4.7 Article

Long-term effects of analgesics in a population of elderly nursing home residents with persistent nonmalignant pain

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/gerona/61.2.165

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [AG04390, T32 AG023480, AG08812, P01 AG004390, P60 AG008812, P01 AG004390-20] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Little is known about the long-term effects of analgesics on functional status and well-being of nursing home residents with chronic pain. Methods. Using the Minimum Data Set, we performed a longitudinal study of nursing home residents (n = 10,372) with persistent pain. Using propensity score adjustment techniques, we compared the effect of different analgesics on changes in physical, cognitive, emotional, and social functioning, and examined rates of adverse events over a 6-month period. Results. There was no change in the analgesic class for at least 6 months for 35.4% of residents. including 40% who received no analgesics during this time. Use of nonopioids was 37.9%. short-acting opioids was 18.9%, and long-acting opioids was 3.3%. We found improvement in functional status (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.85: 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-3.23) and social engagement (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.58; 95%. CI. 0.99-2.50) with long-acting opioids compared with short-acting opioids. There were no changes in cognitive status or mood status, or increased risk of depression with use of any analgesics, including opioids. There was a trend toward a lower risk of falls with use of any analgesics (adjusted odds ratio = 0.87; 95% Cl, 0.70-1.06). Rates of other adverse events (i.e., constipation, delirium, dehydration, pneumonia) were not found to be higher among chronic opioid users compared to those taking no analgesics or nonopioids. Conclusions. The use of long-acting opioids may be a relatively safe option in the management of persistent nonmalignant pain in the nursing home population, yielding benefits in functional status and social engagement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据