↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness and tolerability of transdermal buprenorphine patches: a multicenter, prospective, open-label study in Asian patients with moderate to severe chronic musculoskeletal pain

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
195 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effectiveness and tolerability of transdermal buprenorphine patches: a multicenter, prospective, open-label study in Asian patients with moderate to severe chronic musculoskeletal pain
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12891-017-1664-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Do Heum Yoon, Seong-Il Bin, Simon Kin-Cheong Chan, Chun Kee Chung, Yong In, Hyoungmin Kim, Juan Javier Lichauco, Chi Chiu Mok, Young-Wan Moon, Tony Kwun-Tung Ng, Ester Gonzales Penserga, Dong Ah Shin, Dora You, Hanlim Moon

Abstract

We examined the effectiveness and tolerability of transdermal buprenorphine (TDB) treatment in real-world setting in Asian patients with musculoskeletal pain. This was an open-label study conducted in Hong Kong, Korea, and the Philippines between June 2013 and April 2015. Eligible patients fulfilled the following criteria: 18 to 80 years of age; clinical diagnosis of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, low back pain, or joint/muscle pain; chronic non-malignant pain of moderate to severe intensity (Box-Scale-11 [BS-11] pain score ≥ 4), not adequately controlled with non-opioid analgesics and requiring an opioid for adequate analgesia; and no prior history of opioid treatment. Patients started with a 5 μg/h buprenorphine patch and were titrated as necessary to a maximum of 40 μg/h over a 6-week period to achieve optimal pain control. Patients continued treatment with the titrated dose for 11 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in BS-11 pain scores. Other endpoints included patients' sleep quality and quality of life as assessed by the 8-item Global Sleep Quality Assessment Scale (GSQA) questionnaire and the EuroQol Group 5-Dimension Self-Report Questionnaire-3 Level version (EQ-5D-3 L), respectively. Tolerability was assessed by collecting adverse events. A total of 114 eligible patients were included in the analysis. The mean BS-11 score at baseline was 6.2 (SD 1.6). Following initiation of TDB, there was a statistically significant improvement in BS-11 score from baseline to visit 3 (least squares [LS] mean change: -2.27 [95% CI -2.66 to -1.87]), which was maintained till the end of the study (visit 7) (LS mean change: -2.64 [95% -3.05 to -2.23]) (p < 0.0001 for both). The proportion of patients who rated sleep quality as 'good' increased from 14.0% at baseline to 26.9% at visit 6. By visit 6, the mean EQ VAS score increased by 7.7 units (SD 17.9). There were also significant improvements in patients' levels of functioning for all EQ-5D-3 L dimensions from baseline at visit 6 (p < 0.05 for all). Seventy-eight percent of patients reported TEAEs and 22.8% of patients discontinued due to TEAEs. TEAEs were generally mild to moderate in intensity (96.5%). TDB provides effective pain relief with an acceptable tolerability profile over the 11-week treatment period in Asian patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. More studies are needed to examine the long-term efficacy and safety of TBD treatment in this patient population. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01961271 . Registered 7 October 2013 (retrospectively registered; first patient was enrolled on 28 June 2013 and last patient last visit date was 26 Apr 2015).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 195 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 195 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 15%
Student > Bachelor 20 10%
Other 15 8%
Researcher 15 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 28 14%
Unknown 77 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 4%
Neuroscience 4 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 83 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,474,679
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,487
of 4,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,334
of 317,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#54
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,469 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.