What works for whom? Determining the efficacy and harm of treatments for pain

Proof of concept of prehabilitation: a combination of education and behavioural change, to promote physical activity in people with fibromyalgia

OBJECTIVES

To establish proof of concept of a prehabilitation intervention, a combination of education and behavioural change, preceding a physical activity programme in people with fibromyalgia (FM).

SETTINGS

Open-label, feasibility clinical trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Eleven people with FM (10 women).

INTERVENTIONS

The prehabilitation intervention consisted of 4 weeks, 1 weekly session (~1 to 1.5 hours), aimed to increase self-efficacy and understand why and how to engage in a gentle and self-paced physical activity programme (6 weeks of walking with telephone support).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was the acceptability and credibility of the intervention by means of the Credibility/Expectancy Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes comprised scales to measure FM severity, specific symptoms and sedentary behaviour. An exit interview was conducted to identify the strengths and weaknesses and barriers to the intervention.

RESULTS

One participant dropped out due to finding the walking programme excessively stressful. Participants expected the intervention would improve their symptoms by 22%-38% but resulted in 5%-26% improvements. Participants would be confident in recommending this intervention to a friend who experiences similar problems. The interviews suggested that the fluctuation of symptoms should be considered as an outcome and that the prehabilitation intervention should accomodate these fluctuation. Additional suggestions were to incorporate initial interviews (patient-centred approach), to tailor the programmes to individuals' priorities and to offer a variety of physical activity programmes to improve motivation.

CONCLUSIONS

This feasibility study demonstrated that our novel approach is acceptable to people with FM. Future interventions should pay attention to flexibility, symptoms fluctuation and patients support.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03764397.

Understanding the clinical profile of patients with frozen shoulder: a longitudinal multicentre observational study

INTRODUCTION

There is a large diversity in the clinical presentation of frozen shoulder (FS) and the clinical outcome is not always satisfactory. The aim of the current study was to examine to what extent range of motion (ROM) limitation, metabolic factors (diabetes mellitus and thyroid disorders), autonomic symptoms and pain sensitivity may contribute to the prognosis in terms of shoulder pain and disability and quality of life in patients with FS.

METHODS

Patients with stage 1 or 2 FS were longitudinally followed-up during 9 months after baseline assessment. They completed six questionnaires and underwent quantitative sensory testing (pressure pain thresholds, temporal summation and conditioned pain modulation) and ROM assessment.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-nine patients with FS were initially recruited and 121 completed at least one follow-up measurement. Shoulder pain and disability improved over time and diabetes mellitus was found to be a prognostic factor for final outcome. Several domains of quality of life also improved over time and external rotation ROM, diabetes mellitus, thyroid disorder and autonomic symptoms were found to be prognostic factors for final outcome. These prognostic factors explained 2.5%-6.3% of the final outcome of shoulder pain and disability and quality of life.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In patients with FS, prognostic variables were able to predict different outcomes, indicating that outcomes in this population can be variable-dependent. Other variables not explored in this study might contribute to the prognosis of patients with FS, which should be investigated in future research. In clinical practice, baseline assessment of prognostic factors and focusing on a more holistic approach might be useful to inform healthcare practitioners about progression of patients with FS during a 9-month period.

Opioid Use in Fibromyalgia Continues Despite Guidelines That Do Not Support Its Efficacy or Risk

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

The aim of this cross-sectional study is to determine the prevalence of opioid use in a large sample of fibromyalgia (FM) patients and examine the factors associated with opioid prescription/use despite multiple clinical guidelines that do not recommend opioid use in this population.

METHODS

Data were collected from a convenience sample of 698 patients admitted from August 2017 to May 2019 into an intensive 2-day Fibromyalgia Treatment Program at a tertiary medical center in the United States after FM diagnosis. Patients were administered the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire-Revised, the Center for Epidemiologic Study of Depression Scale, and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale upon admission to the program. Demographic information and opioid use were self-reported. Logistic regression analysis was utilized to determine associations between patient-related variables and opioid use in this prospective study.

RESULTS

Of 698 patients, 27.1% (n = 189) were taking opioids at intake. Extended duration of symptoms (>3 years), increased age, higher degree of functional impairment, and increased pain catastrophizing were significantly associated with opioid use.

CONCLUSIONS

Opioids are not recommended for the treatment of FM under current guidelines. Greater burden of illness appeared to be associated with the prescription and use of opioids in this population. These findings suggest that some providers may not be aware of current recommendations that have been found to be effective in the management of FM that are contained in guidelines. Alternative approaches to the management of FM that do not involve opioids are reviewed in an effort to improve care.

Trajectories of Disability and Low Back Pain Impact: 2-year Follow-up of the Groningen Spine Cohort

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify treatment response trajectories in patients with low back pain (LBP) during and after multidisciplinary care in a tertiary spine center, and to examine baseline patient characteristics that can distinguish trajectories.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Treatment response is often heterogeneous between patients with LBP. Knowledge on key characteristics that are associated with courses of disability could identify patients at risk for less favorable outcome. This knowledge will help improve shared decision-making.

METHODS

Adult patients with LBP completed questionnaires on disability (Pain Disability Index) and LBP impact (Impact Stratification of the National Institutes of Health minimal dataset) at baseline, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months' follow-up. Latent class analyses were applied to identify trajectories of disability and LBP impact. Baseline sociodemographic and clinical patient characteristics were compared between trajectory subgroups.

RESULTS

Follow-up was available for 996 patients on disability and 707 patients on LBP impact. Six trajectories were identified for both outcome measures. Three disability trajectories remained stable at distinct levels of severity (68% of patients) and three trajectories showed patterns of recovery (32%). For LBP impact there was one stable trajectory (17%), two slightly improving (59%), two recovering (15%), and one with a pattern of recovery and relapse (15%). Significant differences between trajectories were observed for almost all baseline patient characteristics.

CONCLUSION

On average, patients show moderate improvements in disability and LBP impact 2 years after visiting a multidisciplinary tertiary spine center. However, latent class analyses revealed that most patients belong to subgroups experiencing stable levels of disability and LBP impact. Differences in baseline patient characteristics were mostly associated with baseline levels of functioning, instead of (un)favorable outcome during follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Prevalence of Multiplicity and Appropriate Adjustments Among Cardiovascular Randomized Clinical Trials Published in Major Medical Journals

Importance

Multiple analyses in a clinical trial can increase the probability of inaccurately concluding that there is a statistically significant treatment effect. However, to date, it is unknown how many randomized clinical trials (RCTs) perform adjustments for multiple comparisons, the lack of which could lead to erroneous findings.

Objectives

To assess the prevalence of multiplicity and whether appropriate multiplicity adjustments were performed among cardiovascular RCTs published in 6 medical journals with a high impact factor.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study, cardiovascular RCTs were selected from all over the world, characterized as North America, Western Europe, multiregional, and rest of the world. Data were collected from past issues of 3 cardiovascular journals (Circulation, European Heart Journal, and Journal of the American College of Cardiology) and 3 general medicine journals (JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine) with high impact factors published between August 1, 2015, and July 31, 2018. Supplements and trial protocols of each of the included RCTs were also searched for multiplicity. Data were analyzed December 20 to 27, 2018.

Exposures

Data from the selected RCTs were extracted and verified independently by 2 researchers using a structured data instrument. In case of disagreement, a third reviewer helped to achieve consensus. An RCT was considered to have multiple treatment groups if it had more than 2 arms; multiple outcomes were defined as having more than 1 primary outcome, and multiple analyses were defined as analysis of the same outcome variable in multiple ways. Multiplicity was examined only for the analysis of the primary end point.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes of interest were percentages of primary analyses that performed multiplicity adjustment of primary end points.

Results

Of 511 cardiovascular RCTs included in this analysis, 300 (58.7%) had some form of multiplicity; of these 300, only 85 (28.3%) adjusted for multiplicity. Intervention type and funding source had no statistically significant association with the reporting of multiplicity risk adjustment. Trials that assessed mortality vs nonmortality outcomes were more likely to contain a multiplicity risk in their primary analysis (66.3% [177 of 267] vs 50.4% [123 of 244]; P < .001), and larger trials vs smaller trials were less likely to make any adjustments for multiplicity (35.6% [52 of 146] vs 21.4% [33 of 154]; P = .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings from this study suggest that cardiovascular RCTs published in medical journals with high impact factors demonstrate infrequent adjustments to correct for multiple comparisons in the primary end point. These parameters may be improved by more standardized reporting.

Are there really only 2 kinds of people in the world? Evaluating the distribution of change from baseline in pain clinical trials

It is often assumed that there are 2 types of pain patients: those who respond well to efficacious pain therapies and those who do not respond at all, with few people in the middle. This assumption is based on research that claims that changes in pain intensity have a bimodal distribution. The claim of bimodality has led to calls for a change in how pain clinical trials are designed and analyzed, eg, performing "responder" analyses instead of comparing group mean values to evaluate the treatment effect. We analyzed data from 4 clinical trials, 2 each of duloxetine and pregabalin, for chronic musculoskeletal and neuropathic pain conditions to critically examine the claim of bimodality of the distribution of change in pain intensity. We found that the improper construction of histograms, using unequal bin widths, was the principal flaw leading to the bimodality claim, along with the use of the oft-criticized baseline observation carried forward method for imputing missing data also serving as a contributing factor. Properly constructed histograms of absolute change in pain intensity using equal bin widths, combined with more principled methods for handling missing data, resulted in distributions that had a more unimodal appearance. Although our findings neither support nor refute the hypothesis that distinct populations of "responders" and "nonresponders" to pain interventions exist, the analyses presented in earlier work do not provide support for this hypothesis, nor for the recommendation that pain clinical trials prioritize "responder" analyses, a less efficient analysis strategy.

Pregabalin for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review updates part of an earlier Cochrane Review titled "Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults", and considers only neuropathic pain (pain from damage to nervous tissue). Antiepileptic drugs have long been used in pain management. Pregabalin is an antiepileptic drug used in management of chronic pain conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of pregabalin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2009 to April 2018, online clinical trials registries, and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing pregabalin (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 biases. Primary outcomes were: at least 30% pain intensity reduction over baseline; much or very much improved on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Scale (moderate benefit); at least 50% pain intensity reduction; or very much improved on PGIC (substantial benefit). We calculated risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial (NNTB) or harmful outcome (NNTH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 45 studies lasting 2 to 16 weeks, with 11,906 participants - 68% from 31 new studies. Oral pregabalin doses of 150 mg, 300 mg, and 600 mg daily were compared with placebo. Postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy, and mixed neuropathic pain predominated (85% of participants). High risk of bias was due mainly to small study size (nine studies), but many studies had unclear risk of bias, mainly due to incomplete outcome data, size, and allocation concealment.Postherpetic neuralgia: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (50% vs 25%; RR 2.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6 to 2.6); NNTB 3.9 (3.0 to 5.6); 3 studies, 589 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (32% vs 13%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.4); NNTB 5.3 (3.9 to 8.1); 4 studies, 713 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (62% vs 24%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.2); NNTB 2.7 (2.2 to 3.7); 3 studies, 537 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 15%; RR 2.7 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.5); NNTB 3.9 (3.1 to 5.5); 4 studies, 732 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 16% versus 5.5%, 600 mg 25% versus 5.8%; dizziness 300 mg 29% versus 8.1%, 600 mg 35% versus 8.8%.Painful diabetic neuropathy: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (47% vs 42%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.2); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 8 studies, 2320 participants, moderate-quality evidence), more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (31% vs 24%; RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.5); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 11 studies, 2931 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had PGIC much or very much improved (51% vs 30%; RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.0); NNTB 4.9 (3.8 to 6.9); 5 studies, 1050 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (63% vs 52%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.4); NNTB 9.6 (5.5 to 41); 2 studies, 611 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 28%; RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.7); NNTB 7.8 (5.4 to 14); 5 studies, 1015 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 11% versus 3.1%, 600 mg 15% versus 4.5%; dizziness 300 mg 13% versus 3.8%, 600 mg 22% versus 4.4%.Mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (48% vs 36%; RR 1.2 (1.1 to 1.4); NNTB 8.2 (5.7 to 15); 4 studies, 1367 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (34% vs 20%; RR 1.5 (1.2 to 1.9); NNTB 7.2 (5.4 to 11); 4 studies, 1367 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence (12% vs 3.9%) and dizziness (23% vs 6.2%) were more common with pregabalin.Central neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (44% vs 28%; RR 1.6 (1.3 to 2.0); NNTB 5.9 (4.1 to 11); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence) and at least 50% pain intensity reduction (26% vs 15%; RR 1.7 (1.2 to 2.3); NNTB 9.8 (6.0 to 28); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence (32% vs 11%) and dizziness (23% vs 8.6%) were more common with pregabalin.Other neuropathic pain conditions: Studies show no evidence of benefit for 600 mg pregabalin in HIV neuropathy (2 studies, 674 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and limited evidence of benefit in neuropathic back pain or sciatica, neuropathic cancer pain, or polyneuropathy.Serious adverse events, all conditions: Serious adverse events were no more common with placebo than with pregabalin 300 mg (3.1% vs 2.6%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 17 studies, 4112 participants, high-quality evidence) or pregabalin 600 mg (3.4% vs 3.4%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.5); 16 studies, 3995 participants, high-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence shows efficacy of pregabalin in postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuralgia, and mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain, and absence of efficacy in HIV neuropathy; evidence of efficacy in central neuropathic pain is inadequate. Some people will derive substantial benefit with pregabalin; more will have moderate benefit, but many will have no benefit or will discontinue treatment. There were no substantial changes since the 2009 review.

Current status of acceptance and commitment therapy for chronic pain: a narrative review

It is well known that chronic pain is prevalent, complex to manage, and associated with high costs, in health care and society in general. Thanks to advances in new forms of cognitive behavioral therapy (known as third-wave CBT), currently clinicians and researchers have an empirically validated psychological treatment with increasing research support for the treatment of chronic pain. This treatment is called acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). The main aim of this paper is to provide a narrative review that summarizes and integrates the current state of knowledge of ACT in the management of chronic pain as well as discuss current challenges and opportunities for progress. Based on the psychological flexibility model, ACT extends previous forms of CBT and integrates many CBT-related variables into six core therapeutic processes. ACT is a process-based therapy that fosters openness, awareness, and engagement through a wide range of methods, including exposure-based and experiential methods, metaphors, and values clarification. To our knowledge, there are three published systematic reviews and meta-analyses that support the effectiveness of ACT for chronic pain and many studies focused on specific processes derived from the psychological flexibility model. There is also promising support for the cost-effectiveness of ACT; however, the current evidence is still insufficient to establish firm conclusions about cost-effectiveness and the most efficient means of delivery. Additional well-designed economic evaluations are needed. Other research aims include delineating the neurobiological underpinnings of ACT, refining available outcome and process measures or develop new ones for ACT trials, and meeting the challenge of wide dissemination and implementation in real-world clinical practice.

Association of Depression/Anxiety Symptoms with Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Literature in China

Background

Due to its high morbidity and prevalence, the potential relationships of depression/anxiety symptoms in neck pain (NP) are not well demonstrated.

Objectives

This study aimed to conduct a comprehensive estimation of controlled trials of psychological problems and to test hypotheses concerning whether NP was statistically relative to anxiety/depression symptoms.

Methods

Chinese literature databases such as the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP Information (VIP), Chinese Biomedicine (CBM), and Wanfang Data (WANFANG) were scientifically searched for reports published until February 5, 2018. Controlled trials incorporating NP patients with anxiety/depression versus healthy people were contained. Two researchers screened each article and extracted data, respectively, and blinded to the findings of each other. Meta-analysis was conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.3 and Stata 14.0 (Stata Corp LP, USA) software.

Results

We identified 13 eligible studies involving 2339 patients and 3290 healthy people. Compared with healthy control participants, the findings indicated that depression/anxiety symptoms were more common or severe in NP patients (respectively, SMD = 0.89; 95% CI = (0.58, 1.20); P < 0.01 and SMD = 0.92; 95% CI = (0.65, 1.20); and P < 0.01), results from the pooled data demonstrated no statistical significance between depression/anxiety symptoms and gender in NP patients (resp., SMD = 0.16; 95% CI = (-0.18, 0.51); P=0.35 and SMD = -0.08; 95% CI = (-0.42, 0.27); and P=0.67), and the combined data of the incidence of depression or anxiety symptoms revealed significant difference between NP patients and healthy persons (resp., RR = 4.81; 95% CI = (3.30, 7.01); P < 0.01 and RR = 3.29; 95% CI = (2.16, 5.00); and P < 0.01). In addition, we did not find articles that met the inclusion criteria, which compared NP patients with other physical illnesses in terms of anxiety/depression symptoms.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis suggests that anxiety/depression symptoms are associated with high morbidity in NP patients. We consider these reports support the viewpoint that nonspecific mechanisms mediate mental disturbances in NP. This study may have clinical value for NP, offering an underlying target for the prevention and treatment of anxiety/depression.

Emotional awareness and expression therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and education for fibromyalgia: a cluster-randomized controlled trial

Patients with fibromyalgia (FM) experience increased lifetime levels of psychosocial adversity, trauma, and emotional conflict. To address these risk factors, we developed emotion awareness and expression therapy (EAET) and tested its benefits against an active control condition, FM education, and the field's gold standard intervention for FM, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for symptom management. Adults with FM (N = 230) formed 40 treatment groups, which were randomized to EAET, CBT, or education and given 8, 90-minute sessions. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed at baseline, posttreatment, and 6-month follow-up (primary end point). Retention of patients to follow-up was excellent (90.4%). Intent-to-treat analyses indicated that although EAET did not differ from FM education on pain severity (primary outcome), EAET had significantly better outcomes than FM education on overall symptoms, widespread pain, physical functioning, cognitive dysfunction, anxiety, depression, positive affect, and life satisfaction (between-condition d's ranging from 0.29-0.45 SD) and the percentage of patients reporting being "very much/much" improved (34.8% vs 15.4%). Emotional awareness and expression therapy did not differ from CBT on the primary or most secondary outcomes, but compared to CBT, EAET led to significantly lower FM symptoms (d = 0.35) and widespread pain (d = 0.37) and a higher percentage of patients achieving 50% pain reduction (22.5% vs 8.3%). In summary, an intervention targeting emotional awareness and expression related to psychosocial adversity and conflict was well received, more effective than a basic educational intervention, and had some advantages over CBT on pain. We conclude that EAET should be considered as an additional treatment option for FM.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2010, Issue 9, and last updated in 2014, Issue 4. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive cortical stimulation techniques in the treatment of chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers from July 2013 to October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS, RINCE and tRNS if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 years with pain of three months' duration or more, and measured pain as an outcome. Outcomes of interest were pain intensity measured using visual analogue scales or numerical rating scales, disability, quality of life and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses, excluding studies judged as high risk of bias. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence for core comparisons, and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included an additional 38 trials (involving 1225 randomised participants) in this update, making a total of 94 trials in the review (involving 2983 randomised participants). This update included a total of 42 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 36 tDCS, two RINCE and two tRNS. One study evaluated both rTMS and tDCS. We judged only four studies as low risk of bias across all key criteria. Using the GRADE criteria we judged the quality of evidence for each outcome, and for all comparisons as low or very low; in large part this was due to issues of blinding and of precision.rTMSMeta-analysis of rTMS studies versus sham for pain intensity at short-term follow-up (0 to < 1 week postintervention), (27 studies, involving 655 participants), demonstrated a small effect with heterogeneity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to -0.16, low-quality evidence). This equates to a 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) reduction in pain, or a 0.40 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.32) point reduction on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not meet the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. Pre-specified subgroup analyses did not find a difference between low-frequency stimulation (low-quality evidence) and rTMS applied to the prefrontal cortex compared to sham for reducing pain intensity at short-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). High-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies was associated with a small short-term reduction in pain intensity at short-term follow-up (low-quality evidence, pooled n = 249, SMD -0.38 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 9% to 16%) reduction in pain, or a 0.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99) point change on a 0 to 10 pain intensity scale, which does not achieve the minimum clinically important difference threshold of 15% or greater. The results from multiple-dose studies were heterogeneous and there was no evidence of an effect in this subgroup (very low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence that rTMS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS versus sham for quality of life (measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -10.80 95% CI -15.04 to -6.55, low-quality evidence).CESFor CES (five studies, 270 participants) we found no evidence of a difference between active stimulation and sham (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.01, low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. We found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of CES on disability. One study (36 participants) of CES versus sham for quality of life (measured using the FIQ) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (MD -25.05 95% CI -37.82 to -12.28, very low-quality evidence).tDCSAnalysis of tDCS studies (27 studies, 747 participants) showed heterogeneity and a difference between active and sham stimulation (SMD -0.43 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, very low-quality evidence) for pain intensity. This equates to a reduction of 0.82 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.2) points, or a percentage change of 17% (95% CI 9% to 25%) of the control group outcome. This point estimate meets our threshold for a minimum clinically important difference, though the lower confidence interval is substantially below that threshold. We found evidence of small study bias in the tDCS analyses. We did not find evidence that tDCS improved disability. Meta-analysis of studies of tDCS versus sham for quality of life (measured using different scales across studies) at short-term follow-up demonstrated a positive effect (SMD 0.66 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11, low-quality evidence).Adverse eventsAll forms of non-invasive brain stimulation and sham stimulation appear to be frequently associated with minor or transient side effects and there were two reported incidences of seizure, both related to the active rTMS intervention in the included studies. However many studies did not adequately report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-quality evidence that single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex and tDCS may have short-term effects on chronic pain and quality of life but multiple sources of bias exist that may have influenced the observed effects. We did not find evidence that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and CES are effective for reducing pain intensity in chronic pain. The broad conclusions of this review have not changed substantially for this update. There remains a need for substantially larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. Future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.

Oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain

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.

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for cancer pain in adults

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.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

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.

Topical analgesics for acute and chronic pain in adults - an overview of Cochrane Reviews

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.

How can group-based multidisciplinary rehabilitation for patients with fibromyalgia influence patients' self-efficacy and ability to cope with their illness: a grounded theory approach

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To describe how group-based multidisciplinary rehabilitation for patients with fibromyalgia can influence patients' self-efficacy and ability to cope with their illness.

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation is recommended in the management of fibromyalgia. Self-efficacy is said to influence and predict adaptive coping behaviours and functioning. However, knowledge is lacking on how rehabilitation programmes may influence self-efficacy and ability to cope, from the patients' perspective.

DESIGN

Grounded theory study of semi-structured focus group interviews.

METHODS

Participants (n = 17) were included in four focus groups that had completed a two-week multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme together. Interviews were conducted four weeks after each group had completed the programme. The analysis was conducted constant comparatively applying open, axial and selective coding.

RESULTS

Categories (in italics) were derived from data in which the explanatory core category was identified: Learning to accept and live with pain as a life condition, and linked to three categories mutually influencing each other: Increased self-acceptance of living with the illness, experiencing acceptance from others and developing new coping strategies. Thus, patients benefitted from multidisciplinary rehabilitation with stronger self-efficacy and expectations to their future coping. However, limitations in the programme were identified, as the programme was short and intensive with no subsequent follow-up, and social welfare was not sufficiently addressed. Participants also found it difficult to maintain knowledge and were lacking individual sessions with the psychologist and had waited long to receive rehabilitation.

CONCLUSION

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation may advantageously be offered to patients with fibromyalgia. However, earlier action with longer programmes, in which patients' social situation is addressed, comprising individual sessions with the psychologist, with multiple repetitions of the content and follow-up sessions, may further enhance the patients' self-efficacy and coping with their illness.

[Long-term opioid therapy in chronic noncancer pain. A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy, tolerability and safety in open-label extension trials with study duration of at least 26 weeks]

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of long-term (≥ 6 months) opioid therapy (LtOT) in chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) is under debate. A systematic review with meta-analysis of the efficacy and harms of opioids in open-label extension studies of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has not been conducted until now.

METHODS

We screened MEDLINE and clinicaltrials.gov (through to December 2013), as well as reference sections of systematic reviews of long-term RCTs of opioids in CNCP. We included open-label extension trials with a study duration ≥ 26 weeks of RCTs of ≥ 2 weeks duration. Using a random effects model, pooled estimates of event rates for categorical data and standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous variables were calculated.

RESULTS

We included 11 open-label extension studies with 2445 participants with nociceptive (low back, osteoarthritis) and neuropathic (radicular, polyneuropathy) pain. Median study duration was 26 (range 26-108) weeks. Four studies tested oxycodone, two studies tramadol and buprenorphine; hydromorphone, morphine, oxymorphone and tapentadol were each tested in one study. Of the patients randomized at baseline, 28.5 % (95 % confidence interval, CI, 17.9-39.2 %) finished the open-label period; 53.5 % (95 % CI 38.1-68.2 %) of patients entering the open-label period finished the open-label period. In sum, the total loss was 71.5 % (95 % CI 60.9-83.1 %) of all patients primarily included into the RCT. A total of 4.9 % (95 % CI 2.9-8.2 %) of patients dropped out due lack of efficacy; 16.8 % (95 % CI 11.0-24.8 %) dropped out to due adverse events (AE) in the open-label period and 0.08 % (95 % CI 0.001-0.05 %) of patients died during the open-label period. Only one study systematically assessed aberrant drug behavior of the patients: 5.7 % (95 % CI 3.4-9.6 %) showed aberrant drug behavior in the opinion of the investigators and 2.6 % (95 % CI 1.2-5.8 %) were judged to show aberrant drug behavior by independent expert assessment. There was no significant change (p = 0.50) in pain intensity between the end of the randomized period and the end of open-label phase (SMD 0.19 [- 0.03, 0.41]; six studies with 1360 participants).

CONCLUSION

Only a minority of patients selected for opioid therapy at randomization finished the long-term open-label study. However, sustained effects of pain reduction could be demonstrated in these patients. LtOT can be considered in carefully selected and monitored CNCP patients who experience clinically meaningful pain reduction with at least tolerable AE in short-term opioid therapy. The English full-text version of this article is freely available at SpringerLink (under "Supplementary Material").

Prevalence and factors associated with disturbed sleep in patients with ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: a systematic review

This review explores the prevalence and factors associated with disturbed sleep for patients with ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis in order to clarify consistent findings in this otherwise disparate research field. The association of physical, demographic and psychological factors correlating with poor sleep was explored, and the effectiveness of interventions assessed. Ten electronic databases were searched: AMED, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, OpenGrey and BASE. Following application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 29 articles were critically assessed on the basis of methodology, experimental design, ethics and quality of sleep data, leading to the selection of 15 studies for final review. Poor sleep was reported in 35-90% of patients with axial spondyloarthritis and is more prevalent within this clinical population compared to healthy control subjects. Disturbed sleep is an important aspect of disease for patients and reflects the severity of disease activity, pain, fatigue and functional disability. However, the direction of this relationship is undetermined. Associations with age, gender, years spent in education, quality of life and depression have also been demonstrated. Anti-TNF medication is effective in reducing poor sleep, and exercise has also produced beneficial results. Future research into poor sleep should take account of its multifactorial nature. There is also a current lack of research investigating non-pharmacological interventions or combination therapies. A standardised, validated measurement of poor sleep, appropriate for regular patient screening, would be a useful first step for future research.

Systematic review of enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal trial designs in chronic pain: a new framework for design and reporting

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.

Meta-analyses of pain studies: What we have learned

Meta-analysis is a statistical procedure that integrates the results of at least two independent studies. The biggest threats to meta-analysis are publication bias due to missing studies with negative results and low-quality evidence due to methodological limitations imposed by included studies. Tools to improve the quality of meta-analysis have been developed by the Cochrane Collaboration and by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Meta-analyses of trials have demonstrated that pain responses in patients with chronic pain, following treatment, are not normally distributed but have a bimodal distribution with the majority of patients having either very little or very good pain relief. The benefit can be detected within 2-4 weeks following drug administration. Further, the efficacy of drug and physical treatments is hampered by high placebo response rates, with modest average benefits with active treatments over placebo in both parallel and crossover design trials.

As required versus fixed schedule analgesic administration for postoperative pain in children

BACKGROUND

Acute postoperative pain occurs as a result of tissue damage following surgery. Administering the appropriate analgesia to children is a complex process and it is unclear whether children's postoperative pain is more successfully treated by using 'as required' (when pain occurs) (termed 'pro re nata' or PRN) or (irrespective of pain at the time of administration).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of as required versus fixed schedule analgesic administration for the management of postoperative pain in children under the age of 16 years.

SEARCH METHODS

On 2 July 2014, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases. We reviewed the bibliographies of all included studies and of reviews, and searched two clinical trial databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to identify additional published or unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PRN versus ATC analgesic administration for postoperative pain in children under the age of 16 years who had undergone any surgical procedure requiring postoperative pain relief, in any setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (AH, PW) independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias as recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs (four reports) of 246 children aged under 16 years undergoing tonsillectomy. Children were given weight-appropriate doses of the study medication, either PRN or ATC, by a parent or carer at home for up to four days following surgery. We did not identify any studies assessing the management of postoperative pain in children in any other setting (i.e. as an inpatient). All studies included in this review were based on the use of paracetamol, and an opioid was added to paracetamol in two studies. Analgesics were administered either orally (tablet or elixir) or rectally (suppository). Reporting quality was poor and there were fewer than 50 children in each arm. Mean pain intensity scores decreased over time, as did medication use. However, children were still reporting pain at the final assessment, suggesting that no administration schedule provided adequate analgesia. There were no significant differences in pain intensity scores at any time point. The studies reported adverse events that may have been related to the study medication, such as nausea and vomiting, and constipation, but no statistically significant differences were noted between the groups. There were too few data from only three small studies and meta-analysis was not possible. One study reported that a higher amount of analgesics was consumed in the ATC group compared with the PRN group: it would have been helpful to show that the higher volume in the ATC group led to better analgesia but we were not able to demonstrate this.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was limited evidence available to draw any conclusions about the efficacy of PRN versus ATC analgesic administration for the management of postoperative pain in children.

Postoperative pain management after total knee arthroplasty in elderly patients: treatment options

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common surgical procedure in the elderly and is associated with severe pain after surgery and a high incidence of chronic pain. Several factors are associated with severe acute pain after surgery, including psychological factors and severe preoperative pain. Good acute pain control can be provided with multimodal analgesia, including regional anesthesia techniques. Studies have demonstrated that poor acute pain control after TKA is strongly associated with development of chronic pain, and this emphasizes the importance of attention to good acute pain control after TKA. Pain after discharge from hospital after TKA is currently poorly managed, and this is an area where increased resources need to be focused to improve early pain control. This is particularly as patients are often discharged home within 4-5 days after surgery. Chronic pain after TKA in the elderly can be managed with both pharmacological and non-pharmacological techniques. After excluding treatable causes of pain, the simplest approach is with the use of acetaminophen combined with a short course of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Careful titration of opioid analgesics can also be helpful with other adjuvants such as the antidepressants or antiepileptic medications used especially for patients with neuropathic pain. Topical agents may provide benefit and are associated with fewer systemic side effects than oral administration. Complementary or psychological therapies may be beneficial for those patients who have failed other options or have depression associated with chronic pain.

Treating chronic non-cancer pain in older people--more questions than answers?

There is little evidence specifically relating to drug treatments for pain in older people, but much can be extrapolated from what we already know. The evidence about drug treatments for chronic non-cancer pain is changing, driven by major improvements in understanding of clinical trial analysis and by the adoption of patient-centered outcomes of proven economic benefit. There is clear evidence of lack of useful effect, or insufficient evidence of effect for a number of commonly used drugs, including paracetamol, topical rubefacients, low concentration topical capsaicin, and for strong opioids in chronic non-cancer pain. In musculoskeletal pain there is evidence of efficacy for NSAIDs, tramadol, and tapentadol, and in neuropathic pain for duloxetine, pregabalin, and gabapentin, with weak evidence for amitriptyline. The new perspective is of drugs that work well in a minority of patients, but hardly at all in the remainder. The goal of treatment is large reductions in pain, by 50% or more. This outcome, and only this outcome, is associated with large benefits in terms of improved sleep, reduced depression, and large gains in function and quality of life. It is not possible to predict which patient will benefit from which drug, but early success or failure appears to be predictive of long-term success or failure. The emphasis is on stopping treatments that do not work and switching to other drugs in the same or different class, so that any potential future risk of treatment is balanced by very large and immediate benefit.

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2010, Issue 9. Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques aim to induce an electrical stimulation of the brain in an attempt to reduce chronic pain by directly altering brain activity. They include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation (RINCE).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques in chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2013, Issue 6), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS and clinical trials registers. The original search for the review was run in November 2009 and searched all databases from their inception. To identify studies for inclusion in this update we searched from 2009 to July 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of rTMS, CES, tDCS or RINCE if they employed a sham stimulation control group, recruited patients over the age of 18 with pain of three months duration or more and measured pain as a primary outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted and verified data. Where possible we entered data into meta-analyses. We excluded studies judged as being at high risk of bias from the analysis. We used the GRADE system to summarise the quality of evidence for core comparisons.

MAIN RESULTS

We included an additional 23 trials (involving 773 participants randomised) in this update, making a total of 56 trials in the review (involving 1710 participants randomised). This update included a total of 30 rTMS studies, 11 CES, 14 tDCS and one study of RINCE(the original review included 19 rTMS, eight CES and six tDCS studies). We judged only three studies as being at low risk of bias across all criteria.Meta-analysis of studies of rTMS (involving 528 participants) demonstrated significant heterogeneity. Pre-specified subgroup analyses suggest that low-frequency stimulation is ineffective (low-quality evidence) and that rTMS applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is ineffective (very low-quality evidence). We found a short-term effect on pain of active high-frequency stimulation of the motor cortex in single-dose studies (low-quality evidence, standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.39 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.27 to -0.51 P < 0.01)). This equates to a 12% (95% CI 8% to 15%) reduction in pain, which does not exceed the pre-established criteria for a minimal clinically important difference (≥ 15%). Evidence for multiple-dose studies was heterogenous but did not demonstrate a significant effect (very low-quality evidence).For CES (six studies, 270 participants) no statistically significant difference was found between active stimulation and sham (low-quality evidence).Analysis of tDCS studies (11 studies, 193 people) demonstrated significant heterogeneity and did not find a significant difference between active and sham stimulation (very low-quality evidence). Pre-specified subgroup analysis of tDCS applied to the motor cortex (n = 183) did not demonstrate a statistically significant effect and this lack of effect was consistent for subgroups of single or multiple-dose studies.One small study (n = 91) at unclear risk of bias suggested a positive effect of RINCE over sham stimulation on pain (very low-quality evidence).Non-invasive brain stimulation appears to be frequently associated with minor and transient side effects, though there were two reported incidences of seizure related to active rTMS in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Single doses of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex may have small short-term effects on chronic pain. It is likely that multiple sources of bias may exaggerate this observed effect. The effects do not meet the predetermined threshold of minimal clinical significance and multiple-dose studies do not consistently demonstrate effectiveness. The available evidence suggests that low-frequency rTMS, rTMS applied to the pre-frontal cortex, CES and tDCS are not effective in the treatment of chronic pain. While the broad conclusions for rTMS and CES have not changed substantially, the addition of this new evidence and the application of the GRADE system has modified some of our interpretation and the conclusion regarding the effectiveness of tDCS has changed. We recommend that previous readers should re-read this update. There is a need for larger, rigorously designed studies, particularly of longer courses of stimulation. It is likely that future evidence may substantially impact upon the presented results.

Reporting of primary analyses and multiplicity adjustment in recent analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations

Performing multiple analyses in clinical trials can inflate the probability of a type I error, or the chance of falsely concluding a significant effect of the treatment. Strategies to minimize type I error probability include prespecification of primary analyses and statistical adjustment for multiple comparisons, when applicable. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of primary analysis reporting and frequency of multiplicity adjustment in 3 major pain journals (ie, European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and PAIN®). A total of 161 randomized controlled trials investigating noninvasive pharmacological treatments or interventional treatments for pain, published between 2006 and 2012, were included. Only 52% of trials identified a primary analysis, and only 10% of trials reported prespecification of that analysis. Among the 33 articles that identified a primary analysis with multiple testing, 15 (45%) adjusted for multiplicity; of those 15, only 2 (13%) reported prespecification of the adjustment methodology. Trials in clinical pain conditions and industry-sponsored trials identified a primary analysis more often than trials in experimental pain models and non-industry-sponsored trials, respectively. The results of this systematic review demonstrate deficiencies in the reporting and possibly the execution of primary analyses in published analgesic trials. These deficiencies can be rectified by changes in, or better enforcement of, journal policies pertaining to requirements for the reporting of analyses of clinical trial data.