-
European Journal of Pain (London,... Feb 2021This systematic review synthesized evidence from European neck and low back pain (NLBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to identify recommended treatment options for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
This systematic review synthesized evidence from European neck and low back pain (NLBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to identify recommended treatment options for use across Europe.
DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT
Comprehensive searches of thirteen databases were conducted, from 1st January 2013 to 4th May 2020 to identify up-to-date evidence-based European CPGs for primary care management of NLBP, issued by professional bodies/organizations. Data extracted included; aim and target population, methods for development and implementation and treatment recommendations. The AGREE II checklist was used to critically appraise guidelines. Criteria were devised to summarize and synthesize the direction and strength of recommendations across guidelines.
RESULTS
Seventeen CPGs (11 low back; 5 neck; 1 both) from eight European countries were identified, of which seven were high quality. For neck pain, there were consistent weak or moderate strength recommendations for: reassurance, advice and education, manual therapy, referral for exercise therapy/programme, oral analgesics and topical medications, plus psychological therapies or multidisciplinary treatment for specific subgroups. Notable recommendation differences between back and neck pain included, i) analgesics for neck pain (not for back pain); ii) options for back pain-specific subgroups-work-based interventions, return to work advice/programmes and surgical interventions (but not for neck pain) and iii) a greater strength of recommendations (generally moderate or strong) for back pain than those for neck pain.
CONCLUSIONS
This review of European CPGs identified a range of mainly non-pharmacological recommended treatment options for NLBP that have broad consensus for use across Europe.
SIGNIFICANCE
Consensus regarding evidence-based treatment recommendations for patients with neck and low back pain (NLBP) from recent European clinical practice guidelines identifies a wide range of predominantly non-pharmacological treatment options. This includes options potentially applicable to all patients with NLBP and those applicable to only specific patient subgroups. Future work within our Back-UP research team will transfer these evidence-based treatment options to an accessible clinician decision support tool for first contact clinicians.
Topics: Analgesics; Europe; Exercise Therapy; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Low Back Pain; Neck Pain
PubMed: 33064878
DOI: 10.1002/ejp.1679 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence May 2015Involuntary, localised leg cramps are common and typically affect the calf muscles at night. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Involuntary, localised leg cramps are common and typically affect the calf muscles at night.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments for idiopathic leg cramps? What are the effects of treatments for leg cramps in pregnancy? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to January 2014 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 16 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: analgesics; anti-epileptic drugs; calcium salts; diltiazem; magnesium salts; multivitamin and mineral supplements; quinine; sodium chloride; stretching exercises; verapamil; vitamin B6 (pyridoxine); and vitamin E.
Topics: Analgesics; Anticonvulsants; Dietary Supplements; Humans; Muscle Cramp; Muscle Stretching Exercises; Salts
PubMed: 25970567
DOI: No ID Found -
British Journal of Sports Medicine Jan 2022To assess the effectiveness of interventions for acute and subacute non-specific low back pain (NS-LBP) based on pain and disability outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness of interventions for acute and subacute non-specific low back pain (NS-LBP) based on pain and disability outcomes.
DESIGN
A systematic review of the literature with network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception until 17 October 2020.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) involving adults with NS-LBP who experienced pain for less than 6 weeks (acute) or between 6 and 12 weeks (subacute).
RESULTS
Forty-six RCTs (n=8765) were included; risk of bias was low in 9 trials (19.6%), unclear in 20 (43.5%), and high in 17 (36.9%). At immediate-term follow-up, for pain decrease, the most efficacious treatments against an inert therapy were: exercise (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.41 to -0.40), heat wrap (SMD -1.38; 95% CI -2.60 to -0.17), opioids (SMD -0.86; 95% CI -1.62 to -0.10), manual therapy (SMD -0.72; 95% CI -1.40 to -0.04) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (SMD -0.53; 95% CI -0.97 to -0.09). Similar findings were confirmed for disability reduction in non-pharmacological and pharmacological networks, including muscle relaxants (SMD -0.24; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.04). Mild or moderate adverse events were reported in the opioids (65.7%), NSAIDs (54.3%) and steroids (46.9%) trial arms.
CONCLUSION
With uncertainty of evidence, NS-LBP should be managed with non-pharmacological treatments which seem to mitigate pain and disability at immediate-term. Among pharmacological interventions, NSAIDs and muscle relaxants appear to offer the best harm-benefit balance.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Low Back Pain; Network Meta-Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33849907
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-103596 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Oct 2021To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip...
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip osteoarthritis pain and physical function to enable effective and safe use of these drugs at their lowest possible dose.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, regulatory agency websites, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 28 June 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised trials published in English with ≥100 patients per group that evaluated NSAIDs, opioids, or paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat osteoarthritis.
OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The prespecified primary outcome was pain. Physical function and safety outcomes were also assessed.
REVIEW METHODS
Two reviewers independently extracted outcomes data and evaluated the risk of bias of included trials. Bayesian random effects models were used for network meta-analysis of all analyses. Effect estimates are comparisons between active treatments and oral placebo.
RESULTS
192 trials comprising 102 829 participants examined 90 different active preparations or doses (68 for NSAIDs, 19 for opioids, and three for paracetamol). Five oral preparations (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 60 and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg/day) had ≥99% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. Topical diclofenac (70-81 and 140-160 mg/day) had ≥92.3% probability, and all opioids had ≤53% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. 18.5%, 0%, and 83.3% of the oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of dropouts due to adverse events. 29.8%, 0%, and 89.5% of oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of any adverse event. Oxymorphone 80 mg/day had the highest risk of dropouts due to adverse events (51%) and any adverse event (88%).
CONCLUSIONS
Etoricoxib 60 mg/day and diclofenac 150 mg/day seem to be the most effective oral NSAIDs for pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis. However, these treatments are probably not appropriate for patients with comorbidities or for long term use because of the slight increase in the risk of adverse events. Additionally, an increased risk of dropping out due to adverse events was found for diclofenac 150 mg/day. Topical diclofenac 70-81 mg/day seems to be effective and generally safer because of reduced systemic exposure and lower dose, and should be considered as first line pharmacological treatment for knee osteoarthritis. The clinical benefit of opioid treatment, regardless of preparation or dose, does not outweigh the harm it might cause in patients with osteoarthritis.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO number CRD42020213656.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Aged; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Minimal Clinically Important Difference; Network Meta-Analysis; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain Management
PubMed: 34642179
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n2321 -
JAMA Network Open Oct 2020Acetaminophen (paracetamol) and ibuprofen are the most widely prescribed and available over-the-counter medications for management of fever and pain in children. Despite... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Acetaminophen (paracetamol) and ibuprofen are the most widely prescribed and available over-the-counter medications for management of fever and pain in children. Despite the common use of these medications, treatment recommendations for young children remain divergent.
OBJECTIVE
To compare acetaminophen with ibuprofen for the short-term treatment of fever or pain in children younger than 2 years.
DATA SOURCES
Systematic search of the databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov and the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry from inception to March 2019, with no language limits.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies of any design that included children younger than 2 years and directly compared acetaminophen with ibuprofen, reporting antipyretic, analgesic, and/or safety outcomes were considered. There were no limits on length of follow-up.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline, 2 authors independently extracted data and assessed quality. Data were pooled using a fixed-effects method if I2 was less than 50% and using a random-effects method if I2 was 50% or greater.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcomes were fever or pain within 4 hours of treatment onset. Safety outcomes included serious adverse events, kidney impairment, gastrointestinal bleeding, hepatotoxicity, severe soft tissue infection, empyema, and asthma and/or wheeze.
RESULTS
Overall, 19 studies (11 randomized; 8 nonrandomized) of 241 138 participants from 7 countries and various health care settings (hospital-based and community-based) were included. Compared with acetaminophen, ibuprofen resulted in reduced temperature at less than 4 hours (4 studies with 435 participants; standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.08-0.67; P = .01; I2 = 49%; moderate quality evidence) and at 4 to 24 hours (5 studies with 879 participants; SMD, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.03-0.45; P = .03; I2 = 57%; moderate-quality evidence) and less pain at 4 to 24 hours (2 studies with 535 participants; SMD, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.03-0.37; P = .02; I2 = 25%; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events were uncommon. Acetaminophen and ibuprofen appeared to have similar serious adverse event profiles (7 studies with 27 932 participants; ibuprofen vs aceteminophen: odds ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.87-1.33; P = .50, I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this study, use of ibuprofen vs acetaminophen for the treatment of fever or pain in children younger than 2 years was associated with reduced temperature and less pain within the first 24 hours of treatment, with equivalent safety.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Child, Preschool; Female; Fever; Humans; Ibuprofen; Infant; Male; Pain
PubMed: 33125495
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.22398 -
JAMA Jun 2021Migraine is common and can be associated with significant morbidity, and several treatment options exist for acute therapy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Migraine is common and can be associated with significant morbidity, and several treatment options exist for acute therapy.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the benefits and harms associated with acute treatments for episodic migraine in adults.
DATA SOURCES
Multiple databases from database inception to February 24, 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews that assessed effectiveness or harms of acute therapy for migraine attacks.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data. Meta-analysis was performed with the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman variance correction or by using a fixed-effect model based on the Mantel-Haenszel method if the number of studies was small.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The main outcomes included pain freedom, pain relief, sustained pain freedom, sustained pain relief, and adverse events. The strength of evidence (SOE) was graded with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews.
FINDINGS
Evidence on triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was summarized from 15 systematic reviews. For other interventions, 115 randomized clinical trials with 28 803 patients were included. Compared with placebo, triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs used individually were significantly associated with reduced pain at 2 hours and 1 day (moderate to high SOE) and increased risk of mild and transient adverse events. Compared with placebo, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (low to high SOE), lasmiditan (5-HT1F receptor agonist; high SOE), dihydroergotamine (moderate to high SOE), ergotamine plus caffeine (moderate SOE), acetaminophen (moderate SOE), antiemetics (low SOE), butorphanol (low SOE), and tramadol in combination with acetaminophen (low SOE) were significantly associated with pain reduction and increase in mild adverse events. The findings for opioids were based on low or insufficient SOE. Several nonpharmacologic treatments were significantly associated with improved pain, including remote electrical neuromodulation (moderate SOE), transcranial magnetic stimulation (low SOE), external trigeminal nerve stimulation (low SOE), and noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (moderate SOE). No significant difference in adverse events was found between nonpharmacologic treatments and sham.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
There are several acute treatments for migraine, with varying strength of supporting evidence. Use of triptans, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, dihydroergotamine, calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists, lasmiditan, and some nonpharmacologic treatments was associated with improved pain and function. The evidence for many other interventions, including opioids, was limited.
Topics: Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antiemetics; Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor Antagonists; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Ergot Alkaloids; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Pain Measurement; Serotonin Receptor Agonists; Tryptamines
PubMed: 34128998
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.7939 -
Anaesthesia May 2021Caesarean section is associated with moderate-to-severe postoperative pain, which can influence postoperative recovery and patient satisfaction as well as breastfeeding...
Caesarean section is associated with moderate-to-severe postoperative pain, which can influence postoperative recovery and patient satisfaction as well as breastfeeding success and mother-child bonding. The aim of this systematic review was to update the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after elective caesarean section under neuraxial anaesthesia. A systematic review utilising procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials published in the English language between 1 May 2014 and 22 October 2020 evaluating the effects of analgesic, anaesthetic and surgical interventions were retrieved from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases. Studies evaluating pain management for emergency or unplanned operative deliveries or caesarean section performed under general anaesthesia were excluded. A total of 145 studies met the inclusion criteria. For patients undergoing elective caesarean section performed under neuraxial anaesthesia, recommendations include intrathecal morphine 50-100 µg or diamorphine 300 µg administered pre-operatively; paracetamol; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; and intravenous dexamethasone administered after delivery. If intrathecal opioid was not administered, single-injection local anaesthetic wound infiltration; continuous wound local anaesthetic infusion; and/or fascial plane blocks such as transversus abdominis plane or quadratus lumborum blocks are recommended. The postoperative regimen should include regular paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with opioids used for rescue. The surgical technique should include a Joel-Cohen incision; non-closure of the peritoneum; and abdominal binders. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation could be used as analgesic adjunct. Some of the interventions, although effective, carry risks, and consequentially were omitted from the recommendations. Some interventions were not recommended due to insufficient, inconsistent or lack of evidence. Of note, these recommendations may not be applicable to unplanned deliveries or caesarean section performed under general anaesthesia.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cesarean Section; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Injections, Spinal; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Pregnancy
PubMed: 33370462
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15339 -
The Journal of Headache and Pain Oct 2017This systematic review summarizes the existing data on headache and pregnancy with a scope on clinical headache phenotypes, treatment of headaches in pregnancy and... (Review)
Review
This systematic review summarizes the existing data on headache and pregnancy with a scope on clinical headache phenotypes, treatment of headaches in pregnancy and effects of headache medications on the child during pregnancy and breastfeeding, headache related complications, and diagnostics of headache in pregnancy. Headache during pregnancy can be both primary and secondary, and in the last case can be a symptom of a life-threatening condition. The most common secondary headaches are stroke, cerebral venous thrombosis, subarachnoid hemorrhage, pituitary tumor, choriocarcinoma, eclampsia, preeclampsia, idiopathic intracranial hypertension, and reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome. Migraine is a risk factor for pregnancy complications, particularly vascular events. Data regarding other primary headache conditions are still scarce. Early diagnostics of the disease manifested by headache is important for mother and fetus life. It is especially important to identify "red flag symptoms" suggesting that headache is a symptom of a serious disease. In order to exclude a secondary headache additional studies can be necessary: electroencephalography, ultrasound of the vessels of the head and neck, brain MRI and MR angiography with contrast ophthalmoscopy and lumbar puncture. During pregnancy and breastfeeding the preferred therapeutic strategy for the treatment of primary headaches should always be a non-pharmacological one. Treatment should not be postponed as an undermanaged headache can lead to stress, sleep deprivation, depression and poor nutritional intake that in turn can have negative consequences for both mother and baby. Therefore, if non-pharmacological interventions seem inadequate, a well-considered choice should be made concerning the use of medication, taking into account all the benefits and possible risks.
Topics: Analgesics; Electroencephalography; Female; Head; Headache; Headache Disorders; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pseudotumor Cerebri; Risk Factors
PubMed: 29052046
DOI: 10.1186/s10194-017-0816-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat chronic neuropathic pain. Estimates of the population prevalence of chronic pain with neuropathic components range... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat chronic neuropathic pain. Estimates of the population prevalence of chronic pain with neuropathic components range between 6% and 10%. Current pharmacological treatment options for neuropathic pain afford substantial benefit for only a few people, often with adverse effects that outweigh the benefits. There is a need to explore other treatment options, with different mechanisms of action for treatment of conditions with chronic neuropathic pain. Cannabis has been used for millennia to reduce pain. Herbal cannabis is currently strongly promoted by some patients and their advocates to treat any type of chronic pain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of cannabis-based medicines (herbal, plant-derived, synthetic) compared to placebo or conventional drugs for conditions with chronic neuropathic pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
In November 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registries for published and ongoing trials, and examined the reference lists of reviewed articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised, double-blind controlled trials of medical cannabis, plant-derived and synthetic cannabis-based medicines against placebo or any other active treatment of conditions with chronic neuropathic pain in adults, with a treatment duration of at least two weeks and at least 10 participants per treatment arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently extracted data of study characteristics and outcomes of efficacy, tolerability and safety, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for pain relief of 30% and 50% or greater, patient's global impression to be much or very much improved, dropout rates due to lack of efficacy, and the standardised mean differences for pain intensity, sleep problems, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and psychological distress. For tolerability, we calculated number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for withdrawal due to adverse events and specific adverse events, nervous system disorders and psychiatric disorders. For safety, we calculated NNTH for serious adverse events. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a random-effects model. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 studies with 1750 participants. The studies were 2 to 26 weeks long and compared an oromucosal spray with a plant-derived combination of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) (10 studies), a synthetic cannabinoid mimicking THC (nabilone) (two studies), inhaled herbal cannabis (two studies) and plant-derived THC (dronabinol) (two studies) against placebo (15 studies) and an analgesic (dihydrocodeine) (one study). We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess study quality. We defined studies with zero to two unclear or high risks of bias judgements to be high-quality studies, with three to five unclear or high risks of bias to be moderate-quality studies, and with six to eight unclear or high risks of bias to be low-quality studies. Study quality was low in two studies, moderate in 12 studies and high in two studies. Nine studies were at high risk of bias for study size. We rated the quality of the evidence according to GRADE as very low to moderate.Primary outcomesCannabis-based medicines may increase the number of people achieving 50% or greater pain relief compared with placebo (21% versus 17%; risk difference (RD) 0.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.09); NNTB 20 (95% CI 11 to 100); 1001 participants, eight studies, low-quality evidence). We rated the evidence for improvement in Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) with cannabis to be of very low quality (26% versus 21%;RD 0.09 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.17); NNTB 11 (95% CI 6 to 100); 1092 participants, six studies). More participants withdrew from the studies due to adverse events with cannabis-based medicines (10% of participants) than with placebo (5% of participants) (RD 0.04 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.07); NNTH 25 (95% CI 16 to 50); 1848 participants, 13 studies, moderate-quality evidence). We did not have enough evidence to determine if cannabis-based medicines increase the frequency of serious adverse events compared with placebo (RD 0.01 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.03); 1876 participants, 13 studies, low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesCannabis-based medicines probably increase the number of people achieving pain relief of 30% or greater compared with placebo (39% versus 33%; RD 0.09 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.15); NNTB 11 (95% CI 7 to 33); 1586 participants, 10 studies, moderate quality evidence). Cannabis-based medicines may increase nervous system adverse events compared with placebo (61% versus 29%; RD 0.38 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.58); NNTH 3 (95% CI 2 to 6); 1304 participants, nine studies, low-quality evidence). Psychiatric disorders occurred in 17% of participants using cannabis-based medicines and in 5% using placebo (RD 0.10 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.15); NNTH 10 (95% CI 7 to 16); 1314 participants, nine studies, low-quality evidence).We found no information about long-term risks in the studies analysed.Subgroup analysesWe are uncertain whether herbal cannabis reduces mean pain intensity (very low-quality evidence). Herbal cannabis and placebo did not differ in tolerability (very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The potential benefits of cannabis-based medicine (herbal cannabis, plant-derived or synthetic THC, THC/CBD oromucosal spray) in chronic neuropathic pain might be outweighed by their potential harms. The quality of evidence for pain relief outcomes reflects the exclusion of participants with a history of substance abuse and other significant comorbidities from the studies, together with their small sample sizes.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Analgesics, Opioid; Cannabidiol; Chronic Pain; Codeine; Dronabinol; Humans; Medical Marijuana; Neuralgia; Numbers Needed To Treat; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29513392
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012182.pub2 -
Pain Physician Jul 2017Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) is a cannabimimetic compound that has been investigated as an analgesic agent in animal models and clinical trials. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) is a cannabimimetic compound that has been investigated as an analgesic agent in animal models and clinical trials.
OBJECTIVES
We conducted a meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of PEA for treating pain in randomized, controlled trials.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
This meta-analysis examined all randomized, controlled trials involving the effect of PEA on pain score.
METHODS
We searched PubMed and Embase for randomized, active or placebo-controlled trials of PEA for the treatment of acute or chronic pain. Our primary outcome was the weighted mean difference in visual analog pain scales of PEA treatment compared to inactive controls.
RESULTS
We identified 10 studies including data from 786 patients who received PEA and 512 controls for inclusion in our systematic review. Eight trials included an inactive control group and were included in the meta-analysis. PEA was associated with significantly greater pain reduction compared to inactive control conditions (WMD = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.19 - 2.87, z = 4.75, P < 0.001). Use of placebo control, presence of blinding, allowance for concomitant treatments, and duration or dose of PEA treatment did not affect the measured efficacy of PEA. All-cause dropout was non-significantly reduced in the PEA group compared to inactive control conditions (RR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.10 - 1.26, z = -1.60, P = 0.11).
LIMITATIONS
This meta-analysis relied on a relatively small number of trials across a variety of conditions causing pain with differing trial designs. Overall quality of the underlying studies and assessment of side effects were often poor.
CONCLUSIONS
PEA may be a useful treatment for pain and is generally well tolerated in research populations. Further, well-designed, randomized, placebo-controlled trials are needed to provide reliable estimates of its efficacy and to identify less serious adverse events associated with this compound.
KEY WORDS
PEA, palmidrol, palmitoylethanolamide, efficacy, pain, pain management, meta-analysis.
Topics: Acute Pain; Amides; Analgesics; Chronic Pain; Ethanolamines; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Palmitic Acids
PubMed: 28727699
DOI: No ID Found