-
Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) Feb 2015The 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... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
[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").
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Chronic Pain; Hydromorphone; Long-Term Care; Morphine; Oxycodone; Oxymorphone; Pain Measurement; Phenols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tapentadol; Tramadol; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25503691
DOI: 10.1007/s00482-014-1452-0 -
Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) Feb 2015We updated a systematic review on the comparative efficacy, tolerability and safety of opioids and of their routes of application in chronic noncancer pain (CNCP). (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
[Opioids in chronic noncancer pain-are opioids different? A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy, tolerability and safety in randomized head-to-head comparisons of opioids of at least four week's duration].
BACKGROUND
We updated a systematic review on the comparative efficacy, tolerability and safety of opioids and of their routes of application in chronic noncancer pain (CNCP).
METHODS
We screened MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up until October 2013, as well as the reference sections of original studies and systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of opioids in CNCP. We included randomized head-to-head comparisons of opioids (opioid of the sponsor of the study versus standard opioid) of at least 4 week's duration. Using a random effects model, absolute risk differences (RD) were calculated for categorical data and standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous variables. The quality of evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
We included 13 RCTs with 6748 participants. Median study duration was 15 weeks (range 4-56 weeks). Hydromorphone, morphine, oxymorphone and tapentadol were compared to oxycodone; fentanyl to morphine and buprenorphine to tramadol. In pooled analysis, there were no significant differences between the two groups of opioids in terms of mean pain reduction (low-quality evidence), the patient global impression to be much or very much improved outcome (low-quality evidence), physical function (very low-quality evidence), serious adverse events (moderate-quality evidence) or mortality (moderate-quality evidence). There was no significant difference between transdermal and oral application of opioids in terms of mean pain reduction, physical function, serious adverse events, mortality (all low-quality evidence) or dropout due to adverse events (very low-quality).
CONCLUSION
Pooled head-to-head comparisons of opioids (opioid of the sponsor of the study versus standard opioid) provide no rational for preferring one opioid and/or administration route over another in the therapy of patients with CNCP. The English full-text version of this article is freely available at SpringerLink (under "Supplemental").
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Administration, Oral; Analgesics, Opioid; Chronic Pain; Data Accuracy; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Long-Term Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25376545
DOI: 10.1007/s00482-014-1432-4 -
Deutsches Arzteblatt International Mar 2018Rotating several different WHO level III opioid drugs is a therapeutic option for patients with chronic cancer-related pain who suffer from inadequate analgesia and/or...
BACKGROUND
Rotating several different WHO level III opioid drugs is a therapeutic option for patients with chronic cancer-related pain who suffer from inadequate analgesia and/or intolerable side effects. The evidence favoring opioid rotation is controversial, and the current guidelines in Germany and other countries contain only weak recommendations for it.
METHODS
This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a systematic review of the literature on opioid rotation for adult patients with chronic cancerrelated pain who are regularly taking WHO level III opioids by the oral or trans - dermal route.
RESULTS
9 individual studies involving a total of 725 patients were included in the analysis, and 3 previous systematic reviews of studies involving a total of 2296 patients were also analyzed. Morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, hydromorphone, and buprenorphine were used as first-line opioid drugs, and hydromorphone, bupre - norphine, tapentadol, fentanyl, morphine, oxymorphone, and methadone were used as second-line opioid drugs. In all of the studies, pain control was achieved for 14 days after each rotation. In most of them, the dose of the new drug introduced in each rotation needed to be increased above the dose initially calculated from a rotation ratio, with the exception of rotations to methadone. The frequency of side effects was only rarely lessened, but patients largely considered the result of opioid rotation to be positive. No particular opioid drug was found to be best.
CONCLUSION
Opioid rotation can improve analgesia and patient satisfaction. The success of opioid rotation appears to depend on the magnitude of the initial dose, among other factors. Tables of equianalgesic doses should be considered no more than a rough guide for determining the dose of the new drug. Rotations to methadone should be carried out under clinical supervision in experienced hands.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Cancer Pain; Chronic Pain; Fentanyl; Germany; Humans; Hydromorphone; Morphine; Neoplasms; Oxycodone; Pain Management
PubMed: 29563006
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2018.0135 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2009Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in the elderly. Opioids may be a viable treatment option if... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in the elderly. Opioids may be a viable treatment option if patients suffer from severe pain or if other analgesics are contraindicated. However, the evidence about their effectiveness and safety is contradictory.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects on pain and function and the safety of oral or transdermal opioids as compared with placebo or no intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (up to 28 July 2008), checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were included if they were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared oral or transdermal opioids with placebo or no treatment in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. Studies of tramadol were excluded. No language restrictions were applied.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data in duplicate. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. Trials were combined using inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Ten trials with 2268 participants were included. Oral codeine was studied in three trials, transdermal fentanyl and oral morphine in one trial each, oral oxycodone in four, and oral oxymorphone in two trials. Overall, opioids were more effective than control interventions in terms of pain relief (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.26) and improvement of function (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.21). We did not find substantial differences in effects according to type of opioid, analgesic potency (strong or weak), daily dose, duration of treatment or follow up, methodological quality of trials, and type of funding. Adverse events were more frequent in patients receiving opioids compared to control. The pooled risk ratio was 1.55 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.70) for any adverse event (4 trials), 4.05 (95% CI 3.06 to 5.38) for dropouts due to adverse events (10 trials), and 3.35 (95% CI 0.83 to 13.56) for serious adverse events (2 trials). Withdrawal symptoms were more severe after fentanyl treatment compared to placebo (SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.79; 1 trial).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The small to moderate beneficial effects of non-tramadol opioids are outweighed by large increases in the risk of adverse events. Non-tramadol opioids should therefore not be routinely used, even if osteoarthritic pain is severe.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Administration, Oral; Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 19821302
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003115.pub3 -
Journal of Opioid Management 2022To determine equianalgesic potency ratios for opioids with an -evidence-based approach without the use of pre-existing potency tables. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine equianalgesic potency ratios for opioids with an -evidence-based approach without the use of pre-existing potency tables.
DESIGN
Frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing opioids in patient-controlled analgesia (PCA).
SETTING
A systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), and Web of Science identified relevant RCTs from start of recording to 2019.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
RCTs comparing opioids via intravenous PCA in acute pain, with comparable resulting pain scores and identical treatment with coanalgesics at study level. The quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool with six items.
RESULTS
52 RCTs were identified with data for 16 opioids. Primary endpoint was the inverted ratio of means of the total consumption administered via PCA, which resembles the analgesic potency. The calculated analgesic potencies were sufentanil 423 [95 percent CI 334.99; 532.96], fentanyl 58 [48.22; 68.60], buprenorphine 37 [26.66; 50.81], remifentanil 13 [9.37; 19.13], alfentanil 7 [4.02; 11.01], hydromorphone 6 [4.96; 8.43], oxymorphone 6 [4.46; 8.84], butorphanol 4.5 [3.05; 6.73], diamorphine 2.2 [1.16; 4.10], morphine 1, oxycodone 0.9 [0.65; 1.34], piritramide 0.9 [0.55; 1.56], nalbuphine 0.7 [0.54; 0.95], pethidine 0.12 [0.10; 0.15], meptazinol 0.08 [0.03; 0.20], and tramadol 0.08 [0.07; 0.10].
CONCLUSIONS
The results in part contradict the values from the literature, which have been criticized for their imprecision. From clinical experience however, our findings seem very plausible. Short-acting opioids are less potent compared to longer acting drugs, eg, morphine, probably due to shorter intervals for -readministration.
Topics: Humans; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Network Meta-Analysis; Tramadol; Morphine
PubMed: 36523208
DOI: 10.5055/jom.2022.0751 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Oct 2019Side effects of opioids used for the treatment of acute pain frequently limit their analgesic quality. Many studies have compared opioid side effects in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Side effects of opioids used for the treatment of acute pain frequently limit their analgesic quality. Many studies have compared opioid side effects in patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), but it remains unclear whether there are specific side effect profiles that can be exploited when choosing an opioid for a patient. In this review, we wanted to determine the risk ratios (RRs) for the most common side effects when using different opioids for intravenous PCA in equianalgesic doses and rank the substances accordingly.
METHODS
A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), and Web of Science identified 63 randomized controlled trials comparing opioids under equianalgesic conditions. Inclusion criteria were comparable pain stimulus between groups, equal coanalgesic treatment, and comparable resulting pain scores. Quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool with 6 items. Frequentistic network meta-analysis was conducted with morphine as the comparator. This method not only summarizes all estimated effects from direct comparisons of different interventions but also allows for indirect comparisons between interventions that can be linked via the common comparator, in which case the indirect evidence can be used to enhance the precision of the direct comparisons. Primary end points of this study were RRs for nausea and vomiting, pruritus, and events of sedation, as well as mean differences for scores of sedation. Events of respiratory depression were counted. Secondary end point was patient satisfaction (mean difference). The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42017062355).
RESULTS
Sixteen opioid interventions were compared in the largest network (nausea and vomiting outcome) and 7 opioid interventions in the smallest network (sedation events outcome). Most interventions did not differ from morphine on the primary outcomes (side effects), with some exceptions. Buprenorphine had a significantly higher RR of nausea and vomiting, whereas fentanyl had a lower RR of nausea and vomiting. Nalbuphine, butorphanol, methadone, and pethidine/meperidine had a lower risk of pruritus. Respiratory depression was rare (22 of 2452 patients). Pethidine/meperidine, fentanyl, and oxymorphone caused significantly lower sedation scores. Tramadol caused significantly lower satisfaction scores, whereas oxycodone, alfentanil, remifentanil, fentanyl, and pethidine/meperidine caused significantly higher satisfaction scores.
CONCLUSIONS
The opiate chosen for treatment most likely has little effect on the incidence of pruritus and nausea/vomiting, although considerable differences exist in terms of better and worse opioids in the presented rankings. Larger differences between drugs were observed with regard to sedation and patient satisfaction, and choosing the appropriate opioid may help to improve PCA in this regard.
Topics: Acute Pain; Administration, Intravenous; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Consciousness; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Pruritus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Insufficiency; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30418234
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000003887 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2013The use of opioids in the long-term management of chronic low-back pain (CLBP) has increased dramatically. Despite this trend, the benefits and risks of these... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The use of opioids in the long-term management of chronic low-back pain (CLBP) has increased dramatically. Despite this trend, the benefits and risks of these medications remain unclear. This review is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2007.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy of opioids in adults with CLBP.
SEARCH METHODS
We electronically searched the Cochrane Back Review Group's Specialized Register, CENTRAL, CINAHL and PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from January 2006 to October 2012. We checked the reference lists of these trials and other relevant systematic reviews for potential trials for inclusion.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the use of opioids (as monotherapy or in combination with other therapies) in adults with CLBP that were at least four weeks in duration. We included trials that compared non-injectable opioids to placebo or other treatments. We excluded trials that compared different opioids only.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data onto a pre-designed form. We pooled results using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.2. We reported on pain and function outcomes using standardized mean difference (SMD) or risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We used absolute risk difference (RD) with 95% CI to report adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 trials (5540 participants). Tramadol was examined in five trials (1378 participants); it was found to be better than placebo for pain (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.44; low quality evidence) and function (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07; moderate quality evidence). Transdermal buprenorphine (two trials, 653 participants) may make little difference for pain (SMD -2.47, 95%CI -2.69 to -2.25; very low quality evidence), but no difference compared to placebo for function (SMD -0.14, 95%CI -0.53 to 0.25; very low quality evidence). Strong opioids (morphine, hydromorphone, oxycodone, oxymorphone, and tapentadol), examined in six trials (1887 participants), were better than placebo for pain (SMD -0.43, 95%CI -0.52 to -0.33; moderate quality evidence) and function (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.15; moderate quality evidence). One trial (1583 participants) demonstrated that tramadol may make little difference compared to celecoxib (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.90; very low quality evidence) for pain relief. Two trials (272 participants) found no difference between opioids and antidepressants for either pain (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.45; very low quality evidence), or function (SMD -0.11, 95% -0.63 to 0.42; very low quality evidence). The included trials in this review had high drop-out rates, were of short duration, and had limited interpretability of functional improvement. They did not report any serious adverse effects, risks (addiction or overdose), or complications (sleep apnea, opioid-induced hyperalgesia, hypogonadism). In general, the effect sizes were medium for pain and small for function.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is some evidence (very low to moderate quality) for short-term efficacy (for both pain and function) of opioids to treat CLBP compared to placebo. The very few trials that compared opioids to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or antidepressants did not show any differences regarding pain and function. The initiation of a trial of opioids for long-term management should be done with extreme caution, especially after a comprehensive assessment of potential risks. There are no placebo-RCTs supporting the effectiveness and safety of long-term opioid therapy for treatment of CLBP.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Chronic Pain; Female; Humans; Low Back Pain; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23983011
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004959.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2014Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in older people. Opioids may be a viable treatment option... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in older people. Opioids may be a viable treatment option if people have severe pain or if other analgesics are contraindicated. However, the evidence about their effectiveness and safety is contradictory. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects on pain, function, safety, and addiction of oral or transdermal opioids compared with placebo or no intervention in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (up to 28 July 2008, with an update performed on 15 August 2012), checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared oral or transdermal opioids with placebo or no treatment in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis. We excluded studies of tramadol. We applied no language restrictions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data in duplicate. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. We combined trials using an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 12 additional trials and included 22 trials with 8275 participants in this update. Oral oxycodone was studied in 10 trials, transdermal buprenorphine and oral tapentadol in four, oral codeine in three, oral morphine and oral oxymorphone in two, and transdermal fentanyl and oral hydromorphone in one trial each. All trials were described as double-blind, but the risk of bias for other domains was unclear in several trials due to incomplete reporting. Opioids were more beneficial in pain reduction than control interventions (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.20), which corresponds to a difference in pain scores of 0.7 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS) between opioids and placebo. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 12% (95% CI 9% to 15%) between opioids (41% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (29% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into a number needed to treat (NNTB) to cause one additional treatment response on pain of 10 (95% CI 8 to 14). Improvement of function was larger in opioid-treated participants compared with control groups (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.17), which corresponds to a difference in function scores of 0.6 units between opioids and placebo on a standardised Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) disability scale ranging from 0 to 10. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 11% (95% CI 7% to 14%) between opioids (32% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (21% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into an NNTB to cause one additional treatment response on function of 11 (95% CI 7 to 14). We did not find substantial differences in effects according to type of opioid, analgesic potency, route of administration, daily dose, methodological quality of trials, and type of funding. Trials with treatment durations of four weeks or less showed larger pain relief than trials with longer treatment duration (P value for interaction = 0.001) and there was evidence for funnel plot asymmetry (P value = 0.054 for pain and P value = 0.011 for function). Adverse events were more frequent in participants receiving opioids compared with control. The pooled risk ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.35 to 1.63) for any adverse event (9 trials; 22% of participants in opioid and 15% of participants in control treatment experienced side effects), 3.76 (95% CI 2.93 to 4.82) for drop-outs due to adverse events (19 trials; 6.4% of participants in opioid and 1.7% of participants in control treatment dropped out due to adverse events), and 3.35 (95% CI 0.83 to 13.56) for serious adverse events (2 trials; 1.3% of participants in opioid and 0.4% of participants in control treatment experienced serious adverse events). Withdrawal symptoms occurred more often in opioid compared with control treatment (odds ratio (OR) 2.76, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.77; 3 trials; 2.4% of participants in opioid and 0.9% of participants control treatment experienced withdrawal symptoms).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The small mean benefit of non-tramadol opioids are contrasted by significant increases in the risk of adverse events. For the pain outcome in particular, observed effects were of questionable clinical relevance since the 95% CI did not include the minimal clinically important difference of 0.37 SMDs, which corresponds to 0.9 cm on a 10-cm VAS.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Administration, Oral; Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25229835
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003115.pub4 -
Pain Physician Jan 2021Chronic low back pain (CLBP) incurs huge costs owing to increased healthcare expenditure, disability, insurance, and work absenteeism. Opioid analgesics are commonly... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) incurs huge costs owing to increased healthcare expenditure, disability, insurance, and work absenteeism. Opioid analgesics are commonly used for the management of CLBP.
OBJECTIVE
To compare and rank the opioids used in the management of CLBP, in terms of efficacy and safety.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analyses (NMA).
METHOD
The search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that had evaluated the efficacy and safety of opioids in CLBP. Two authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessment. The proportion of patients reporting either 30% or 50% reduction in pain from baseline to follow-up on the numeric rating scale, was measured as efficacy outcome. Pairwise meta-analyses and Bayesian NMA, within the random-effects model, were used to synthesize data. Effect estimates from Bayesian NMA were presented as odds ratio (OR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI). Heterogeneity and convergence were assessed by using I 2 and deviation information criteria.
RESULTS
Twenty-three RCTs with a total of 8,420 patients, evaluating 13 different opioids were included in this NMA. For 30% pain reduction, oxymorphone (OR: 5.36; 95% CrI: 1.02-30.3), tramadol with acetaminophen (OR: 2.37; 95% CrI: 1.08-5.17), and buprenorphine (OR: 2.29; 95% CrI: 1.05-5.07) shown statistically significant more effective than placebo. For 50% pain reduction, the statistically significant difference is observed with buprenorphine (OR: 2.38 95% CrI: 1.08-5.24), oxymorphone (OR: 5.10; 95% CrI: 1.31-20.41), and tramadol with acetaminophen (OR: 2.11; 95% CrI: 1.07-4.21). Hydrocodone (OR: 0.33; 95% CrI: 0.14-0.77) was found statistically safer compared to the other opioids.
LIMITATIONS
Only 5 trials had more than a 12-week study duration. We need clinical trials with longer follow-up as CLBP management requires a longer duration, and long-term prescribing of opioids associated with severe adverse event profile, development of tolerance, and dependence.
CONCLUSIONS
Oxymorphone has an advantage over other opioids to reduce pain by 30% and 50% in patients with CLBP.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Bayes Theorem; Chronic Pain; Humans; Low Back Pain; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 33400430
DOI: No ID Found -
Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology May 2021: Chronic low back pain (LBP) is common, and some patients require opiates therapy. This Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) analyzed available randomized clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
: Chronic low back pain (LBP) is common, and some patients require opiates therapy. This Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) analyzed available randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the use of opioids for LBP.: All RCTs comparing two or more opioids for chronic LBP and reporting results under the Numeric Rating Scale were included. The following drugs were analyzed: fentanyl, morphine, tapentadol, oxycodone, buprenorphine, oxymorphone, tramadol. The NMA was performed through the STATA routine for Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model analysis, with standardized mean difference (SMD) effect measure. Data regarding the rate of adverse events and different drug formulations were also reported.: Data from 2933 patients were obtained, with a mean age of 53.30 ± 6.95 years. The mean duration of symptoms prior to beginning the trial was 95.16 ± 47.29 months. The mean follow-up was 3.29 ± 1.72 months. Among the analyzed compounds, oxymorphone, tapentadol and fentanyl showed the highest efficacy in terms of pain reduction.: According to published level I evidence, oxymorphone, tapentadol and fentanyl were the most effective drugs in the treatment of chronic LBP. However, different formulation and pharmacokinetic characteristics need to be taken into consideration when choosing the ideal compound for a given patient.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Bayes Theorem; Chronic Pain; Humans; Low Back Pain; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33706636
DOI: 10.1080/17512433.2021.1903316