151
|
Wiffen PJ, Cooper TE, Anderson A, Gray AL, Grégoire M, Ljungman G, Zernikow B. Opioids for cancer-related pain in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 7:CD012564. [PMID: 28722116 PMCID: PMC6484393 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012564.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. Views on children's pain have changed over time and relief of pain is now seen as important. In the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, and it was assumed that children quickly forgot about painful experiences.We designed a suite of seven reviews in chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) to review the evidence for children's pain using pharmacological interventions.As one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity for children and adolescents in the world today, childhood cancer (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Cancer pain in infants, children, and adolescents is primarily nociceptive pain with negative long term effects. Cancer-related pain is generally caused directly by the tumour itself such as compressing on the nerve or inflammation of the organs. Cancer-related pain generally occurs as a result of perioperative procedures, nerve damage caused by radiation or chemotherapy treatments, or mucositis. However, this review focused on pain caused directly by the tumour itself such as nerve infiltration, external nerve compression, and other inflammatory events.Opioids are used worldwide for the treatment of pain. Currently available opioids include: buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, and tramadol. Opioids are generally available in healthcare settings across most developed countries but access may be restricted in developing countries. To achieve adequate pain relief in children using opioids, with an acceptable grade of adverse effects, the recommended method is to start with a low dose gradually titrated to effect or unacceptable adverse effect in the child. OBJECTIVES To assess the analgesic efficacy, and adverse events, of opioids used to treat cancer-related pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid and Embase via Ovid from inception to 22 February 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with or without blinding, of any dose, and any route, treating cancer-related pain in children and adolescents, comparing opioids with placebo or an active comparator. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and planned to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS No studies were identified that were eligible for inclusion in this review (very low quality evidence). Several studies tested opioids on adults with cancer-related pain, but none in participants aged from birth to 17 years.We rated the quality of evidence as very low, downgraded due to a lack of available data; no analyses could be undertaken. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS No conclusions can be drawn about efficacy or harm in the use of opioids to treat cancer-related pain in children and adolescents. As a result, there is no RCT evidence to support or refute the use of opioids to treat cancer-related pain in children and adolescents.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Tess E Cooper
- The Children's Hospital at WestmeadCochrane Kidney and Transplant, Centre for Kidney ResearchWestmeadNSWAustralia2145
| | | | - Andrew L Gray
- University of Kwazulu‐NatalDivision of Pharmacology, Discipline of Pharmaceutical SciencesPrivate Bag 7CongellaKwaZulu‐NatalSouth Africa4013
| | - Marie‐Claude Grégoire
- IWK Health Centre, Dalhousie UniversityPaediatric Palliative Care, Department of PaediatricsHalifaxCanada
| | - Gustaf Ljungman
- Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Uppsala UniversityPaediatric OncologyUppsalaSweden
| | - Boris Zernikow
- Children's and Adolescent's HospitalGerman Paediatric Pain CentreDattelnGermany
- Witten/Herdecke University, Faculty of Health, School of MedicineChildren's Pain Therapy and Paediatric Palliative CareDattelnGermany
| | | |
Collapse
|
152
|
Derry S, Wiffen PJ, Moore RA, McNicol ED, Bell RF, Carr DB, McIntyre M, Wee B. Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for cancer pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 7:CD012638. [PMID: 28700091 PMCID: PMC6369931 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012638.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Non-opioid drugs are commonly used to treat cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) cancer pain treatment ladder, either alone or in combination with opioids.A previous Cochrane review that examined the evidence for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain was withdrawn in 2015 because it was out of date; the date of the last search was 2005. This review, and another on paracetamol, updates the evidence. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy of oral NSAIDs for cancer pain in adults, and the adverse events reported during their use in clinical trials. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to April 2017, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised, double-blind, single-blind, or open-label studies of five days' duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID alone with placebo or another NSAID, or a combination of NSAID plus opioid with the same dose of the opioid alone, for cancer pain of any pain intensity. The minimum study size was 25 participants per treatment arm at the initial randomisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS Eleven studies satisfied inclusion criteria, lasting one week or longer; 949 participants with mostly moderate or severe pain were randomised initially, but fewer completed treatment or had results of treatment. Eight studies were double-blind, two single-blind, and one open-label. None had a placebo only control; eight compared different NSAIDs, three an NSAID with opioid or opioid combination, and one both. None compared an NSAID plus opioid with the same dose of opioid alone. Most studies were at high risk of bias for blinding, incomplete outcome data, or small size; none was unequivocally at low risk of bias.It was not possible to compare NSAIDs as a group with another treatment, or one NSAID with another NSAID. Results for all NSAIDs are reported as a randomised cohort. We judged results for all outcomes as very low-quality evidence.None of the studies reported our primary outcomes of participants with pain reduction of at least 50%, and at least 30%, from baseline; participants with Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved (or equivalent wording). With NSAID, initially moderate or severe pain was reduced to no worse than mild pain after one or two weeks in four studies (415 participants in total), with a range of estimates between 26% and 51% in individual studies.Adverse event and withdrawal reporting was inconsistent. Two serious adverse events were reported with NSAIDs, and 22 deaths, but these were not clearly related to any pain treatment. Common adverse events were thirst/dry mouth (15%), loss of appetite (14%), somnolence (11%), and dyspepsia (11%). Withdrawals were common, mostly because of lack of efficacy (24%) or adverse events (5%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of NSAIDs alone or in combination with opioids for the three steps of the three-step WHO cancer pain ladder. There is very low-quality evidence that some people with moderate or severe cancer pain can obtain substantial levels of benefit within one or two weeks.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Ewan D McNicol
- Tufts Medical CenterDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative MedicineBostonMAUSA
| | - Rae Frances Bell
- Haukeland University HospitalRegional Centre of Excellence in Palliative CareBergenNorway
| | - Daniel B Carr
- Tufts University School of MedicinePain Research, Education and Policy (PREP) Program, Department of Public Health and Community MedicineBostonMassachusettsUSA
| | | | - Bee Wee
- Churchill HospitalNuffield Department of Medicine and Sir Michael Sobell HouseOld RoadHeadingtonOxfordUKOX3 7LJ
| | | |
Collapse
|
153
|
Wiffen PJ, Derry S, Moore RA, McNicol ED, Bell RF, Carr DB, McIntyre M, Wee B. Oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 7:CD012637. [PMID: 28700092 PMCID: PMC6369932 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012637.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Non-opioid drugs are commonly used to treat mild to moderate cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the WHO cancer pain treatment ladder, either alone or in combination with opioids.A previous Cochrane review that examined the evidence for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain was withdrawn in 2015 because it was out of date; the date of the last search was 2005. This review, and another on NSAIDs, updates the evidence. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy of oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain in adults and children, and the adverse events reported during its use in clinical trials. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to March 2017, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised, double-blind, studies of five days' duration or longer, comparing paracetamol alone with placebo, or paracetamol in combination with an opioid compared with the same dose of the opioid alone, for cancer pain of any intensity. Single-blind and open studies were also eligible for inclusion. The minimum study size was 25 participants per treatment arm at the initial randomisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS Three studies in adults satisfied the inclusion criteria, lasting up to one week; 122 participants were randomised initially, and 95 completed treatment. We found no studies in children. One study was parallel-group, and two had a cross-over design. All used paracetamol as an add-on to established treatment with strong opioids (median daily morphine equivalent doses of 60 mg, 70 mg, and 225 mg, with some participants taking several hundred mg of oral morphine equivalents daily). Other non-paracetamol medication included non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tricyclic antidepressants, or neuroleptics. All studies were at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and small size; none was unequivocally at low risk of bias.None of the studies reported any of our primary outcomes: participants with pain reduction of at least 50%, and at least 30%, from baseline; participants with pain no worse than mild at the end of the treatment period; participants with Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved (or equivalent wording). What pain reports there were indicated no difference between paracetamol and placebo when added to another treatment. There was no convincing evidence of paracetamol being different from placebo with regards to quality of life, use of rescue medication, or participant satisfaction or preference. Measures of harm (serious adverse events, other adverse events, and withdrawal due to lack of efficacy) were inconsistently reported and provided no clear evidence of difference.Our GRADE assessment of evidence quality was very low for all outcomes, because studies were at high risk of bias from several sources. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of paracetamol alone or in combination with opioids for the first two steps of the three-step WHO cancer pain ladder. It is not clear whether any additional analgesic benefit of paracetamol could be detected in the available studies, in view of the doses of opioids used.
Collapse
Key Words
- adult
- humans
- acetaminophen
- acetaminophen/administration & dosage
- administration, oral
- analgesics, non‐narcotic
- analgesics, non‐narcotic/administration & dosage
- analgesics, opioid
- analgesics, opioid/administration & dosage
- anti‐inflammatory agents, non‐steroidal
- anti‐inflammatory agents, non‐steroidal/administration & dosage
- antidepressive agents, tricyclic
- antidepressive agents, tricyclic/administration & dosage
- antipsychotic agents
- antipsychotic agents/administration & dosage
- cancer pain
- cancer pain/drug therapy
- drug therapy, combination
- patient preference
- quality of life
- randomized controlled trials as topic
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Ewan D McNicol
- Tufts Medical CenterDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative MedicineBostonMAUSA
| | - Rae Frances Bell
- Haukeland University HospitalRegional Centre of Excellence in Palliative CareBergenNorway
| | - Daniel B Carr
- Tufts University School of MedicinePain Research, Education and Policy (PREP) Program, Department of Public Health and Community MedicineBostonMassachusettsUSA
| | | | - Bee Wee
- Churchill HospitalNuffield Department of Medicine and Sir Michael Sobell HouseOld RoadHeadingtonOxfordUKOX3 7LJ
| | | |
Collapse
|
154
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine-like) drugs are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. The most commonly-used opioid drugs are buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, tramadol, and tapentadol. OBJECTIVES To provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy of opioids in cancer pain, and to report on adverse events associated with their use. METHODS We identified systematic reviews examining any opioid for cancer pain published to 4 May 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes were no or mild pain within 14 days of starting treatment, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS We included nine reviews with 152 included studies and 13,524 participants, but because some studies appeared in more than one review the number of unique studies and participants was smaller than this. Most participants had moderate or severe pain associated with a range of different types of cancer. Studies in the reviews typically compared one type of opioid or formulation with either a different formulation of the same opioid, or a different opioid; few included a placebo control. Typically the reviews titrated dose to effect, a balance between pain relief and adverse events. Various routes of administration of opioids were considered in the reviews; oral with most opioids, but transdermal administration with fentanyl, and buprenorphine. No review included studies of subcutaneous opioid administration. Pain outcomes reported were varied and inconsistent. The average size of included studies varied considerably between reviews: studies of older opioids, such as codeine, morphine, and methadone, had low average study sizes while those involving newer drugs tended to have larger study sizes.Six reviews reported a GRADE assessment (buprenorphine, codeine, hydromorphone, methadone, oxycodone, and tramadol), but not necessarily for all comparisons or outcomes. No comparative analyses were possible because there was no consistent placebo or active control. Cohort outcomes for opioids are therefore reported, as absolute numbers or percentages, or both.Reviews on buprenorphine, codeine with or without paracetamol, hydromorphone, methadone, tramadol with or without paracetamol, tapentadol, and oxycodone did not have information about the primary outcome of mild or no pain at 14 days, although that on oxycodone indicated that average pain scores were within that range. Two reviews, on oral morphine and transdermal fentanyl, reported that 96% of 850 participants achieved that goal.Adverse event withdrawal was reported by five reviews, at rates of between 6% and 19%. Participants with at least one adverse event were reported by three reviews, at rates of between 11% and 77%.Our GRADE assessment of evidence quality was very low for all outcomes, because many studies in the reviews were at high risk of bias from several sources, including small study size. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The amount and quality of evidence around the use of opioids for treating cancer pain is disappointingly low, although the evidence we have indicates that around 19 out of 20 people with moderate or severe pain who are given opioids and can tolerate them should have that pain reduced to mild or no pain within 14 days. This accords with the clinical experience in treating many people with cancer pain, but overstates to some extent the effectiveness found for the WHO pain ladder. Most people will experience adverse events, and help may be needed to manage the more common undesirable adverse effects such as constipation and nausea. Perhaps between 1 in 10 and 2 in 10 people treated with opioids will find these adverse events intolerable, leading to a change in treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Bee Wee
- Churchill HospitalNuffield Department of Medicine and Sir Michael Sobell HouseOld RoadHeadingtonOxfordUKOX3 7LJ
| | | | - Rae Frances Bell
- Haukeland University HospitalRegional Centre of Excellence in Palliative CareBergenNorway
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
155
|
Misuse of prescription opioids among chronic pain patients suffering from anxiety: A cross-sectional analysis. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2017; 47:36-42. [PMID: 28807136 DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2017.04.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2017] [Revised: 04/17/2017] [Accepted: 04/21/2017] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE In the past two decades, chronic pain has been increasingly treated with prescription opioids, particularly in developed countries. This has drawn public concern of possible risks associated with the potential misuse of prescriptions opioids. Previous research has indicated that this may be particularly true among individuals suffering from co-occurring psychiatric disorders. The present study sought to explore rates of misuse among chronic pain patients prescribed opioids, comparing individuals with and without anxiety. METHODS Chronic pain patients receiving prescription opioids (N=554) were screened for anxiety using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) scale and for opioid misuse using the Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM). RESULTS Among patients who screened positive for anxiety (GAD-7≥10), 50% also screened positive for opioid misuse, compared to 10% among those without anxiety. After controlling for possible confounding sociodemographic and clinical variables, patients with anxiety were significantly more prone to screen positive for opioid misuse (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR)=2.18; 95% Confidence Interval (CI)=1.37-4.17) compared to those without anxiety. This was maintained when conducting separate comparisons for severe, but not mild or moderate, level of anxiety. CONCLUSIONS These findings highlight the importance of detecting and addressing co-occurring anxiety when treating patients with chronic pain who receive prescription opioids.
Collapse
|
156
|
Affiliation(s)
- Patrick Welsch
- Health Care Center for Pain Medicine and Mental Health; Saarbrücken Germany
| | - Kathrin Bernardy
- BG University Hospital Bergmannsheil GmbH, Ruhr University Bochum; Department of Pain Medicine; Cample-de-la Bürk Platz 1 Bochum Germany 44789
| | - Sheena Derry
- University of Oxford; Pain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics); Pain Research Unit Churchill Hospital Oxford Oxfordshire UK OX3 7LE
| | - R Andrew Moore
- University of Oxford; Pain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics); Pain Research Unit Churchill Hospital Oxford Oxfordshire UK OX3 7LE
| | - Winfried Häuser
- Technische Universität München; Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy; Langerstr. 3 München Germany D-81675
| |
Collapse
|
157
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND This review is an update of a review of tramadol for neuropathic pain, published in 2006; updating was to bring the review in line with current standards. Neuropathic pain, which is caused by a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system, may be central or peripheral in origin. Peripheral neuropathic pain often includes symptoms such as burning or shooting sensations, abnormal sensitivity to normally painless stimuli, or an increased sensitivity to normally painful stimuli. Neuropathic pain is a common symptom in many diseases of the peripheral nervous system. OBJECTIVES To assess the analgesic efficacy of tramadol compared with placebo or other active interventions for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from inception to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing tramadol (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with subjective pain assessment by the participant. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH), using standard methods. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS We identified six randomised, double-blind studies involving 438 participants with suitably characterised neuropathic pain. In each, tramadol was started at a dose of about 100 mg daily and increased over one to two weeks to a maximum of 400 mg daily or the maximum tolerated dose, and then maintained for the remainder of the study. Participants had experienced moderate or severe neuropathic pain for at least three months due to cancer, cancer treatment, postherpetic neuralgia, peripheral diabetic neuropathy, spinal cord injury, or polyneuropathy. The mean age was 50 to 67 years with approximately equal numbers of men and women. Exclusions were typically people with other significant comorbidity or pain from other causes. Study duration for treatments was four to six weeks, and two studies had a cross-over design.Not all studies reported all the outcomes of interest, and there were limited data for pain outcomes. At least 50% pain intensity reduction was reported in three studies (265 participants, 110 events). Using a random-effects analysis, 70/132 (53%) had at least 50% pain relief with tramadol, and 40/133 (30%) with placebo; the risk ratio (RR) was 2.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 4.6). The NNT calculated from these data was 4.4 (95% CI 2.9 to 8.8). We downgraded the evidence for this outcome by two levels to low quality because of the small size of studies and of the pooled data set, because there were only 110 actual events, the analysis included different types of neuropathic pain, the studies all had at least one high risk of potential bias, and because of the limited duration of the studies.Participants experienced more adverse events with tramadol than placebo. Report of any adverse event was higher with tramadol (58%) than placebo (34%) (4 studies, 266 participants, 123 events; RR 1.6 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.1); NNH 4.2 (95% CI 2.8 to 8.3)). Adverse event withdrawal was higher with tramadol (16%) than placebo (3%) (6 studies, 485 participants, 45 events; RR 4.1 (95% CI 2.0 to 8.4); NNH 8.2 (95% CI 5.8 to 14)). Only four serious adverse events were reported, without obvious attribution to treatment, and no deaths were reported. We downgraded the evidence for this outcome by two or three levels to low or very low quality because of small study size, because there were few actual events, and because of the limited duration of the studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is only modest information about the use of tramadol in neuropathic pain, coming from small, largely inadequate studies with potential risk of bias. That bias would normally increase the apparent benefits of tramadol. The evidence of benefit from tramadol was of low or very low quality, meaning that it does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect, and the likelihood is very high that the effect will be substantially different from the estimate in this systematic review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sheena Derry
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)Pain Research UnitChurchill HospitalOxfordOxfordshireUKOX3 7LE
| | - Philip J Wiffen
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)Pain Research UnitChurchill HospitalOxfordOxfordshireUKOX3 7LE
| | - Rae F Bell
- Haukeland University HospitalRegional Centre of Excellence in Palliative CareBergenNorway
| | | | - R Andrew Moore
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)Pain Research UnitChurchill HospitalOxfordOxfordshireUKOX3 7LE
| | | |
Collapse
|
158
|
Wiffen PJ, Derry S, Bell RF, Rice ASC, Tölle TR, Phillips T, Moore RA. Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 6:CD007938. [PMID: 28597471 PMCID: PMC6452908 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007938.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 161] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Gabapentin is commonly used to treat neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). This review updates a review published in 2014, and previous reviews published in 2011, 2005 and 2000. OBJECTIVES To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS For this update we searched CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2014 to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing gabapentin (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). We performed a pooled analysis for any substantial or moderate benefit. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS We included four new studies (530 participants), and excluded three previously included studies (126 participants). In all, 37 studies provided information on 5914 participants. Most studies used oral gabapentin or gabapentin encarbil at doses of 1200 mg or more daily in different neuropathic pain conditions, predominantly postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy. Study duration was typically four to 12 weeks. Not all studies reported important outcomes of interest. High risk of bias occurred mainly due to small size (especially in cross-over studies), and handling of data after study withdrawal.In postherpetic neuralgia, more participants (32%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (17%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.1); NNT 6.7 (5.4 to 8.7); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (46%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (25%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.0); NNT 4.8 (4.1 to 6.0); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence).In painful diabetic neuropathy, more participants (38%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (21%) (RR 1.9 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.3); NNT 5.9 (4.6 to 8.3); 6 studies, 1277 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (52%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (37%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.6); NNT 6.6 (4.9 to 9.9); 7 studies, 1439 participants, moderate-quality evidence).For all conditions combined, adverse event withdrawals were more common with gabapentin (11%) than with placebo (8.2%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.7); NNH 30 (20 to 65); 22 studies, 4346 participants, high-quality evidence). Serious adverse events were no more common with gabapentin (3.2%) than with placebo (2.8%) (RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 19 studies, 3948 participants, moderate-quality evidence); there were eight deaths (very low-quality evidence). Participants experiencing at least one adverse event were more common with gabapentin (63%) than with placebo (49%) (RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.4); NNH 7.5 (6.1 to 9.6); 18 studies, 4279 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Individual adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Participants taking gabapentin experienced dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (14%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Gabapentin at doses of 1800 mg to 3600 mg daily (1200 mg to 3600 mg gabapentin encarbil) can provide good levels of pain relief to some people with postherpetic neuralgia and peripheral diabetic neuropathy. Evidence for other types of neuropathic pain is very limited. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. Around 3 or 4 out of 10 participants achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 1 or 2 out of 10 for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief but may experience adverse events. Conclusions have not changed since the previous update of this review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Rae Frances Bell
- Haukeland University HospitalRegional Centre of Excellence in Palliative CareBergenNorway
| | - Andrew SC Rice
- Imperial College LondonPain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of MedicineLondonUKSW10 9NH
| | - Thomas Rudolf Tölle
- Technische Universität MünchenDepartment of Neurology, Klinikum Rechts der IsarMöhlstrasse 28MunichGermany81675
| | - Tudor Phillips
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)Churchill HospitalOxfordUKOX3 7LJ
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
159
|
Skogh A, Lesniak A, Gaugaz FZ, Svensson R, Lindeberg G, Fransson R, Nyberg F, Hallberg M, Sandström A. Importance of N- and C-terminal residues of substance P 1-7 for alleviating allodynia in mice after peripheral administration. Eur J Pharm Sci 2017; 106:345-351. [PMID: 28587787 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejps.2017.06.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2017] [Revised: 05/30/2017] [Accepted: 06/02/2017] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
The heptapeptide SP1-7 (1, Arg1-Pro2-Lys3-Pro4-Gln5-Gln6-Phe7) is the major bioactive metabolite formed after proteolytic processing of the neuropeptide substance P (SP, Arg1-Pro2-Lys3-Pro4-Gln5-Gln6-Phe7-Phe8-Gly9-Leu10-Met11-NH2). The heptapeptide 1 frequently exhibits opposite effects to those induced by SP, such as exerting antinociception, or attenuating thermal hyperalgesia and mechanical allodynia. The heptapeptide SP1-7 amide (2, Arg1-Pro2-Lys3-Pro4-Gln5-Gln6-Phe7-NH2) is often more efficacious than 1 in experimental pain models. We have now assessed the anti-allodynic outcome after systemic administration of 2 and a series of Ala-substituted and truncated analogues of 2, in the spared nerve injury (SNI) mice model and the results obtained were correlated with in vitro plasma stability and permeability measurements. It is herein demonstrated that an intact Arg1 in SP1-7 amide analogues is fundamental for retaining a potent in vivo effect, while Lys3 of 2 is less important. A displacement with Ala1 or truncation rendered the peptide analogues either inactive or with a significantly attenuated in vivo activity. Thus, the pentapeptide SP3-7 amide (7, t1/2=11.1 min) proven to be the major metabolite of 2, demonstrated an in vivo effect itself although considerably less significant than 2 in the SNI model. Intraperitoneal administration of 2 in a low dose furnished the most powerful anti-allodynic effect in the SNI model of all the analogous evaluated, despite a fast proteolysis of 2 in plasma (t1/2=6.4 min). It is concluded that not only the C-terminal residue, that we previously demonstrated, but also the N-terminal with its basic side chain, are important for achieving effective pain relief. This information is of value for the further design process aimed at identifying more drug-like SP1-7 amide related peptidomimetics with pronounced anti-allodynic effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Skogh
- Department of Medicinal Chemistry, Uppsala University, BMC, Box 574, SE-751 23 Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Anna Lesniak
- The Beijer Laboratory, Department of Pharmaceutical Bioscience, Uppsala University, BMC, Box 591, SE-751 24 Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Fabienne Z Gaugaz
- Uppsala Drug Optimization and Pharmaceutical Profiling Platform (UDOPP), Science for Life Laboratory Drug Discovery and Development Platform, Department of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, BMC, Box 580, SE-751 23 Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Richard Svensson
- Uppsala Drug Optimization and Pharmaceutical Profiling Platform (UDOPP), Science for Life Laboratory Drug Discovery and Development Platform, Department of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, BMC, Box 580, SE-751 23 Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Gunnar Lindeberg
- Department of Medicinal Chemistry, Uppsala University, BMC, Box 574, SE-751 23 Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Rebecca Fransson
- Department of Medicinal Chemistry, Uppsala University, BMC, Box 574, SE-751 23 Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Fred Nyberg
- The Beijer Laboratory, Department of Pharmaceutical Bioscience, Uppsala University, BMC, Box 591, SE-751 24 Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Mathias Hallberg
- The Beijer Laboratory, Department of Pharmaceutical Bioscience, Uppsala University, BMC, Box 591, SE-751 24 Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Anja Sandström
- Department of Medicinal Chemistry, Uppsala University, BMC, Box 574, SE-751 23 Uppsala, Sweden.
| |
Collapse
|
160
|
Cooper TE, Chen J, Wiffen PJ, Derry S, Carr DB, Aldington D, Cole P, Moore RA. Morphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 5:CD011669. [PMID: 28530786 PMCID: PMC6481499 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011669.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Neuropathic pain, which is caused by a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system, may be central or peripheral in origin. Neuropathic pain often includes symptoms such as burning or shooting sensations, abnormal sensitivity to normally painless stimuli, or an increased sensitivity to normally painful stimuli. Neuropathic pain is a common symptom in many diseases of the nervous system. Opioid drugs, including morphine, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for morphine; other opioids are considered in separate reviews. OBJECTIVES To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of morphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from inception to February 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing morphine (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS We identified five randomised, double-blind, cross-over studies with treatment periods of four to seven weeks, involving 236 participants in suitably characterised neuropathic pain; 152 (64%) participants completed all treatment periods. Oral morphine was titrated to maximum daily doses of 90 mg to 180 mg or the maximum tolerated dose, and then maintained for the remainder of the study. Participants had experienced moderate or severe neuropathic pain for at least three months. Included studies involved people with painful diabetic neuropathy, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia criteria, phantom limb or postamputation pain, and lumbar radiculopathy. Exclusions were typically people with other significant comorbidity or pain from other causes.Overall, we judged the studies to be at low risk of bias, but there were concerns over small study size and the imputation method used for participants who withdrew from the studies, both of which could lead to overestimation of treatment benefits and underestimation of harm.There was insufficient or no evidence for the primary outcomes of interest for efficacy or harm. Four studies reported an approximation of moderate pain improvement (any pain-related outcome indicating some improvement) comparing morphine with placebo in different types of neuropathic pain. We pooled these data in an exploratory analysis. Moderate improvement was experienced by 63% (87/138) of participants with morphine and 36% (45/125) with placebo; the risk difference (RD) was 0.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.38, fixed-effects analysis) and the NNT 3.7 (2.6 to 6.5). We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low because of the small number of events; available information did not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect, and the likelihood that the effect will be substantially different was very high. A similar exploratory analysis for substantial pain relief on three studies (177 participants) showed no difference between morphine and placebo.All-cause withdrawals in four studies occurred in 16% (24/152) of participants with morphine and 12% (16/137) with placebo. The RD was 0.04 (-0.04 to 0.12, random-effects analysis). Adverse events were inconsistently reported, more common with morphine than with placebo, and typical of opioids. There were two serious adverse events, one with morphine, and one with a combination of morphine and nortriptyline. No deaths were reported. These outcomes were assessed as very low quality because of the limited number of participants and events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that morphine has any efficacy in any neuropathic pain condition.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tess E Cooper
- The Children's Hospital at WestmeadCochrane Kidney and Transplant, Centre for Kidney ResearchWestmeadNSWAustralia2145
| | - Junqiao Chen
- Evolent Health800 N Glebe RoadSuite 500ArlingtonVirginiaUSA22203
| | | | | | - Daniel B Carr
- Tufts University School of MedicinePain Research, Education and Policy (PREP) Program, Department of Public Health and Community MedicineBostonMassachusettsUSA
| | | | - Peter Cole
- Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS TrustOxford Pain Relief UnitOld Road HeadingtonOxfordUKOX3 7LE
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
161
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND This review replaces an earlier review, "Methadone for chronic non-cancer pain in adults". This review serves to update the original and includes only studies of neuropathic pain. Methadone belongs to a class of analgesics known as opioids, that are considered the cornerstone of therapy for moderate-to-severe postsurgical pain and pain due to life-threatening illnesses; however, their use in neuropathic pain is controversial. Methadone has many characteristics that differentiate it from other opioids, which suggests that it may have a different efficacy and safety profile. OBJECTIVES To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of methadone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS We searched the following databases: CENTRAL (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid), and two clinical trial registries. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved articles. The date of the most recent search was 30 November 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing methadone (in any dose, administered by any route, and in any formulation) with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. There were insufficient data to perform pooled analyses. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS We included three studies, involving 105 participants. All were cross-over studies, one involving 19 participants with diverse neuropathic pain syndromes, the other two involving 86 participants with postherpetic neuralgia. Study phases ranged from 20 days to approximately eight weeks. All administered methadone orally, in doses ranging from 10 mg to 80 mg daily. Comparators were primarily placebo, but one study also included morphine and tricyclic antidepressants.The included studies had several limitations related to risk of bias, particularly incomplete reporting, selective outcome reporting, and small sample sizes.There were very limited data for our primary outcomes of participants with at least 30% or at least 50% pain relief. Two studies reported that 11/29 participants receiving methadone achieved 30% pain relief versus 7/29 participants receiving placebo. Only one study presented data in a manner that allowed us to calculate the number of participants with at least 50% pain relief. None of the 19 participants achieved a 50% reduction in pain intensity, either when receiving methadone or when receiving placebo. No study provided data for our other primary outcomes of Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC) much or very much improved (equivalent to at least 30% pain relief) and PGIC very much improved (equivalent to at least 50% pain relief).For secondary efficacy outcomes, one study reported maximum and mean pain intensity and pain relief, and reported statistically significant improvements versus placebo for all outcomes with 20 mg daily doses of methadone, but not with 10 mg daily doses. The second study reported differences in pain reduction between methadone (n = 26) and morphine (n = 38) and found morphine to be statistically superior. The third study reported the number of responders (variously defined) for several pain and functional outcomes and found methadone to be statistically superior to placebo for the outcomes of categorical pain intensity and evoked pain. In the two studies that reported data, 0/29 participants withdrew due to lack of efficacy, whereas 4/29 participants withdrew due to adverse events while taking methadone versus 3/29 while taking placebo.One study reported incidences for several individual adverse events, but found a statistically significant increased incidence for methadone over placebo for only one event, dizziness. The other studies did not report data in a manner that enabled us to analyze adverse events. There were no serious adverse events or deaths reported.We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low for all efficacy and safety outcomes using GRADE, primarily because of the heterogeneity of study designs and populations, short durations, cross-over methodology, and few participants and events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The three studies provide very limited, very low quality evidence of the efficacy and safety of methadone for chronic neuropathic pain, and there were too few data for pooled analysis of efficacy or harm, or to have confidence in the results of the individual studies. No conclusions can be made regarding differences in efficacy or safety between methadone and placebo, other opioids, or other treatments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ewan D McNicol
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
- Department of Pharmacy, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
- Pain Research, Education and Policy (PREP) Program, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - McKenzie C Ferguson
- Pharmacy Practice, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Edwardsville, USA
| | - Roman Schumann
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| |
Collapse
|
162
|
Derry S, Wiffen PJ, Kalso EA, Bell RF, Aldington D, Phillips T, Gaskell H, Moore RA. Topical analgesics for acute and chronic pain in adults - an overview of Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 5:CD008609. [PMID: 28497473 PMCID: PMC6481750 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd008609.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 66] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Topical analgesic drugs are used for a variety of painful conditions. Some are acute, typically strains or sprains, tendinopathy, or muscle aches. Others are chronic, typically osteoarthritis of hand or knee, or neuropathic pain. OBJECTIVES To provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of topical analgesics (primarily nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), salicylate rubefacients, capsaicin, and lidocaine) applied to intact skin for the treatment of acute and chronic pain in adults. METHODS We identified systematic reviews in acute and chronic pain published to February 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (the Cochrane Library). The primary outcome was at least 50% pain relief (participant-reported) at an appropriate duration. We extracted the number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for efficacy outcomes for each topical analgesic or formulation, and the number needed to treat for one additional harmful outcome (NNH) for adverse events. We also extracted information on withdrawals due to lack of efficacy or adverse events, systemic and local adverse events, and serious adverse events. We required information from at least 200 participants, in at least two studies. We judged that there was potential for publication bias if the addition of four studies of typical size (400 participants) with zero effect increased NNT compared with placebo to 10 (minimal clinical utility). We extracted GRADE assessment in the original papers, and made our own GRADE assessment. MAIN RESULTS Thirteen Cochrane Reviews (206 studies with around 30,700 participants) assessed the efficacy and harms from a range of topical analgesics applied to intact skin in a number of acute and chronic painful conditions. Reviews were overseen by several Review Groups, and concentrated on evidence comparing topical analgesic with topical placebo; comparisons of topical and oral analgesics were rare.For at least 50% pain relief, we considered evidence was moderate or high quality for several therapies, based on the underlying quality of studies and susceptibility to publication bias.In acute musculoskeletal pain (strains and sprains) with assessment at about seven days, therapies were diclofenac Emulgel (78% Emulgel, 20% placebo; 2 studies, 314 participants, NNT 1.8 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 2.1)), ketoprofen gel (72% ketoprofen, 33% placebo, 5 studies, 348 participants, NNT 2.5 (2.0 to 3.4)), piroxicam gel (70% piroxicam, 47% placebo, 3 studies, 522 participants, NNT 4.4 (3.2 to 6.9)), diclofenac Flector plaster (63% Flector, 41% placebo, 4 studies, 1030 participants, NNT 4.7 (3.7 to 6.5)), and diclofenac other plaster (88% diclofenac plaster, 57% placebo, 3 studies, 474 participants, NNT 3.2 (2.6 to 4.2)).In chronic musculoskeletal pain (mainly hand and knee osteoarthritis) therapies were topical diclofenac preparations for less than six weeks (43% diclofenac, 23% placebo, 5 studies, 732 participants, NNT 5.0 (3.7 to 7.4)), ketoprofen over 6 to 12 weeks (63% ketoprofen, 48% placebo, 4 studies, 2573 participants, NNT 6.9 (5.4 to 9.3)), and topical diclofenac preparations over 6 to 12 weeks (60% diclofenac, 50% placebo, 4 studies, 2343 participants, NNT 9.8 (7.1 to 16)). In postherpetic neuralgia, topical high-concentration capsaicin had moderate-quality evidence of limited efficacy (33% capsaicin, 24% placebo, 2 studies, 571 participants, NNT 11 (6.1 to 62)).We judged evidence of efficacy for other therapies as low or very low quality. Limited evidence of efficacy, potentially subject to publication bias, existed for topical preparations of ibuprofen gels and creams, unspecified diclofenac formulations and diclofenac gel other than Emulgel, indomethacin, and ketoprofen plaster in acute pain conditions, and for salicylate rubefacients for chronic pain conditions. Evidence for other interventions (other topical NSAIDs, topical salicylate in acute pain conditions, low concentration capsaicin, lidocaine, clonidine for neuropathic pain, and herbal remedies for any condition) was very low quality and typically limited to single studies or comparisons with sparse data.We assessed the evidence on withdrawals as moderate or very low quality, because of small numbers of events. In chronic pain conditions lack of efficacy withdrawals were lower with topical diclofenac (6%) than placebo (9%) (11 studies, 3455 participants, number needed to treat to prevent (NNTp) 26, moderate-quality evidence), and topical salicylate (2% vs 7% for placebo) (5 studies, 501 participants, NNTp 21, very low-quality evidence). Adverse event withdrawals were higher with topical capsaicin low-concentration (15%) than placebo (3%) (4 studies, 477 participants, NNH 8, very low-quality evidence), topical salicylate (5% vs 1% for placebo) (7 studies, 735 participants, NNH 26, very low-quality evidence), and topical diclofenac (5% vs 4% for placebo) (12 studies, 3552 participants, NNH 51, very low-quality evidence).In acute pain, systemic or local adverse event rates with topical NSAIDs (4.3%) were no greater than with topical placebo (4.6%) (42 studies, 6740 participants, high quality evidence). In chronic pain local adverse events with topical capsaicin low concentration (63%) were higher than topical placebo (5 studies, 557 participants, number needed to treat for harm (NNH) 2.6), high quality evidence. Moderate-quality evidence indicated more local adverse events than placebo in chronic pain conditions with topical diclofenac (NNH 16) and local pain with topical capsaicin high-concentration (NNH 16). There was moderate-quality evidence of no additional local adverse events with topical ketoprofen over topical placebo in chronic pain. Serious adverse events were rare (very low-quality evidence).GRADE assessments of moderate or low quality in some of the reviews were considered by us to be very low because of small numbers of participants and events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is good evidence that some formulations of topical diclofenac and ketoprofen are useful in acute pain conditions such as sprains or strains, with low (good) NNT values. There is a strong message that the exact formulation used is critically important in acute conditions, and that might also apply to other pain conditions. In chronic musculoskeletal conditions with assessments over 6 to 12 weeks, topical diclofenac and ketoprofen had limited efficacy in hand and knee osteoarthritis, as did topical high-concentration capsaicin in postherpetic neuralgia. Though NNTs were higher, this still indicates that a small proportion of people had good pain relief.Use of GRADE in Cochrane Reviews with small numbers of participants and events requires attention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Eija A Kalso
- Helsinki University and Helsinki University HospitalDepartment of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care and Pain MedicineHelsinkiFinland
| | - Rae Frances Bell
- Haukeland University HospitalRegional Centre of Excellence in Palliative CareBergenNorway
| | | | - Tudor Phillips
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)Churchill HospitalOxfordUKOX3 7LJ
| | - Helen Gaskell
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)Churchill HospitalOxfordUKOX3 7LJ
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
163
|
Derry S, Wiffen PJ, Moore RA, McNicol ED, Bell RF, Carr DB, McIntyre M, Wee B. Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for cancer pain in adults. THE COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS 2017. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012638] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
|
164
|
Geneen LJ, Moore RA, Clarke C, Martin D, Colvin LA, Smith BH. Physical activity and exercise for chronic pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 4:CD011279. [PMID: 28436583 PMCID: PMC5461882 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011279.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 234] [Impact Index Per Article: 33.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Chronic pain is defined as pain lasting beyond normal tissue healing time, generally taken to be 12 weeks. It contributes to disability, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, poor quality of life, and healthcare costs. Chronic pain has a weighted mean prevalence in adults of 20%.For many years, the treatment choice for chronic pain included recommendations for rest and inactivity. However, exercise may have specific benefits in reducing the severity of chronic pain, as well as more general benefits associated with improved overall physical and mental health, and physical functioning.Physical activity and exercise programmes are increasingly being promoted and offered in various healthcare systems, and for a variety of chronic pain conditions. It is therefore important at this stage to establish the efficacy and safety of these programmes, and furthermore to address the critical factors that determine their success or failure. OBJECTIVES To provide an overview of Cochrane Reviews of adults with chronic pain to determine (1) the effectiveness of different physical activity and exercise interventions in reducing pain severity and its impact on function, quality of life, and healthcare use; and (2) the evidence for any adverse effects or harm associated with physical activity and exercise interventions. METHODS We searched theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on the Cochrane Library (CDSR 2016, Issue 1) for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), after which we tracked any included reviews for updates, and tracked protocols in case of full review publication until an arbitrary cut-off date of 21 March 2016 (CDSR 2016, Issue 3). We assessed the methodological quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR tool, and also planned to analyse data for each painful condition based on quality of the evidence.We extracted data for (1) self-reported pain severity, (2) physical function (objectively or subjectively measured), (3) psychological function, (4) quality of life, (5) adherence to the prescribed intervention, (6) healthcare use/attendance, (7) adverse events, and (8) death.Due to the limited data available, we were unable to directly compare and analyse interventions, and have instead reported the evidence qualitatively. MAIN RESULTS We included 21 reviews with 381 included studies and 37,143 participants. Of these, 264 studies (19,642 participants) examined exercise versus no exercise/minimal intervention in adults with chronic pain and were used in the qualitative analysis.Pain conditions included rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, low back pain, intermittent claudication, dysmenorrhoea, mechanical neck disorder, spinal cord injury, postpolio syndrome, and patellofemoral pain. None of the reviews assessed 'chronic pain' or 'chronic widespread pain' as a general term or specific condition. Interventions included aerobic, strength, flexibility, range of motion, and core or balance training programmes, as well as yoga, Pilates, and tai chi.Reviews were well performed and reported (based on AMSTAR), and included studies had acceptable risk of bias (with inadequate reporting of attrition and reporting biases). However the quality of evidence was low due to participant numbers (most included studies had fewer than 50 participants in total), length of intervention and follow-up (rarely assessed beyond three to six months). We pooled the results from relevant reviews where appropriate, though results should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality evidence. Pain severity: several reviews noted favourable results from exercise: only three reviews that reported pain severity found no statistically significant changes in usual or mean pain from any intervention. However, results were inconsistent across interventions and follow-up, as exercise did not consistently bring about a change (positive or negative) in self-reported pain scores at any single point. Physical function: was the most commonly reported outcome measure. Physical function was significantly improved as a result of the intervention in 14 reviews, though even these statistically significant results had only small-to-moderate effect sizes (only one review reported large effect sizes). Psychological function and quality of life: had variable results: results were either favourable to exercise (generally small and moderate effect size, with two reviews reporting significant, large effect sizes for quality of life), or showed no difference between groups. There were no negative effects. Adherence to the prescribed intervention: could not be assessed in any review. However, risk of withdrawal/dropout was slightly higher in the exercising group (82.8/1000 participants versus 81/1000 participants), though the group difference was non-significant. Healthcare use/attendance: was not reported in any review. Adverse events, potential harm, and death: only 25% of included studies (across 18 reviews) actively reported adverse events. Based on the available evidence, most adverse events were increased soreness or muscle pain, which reportedly subsided after a few weeks of the intervention. Only one review reported death separately to other adverse events: the intervention was protective against death (based on the available evidence), though did not reach statistical significance. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The quality of the evidence examining physical activity and exercise for chronic pain is low. This is largely due to small sample sizes and potentially underpowered studies. A number of studies had adequately long interventions, but planned follow-up was limited to less than one year in all but six reviews.There were some favourable effects in reduction in pain severity and improved physical function, though these were mostly of small-to-moderate effect, and were not consistent across the reviews. There were variable effects for psychological function and quality of life.The available evidence suggests physical activity and exercise is an intervention with few adverse events that may improve pain severity and physical function, and consequent quality of life. However, further research is required and should focus on increasing participant numbers, including participants with a broader spectrum of pain severity, and lengthening both the intervention itself, and the follow-up period.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Clare Clarke
- Division of Population Health Sciences, University of DundeeNinewells Hospital & Medical SchoolKirsty Semple WayDundeeUKDD2 4DB
| | - Denis Martin
- Teesside UniversityInstitute of Health and Social CareParksideMiddlesbroughUKTS1 3BA
| | - Lesley A Colvin
- University of Edinburgh, Western General HospitalAnaesthesia & Pain MedicineEdinburghUK
| | - Blair H Smith
- University of DundeeDivision of Population Health SciencesDundeeUKDD2 4BF
| | | |
Collapse
|
165
|
Cano-García FJ, González-Ortega MDC, Sanduvete-Chaves S, Chacón-Moscoso S, Moreno-Borrego R. Evaluation of a Psychological Intervention for Patients with Chronic Pain in Primary Care. Front Psychol 2017; 8:435. [PMID: 28386242 PMCID: PMC5362736 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00435] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2016] [Accepted: 03/08/2017] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
According to evidence from recent decades, multicomponent programs of psychological intervention in people with chronic pain have reached the highest levels of efficacy. However, there are still many questions left to answer since efficacy has mainly been shown among upper-middle class patients in English-speaking countries and in controlled studies, with expert professionals guiding the intervention and with a limited number of domains of painful experience evaluated. For this study, a program of multicomponent psychological intervention was implemented: (a) based on techniques with empirical evidence, but developed in Spain; (b) at a public primary care center; (c) among patients with limited financial resources and lower education; (d) by a novice psychologist; and (e) evaluating all domains of painful experience using the instruments recommended by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT). The aim of this study was to evaluate this program. We selected a consecutive sample of 40 patients treated for chronic non-cancer pain at a primary care center in Utrera (Seville, Spain), adults who were not in any employment dispute, not suffering from psychopathology, and not receiving psychological treatment. The patients participated in 10 psychological intervention sessions, one per week, in groups of 13-14 people, which addressed psychoeducation for pain; breathing and relaxation; attention management; cognitive restructuring; problem-solving; emotional management; social skills; life values and goal setting; time organization and behavioral activation; physical exercise promotion; postural and sleep hygiene; and relapse prevention. In addition to the initial assessment, measures were taken after the intervention and at a 6-month follow-up. We assessed the program throughout the process: before, during and after the implementation. Results were analyzed statistically (significance and effect size) and from a clinical perspective (clinical significance according to IMMPACT standards). According to this analysis, the intervention was successful, although improvement tended to decline at follow-up, and the detailed design gave the program assessment a high degree of standardization and specification. Finally, suggestions for improvement are presented for upcoming applications of the program.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francisco J Cano-García
- Departamento de Personalidad, Evaluación y Tratamiento Psicológicos, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville Spain
| | | | - Susana Sanduvete-Chaves
- Departamento de Psicología Experimental, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville Spain
| | - Salvador Chacón-Moscoso
- Departamento de Psicología Experimental, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Sevilla, SevilleSpain; Departamento de Psicología, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, SantiagoChile
| | - Roberto Moreno-Borrego
- Centro de Atención Primaria Príncipe de Asturias, Servicio Andaluz de Salud, Utrera Spain
| |
Collapse
|
166
|
Derry S, Wiffen PJ, Häuser W, Mücke M, Tölle TR, Bell RF, Moore RA. Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for fibromyalgia in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 3:CD012332. [PMID: 28349517 PMCID: PMC6464559 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012332.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia, despite being considered not to be effective. OBJECTIVES To assess the analgesic efficacy, tolerability (drop-out due to adverse events), and safety (serious adverse events) of oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for fibromyalgia in adults. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from inception to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID with placebo or another active treatment for relief of pain in fibromyalgia, with subjective pain assessment by the participant. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)) or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC), serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events; secondary outcomes were adverse events, withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, and outcomes relating to sleep, fatigue, and quality of life. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT), using standard methods. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS Our searches identified six randomised, double-blind studies involving 292 participants in suitably characterised fibromyalgia. The mean age of participants was between 39 and 50 years, and 89% to 100% were women. The initial pain intensity was around 7/10 on a 0 to 10 pain scale, indicating severe pain. NSAIDs tested were etoricoxib 90 mg daily, ibuprofen 2400 mg daily, naproxen 1000 mg daily, and tenoxicam 20 mg daily; 146 participants received NSAID and 146 placebo. The duration of treatment in the double-blind phase varied between three and eight weeks.Not all studies reported all the outcomes of interest. Analyses consistently showed no significant difference between NSAID and placebo: substantial benefit (at least 50% pain intensity reduction) (risk difference (RD) -0.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.18 to 0.04) 2 studies, 146 participants; moderate benefit (at least 30% pain intensity reduction) (RD -0.04 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.08) 3 studies, 192 participants; withdrawals due to adverse events (RD 0.04 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.09) 4 studies, 230 participants; participants experiencing any adverse event (RD 0.08 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.19) 4 studies, 230 participants; all-cause withdrawals (RD 0.03 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.14) 3 studies, 192 participants. There were no serious adverse events or deaths. Although most studies had some measures of health-related quality of life, fibromyalgia impact, or other outcomes, none reported the outcomes beyond saying that there was no or little difference between the treatment groups.We downgraded evidence on all outcomes to very low quality, meaning that this research does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect could be substantially different is very high. This is based on the small numbers of studies, participants, and events, as well as other deficiencies of reporting study quality allowing possible risks of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is only a modest amount of very low-quality evidence about the use of NSAIDs in fibromyalgia, and that comes from small, largely inadequate studies with potential risk of bias. That bias would normally be to increase the apparent benefits of NSAIDs, but no such benefits were seen. Consequently, NSAIDs cannot be regarded as useful for treating fibromyalgia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Winfried Häuser
- Technische Universität MünchenDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and PsychotherapyLangerstr. 3MünchenGermanyD‐81675
| | - Martin Mücke
- University Hospital of BonnDepartment of Palliative MedicineSigmund‐Freud‐Str. 25BonnGermany53127
| | - Thomas Rudolf Tölle
- Technische Universität MünchenDepartment of Neurology, Klinikum Rechts der IsarMöhlstrasse 28MunichGermany81675
| | - Rae Frances Bell
- Haukeland University HospitalRegional Centre of Excellence in Palliative CareBergenNorway
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
167
|
Wiffen PJ, Wee B, Derry S, Bell RF, Moore RA. Opioids for cancer pain - an overview of Cochrane reviews. THE COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS 2017. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012592] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
|
168
|
Mann EG, Johnson A, Gilron I, VanDenKerkhof EG. Pain Management Strategies and Health Care Use in Community-Dwelling Individuals Living with Chronic Pain. PAIN MEDICINE 2017; 18:2267-2279. [DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnw341] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
|
169
|
Sanna MD, Ghelardini C, Galeotti N. Spinal astrocytic c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) activation as counteracting mechanism to the amitriptyline analgesic efficacy in painful peripheral neuropathies. Eur J Pharmacol 2017; 798:85-93. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2017.01.025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/25/2016] [Revised: 01/19/2017] [Accepted: 01/19/2017] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
|
170
|
|
171
|
Wiffen PJ, Cooper TE, Anderson A, Gray AL, Grégoire M, Ljungman G, Zernikow B. Opioids for cancer‐related pain in children and
adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 2017:CD012564. [PMCID: PMC6473185 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012564] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/03/2023]
Abstract
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the analgesic efficacy, and adverse events, of opioids used to treat cancer pain in children and adolescents between birth and 17 years, in any setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Philip J Wiffen
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division
of Anaesthetics)Pain Research UnitChurchill HospitalOxfordUKOX3 7LE
| | - Tess E Cooper
- Pain Research Unit, Churchill HospitalCochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care GroupChurchill HospitalOxfordUKOX3 7LE
| | | | - Andrew L Gray
- University of Kwazulu‐NatalDivision of Pharmacology, Discipline of Pharmaceutical SciencesPrivate Bag 7CongellaSouth Africa4013
| | - Marie‐Claude Grégoire
- IWK Health Centre, Dalhousie UniversityPaediatric Palliative Care, Department of PaediatricsHalifaxCanada
| | - Gustaf Ljungman
- Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala
UniversityPaediatric OncologyUppsalaSweden
| | | |
Collapse
|
172
|
Cooper TE, Heathcote LC, Anderson B, Grégoire MC, Ljungman G, Eccleston C. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for cancer-related pain in children and adolescents. THE COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS 2017. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012563] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
|
173
|
Cooper TE, Heathcote LC, Clinch J, Gold JI, Howard R, Lord SM, Schechter N, Wood C, Wiffen PJ. Antidepressants for chronic non‐cancer pain in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 2017:CD012535. [PMCID: PMC6464506 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012535] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/08/2023]
Abstract
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the analgesic efficacy, and adverse events, of antidepressants used to treat chronic non‐cancer pain in children and adolescents between birth and 17 years, in any setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tess E Cooper
- Pain Research Unit, Churchill HospitalCochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care GroupChurchill HospitalOxfordUKOX3 7LE
| | - Lauren C Heathcote
- Stanford UniversityDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine1070 Arastradero Road, Suite 300Palo AltoUSA94304
| | | | - Jeffrey I. Gold
- Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California / Children’s Hospital Los AngelesAnesthesiology, Pediatrics, and Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences4650 Sunset Blvd. MS#12Los AngelesUSA90027
| | - Richard Howard
- Great Ormond Street HospitalAnaesthesia and Pain ManagementGreat Ormond StreetLondonUKWC1N 3JH
| | - Susan M Lord
- John Hunter Children’s HospitalChildren’s Complex Pain ServiceNewcastleAustralia
| | - Neil Schechter
- Boston Children’s HospitalAnesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine300 Longwood AvenueBostonUSA
| | - Chantal Wood
- University Hospital DupuytrenRheumatologyLimogesFrance
| | - Philip J Wiffen
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)Pain Research UnitChurchill HospitalOxfordUKOX3 7LE
| |
Collapse
|
174
|
Wiffen PJ, Cooper TE, Heathcote LC, Clinch J, Howard R, Krane E, Lord SM, Sethna N, Schechter N, Wood C. Antiepileptic drugs for chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. THE COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS 2017. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012536] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
|
175
|
Eccleston C, Cooper TE, Fisher E, Anderson B, Wilkinson NMR. Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for
chronic non‐cancer pain in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 2017:CD012537. [PMCID: PMC6473187 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012537] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/08/2023]
Abstract
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the analgesic efficacy, and adverse events, of NSAIDs used to treat chronic non‐cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Tess E Cooper
- Pain Research Unit, Churchill HospitalCochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care GroupOxfordUK
| | - Emma Fisher
- Seattle Children’s Research InstituteCentre for Child Health, Behaviour, and Development2001 8th Avenue, Suite 400SeattleUSA
| | - Brian Anderson
- Starship Children's HospitalPaediatric Intensive Care UnitPark Road, GraftonAucklandNew Zealand
| | - Nick MR Wilkinson
- Evelina London Children's Hospital, Guys & St Thomas's NHS
Foundation TrustWestminster Bridge RoadLondonUKSE1 7EH
| |
Collapse
|
176
|
Moore RA, Kalso EA, Wiffen PJ, Derry S, Tölle TR, Finnerup NB, Attal N, Lunn MPT. Antidepressant drugs for neuropathic pain - an overview of Cochrane reviews. Hippokratia 2017. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011606.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- R Andrew Moore
- University of Oxford; Pain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics); Pain Research Unit Churchill Hospital Oxford Oxfordshire UK OX3 7LE
| | - Eija A Kalso
- Helsinki University and Helsinki University Hospital; Department of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine; Helsinki Finland
| | - Philip J Wiffen
- University of Oxford; Pain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics); Pain Research Unit Churchill Hospital Oxford Oxfordshire UK OX3 7LE
| | - Sheena Derry
- University of Oxford; Pain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics); Pain Research Unit Churchill Hospital Oxford Oxfordshire UK OX3 7LE
| | - Thomas Rudolf Tölle
- Technische Universität München; Department of Neurology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar; Möhlstrasse 28 Munich Germany 81675
| | - Nanna B Finnerup
- Aarhus University; Danish Pain Research Center, Department of Clinical Medicine; Building 1A Norrebrogade 44 Aarhus Denmark Dk 8000
| | - Nadine Attal
- Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris; Centre d'évaluation et de traitement de la douleur; Paris France
| | - Michael PT Lunn
- National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery; Department of Neurology and MRC Centre for Neuromuscular Diseases; Queen Square London UK WC1N 3BG
| |
Collapse
|
177
|
Els C, Kunyk D, Lappi VG, Sonnenberg B, Hagtvedt R, Sharma S, Kolahdooz F, Straube S. Adverse events associated with medium- and long-term use of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews. THE COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS 2017. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012509] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
|
178
|
Geneen LJ, Moore RA, Clarke C, Martin D, Colvin LA, Smith BH. Physical activity and exercise for chronic pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 1:CD011279. [PMID: 28087891 PMCID: PMC6469540 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011279.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 339] [Impact Index Per Article: 48.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Chronic pain is defined as pain lasting beyond normal tissue healing time, generally taken to be 12 weeks. It contributes to disability, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, poor quality of life, and healthcare costs. Chronic pain has a weighted mean prevalence in adults of 20%.For many years, the treatment choice for chronic pain included recommendations for rest and inactivity. However, exercise may have specific benefits in reducing the severity of chronic pain, as well as more general benefits associated with improved overall physical and mental health, and physical functioning.Physical activity and exercise programmes are increasingly being promoted and offered in various healthcare systems, and for a variety of chronic pain conditions. It is therefore important at this stage to establish the efficacy and safety of these programmes, and furthermore to address the critical factors that determine their success or failure. OBJECTIVES To provide an overview of Cochrane Reviews of adults with chronic pain to determine (1) the effectiveness of different physical activity and exercise interventions in reducing pain severity and its impact on function, quality of life, and healthcare use; and (2) the evidence for any adverse effects or harm associated with physical activity and exercise interventions. METHODS We searched theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on the Cochrane Library (CDSR 2016, Issue 1) for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), after which we tracked any included reviews for updates, and tracked protocols in case of full review publication until an arbitrary cut-off date of 21 March 2016 (CDSR 2016, Issue 3). We assessed the methodological quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR tool, and also planned to analyse data for each painful condition based on quality of the evidence.We extracted data for (1) self-reported pain severity, (2) physical function (objectively or subjectively measured), (3) psychological function, (4) quality of life, (5) adherence to the prescribed intervention, (6) healthcare use/attendance, (7) adverse events, and (8) death.Due to the limited data available, we were unable to directly compare and analyse interventions, and have instead reported the evidence qualitatively. MAIN RESULTS We included 21 reviews with 381 included studies and 37,143 participants. Of these, 264 studies (19,642 participants) examined exercise versus no exercise/minimal intervention in adults with chronic pain and were used in the qualitative analysis.Pain conditions included rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, low back pain, intermittent claudication, dysmenorrhoea, mechanical neck disorder, spinal cord injury, postpolio syndrome, and patellofemoral pain. None of the reviews assessed 'chronic pain' or 'chronic widespread pain' as a general term or specific condition. Interventions included aerobic, strength, flexibility, range of motion, and core or balance training programmes, as well as yoga, Pilates, and tai chi.Reviews were well performed and reported (based on AMSTAR), and included studies had acceptable risk of bias (with inadequate reporting of attrition and reporting biases). However the quality of evidence was low due to participant numbers (most included studies had fewer than 50 participants in total), length of intervention and follow-up (rarely assessed beyond three to six months). We pooled the results from relevant reviews where appropriate, though results should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality evidence. Pain severity: several reviews noted favourable results from exercise: only three reviews that reported pain severity found no statistically significant changes in usual or mean pain from any intervention. However, results were inconsistent across interventions and follow-up, as exercise did not consistently bring about a change (positive or negative) in self-reported pain scores at any single point. Physical function: was the most commonly reported outcome measure. Physical function was significantly improved as a result of the intervention in 14 reviews, though even these statistically significant results had only small-to-moderate effect sizes (only one review reported large effect sizes). Psychological function and quality of life: had variable results: results were either favourable to exercise (generally small and moderate effect size, with two reviews reporting significant, large effect sizes for quality of life), or showed no difference between groups. There were no negative effects. Adherence to the prescribed intervention: could not be assessed in any review. However, risk of withdrawal/dropout was slightly higher in the exercising group (82.8/1000 participants versus 81/1000 participants), though the group difference was non-significant. Healthcare use/attendance: was not reported in any review. Adverse events, potential harm, and death: only 25% of included studies (across 18 reviews) actively reported adverse events. Based on the available evidence, most adverse events were increased soreness or muscle pain, which reportedly subsided after a few weeks of the intervention. Only one review reported death separately to other adverse events: the intervention was protective against death (based on the available evidence), though did not reach statistical significance. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The quality of the evidence examining physical activity and exercise for chronic pain is low. This is largely due to small sample sizes and potentially underpowered studies. A number of studies had adequately long interventions, but planned follow-up was limited to less than one year in all but six reviews.There were some favourable effects in reduction in pain severity and improved physical function, though these were mostly of small-to-moderate effect, and were not consistent across the reviews. There were variable effects for psychological function and quality of life.The available evidence suggests physical activity and exercise is an intervention with few adverse events that may improve pain severity and physical function, and consequent quality of life. However, further research is required and should focus on increasing participant numbers, including participants with a broader spectrum of pain severity, and lengthening both the intervention itself, and the follow-up period.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Louise J Geneen
- University of DundeeDivision of Population Health SciencesDundeeUK
| | - R Andrew Moore
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)Pain Research UnitChurchill HospitalOxfordUKOX3 7LE
| | - Clare Clarke
- Division of Population Health Sciences, University of DundeeNinewells Hospital & Medical SchoolKirsty Semple WayDundeeUKDD2 4DB
| | - Denis Martin
- Teesside UniversityInstitute of Health and Social CareParksideMiddlesbroughUKTS1 3BA
| | - Lesley A Colvin
- University of Edinburgh, Western General HospitalAnaesthesia & Pain MedicineEdinburghUK
| | - Blair H Smith
- University of DundeeDivision of Population Health SciencesDundeeUK
| |
Collapse
|
179
|
Derry S, Rice AS, Cole P, Tan T, Moore RA. Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 1:CD007393. [PMID: 28085183 PMCID: PMC6464756 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007393.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 80] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This review is an update of 'Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults' last updated in Issue 2, 2013. Topical creams with capsaicin are used to treat peripheral neuropathic pain. Following application to the skin, capsaicin causes enhanced sensitivity, followed by a period with reduced sensitivity and, after repeated applications, persistent desensitisation. High-concentration (8%) capsaicin patches were developed to increase the amount of capsaicin delivered; rapid delivery was thought to improve tolerability because cutaneous nociceptors are 'defunctionalised' quickly. The single application avoids noncompliance. Only the 8% patch formulation of capsaicin is available, with a capsaicin concentration about 100 times greater than conventional creams. High-concentration topical capsaicin is given as a single patch application to the affected part. It must be applied under highly controlled conditions, often following local anaesthetic, due to the initial intense burning sensation it causes. The benefits are expected to last for about 12 weeks, when another application might be made. OBJECTIVES To review the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of topically applied, high-concentration (8%) capsaicin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trials registries, and a pharmaceutical company's website to 10 June 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of at least 6 weeks' duration, using high-concentration (5% or more) topical capsaicin to treat neuropathic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.Efficacy outcomes reflecting long-duration pain relief after a single drug application were from the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at specific points, usually 8 and 12 weeks. We also assessed average pain scores over weeks 2 to 8 and 2 to 12 and the number of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 30% or at least 50% over baseline, and information on adverse events and withdrawals.We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS We included eight studies, involving 2488 participants, two more studies and 415 more participants than the previous version of this review. Studies were of generally good methodological quality; we judged only one study at high risk of bias, due to small size. Two studies used a placebo control and six used 0.04% topical capsaicin as an 'active' placebo to help maintain blinding. Efficacy outcomes were inconsistently reported, resulting in analyses for most outcomes being based on less than complete data.For postherpetic neuralgia, we found four studies (1272 participants). At both 8 and 12 weeks about 10% more participants reported themselves much or very much improved with high-concentration capsaicin than with 'active' placebo, with point estimates of numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTs) of 8.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.3 to 26) with high-concentration capsaicin and 7.0 (95% CI 4.6 to 15) with 'active' placebo (2 studies, 571 participants; moderate quality evidence). More participants (about 10%) had average 2 to 8-week and 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% and at least 50% with capsaicin than control, with NNT values between 10 and 12 (2 to 4 studies, 571 to 1272 participants; very low quality evidence).For painful HIV-neuropathy, we found two studies (801 participants). One study reported the proportion of participants who were much or very much improved at 12 weeks (27% with high-concentration capsaicin and 10% with 'active' placebo). For both studies, more participants (about 10%) had average 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% with capsaicin than control, with an NNT of 11 (very low quality evidence).For peripheral diabetic neuropathy, we found one study (369 participants). It reported about 10% more participants who were much or very much improved at 8 and 12 weeks. One small study of 46 participants with persistent pain following inguinal herniorrhaphy did not show a difference between capsaicin and placebo for pain reduction (very low quality evidence).We downgraded the quality of the evidence for efficacy outcomes by one to three levels due to sparse data, imprecision, possible effects of imputation methods, and susceptibility to publication bias.Local adverse events were common, but not consistently reported. Serious adverse events were no more common with active treatment (3.5%) than control (3.2%). Adverse event withdrawals did not differ between groups, but lack of efficacy withdrawals were somewhat more common with control than active treatment, based on small numbers of events (six to eight studies, 21 to 67 events; moderate quality evidence, downgraded due to few events). No deaths were judged to be related to study medication. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS High-concentration topical capsaicin used to treat postherpetic neuralgia, HIV-neuropathy, and painful diabetic neuropathy generated more participants with moderate or substantial levels of pain relief than control treatment using a much lower concentration of capsaicin. These results should be interpreted with caution as the quality of the evidence was moderate or very low. The additional proportion who benefited over control was not large, but for those who did obtain high levels of pain relief, there were usually additional improvements in sleep, fatigue, depression, and quality of life. High-concentration topical capsaicin is similar in its effects to other therapies for chronic pain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sheena Derry
- Pain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics), University of Oxford, Pain Research Unit, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK, OX3 7LE
| | - Andrew Sc Rice
- Pain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK, SW10 9NH
- Department of Pain Medicine, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK, SW10 9NH
| | - Peter Cole
- Oxford Pain Relief Unit, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Old Road Headington, Oxford, UK, OX3 7LE
| | - Toni Tan
- Centre for Clinical Practice, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Level 1A, City Tower, Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester, UK, M1 4BT
| | - R Andrew Moore
- Pain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics), University of Oxford, Pain Research Unit, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK, OX3 7LE
| |
Collapse
|
180
|
McNicol ED, Ferguson MC, Schumann R. Methadone for neuropathic pain in adults. THE COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS 2017. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012499] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
|
181
|
Tamburin S, Paolucci S, Smania N, Sandrini G. The burden of chronic pain and the role of neurorehabilitation: consensus matters where evidence is lacking. J Pain Res 2017; 10:101-103. [PMID: 28115869 PMCID: PMC5222568 DOI: 10.2147/jpr.s125715] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Stefano Tamburin
- Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Verona
| | | | - Nicola Smania
- Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Verona; Neuromotor and Cognitive Rehabilitation Research Centre, University of Verona, Verona
| | - Giorgio Sandrini
- C. Mondino National Institute of Neurology Foundation, IRCCS; Department of Brain and Behavioural Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
182
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND This review replaces part of an earlier review that evaluated gabapentin for both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, now split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review will consider pain in fibromyalgia only.Fibromyalgia is associated with widespread pain lasting longer than three months, and is frequently associated with symptoms such as poor sleep, fatigue, depression, and reduced quality of life. Fibromyalgia is more common in women.Gabapentin is an antiepileptic drug widely licensed for treatment of neuropathic pain. It is not licensed for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but is commonly used because fibromyalgia can respond to the same medicines as neuropathic pain. OBJECTIVES To assess the analgesic efficacy of gabapentin for fibromyalgia pain in adults and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid and Embase via Ovid from inception to 24 May 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised, double-blind trials of eight weeks' duration or longer for treating fibromyalgia pain in adults, comparing gabapentin with placebo or an active comparator. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two independent review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality and risk of bias. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS Two studies tested gabapentin to treat fibromyalgia pain. One was identified in previous versions of the review and is included here. We identified another study as a conference abstract, with insufficient detail to determine eligibility for inclusion; it is awaiting assessment. The one included study of 150 participants was a 12-week, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study using last-observation-carried-forward imputation for withdrawals. The maximum dose was 2400 mg daily. The overall risk of bias was low, except for attrition bias.At the end of the trial, the outcome of 50% reduction in pain over baseline was not reported. The outcome of 30% or greater reduction in pain over baseline was achieved by 38/75 participants (49%) with gabapentin compared with 23/75 (31%) with placebo (very low quality). A patient global impression of change any category of "better" was achieved by 68/75 (91%) with gabapentin and 35/75 (47%) with placebo (very low quality).Nineteen participants discontinued the study because of adverse events: 12 in the gabapentin group (16%) and 7 in the placebo group (9%) (very low quality). The number of serious adverse events were not reported, and no deaths were reported (very low quality). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We have only very low quality evidence and are very uncertain about estimates of benefit and harm because of a small amount of data from a single trial. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that gabapentin reduces pain in fibromyalgia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tess E Cooper
- Pain Research Unit, Churchill HospitalCochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care GroupChurchill HospitalOxfordOxfordshireUKOX3 7LE
| | - Sheena Derry
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)Pain Research UnitChurchill HospitalOxfordOxfordshireUKOX3 7LE
| | - Philip J Wiffen
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)Pain Research UnitChurchill HospitalOxfordOxfordshireUKOX3 7LE
| | - R Andrew Moore
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)Pain Research UnitChurchill HospitalOxfordOxfordshireUKOX3 7LE
| | | |
Collapse
|
183
|
Wiffen PJ, Knaggs R, Derry S, Cole P, Phillips T, Moore RA. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) with or without codeine or dihydrocodeine for neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 12:CD012227. [PMID: 28027389 PMCID: PMC6463878 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012227.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Paracetamol, either alone or in combination with codeine or dihydrocodeine, is commonly used to treat chronic neuropathic pain. This review sought evidence for efficacy and harm from randomised double-blind studies. OBJECTIVES To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of paracetamol with or without codeine or dihydrocodeine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to July 2016, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing paracetamol, alone or in combination with codeine or dihydrocodeine, with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS No study satisfied the inclusion criteria. Effects of interventions were not assessed as there were no included studies. We have only very low quality evidence and have no reliable indication of the likely effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that paracetamol alone, or in combination with codeine or dihydrocodeine, works in any neuropathic pain condition.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Roger Knaggs
- University of NottinghamSchool of PharmacyUniversity ParkNottinghamUKNG7 2RD
| | | | - Peter Cole
- Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS TrustOxford Pain Relief UnitOld Road HeadingtonOxfordUKOX3 7LE
| | - Tudor Phillips
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)Churchill HospitalOxfordUKOX3 7LJ
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
184
|
Johnson S, Goebel A, Richey R, Holmes E, Hughes D. A randomised, patient-assessor blinded, sham-controlled trial of external non-invasive peripheral nerve stimulation for chronic neuropathic pain following peripheral nerve injury (EN-PENS trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2016; 17:574. [PMID: 27919285 PMCID: PMC5139024 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-016-1709-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2016] [Accepted: 11/15/2016] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Eight percent of people in the UK are estimated to have persistent (chronic) neuropathic pain, and for many there is no effective treatment. Medications are the most common first-line treatment but often have limited benefit or adverse events. Surgical treatments, such as spinal cord stimulation, are then often considered. External non-invasive peripheral nerve stimulation (EN-PENS) is a form of electrical stimulation that involves placing a pen-shaped electrode onto the skin, which can be easily self-administered by patients. Observational studies suggest that EN-PENS may relieve pain for people with localised neuropathic pain; however, there is currently no evidence from controlled trials to confirm the efficacy and confidently determine the effect size for patients with longstanding neuropathic pain. Methods EN-PENS is a single-site, blinded, randomised controlled parallel-group superiority add-on trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio, designed to evaluate the efficacy of treatment versus control treatment in 76 patients with longstanding neuropathic pain following peripheral nerve injury. Patients with moderate to -severe neuropathic pain following peripheral nerve injury will be randomised to receive either the active or control treatment, followed by an optional treatment extension or treatment switch to the alternative treatment arm. The primary outcome is average 24-h pain intensity recorded on an 11-point (0–10) numerical rating scale, averaged over the last 7 days of treatment. Discussion Study results will be used to inform potential treatment efficacy and cost-effectiveness of EN-PENS for this population group. Trial registration ISRCTN53432663. Registered on 7 July 2016.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Selina Johnson
- The Walton Centre NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK. .,The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK.
| | - Andreas Goebel
- The Walton Centre NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK.,The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK
| | | | - Emily Holmes
- Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2PZ, UK
| | - Dyfrig Hughes
- Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2PZ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
185
|
Derry S, Stannard C, Cole P, Wiffen PJ, Knaggs R, Aldington D, Moore RA. Fentanyl for neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 10:CD011605. [PMID: 27727431 PMCID: PMC6457928 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011605.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Opioid drugs, including fentanyl, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for fentanyl, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews. OBJECTIVES To assess the analgesic efficacy of fentanyl for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to June 2016, together with the reference lists of retrieved articles, and two online study registries. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing fentanyl (in any dose, administered by any route, and in any formulation) with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS Only one study met our inclusion criteria. Participants were men and women (mean age 67 years), with postherpetic neuralgia, complex regional pain syndrome, or chronic postoperative pain. They were experiencing inadequate relief from non-opioid analgesics, and had not previously taken opioids for their neuropathic pain. The study used an enriched enrolment randomised withdrawal design. It was adequately blinded, but we judged it at unclear risk of bias for other criteria.Transdermal fentanyl (one-day fentanyl patch) was titrated over 10 to 29 days to establish the maximum tolerated and effective dose (12.5 to 50 µg/h). Participants who achieved a prespecified good level of pain relief with a stable dose of fentanyl, without excessive use of rescue medication or intolerable adverse events ('responders'), were randomised to continue with fentanyl or switch to placebo for 12 weeks, under double-blind conditions. Our prespecified primary outcomes were not appropriate for this study design, but the measures reported do give an indication of the efficacy of fentanyl in this condition.In the titration phase, 1 in 3 participants withdrew because of adverse events or inadequate pain relief, and almost 90% experienced adverse events. Of 258 participants who underwent open-label titration, 163 were 'responders' and entered the randomised withdrawal phase. The number of participants completing the study (and therefore continuing on treatment) without an increase of pain by more than 15/100 was 47/84 (56%) with fentanyl and 28/79 (35%) with placebo. Because only 63% responded sufficiently to enter the randomised withdrawal phase, this implies that only a maximum of 35% of participants entering the study would have had useful pain relief and tolerability with transdermal fentanyl, compared with 22% with placebo. Almost 60% of participants taking fentanyl were 'satisfied' and 'very satisfied' with their treatment at the end of the study, compared with about 40% with placebo. This outcome approximates to our primary outcome of moderate benefit using the Patient Global Impression of Change scale, but the group was enriched for responders and the method of analysis was not clear. The most common adverse events were constipation, nausea, somnolence, and dizziness.There was no information about other types of neuropathic pain, other routes of administration, or comparisons with other treatments.We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low because there was only one study, with few participants and events, and there was no information about how data from people who withdrew were analysed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that fentanyl works in any neuropathic pain condition.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Cathy Stannard
- NHS Gloucestershire CCGSanger House, 5220 Valiant CourtGloucester Business ParkBrockworthUKGL3 4FE
| | - Peter Cole
- Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS TrustOxford Pain Relief UnitOld Road HeadingtonOxfordUKOX3 7LE
| | | | - Roger Knaggs
- University of NottinghamSchool of PharmacyUniversity ParkNottinghamUKNG7 2RD
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
186
|
Derry S, Cording M, Wiffen PJ, Law S, Phillips T, Moore RA. Pregabalin for pain in fibromyalgia in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 9:CD011790. [PMID: 27684492 PMCID: PMC6457745 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011790.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This review updates part of an earlier Cochrane review on 'Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults' (Moore 2009), and considers only fibromyalgia pain.Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s. Pregabalin is an antiepileptic drug also used in management of chronic pain conditions, including fibromyalgia. Pain response with pregabalin is associated with major benefits for other symptoms, and improved quality of life and function in people with chronic painful conditions. OBJECTIVES To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of pregabalin for pain in fibromyalgia in adults, compared with placebo or any active comparator. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomised controlled trials from inception to May 2009 for the original review and to 16 March 2016 for this update. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised, double-blind trials of eight weeks' duration or longer, comparing pregabalin with placebo or another active treatment for relief of pain in fibromyalgia, and reporting on the analgesic effect of pregabalin, with subjective pain assessment by the participant. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)) or substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on PGIC). Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat (NNT), using standard methods. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS Our searches identified two new published studies with classic design, and one new published study with an enriched enrolment randomised withdrawal (EERW) design.We included eight studies. Five (3283 participants) had a classic design in which participants were randomised at the start of the study to pregabalin (150, 300, 450, or 600 mg daily) or placebo, with assessment after 8 to 13 weeks of stable treatment. No studies included active comparators. Studies had low risk of bias, except that the last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation method used in analyses of the primary outcomes could overestimate treatment effect.Pregabalin increased the number of participants experiencing substantial benefit (at least 50% pain intensity reduction after 12 or 13 weeks' stable treatment (450 mg: RR 1.8, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.1, 1874 participants, 5 studies, high quality evidence)). Substantial benefit with pregabalin 300 to 600 mg was experienced by about 14% of participants with placebo, but about 9% more with pregabalin 300 to 600 mg (22% to 24%) (high quality evidence). Pregabalin increased the number of participants experiencing moderate benefit (at least 30% pain intensity reduction after 12 or 13 weeks' stable treatment) (450 mg: RR 1.5, 95% CI (1.3 to 1.7), 1874 participants, 5 studies, high quality evidence). Moderate benefit with pregabalin 300 to 600 mg was experienced by about 28% of participants with placebo, but about 11% more with pregabalin 300 to 600 mg (39% to 43%) (high quality evidence). A similar magnitude of effect was found using PGIC of 'very much improved' and 'much or very much improved'. NNTs for these outcomes ranged between 7 and 14 (high quality evidence).A small study (177 participants) compared nightly with twice-daily pregabalin, and concluded there was no difference in effect.Two studies (1492 participants began initial dose titration, 687 participants randomised) had an EERW design in which those with good pain relief after titration were randomised, double blind, to continuing the effective dose (300 to 600 mg pregabalin daily) or a short down-titration to placebo for 13 or 26 weeks. We calculated the outcome of maintained therapeutic response (MTR) without withdrawal, equivalent to a moderate benefit. Of those randomised, 40% had MTR with pregabalin and 20% with placebo (high quality evidence). The NNT was 5, but normalised to the starting population tested it was 12. About 10% of the initial population would have achieved the MTR outcome, similar to the result from studies of classic design. MTR had no imputation concerns.The majority (70% to 90%) of participants in all treatment groups experienced adverse events. Specific adverse events were more common with pregabalin than placebo, in particular dizziness, somnolence, weight gain, and peripheral oedema, with number needed to harm of 3.7, 7.4, 18, and 19 respectively for all doses combined (high quality evidence). Serious adverse events did not differ between active treatment groups and placebo (very low quality evidence). Withdrawals for any reason were more common with pregabalin than placebo only with the 600 mg dose in studies of classic design. Withdrawals due to adverse events were about 10% higher with pregabalin than placebo, but withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were about 6% lower (high quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Pregabalin 300 to 600 mg produces a major reduction in pain intensity over 12 to 26 weeks with tolerable adverse events for a small proportion of people (about 10% more than placebo) with moderate or severe pain due to fibromyalgia. The degree of pain relief is known to be accompanied by improvements in other symptoms, quality of life, and function. These results are similar to other effective medicines in fibromyalgia (milnacipran, duloxetine).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Simon Law
- The Churchill HospitalPain Relief UnitOxfordUKOX3 7LE
| | - Tudor Phillips
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)Churchill HospitalOxfordUKOX3 7LJ
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
187
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND This review replaces part of an earlier review that evaluated oxycodone for both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, which has now been split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review will consider pain in fibromyalgia only.Opioid drugs are commonly used to treat fibromyalgia, but they may not be beneficial for people with this condition. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for oxycodone, at any dose, and by any route of administration. OBJECTIVES To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of oxycodone for treating pain in fibromyalgia in adults. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomised controlled trials from inception to 25 July 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA We planned to include randomised, double-blind trials of eight weeks' duration or longer, comparing oxycodone (alone or in fixed-dose combination with naloxone) with placebo or another active treatment. We did not include observational studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The plan was for two independent review authors to extract data and assess trial quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. MAIN RESULTS No study satisfied the inclusion criteria. Effects of interventions were not assessed as there were no included studies. We have only very low quality evidence and are very uncertain about estimates of benefit and harm. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is no randomised trial evidence to support or refute the suggestion that oxycodone, alone or in combination with naloxone, reduces pain in fibromyalgia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helen Gaskell
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)OxfordOxfordshireUK
| | - R Andrew Moore
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)OxfordOxfordshireUK
| | - Sheena Derry
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)OxfordOxfordshireUK
| | - Cathy Stannard
- Frenchay HospitalPain Clinic, Macmillan CentreBristolUKBS16 1LE
| | | |
Collapse
|
188
|
Brief Psychological and Hypnotic Interventions in Chronic Pain Management. JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY PSYCHOTHERAPY 2016. [DOI: 10.1007/s10879-016-9327-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
|
189
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND This is an update of an earlier review that considered both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia (Issue 6, 2014), which has now been split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review considers neuropathic pain only.Opioid drugs, including oxycodone, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for oxycodone, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Separate reviews consider other opioids. OBJECTIVES To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of oxycodone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 6 November 2013 for the original review and from January 2013 to 21 December 2015 for this update. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and two online clinical trial registries. This update differs from the earlier review in that we have included studies using oxycodone in combination with naloxone, and oxycodone used as add-on treatment to stable, but inadequate, treatment with another class of drug. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any dose or formulation of oxycodone with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS The updated searches identified one additional published study, and one clinical trial registry report. We included five studies reporting on 687 participants; 637 had painful diabetic neuropathy and 50 had postherpetic neuralgia. Two studies used a cross-over design and three used a parallel group design; all studies used a placebo comparator, although one study used an active placebo (benztropine). Modified-release oxycodone (oxycodone MR) was titrated to effect and tolerability. One study used a fixed dose combination of oxycodone MR and naloxone. Two studies added oxycodone therapy to ongoing, stable treatment with either pregabalin or gabapentin. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study reported the proportion of participants experiencing 'substantial benefit' (at least 50% pain relief or who were very much improved). Three studies (537 participants) in painful diabetic neuropathy reported outcomes equivalent to 'moderate benefit' (at least 30% pain relief or who were much or very much improved), which was experienced by 44% of participants with oxycodone and 27% with placebo (number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) 5.7).All studies reported group mean pain scores at the end of treatment. Three studies reported a greater pain intensity reduction and better patient satisfaction with oxycodone MR alone than with placebo. There was a similar result in the study adding oxycodone MR to stable, ongoing gabapentin, but adding oxycodone MR plus naloxone to stable, ongoing pregabalin did not show any additional effect.More participants experienced adverse events with oxycodone MR alone (86%) than with placebo (63%); the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNH) was 4.3. Serious adverse events (oxycodone 3.4%, placebo 7.0%) and adverse event withdrawals (oxycodone 11%, placebo 6.4%) were not significantly different between groups. Withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were less frequent with oxycodone MR (1.1%) than placebo (11%), with a number needed to treat to prevent one withdrawal of 10. The add-on studies reported similar results.We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low for all outcomes, due to limitations in the study methods, heterogeneity in the pain condition and study methods, and sparse data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There was only very low quality evidence that oxycodone (as oxycodone MR) is of value in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia. There was no evidence for other neuropathic pain conditions. Adverse events typical of opioids appeared to be common.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helen Gaskell
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)OxfordOxfordshireUK
| | - Sheena Derry
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)OxfordOxfordshireUK
| | - Cathy Stannard
- Frenchay HospitalPain Clinic, Macmillan CentreBristolUKBS16 1LE
| | - R Andrew Moore
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)OxfordOxfordshireUK
| | | |
Collapse
|
190
|
Els C, Hagtvedt R, Kunyk D, Sonnenberg B, Lappi VG, Straube S. High-dose opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane reviews. THE COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS 2016. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012299] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
|
191
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep problems and fatigue affecting approximately 2% of the general population. People often report high disability levels and poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Drug therapy focuses on reducing key symptoms and disability, and improving HRQoL. Cannabis has been used for millennia to reduce pain and other somatic and psychological symptoms. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabinoids for fibromyalgia symptoms in adults. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE to April 2016, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, three clinical trial registries, and contact with trial authors. SELECTION CRITERIA We selected randomised controlled trials of at least four weeks' duration of any formulation of cannabis products used for the treatment of adults with fibromyalgia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted the data of all included studies and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence was derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for drop-outs; at least 200 participants in the comparison, eight to 12 weeks' duration, parallel design), second tier evidence from data that did not meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers (i.e. data from at least 200 participants) in the comparison, and third tier evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). MAIN RESULTS We included two studies with 72 participants. Overall, the two studies were at moderate risk of bias. The evidence was derived from group mean data and completer analysis (very low quality evidence overall). We rated the quality of all outcomes according to GRADE as very low due to indirectness, imprecision and potential reporting bias.The primary outcomes in our review were participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) much or very much improved, withdrawal due to adverse events (tolerability) and serious adverse events (safety). Nabilone was compared to placebo and to amitriptyline in one study each. Study sizes were 32 and 40 participants. One study used a cross-over design and one used a parallel group design; study duration was four or six weeks. Both studies used nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, with a bedtime dosage of 1 mg/day. No study reported the proportion of participants experiencing at least 30% or 50% pain relief or who were very much improved. No study provided first or second tier (high to moderate quality) evidence for an outcome of efficacy, tolerability and safety. Third tier (very low quality) evidence indicated greater reduction of pain and limitations of HRQoL compared to placebo in one study. There were no significant differences to placebo noted for fatigue and depression (very low quality evidence). Third tier evidence indicated better effects of nabilone on sleep than amitriptyline (very low quality evidence). There were no significant differences between the two drugs noted for pain, mood and HRQoL (very low quality evidence). More participants dropped out due to adverse events in the nabilone groups (4/52 participants) than in the control groups (1/20 in placebo and 0/32 in amitriptyline group). The most frequent adverse events were dizziness, nausea, dry mouth and drowsiness (six participants with nabilone). Neither study reported serious adverse events during the period of both studies. We planned to create a GRADE 'Summary of findings' table, but due to the scarcity of data we were unable to do this. We found no relevant study with herbal cannabis, plant-based cannabinoids or synthetic cannabinoids other than nabilone in fibromyalgia. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We found no convincing, unbiased, high quality evidence suggesting that nabilone is of value in treating people with fibromyalgia. The tolerability of nabilone was low in people with fibromyalgia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brian Walitt
- National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD, USA, 20892
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
192
|
Cao J, He Y, Liu H, Wang S, Zhao B, Zheng X, Yang K, Xie D. Effectiveness of Percutaneous Celiac Plexus Ablation in the Treatment of Severe Cancer Pain in Upper Abdomen and Evaluation of Health Economics. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 2016; 34:142-147. [PMID: 26764345 DOI: 10.1177/1049909115625954] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective: To compare the effectiveness, adverse effects, and cost-effectiveness of percutaneous neurolytic celiac plexus block (NCPB) versus traditional medication strategies for the treatment of patients with advanced cancer having severe upper abdominal cancer pain. Methods: This retrospective study included 81 patients with advanced upper abdominal cancer admitted to The Sixth People’s Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University between January 2013 and July 2014. The patients were divided into percutaneous NCPB (treatment) and medication for pain (control) groups. The outcomes were measured in terms of Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score and Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) score before treatment and on the 3rd, 7th, 14th, and 28th days posttreatment. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the therapy were assessed using analysis of the health economics. Results: The improvements in NRS score (1.42 ± 1.09 vs 4.03 ± 0.96, P < .01) and KPS score (65.55 ± 9.09 vs 63.03 ± 8.961, P < .01) in the treatment group were significantly superior compared to the control group on the 7th day of treatment, followed by no significant difference between the 2 groups on the 14th and the 28th day of treatment. Health economics evaluation revealed that the medicine-specific costs and total health care costs were significantly reduced in the treatment group compared to the control group ( P < .05), but no significant differences between the 2 groups ( P > .05) were seen in the costs of hospitalization, examinations, and treatment. Conclusion: The percutaneous NCPB method shows promising results and better cost-effectiveness for treating patients with advanced cancer having severe upper abdominal pain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jun Cao
- Department of Interventional Oncology, Dahua Hospital, Xuhui District, Shanghai, China
| | - Yang He
- Department of Interventional Oncology, Dahua Hospital, Xuhui District, Shanghai, China
| | - Hongqiang Liu
- Department of Interventional Oncology, Dahua Hospital, Xuhui District, Shanghai, China
| | - Saibo Wang
- Department of Interventional Oncology, Dahua Hospital, Xuhui District, Shanghai, China
| | - Baocheng Zhao
- Department of Interventional Oncology, Dahua Hospital, Xuhui District, Shanghai, China
| | - Xiaohui Zheng
- Department of Interventional Oncology, Dahua Hospital, Xuhui District, Shanghai, China
| | - Kai Yang
- Department of Interventional Radiology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People’s Hospital, Xuhui District, Shanghai, China
| | - Donghao Xie
- Department of Interventional Oncology, Dahua Hospital, Xuhui District, Shanghai, China
| |
Collapse
|
193
|
La Frenais F, Stone P, Sampson EL. Analgesic prescribing in care home residents: how epidemiological studies may inform clinical practice. Pain Manag 2016; 6:561-568. [PMID: 27383004 DOI: 10.2217/pmt-2016-0008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Care home residents are often frail with multiple comorbidities and cognitive impairment, most commonly caused by dementia. This population is under-represented in clinical trials, leading to a lack of valid and reliable evidence to inform clinicians' prescribing practice. This paper summarizes how epidemiological research conducted in similar populations can inform pain management by describing pain prevalence, risk factors, typical features and functional consequences. This evidence can help overcome the numerous barriers to optimal pain management in care home residents.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesca La Frenais
- Division of Psychiatry, University College London, 6th Floor, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 7NF, UK.,Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, 6th Floor, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 7NF, UK
| | - Patrick Stone
- Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, 6th Floor, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 7NF, UK
| | - Elizabeth L Sampson
- Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, 6th Floor, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 7NF, UK.,Barnet Enfield & Haringey Mental Health Trust Liaison Team, North Middlesex University Hospital, Sterling Way, London, N18 1QX, UK
| |
Collapse
|
194
|
Peacock A, Nielsen S, Bruno R, Campbell G, Larance B, Degenhardt L. Geographic Variation in Health Service Use and Perceived Access Barriers for Australian Adults with Chronic Non-Cancer Pain Receiving Opioid Therapy. PAIN MEDICINE 2016; 17:2003-2016. [PMID: 27288946 DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnw109] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Rates of chronic non-cancer pain are increasing worldwide, with concerns regarding poorer access to specialist treatment services in remote areas. The current study comprised the first in-depth examination of use and barriers to access of health services in Australia according to remoteness. METHODS A cohort of Australian adults prescribed pharmaceutical opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (n = 1,235) were interviewed between August 2012 and April 2014, and grouped into 'major city' (49%), 'inner regional' (37%), and 'outer regional/remote' (14%) according to the Australian Standard Geographical Classification based on postcode. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine geographical differences in socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, health service use, and perceived barriers to health service access. RESULTS The 'inner regional group' and 'outer regional/remote group' were more likely to be male (relative risk ratio (RRR)=1.38,95%CI 1.08-1.77 and RRR = 1.60, 95%CI 1.14-2.24) and have no private health insurance (RRR = 1.53, 95%CI 1.19-1.97 and RRR = 1.65, 95%CI 1.16-2.37) than the 'major city group' (49%). However, the 'inner regional group' reported lower pain severity and better mental health relative to the 'major city group' = 0.92, 95%CI 0.86-0.98 and RRR = 1.02, 95%CI 1.01-1.03, respectively). Although rates of health service access were generally similar, the 'outer regional/remote group' were more likely to report client-practitioner communication problems (RRR = 1.57, 95%CI 1.03-2.37), difficulties accessing specialists (RRR = 1.56, 95%CI 1.01-2.39), and perception of practitioner lack of confidence in prescribing pain medication (RRR = 1.73, 1.14-2.62), relative to both groups. CONCLUSION Perceived communication, access, and financial barriers to healthcare indicate the need for increased efforts to address geographic inequality in pain treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amy Peacock
- School of Medicine (Psychology), University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia .,National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Suzanne Nielsen
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Raimondo Bruno
- School of Medicine (Psychology), University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
| | - Gabrielle Campbell
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Briony Larance
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Louisa Degenhardt
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
195
|
Wiffen PJ, Knaggs R, Derry S, Cole P, Phillips T, Moore RA. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) with or without codeine or dihydrocodeine for neuropathic pain in adults. THE COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS 2016. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012227] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
|
196
|
Sadeghy A, Mohamadian R, Rahmani A, Fizollah-zadeh H, Jabarzadeh F, Azadi A, Rostami H. Nurse Attitude-Related Barriers to Effective Control of Cancer Pain among Iranian Nurses. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2016; 17:2141-4. [DOI: 10.7314/apjcp.2016.17.4.2141] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
|
197
|
Stannard C, Gaskell H, Derry S, Aldington D, Cole P, Cooper TE, Knaggs R, Wiffen PJ, Moore RA. Hydromorphone for neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 2016:CD011604. [PMID: 27216018 PMCID: PMC6491092 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011604.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Opioid drugs, including hydromorphone, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for hydromorphone, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews.This review is part of an update of a previous review, Hydromorphone for acute and chronic pain that was withdrawn in 2013 because it needed updating and splitting to be more specific for different pain conditions. This review focuses only on neuropathic pain. OBJECTIVES To assess the analgesic efficacy of hydromorphone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), via the CRSO; MEDLINE via Ovid; and EMBASE via Ovid from inception to 17 November 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing hydromorphone (at any dose, by any route of administration, or in any formulation) with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). MAIN RESULTS Searches identified seven publications relating to four studies. We excluded three studies. One post hoc (secondary) analysis of a study published in four reports assessed the efficacy of hydromorphone in neuropathic pain, satisfied our inclusion criteria, and was included in the review. The single included study had an enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal design with 94 participants who were successfully switched from oral morphine to oral hydromorphone extended release (about 60% of those enrolled). These participants were then randomised to continuing hydromorphone for 12 weeks or tapering down the hydromorphone dose to placebo. The methodological quality of the study was generally good, but we judged the risk of bias for incomplete outcome data as unclear, and for study size as high.Since we identified only one study for inclusion, we were unable to carry out any analyses. The included study did not report any of our prespecified primary outcomes, which relate to the number of participants achieving moderate or substantial levels of pain relief. It did report a slightly larger increase in average pain intensity for placebo in the randomised withdrawal phase than for continuing with hydromorphone. It also reported the number of participants who withdrew due to lack of efficacy in the randomised withdrawal phase, which may be an indicator of efficacy. However, in addition to using an enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal study design, there was an unusual choice of imputation methods for withdrawals (about 50% of participants); the evidence was of very low quality and inadequate to make a judgement on efficacy. Adverse events occurred in about half of participants with hydromorphone, the most common being constipation and nausea. A similar proportion of participants experienced adverse events with placebo, the most common being opioid withdrawal syndrome (very low quality evidence). Most adverse events were mild or moderate in intensity. One in eight participants withdrew while taking hydromorphone during the conversion and titration phase, despite participants being opioid-tolerant (very low quality evidence).We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low because there was only one study with few participants, it did not report clinically useful efficacy outcomes, and it was a post hoc analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that hydromorphone has any efficacy in any neuropathic pain condition.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cathy Stannard
- NHS Gloucestershire CCGSanger House, 5220 Valiant CourtGloucester Business ParkBrockworthUKGL3 4FE
| | - Helen Gaskell
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)OxfordOxfordshireUK
| | - Sheena Derry
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)OxfordOxfordshireUK
| | | | - Peter Cole
- Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS TrustOxford Pain Relief UnitOld Road HeadingtonOxfordUKOX3 7LE
| | - Tess E Cooper
- Pain Research Unit, Churchill HospitalCochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care GroupChurchill HospitalOxfordOxfordshireUKOX3 7LE
| | - Roger Knaggs
- University of NottinghamSchool of PharmacyUniversity ParkNottinghamUKNG7 2RD
| | - Philip J Wiffen
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)OxfordOxfordshireUK
| | - R Andrew Moore
- University of OxfordPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics)OxfordOxfordshireUK
| | | |
Collapse
|
198
|
Mücke M, Phillips T, Radbruch L, Petzke F, Häuser W. Cannabinoids for chronic neuropathic pain. Hippokratia 2016. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012182] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Martin Mücke
- University Hospital of Bonn; Department of Palliative Medicine; Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25 Bonn Germany 53127
| | - Tudor Phillips
- University of Oxford; Pain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics); Churchill Hospital Oxford UK OX3 7LJ
| | - Lukas Radbruch
- University Hospital of Bonn; Department of Palliative Medicine; Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25 Bonn Germany 53127
| | - Frank Petzke
- Universitätsmedizin Göttingen; Pain Clinic; Göttingen Germany
| | - Winfried Häuser
- Technische Universität München; Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy; Langerstr. 3 München Germany D-81675
| |
Collapse
|
199
|
|
200
|
Systematic review of enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal trial designs in chronic pain: a new framework for design and reporting. Pain 2016; 156:1382-1395. [PMID: 25985142 DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000088] [Citation(s) in RCA: 53] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
Enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal (EERW) pain trials select, before randomisation, patients who respond by demonstrating a predetermined degree of pain relief and acceptance of adverse events. There is uncertainty over the value of this design. We report a systematic review of EERW trials in chronic noncancer pain together with a critical appraisal of methods and potential biases in the methods used and recommendations for the design and reporting of future EERW trials. Electronic and other searches found 25 EERW trials published between 1995 and June 2014, involving 5669 patients in a randomised withdrawal phase comparing drug with placebo; 13 (median, 107 patients) had a randomised withdrawal phase of 6 weeks or less, and 12 (median, 334) lasted 12 to 26 weeks. Risks of bias included short duration, inadequate outcome definition, incomplete outcome data reporting, small size, and inadequate dose tapering on randomisation to placebo. Active treatment was usually better than placebo (22/25 trials). This review reduces the uncertainty around the value of EERW trials in pain. If properly designed, conducted, and reported, they are feasible and useful for making decisions about pain therapies. Shorter, small studies can be explanatory; longer, larger studies can inform practice. Current evidence is inadequate for valid comparisons in outcome between EERW and classical trials, although no gross differences were found. This systematic review provides a framework for assessing potential biases and the value of the EERW trials, and for the design of future studies by making recommendations for the conduct and reporting of EERW trials.
Collapse
|