Dataset Information

Efficacy of interventions to reduce long term opioid treatment for chronic non-cancer pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To review interventions to reduce long term opioid treatment in people with chronic non-cancer pain, considering efficacy on dose reduction and discontinuation, pain, function, quality of life, withdrawal symptoms, substance use, and adverse events.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies of interventions.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library searched from inception to July 2021. Reference lists and previous reviews were also searched and experts were contacted.

Eligibility criteria for study selection

Original research in English. Case reports and cross sectional studies were excluded.

Data extraction and synthesis

Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for randomised and non-randomised studies (RoB 2 and ROBINS-I). Authors grouped interventions into five categories (pain self-management, complementary and alternative medicine, pharmacological and biomedical devices and interventions, opioid replacement treatment, and deprescription methods), estimated pooled effects using random effects meta-analytical models, and appraised the certainty of evidence using GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation).

Results

Of 166 studies meeting inclusion criteria, 130 (78%) were considered at critical risk of bias and were excluded from the evidence synthesis. Of the 36 included studies, few had comparable treatment arms and sample sizes were generally small. Consequently, the certainty of the evidence was low or very low for more than 90% (41/44) of GRADE outcomes, including for all non-opioid patient outcomes. Despite these limitations, evidence of moderate certainty indicated that interventions to support prescribers' adherence to guidelines increased the likelihood of patients discontinuing opioid treatment (adjusted odds ratio 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 2.1), and that these prescriber interventions as well as pain self-management programmes reduced opioid dose more than controls (intervention v control, mean difference -6.8 mg (standard error 1.6) daily oral morphine equivalent, P<0.001; pain programme v control, -14.31 mg daily oral morphine equivalent, 95% confidence interval -21.57 to -7.05).

Conclusions

Evidence on the reduction of long term opioid treatment for chronic pain continues to be constrained by poor study methodology. Of particular concern is the lack of evidence relating to possible harms. Agreed standards for designing and reporting studies on the reduction of opioid treatment are urgently needed.

Review registration

PROSPERO CRD42020140943.

SUBMITTER: Avery N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8977989 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of interventions to reduce long term opioid treatment for chronic non-cancer pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Avery Nicholas N McNeilage Amy G AG Stanaway Fiona F Ashton-James Claire E CE Blyth Fiona M FM Martin Rebecca R Gholamrezaei Ali A Glare Paul P

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20220404

<h4>Objective</h4>To review interventions to reduce long term opioid treatment in people with chronic non-cancer pain, considering efficacy on dose reduction and discontinuation, pain, function, quality of life, withdrawal symptoms, substance use, and adverse events.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies of interventions.<h4>Data sources</h4>Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library searched from inception t ...[more]

PMID: 35379650

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess interventions to reduce opioid use for patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) versus usual care or active controls in primary care settings.MethodsIn this registered study (PROSPERO: CRD42022338458), we searched MEDLINE, Embase PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from inception to December 28th 2021, and updated on Dec 14th 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with no restrictions. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and Newcastle Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Primary outcomes included mean reduction in morphine equivalent daily dose (reported as mean differences [MDs] mg/day; 95% confidence intervals [95%CIs]) and/or opioid cessation proportion. Secondary outcomes were mean changes in pain severity (reported as standardized mean difference [SMDs]; 95%CIs) and (serious) adverse events. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models.ResultsWe identified 3,826 records, of which five RCTs (953 participants) and five cohort studies (901 participants) were included. Overall, opioid dosage was significantly reduced in intervention groups compared to controls (MD: -28.63 mg/day, 95%CI: -39.77 to -17.49; I2 = 31.25%; eight studies). Subgroup analyses revealed significant opioid dose reductions with mindfulness (MD: -29.36 mg/day 95%CI: -40.55 to -18.17; I2 = 0.00%; two trials) and CBT-based multimodalities (MD: -41.68 mg/day; 95%CI: -58.47 to -24.89; I2 = 0.00%; two cohort studies), respectively, compared to usual care. No significant differences were observed in opioid cessation (Odds ratio: 1.10, 95%CI: -0.48 to 2.67, I2 = 58.59%; two trials) or pain severity (SMD: -0.13, 95%CI: -0.37 to 0.11; I2 = 33.51%; three trials). Adverse events were infrequently examined, with withdrawal symptoms commonly reported.ConclusionsThe studied interventions were effective in reducing opioid dosage for people with CNCP in primary care. They highlighted the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration. Large-scale RCTs measuring the long-term effects and cost of these interventions are needed before their implementation.

Project description:BackgroundOne measure to support optimal opioid prescription is academic detailing (AD) with one-to-one visits by trained professionals (academic detailers) to general practitioners (GPs).ObjectiveTo investigate the usefulness of AD visits on GPs' opioid prescribing patterns in Norway, and academic detailers' experiences with AD visits to GPs on opioid prescription.MethodsDesign: A quantitative registry study on opioid prescriptions and a qualitative focus group interview study with academic detailers.ParticipantsFor the registry study, municipalities where more than 75% of the GPs had received an AD visit were considered intervention municipalities, whereas in the non-intervention municipalities no GPs had received AD-visits. In the focus groups, academic detailers who had conducted three or more AD-visits were invited to participate.InterventionA campaign on opioid prescription with AD visits using a brochure with key messages based on the national guideline for treatment of chronic non-cancer pain and updated evidence on the potential benefits and risks of prescribing opioids. The AD visits in the campaign were planned for 20-25 min in a one-to-one setting in the GP's office.Main measuresThe Norwegian Prescription Database (NorPD) was utilized for registry data. Data on amount of drugs dispensed are recoded as Defined Daily Doses (DDDs).ResultsCompared to non-intervention, the intervention resulted in a decrease in the number of prevalent and incident users of opioids and incident users of reimbursed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in municipalities in Central Norway. The results from the focus group interviews were categorized into the themes: "To get in position", "Adjusting messages", "What did the GPs struggle with, in relation to opioid prescription?" and "Did we reach the right recipients with the visits?".ConclusionsIn Central Norway, the intervention resulted in a desired effect on number of opioid users. According to the academic detailers, the GPs' length of working experience and familiarity with the topic gave different presumptions for making use of the information presented in the AD-visits.

Project description:BackgroundHitherto only studies with selected populations have found an increased all-cause mortality of some selected opioids compared to selected non-opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). We have examined the all-cause mortality for CNCP associated with all established opioids compared to non-opioid analgesic therapy (anticonvulsants, antidepressants, dipyrone, non-steroidal agents).MethodsThe study used the InGef (Institute for Applied Health Research Berlin) database which is an anonymized healthcare claims database including 4,711,668 insured persons who were covered by 61 German statutory health insurances between 2013 and 2017.The health insurance companies are the owners of the database. All-cause mortality was determined from death certificates. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) including age, gender, comorbidity index, and propensity score as covariates and risk differences (RD) in incidence of death between patients with long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) and control-drug therapy were calculated.ResultsThe mean age of participants was 66 years; 55% were women. There were 554 deaths during 10,435 person-years for the LTOT patients, whereas there were 340 deaths during 11,342 person-years in the control group. The HR for all-cause mortality was 1.59 (95% CI, 1.38-1.82) with a risk difference of 148 excess deaths (95% CI 99-198) per 10,000 person-years. The elevated risk of death for LTOT was confined to the out-of-hospital deaths: LTOT patients had 288 out-of-hospital deaths during 10,435 person-years (276 per 10,000 person-years) whereas there were 110 deaths during 11,342 person-years (97 per 10,000 person-years) in the control group. HR was 2.29 (95% CI 1.86, 2.83). Although our propensity score matching model indicated a good classification, residual confounding cannot be fully excluded. The opioid group had a higher prevalence of heart failure and a higher use of anti-thrombotic and antiplatelet agents and of psycholeptics.ConclusionsLTOT for CNCP compared to non-opioid analgesics was associated with an increased risk for all-cause mortality. When considering treatment options for patients with CNCP, the relevant risk of increased all-cause mortality with opioids should be discussed.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03778450, Registered on 7 December 2018.

Project description:BackgroundOpioids are currently prescribed for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP), and some patients use opioids continuously for long-term treatment. Stakeholders' awareness about long-term opioid therapy is essential for improving the safety and effectiveness of pain treatment. The purpose of this study is to explore the perspectives of pain specialists, patients, and family caregivers about long-term opioid use in CNCP management.MethodsThis study was a qualitative study and adhered to the COREQ guidelines. Pain specialists (n = 12), patients (n = 14), and family members (n = 9) were recruited to the study by purposive sampling at the Pain Clinic of Ramathibodi Hospital. Semi-structured interviews were recorded, verbatim transcribed, conceptually coded, and analyzed using Atlas.ti 8.0.ResultsAll groups of participants described opioids as non-first-line drugs for pain management. Opioids should be prescribed only for severe pain, when non-opioid pharmacotherapy and non-pharmacological therapies are not effective. Patients reported that the benefits of opioids were for pain relief, while physicians and most family members highlighted that opioid use should improve functional outcomes. Physicians and family members expressed concerns about opioid-related side effects, harm, and adverse events, while patients did not. Patients confirmed that they would continue using opioids for pain management under supervision. However, physicians stated that they would taper off or discontinue opioid therapy if patients' pain relief or functional improvement was not achieved. Both patients and family members were willing to consider non-pharmacological therapies if potential benefits existed. Patient education, doctor-patient/family relationships, and opioid prescription policies were proposed to enhance CNCP management.ConclusionLong-term opioid therapy for CNCP may be beneficial in patients who have established realistic treatment goals (for both pain relief and functional improvement) with their physicians. Regular monitoring and evaluation of the risks and benefits, adverse events, and drug-related aberrant behaviors are necessary. Integrated multimodal multidisciplinary therapies and family member collaborations are also important for improving CNCP management.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of interventions to reduce long term opioid treatment for chronic non-cancer pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Eligibility criteria for study selection

Data extraction and synthesis

Results

Conclusions

Review registration

Publications

Efficacy of interventions to reduce long term opioid treatment for chronic non-cancer pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets