也显著增加[年相对增长率为19%(RR 1.19(95%CI 1.16 - 1.22),P < 0.001)];而NSAIDs的推荐率显著下降[年相对下降率为4%(RR 0.96(95%CI 0.95 - 0.97),P < 0.001)]。逻辑回归确定了一些与药物推荐相关的患者和全科医生特征,例如,对于原住民患者,更强效的阿片类药物被推荐的可能性较小[比值比0.15(95%CI 0.04 - 0.56)]。
随着时间的推移,全科医生对脊柱疼痛的镇痛药推荐与指南推荐的差异越来越大。