Analgesic efficacy of opioids in chronic pain: recent meta-analyses.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Unlabelled
Opioids are regularly administered in acute and cancer pain. In chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP), however, their use is controversial. Previous meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) lack methodological homogeneity and comparable data. Here we analysed the maximum analgesic efficacies of opioids and non-opioids compared with placebo, and of physiotherapy and psychotherapy compared with active or waiting-list controls. We screened 3647 citations and included RCTs if treatment duration was at least 3 weeks, data were sufficient for meta-analysis, and criteria for high quality were met. Only 46 studies (10 742 patients) met the criteria. Weighted and standardized mean differences (WMD, SMD) between pain intensities were pooled to conduct separate meta-analyses for each treatment category. At the end of treatment the WMD for pain reduction (100-point scale) was 12.0 for 'strong' opioids, 10.6 for 'weak' opioids, 8.4 for non-opioids (each vs. placebo), 5.5 for psychotherapy and 4.5 for physiotherapy (each vs. active controls). Dropout rates were high in pharmacological studies. The 95% confidence intervals using the outcomes of control groups did not indicate statistical differences between efficacies of the five interventions. Because not enough eligible head-to-head trials were available, our analysis is limited to adjusted indirect comparisons. The heterogeneity of pre-post pain differences in control groups did not allow the definition of a common comparator. In conclusion, although there were statistically significant differences between maximum treatment efficacies, no intervention per se produced clinically important improvements in average pain intensity. Thus, opioids alone are inappropriate and multimodal treatment programmes may be required for CNCP.Linked articles
This article is part of a themed section on Opioids: New Pathways to Functional Selectivity. To view the other articles in this section visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bph.2015.172.issue-2.
SUBMITTER: Reinecke H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4292950 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceHarms and benefits of opioids for chronic noncancer pain remain unclear.ObjectiveTo systematically review randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of opioids for chronic noncancer pain.Data sources and study selectionThe databases of CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to April 2018 for RCTs of opioids for chronic noncancer pain vs any nonopioid control.Data extraction and synthesisPaired reviewers independently extracted data. The analyses used random-effects models and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to rate the quality of the evidence.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were pain intensity (score range, 0-10 cm on a visual analog scale for pain; lower is better and the minimally important difference [MID] is 1 cm), physical functioning (score range, 0-100 points on the 36-item Short Form physical component score [SF-36 PCS]; higher is better and the MID is 5 points), and incidence of vomiting.ResultsNinety-six RCTs including 26 169 participants (61% female; median age, 58 years [interquartile range, 51-61 years]) were included. Of the included studies, there were 25 trials of neuropathic pain, 32 trials of nociceptive pain, 33 trials of central sensitization (pain present in the absence of tissue damage), and 6 trials of mixed types of pain. Compared with placebo, opioid use was associated with reduced pain (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.69 cm [95% CI, -0.82 to -0.56 cm] on a 10-cm visual analog scale for pain; modeled risk difference for achieving the MID, 11.9% [95% CI, 9.7% to 14.1%]), improved physical functioning (WMD, 2.04 points [95% CI, 1.41 to 2.68 points] on the 100-point SF-36 PCS; modeled risk difference for achieving the MID, 8.5% [95% CI, 5.9% to 11.2%]), and increased vomiting (5.9% with opioids vs 2.3% with placebo for trials that excluded patients with adverse events during a run-in period). Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggested similar associations of opioids with improvements in pain and physical functioning compared with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (pain: WMD, -0.60 cm [95% CI, -1.54 to 0.34 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, -0.90 points [95% CI, -2.69 to 0.89 points]), tricyclic antidepressants (pain: WMD, -0.13 cm [95% CI, -0.99 to 0.74 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, -5.31 points [95% CI, -13.77 to 3.14 points]), and anticonvulsants (pain: WMD, -0.90 cm [95% CI, -1.65 to -0.14 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, 0.45 points [95% CI, -5.77 to 6.66 points]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this meta-analysis of RCTs of patients with chronic noncancer pain, evidence from high-quality studies showed that opioid use was associated with statistically significant but small improvements in pain and physical functioning, and increased risk of vomiting compared with placebo. Comparisons of opioids with nonopioid alternatives suggested that the benefit for pain and functioning may be similar, although the evidence was from studies of only low to moderate quality.
| S-EPMC6583638 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) is a major health problem, for which opioids provide one treatment option. However, evidence is needed about side effects, efficacy, and risk of misuse or addiction. METHODS: This meta-analysis was carried out with these objectives: to compare the efficacy of opioids for CNCP with other drugs and placebo; to identify types of CNCP that respond better to opioids; and to determine the most common side effects of opioids. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (up to May 2005) and reference lists for randomized controlled trials of any opioid administered by oral or transdermal routes or rectal suppositories for CNCP (defined as pain for longer than 6 mo). Extracted outcomes included pain, function or side effects. Methodological quality was assessed with the Jadad instrument; analyses were conducted with Revman 4.2.7. RESULTS: Included were 41 randomized trials involving 6019 patients: 80% of the patients had nociceptive pain (osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis or back pain); 12%, neuropathic pain (postherpetic neuralgia, diabetic neuropathy or phantom limb pain); 7%, fibromyalgia; and 1%, mixed pain. The methodological quality of 87% of the studies was high. The opioids studied were classified as weak (tramadol, propoxyphene, codeine) or strong (morphine, oxycodone). Average duration of treatment was 5 (range 1-16) weeks. Dropout rates averaged 33% in the opioid groups and 38% in the placebo groups. Opioids were more effective than placebo for both pain and functional outcomes in patients with nociceptive or neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. Strong, but not weak, opioids were significantly superior to naproxen and nortriptyline, and only for pain relief. Among the side effects of opioids, only constipation and nausea were clinically and statistically significant. INTERPRETATION: Weak and strong opioids outperformed placebo for pain and function in all types of CNCP. Other drugs produced better functional outcomes than opioids, whereas for pain relief they were outperformed only by strong opioids. Despite the relative shortness of the trials, more than one-third of the participants abandoned treatment.
| S-EPMC1459894 | biostudies-other
Project description:Schizophrenia is the eighth leading cause of disability worldwide in people aged 15-44 years. Before antidopaminergic antipsychotics were introduced in the 1950s, no effective medications existed for the treatment of schizophrenia. This review summarizes key meta-analytic findings regarding antipsychotic efficacy in the acute treatment of schizophrenia, including clozapine in treatment-resistant patients. In the most comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials conducted in multi-episode schizophrenia, antipsychotics outperformed placebo regarding total symptoms, positive symptoms, negative symptoms, depressive symptoms, quality of life and social functioning. Amongst these outcomes, the standardized mean difference for overall symptoms was largest, that is, 0.47 (95% credible interval = 0.42-0.51), approaching a medium effect size, being reduced to 0.38 when publication bias and small-trial effects were accounted for. A comparison of two meta-analyses indicated that first-episode patients, compared with multi-episode patients, were more likely to have at least minimal treatment response [?20% Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS)/Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) score reduction: 81% versus 51%] and good response (?50% PANSS/BPRS score reduction: 52% versus 23%). In multi-episode schizophrenia, no response or worsening after 2 weeks of a therapeutic antipsychotic dose was highly predictive of not achieving a good response at endpoint (median treatment = 6 weeks: specificity = 86%; positive predictive value = 90%), suggesting a change in treatment should be considered in such cases. In first-episode psychosis, adequately dosed antipsychotic treatment trials for more than 2 weeks are recommended before using no response or worsening as a decision point for aborting a given antipsychotic. In clearly defined treatment-resistant schizophrenia, clozapine generally outperformed other antipsychotics, especially when dosed appropriately (target = 3-6 months' duration; trough clozapine level ?350-400 ?g/L) with a response rate (?20% PANSS/BPRS) of 33% by 3 months of treatment. High antipsychotic doses and psychotropic combinations are unlikely to be superior to standard doses of antipsychotic monotherapy. Acute antipsychotic efficacy in schizophrenia depends on the targeted symptom domain (greater efficacy: total and positive symptoms, lesser efficacy: negative symptoms, depressive symptoms, social functioning and quality of life). Greater antipsychotic efficacy is associated with higher total baseline symptom severity, treatment-naïveté/first-episode status, shorter illness duration, and trials that are nonindustry sponsored and that have a lower placebo effect. The heterogeneity of antipsychotic response across individuals and key symptom domains, the considerable degree of nonresponse/treatment resistance in multi-episode patients, and the adverse effect potential of antipsychotics are major limitations, underscoring the need to develop new medications for the treatment of schizophrenia. Drug development should include matching patient subgroups, which are identified by means of clinical and biomarker variables, to mechanisms of action of novel medications, targeting specific symptom domains, and investigating mechanisms of action other than dopaminergic blockade.
| S-EPMC6180374 | biostudies-other
Project description:Opioids are the mainstay of treatment for moderate to severe cancer pain. In recent years there have been many advances in the use of opioids for cancer pain. Availability and consumption of opioids have increased and opioids other than morphine (including methadone, fentanyl, oxycodone) have become more widely used. Inter-individual variation in response to opioids has been identified as a significant challenge in the management of cancer pain. Many studies have been published demonstrating the benefits of opioid switching as a clinical maneuver to improve tolerability. Constipation has been recognized as a significant burden in cancer patients on opioids. Peripherally restricted opioid antagonists have been developed for the prevention and management of opioid induced constipation. The phenomenon of breakthrough pain has been characterized and novel modes of opioid administration (transmucosal, intranasal, sublingual) have been explored to facilitate improved management of breakthrough cancer pain. Advances have also been made in the realm of molecular biology. Pharmacogenetic studies have explored associations between clinical response to opioids and genetic variation at a DNA level. To date these studies have been small but future research may facilitate prospective prediction of response to individual drugs.
| S-EPMC3004622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOpioid use for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is complex. In the absence of pan-European guidance on this issue, a position paper was commissioned by the European Pain Federation (EFIC).MethodsThe clinical practice recommendations were developed by eight scientific societies and one patient self-help organization under the coordination of EFIC. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE (up until January 2020) was performed. Two categories of guidance are given: Evidence-based recommendations (supported by evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials or of observational studies) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) statements (supported either by indirect evidence or by case-series, case-control studies and clinical experience). The GRADE system was applied to move from evidence to recommendations. The recommendations and GCP statements were developed by a multiprofessional task force (including nursing, service users, physicians, physiotherapy and psychology) and formal multistep procedures to reach a set of consensus recommendations. The clinical practice recommendations were reviewed by five external reviewers from North America and Europe and were also posted for public comment.ResultsThe key clinical practice recommendations suggest: (a) first optimizing established non-pharmacological treatments and non-opioid analgesics and (b) considering opioid treatment if established non-pharmacological treatments or non-opioid analgesics are not effective and/or not tolerated and/or contraindicated. Evidence- and clinical consensus-based potential indications and contraindications for opioid treatment are presented. Eighteen GCP recommendations give guidance regarding clinical evaluation, as well as opioid treatment assessment, monitoring, continuation and discontinuation.ConclusionsOpioids remain a treatment option for some selected patients with CNCP under careful surveillance.SignificanceIn chronic pain, opioids are neither a universal cure nor a universally dangerous weapon. They should only be used for some selected chronic noncancer pain syndromes if established non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment options have failed in supervised pain patients as part of a comprehensive, multi-modal, multi-disciplinary approach to treatment. In this context alone, opioid therapy can be a useful tool in achieving and maintaining an optimal level of pain control in some patients.
| S-EPMC8248186 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOpioids are frequently prescribed for the management of patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Previous meta-analyses of efficacy and harms have combined treatment effects across all opioids; however, specific opioids, pharmacokinetic properties (ie, long acting vs short acting), or the type of formulation (ie, immediate vs extended release) may be a source of heterogeneity for pooled effects.MethodsWe will conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials evaluating opioids for CNCP. We will acquire eligible studies through systematic searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Eligible studies will have randomly allocated adult CNCP patients to an oral or transdermal opioid versus another type of opioid (or formulation) or placebo, and follow patients for ≥ 4 weeks. We will collect outcome data for pain intensity, physical function, nausea, vomiting, and constipation. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, abstract data from eligible trials and assess risk of bias using a modified Cochrane tool. We will assess coherence of our networks through both a global test, and by comparing direct and indirect evidence for each comparison with node-splitting.ResultsUsing a frequentist approach, we will conduct random effects multiple treatment meta-analysis to establish treatment effects of individual opioids for each outcome. The certainty of evidence for pooled treatment effects will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We will categorize interventions from most to least effective based on the effect estimates obtained from NMAs and their associated certainty of evidence, as follows: superior to both placebo and alternatives; superior to placebo, but inferior to alternatives; and no better than placebo.ConclusionThis NMA will determine the relative effectiveness and adverse effects of individual opioids among patients with CNCP. Our results will help inform the appropriateness of assuming similar beneficial and adverse effects of varying opioid formulations.Systematic review registrationThis systematic review is registered with Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, an international prospective register of systematic reviews (registration no.: CRD42018110331), available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=110331.
| S-EPMC6824796 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSpinal metastasis pain includes both inflammatory and neuropathic pain, and opioids, which have only a μ-opioid receptor-stimulating effect, are generally less effective in neuropathic pain. However, no previous study has been conducted for the comparisons of the efficacy of opioids in treating spinal metastasis pain.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of tapentadol and methadone with other opioids for back pain caused by a metastatic spinal tumor.DesignRetrospective cohort study.Setting/subjectsA total of 274 patients were enrolled, who started a tapentadol extended-release tablet, methadone tablet, hydromorphone extended-release tablet, oxycodone extended-release tablet, or transdermal fentanyl patch for cancer pain due to spinal metastasis in Japan from January 1, 2013 to October 31, 2021.MeasurementsThe primary endpoint, the difference in the numerical rating scale (NRS) scores before and seven days after each opioid administration, was compared among the five groups.ResultsIn patients with numbness, a decrease of the NRS score on day seven compared with before starting each opioid was significantly higher in the tapentadol group than those in the hydromorphone, oxycodone, and fentanyl groups and comparable to that in the methadone group. In patients without numbness, no significant differences were observed in decreases of the NRS scores on day seven among the five groups.ConclusionsTapentadol and methadone may be more effective than hydromorphone, oxycodone, and fentanyl for cancer pain due to spinal metastasis with numbness.
| S-EPMC10457616 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveMeta-analyses of analgesic medicines for low back pain often rescale measures of pain intensity to use mean difference (MD) instead of standardised mean difference for pooled estimates. Although this improves clinical interpretability, it is not clear whether this method is justified. Our study evaluated the justification for this method.MethodsWe identified randomised clinical trials of analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain that used two scales with different ranges to measure the same construct of pain intensity. We transformed all data to a 0-100 scale, then compared between-group estimates across pairs of scales with different ranges.ResultsTwelve trials were included. Overall, differences in means between pain intensity measures that were rescaled to a common 0-100 scale appeared to be small and randomly distributed. For one study that measured pain intensity on a 0-100 scale and a 0-10 scale; when rescaled to 0-100, the difference in MD between the scales was 0.8 points out of 100. For three studies that measured pain intensity on a 0-10 scale and 0-3 scale; when rescaled to 0-100, the average difference in MD between the scales was 0.2 points out of 100 (range 5.5 points lower to 2.7 points higher). For two studies that measured pain intensity on a 0-100 scale and a 0-3 scale; when rescaled to 0-100, the average difference in MD between the scales was 0.7 points out of 100 (range 6.2 points lower to 12.1 points higher). Finally, for six studies that measured pain intensity on a 0-100 scale and a 0-4 scale; when rescaled to 0-100, the average difference in MD between the scales was 0.7 points (range 5.4 points lower to 8.3 points higher).ConclusionRescaling pain intensity measures may be justified in meta-analyses of analgesic medicines for low back pain. Systematic reviewers may consider this method to improve clinical interpretability and enable more data to be included.Study registration/data availabilityOpen Science Framework (osf.io/8rq7f).
| S-EPMC9636623 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC2882451 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aim: To systematically assess and rank the efficacy of opioid medications for traumatic pain in the emergency department in terms of pain relief, adverse events and rescue analgesia. Methods: Four databases were systematically searched until 26 September 2022: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Outcomes were pain relief, adverse events (dizziness, hypotension, pruritus, sedation), and rescue analgesia. For each outcome, network plots were drawn to exhibit direct and indirect comparisons, and rank probabilities were utilized to rank the efficacy of different opioids. Results: Twenty studies of 3,040 patients were eligible for this network meta-analysis. According to the rank probabilities, the top three analgesic medications for pain relief may be sufentanil (78.29% probability of ranking first), buprenorphine (48.54% probability of ranking second) and fentanyl (53.25% probability of ranking third); buprenorphine (31.20%), fentanyl (20.14%) and sufentanil (21.55%) were least likely to cause dizziness; the top three analgesic medications which were least likely to cause hypotension were buprenorphine (81.64%), morphine (45.02%) and sufentanil (17.27%); butorphanol (40.56%), morphine (41.11%) and fentanyl (14.63%) were least likely to cause pruritus; the top three medications which were least likely to cause sedation were hydrocodone + acetaminophen (97.92%), morphine (61.85%) and butorphanol (55.24%); patients who received oxycodone (83.64%), butorphanol (38.31%) and fentanyl (25.91%) were least likely to need rescue analgesia in sequence. Conclusion: Sufentanil, buprenorphine and fentanyl may be superior to other opioid medications in terms of pain relief and the incidence of dizziness, hypotension and pruritus, which might be selected as opioid analgesics for traumatic pain in the emergency setting.
| S-EPMC10413574 | biostudies-literature