-
JAMA Apr 2016Primary care clinicians find managing chronic pain challenging. Evidence of long-term efficacy of opioids for chronic pain is limited. Opioid use is associated with... (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
Primary care clinicians find managing chronic pain challenging. Evidence of long-term efficacy of opioids for chronic pain is limited. Opioid use is associated with serious risks, including opioid use disorder and overdose.
OBJECTIVE
To provide recommendations about opioid prescribing for primary care clinicians treating adult patients with chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care.
PROCESS
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated a 2014 systematic review on effectiveness and risks of opioids and conducted a supplemental review on benefits and harms, values and preferences, and costs. CDC used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess evidence type and determine the recommendation category.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Evidence consisted of observational studies or randomized clinical trials with notable limitations, characterized as low quality using GRADE methodology. Meta-analysis was not attempted due to the limited number of studies, variability in study designs and clinical heterogeneity, and methodological shortcomings of studies. No study evaluated long-term (≥1 year) benefit of opioids for chronic pain. Opioids were associated with increased risks, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death, with dose-dependent effects.
RECOMMENDATIONS
There are 12 recommendations. Of primary importance, nonopioid therapy is preferred for treatment of chronic pain. Opioids should be used only when benefits for pain and function are expected to outweigh risks. Before starting opioids, clinicians should establish treatment goals with patients and consider how opioids will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks. When opioids are used, clinicians should prescribe the lowest effective dosage, carefully reassess benefits and risks when considering increasing dosage to 50 morphine milligram equivalents or more per day, and avoid concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines whenever possible. Clinicians should evaluate benefits and harms of continued opioid therapy with patients every 3 months or more frequently and review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, for high-risk combinations or dosages. For patients with opioid use disorder, clinicians should offer or arrange evidence-based treatment, such as medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine or methadone.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The guideline is intended to improve communication about benefits and risks of opioids for chronic pain, improve safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce risks associated with long-term opioid therapy.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Benzodiazepines; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.; Chronic Pain; Communication; Contraindications; Drug Prescriptions; Drug Therapy, Combination; Goals; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Prescription Drug Misuse; Primary Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; United States; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 26977696
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.1464 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Dec 2022Preemptive analgesia may improve postoperative pain management, but the optimal regimen is unclear. This study aimed to compare the effects and adverse events of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Preemptive analgesia may improve postoperative pain management, but the optimal regimen is unclear. This study aimed to compare the effects and adverse events of preemptive analgesia on postoperative pain and opioid consumption.
METHODS
In this network meta-analysis, 19 preemptive analgesia regimens were compared. Two authors independently searched databases, selected studies, and extracted data. Primary outcomes were the intensity of postoperative pain and opioid consumption. Secondary outcomes included the time to first analgesia rescue and incidence of postoperative nausea or vomiting (PONV).
RESULTS
In total, 188 studies were included (13 769 subjects). Ten of 19 regimens reduced postoperative pain intensity compared with placebo, with mean differences 100-point scale ranging from -4.79 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.61 to -0.96.) for gabapentin at 48 h to -21.99 (95% CI: -36.97 to -7.02) for lornoxicam at 6 h. Eight regimens reduced opioid consumption compared with placebo, with mean differences ranging from -0.48 mg (95% CI: -0.89 to -0.08) i.v. milligrams of morphine equivalents (IMME) for acetaminophen at 12 h to -2.27 IMME (95% CI: -3.07 to -1.46) for ibuprofen at 24 h. Five regimens delayed rescue analgesia from 1.75 (95% CI: 0.59-2.91) h for gabapentin to 7.35 (95% CI: 3.66-11.04) h for epidural analgesia. Five regimens had a lower incidence of PONV compared with placebo, ranging from an odds ratio of 0.22 (95% CI: 0.11-0.42) for ibuprofen to 0.59 (95% CI: 0.40-0.87) for pregabalin.
CONCLUSIONS
Use of preemptive analgesia reduces postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and postoperative nausea or vomiting, and delays rescue analgesia.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL
PROSPERO CRD42021232593.
Topics: Humans; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics, Opioid; Gabapentin; Ibuprofen; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 36404458
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.08.038 -
JAMA Surgery Oct 2017There is increased interest in nonpharmacological treatments to reduce pain after total knee arthroplasty. Yet, little consensus supports the effectiveness of these... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
There is increased interest in nonpharmacological treatments to reduce pain after total knee arthroplasty. Yet, little consensus supports the effectiveness of these interventions.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and meta-analyze evidence of nonpharmacological interventions for postoperative pain management after total knee arthroplasty.
DATA SOURCES
Database searches of MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (OVID), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science (ISI database), Physiotherapy Evidence (PEDRO) database, and ClinicalTrials.gov for the period between January 1946 and April 2016.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials comparing nonpharmacological interventions with other interventions in combination with standard care were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently extracted the data from selected articles using a standardized form and assessed the risk of bias. A random-effects model was used for the analyses.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Postoperative pain and consumption of opioids and analgesics.
RESULTS
Of 5509 studies, 39 randomized clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis (2391 patients). The most commonly performed interventions included continuous passive motion, preoperative exercise, cryotherapy, electrotherapy, and acupuncture. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that electrotherapy reduced the use of opioids (mean difference, -3.50; 95% CI, -5.90 to -1.10 morphine equivalents in milligrams per kilogram per 48 hours; P = .004; I2 = 17%) and that acupuncture delayed opioid use (mean difference, 46.17; 95% CI, 20.84 to 71.50 minutes to the first patient-controlled analgesia; P < .001; I2 = 19%). There was low-certainty evidence that acupuncture improved pain (mean difference, -1.14; 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.38 on a visual analog scale at 2 days; P = .003; I2 = 0%). Very low-certainty evidence showed that cryotherapy was associated with a reduction in opioid consumption (mean difference, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.01 morphine equivalents in milligrams per kilogram per 48 hours; P = .03; I2 = 86%) and in pain improvement (mean difference, -0.51; 95% CI, -1.00 to -0.02 on the visual analog scale; P < .05; I2 = 62%). Low-certainty or very low-certainty evidence showed that continuous passive motion and preoperative exercise had no pain improvement and reduction in opioid consumption: for continuous passive motion, the mean differences were -0.05 (95% CI, -0.35 to 0.25) on the visual analog scale (P = .74; I2 = 52%) and 6.58 (95% CI, -6.33 to 19.49) opioid consumption at 1 and 2 weeks (P = .32, I2 = 87%), and for preoperative exercise, the mean difference was -0.14 (95% CI, -1.11 to 0.84) on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index Scale (P = .78, I2 = 65%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this meta-analysis, electrotherapy and acupuncture after total knee arthroplasty were associated with reduced and delayed opioid consumption.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 28813550
DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.2872 -
PloS One 2020This systematic review aimed to ascertain the diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of screening tests for early detection of type 2 diabetes and prediabetes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
This systematic review aimed to ascertain the diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of screening tests for early detection of type 2 diabetes and prediabetes in previously undiagnosed adults.
METHODS
This systematic review included published studies that included one or more index tests (random and fasting tests, HbA1c) for glucose detection, with 75-gram Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (or 2-hour post load glucose) as a reference standard (PROSPERO ID CRD42018102477). Seven databases were searched electronically (from their inception up to March 9, 2020) accompanied with bibliographic and website searches. Records were manually screened and full text were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subsequently, data extraction was done using standardized form and quality assessment of studies using QUADAS-2 tool. Meta-analysis was done using bivariate model using Stata 14.0. Optimal cut offs in terms of sensitivity and specificity for the tests were analysed using R software.
RESULTS
Of 7,151 records assessed by title and abstract, a total of 37 peer reviewed articles were included in this systematic review. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive (LR+) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) for diagnosing diabetes with HbA1c (6.5%; venous sample; n = 17 studies) were 50% (95% CI: 42-59%), 97.3% (95% CI: 95.3-98.4), 18.32 (95% CI: 11.06-30.53) and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.43-0.60), respectively. However, the optimal cut-off for diagnosing diabetes in previously undiagnosed adults with HbA1c was estimated as 6.03% with pooled sensitivity of 73.9% (95% CI: 68-79.1%) and specificity of 87.2% (95% CI: 82-91%). The optimal cut-off for Fasting Plasma Glucose (FPG) was estimated as 104 milligram/dL (mg/dL) with a sensitivity of 82.3% (95% CI: 74.6-88.1%) and specificity of 89.4% (95% CI: 85.2-92.5%).
CONCLUSION
Our findings suggest that at present recommended threshold of 6.5%, HbA1c is more specific and less sensitive in diagnosing the newly detected diabetes in undiagnosed population from community settings. Lowering of thresholds for HbA1c and FPG to 6.03% and 104 mg/dL for early detection in previously undiagnosed persons for screening purposes may be considered.
Topics: Adult; Blood Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures; Female; Glucose Tolerance Test; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hyperglycemia; Male; Mass Screening; Prediabetic State; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 33216783
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242415 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Mar 2023An unmet clinical need exists in the management of treatment-refractory allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA). Omalizumab has shown promising effects in case... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
An unmet clinical need exists in the management of treatment-refractory allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA). Omalizumab has shown promising effects in case series and cohort studies; however, evidence to support its routine clinical use is lacking.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of omalizumab in patients with ABPA.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search across standard databases using specific key words until May 13, 2021. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness (exacerbations, oral corticosteroid [OCS] use, lung function, and patient-reported asthma control) and safety of pre- and post-omalizumab treatment. Subgroup analyses were performed for treatment duration and underlying disease.
RESULTS
In total, 49 studies (n = 267) were included in the qualitative synthesis and 14 case series (n = 186) in the quantitative meta-analysis. Omalizumab treatment significantly reduced the annualized exacerbation rate compared with pretreatment (mean difference, -2.09 [95% CI, -3.07 to -1.11]; P < .01). There was a reduction in OCS use (risk difference, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.46-0.84]; P < .01), an increase in termination of OCS use (risk difference, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.24-0.82]; P < .01), and a reduction in OCS dose (milligrams per day) (mean difference, -14.62 [95% CI, -19.86 to -9.39]; P < .01) in ABPA patients receiving omalizumab. Omalizumab improved FEV % predicted by 11.9% (95% CI, 8.2-15.6; P < .01) and asthma control, and was well-tolerated.
CONCLUSIONS
Omalizumab treatment reduced exacerbations and OCS use, improved lung function and asthma control in patients with ABPA, and was well-tolerated. The results highlight the potential role of omalizumab in the treatment of ABPA.
Topics: Humans; Omalizumab; Aspergillosis, Allergic Bronchopulmonary; Cystic Fibrosis; Asthma; Adrenal Cortex Hormones
PubMed: 36581073
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.12.012 -
Advances in Nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) Nov 2017Beetroot is considered a complementary treatment for hypertension because of its high content of inorganic NO This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to clarify... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Beetroot is considered a complementary treatment for hypertension because of its high content of inorganic NO This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to clarify several aspects of beetroot juice supplementation on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases, and the reference lists of previous reviews. Randomized clinical trials that investigated the effects of beetroot juice on resting blood pressure in humans were recruited for quality assessment, meta-analyses, subgroup analyses, and meta-regressions; of these, 22 were conducted between 2009 and 2017 and included a total of 47 intervention ( = 650) and 43 control ( = 598) groups. Overall, SBP (-3.55 mm Hg; 95% CI: -4.55, -2.54 mm Hg) and DBP (-1.32 mm Hg; 95% CI: -1.97, -0.68 mm Hg) were significantly lower in the beetroot juice-supplemented groups than in the control groups. The mean difference of SBP was larger between beetroot juice-supplemented and control groups in the longer than in the shorter (≥14 compared with <14 d) study durations (-5.11 compared with -2.67 mm Hg) and the highest compared with the lowest (500 compared with 70 and 140 mL/d) doses of beetroot juice (-4.78 compared with -2.37 mm Hg). A positive correlation was observed between beetroot juice doses and the mean differences of blood pressures. In contrast, a smaller effect size of blood pressures was observed after supplementation with higher NO (milligrams per 100 mL beetroot juice). A weak effect size was observed in a meta-analysis of trials that used NO-depleted beetroot juice as a placebo compared with other interventions (-3.09 compared with -4.51 mm Hg for SBP and -0.81 compared with -2.01 mm Hg for DBP). Our results demonstrate the blood pressure-lowering effects of beetroot juice and highlight its potential NO-independent effects.
Topics: Adult; Antihypertensive Agents; Beta vulgaris; Blood Pressure; Dietary Supplements; Female; Fruit and Vegetable Juices; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Nitrates
PubMed: 29141968
DOI: 10.3945/an.117.016717 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Jun 2022Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has gained popularity for perioperative analgesia in various surgeries. However, its efficacy in lumbar surgery remains unclear. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STUDY OBJECTIVE
Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has gained popularity for perioperative analgesia in various surgeries. However, its efficacy in lumbar surgery remains unclear. This review aimed to determine whether ESPB could improve analgesic efficacy in lumbar spine surgery.
DESIGN
A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
SETTING
Perioperative setting.
PATIENTS
Patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery under general anesthesia.
INTERVENTIONS
We searched the databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science etc. for published eligible controlled trials comparing ESPB with control (no block/sham block) in lumbar spine surgery.
MEASUREMENTS
The primary outcome was opioid consumption in the first 24 h after surgery.
MAIN RESULTS
Twelve studies comprising 665 participants were included. Compared to the control, ESPB reduced the opioid (morphine milligram equivalents) consumption significantly 24 h after surgery [mean difference (MD) = -14.55; 95% confidence interval (CI), -21.03 to -8.07; P < 0.0001] and lowered the pain scores at various time points (at rest or during movement) for 48 h after surgery. ESPB increased the patient satisfaction score (0-10) (MD = 2.38; 95% CI, 2.10 to 2.66; P < 0.0001), decreased the postoperative nausea and vomiting [risk ratio (RR) = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.67; P = 0.001], and minimized the length of hospital stay (MD = -1.24 days; 95% CI, -2.31 to -0.18; P = 0.02). Furthermore, subgroup analysis revealed additional reduction in opioid consumption by the block approach at the vertebral level of incision/operation than that at the fixed thoracic/lumbar level. However, considerable heterogeneity and low-grade quality of evidence were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
ESPB provided effective postoperative analgesia resulting in better patient satisfaction and recovery with decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing lumbar surgery compared to the control. However, the low-grade quality of evidence compromised the findings, therefore further high-quality of evidence is required. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021233362.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Paraspinal Muscles; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 35030493
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2022.110647 -
BMJ Open Jul 2021To assess the efficacy and harms of adding medical cannabis to prescription opioids among people living with chronic pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy and harms of adding medical cannabis to prescription opioids among people living with chronic pain.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
CENTRAL, EMBASE and MEDLINE.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Opioid dose reduction, pain relief, sleep disturbance, physical and emotional functioning and adverse events.
STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA AND METHODS
We included studies that enrolled patients with chronic pain receiving prescription opioids and explored the impact of adding medical cannabis. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
RESULTS
Eligible studies included five randomised trials (all enrolling chronic cancer-pain patients) and 12 observational studies. All randomised trials instructed participants to maintain their opioid dose, which resulted in a very low certainty evidence that adding cannabis has little or no impact on opioid use (weighted mean difference (WMD) -3.4 milligram morphine equivalent (MME); 95% CI (CI) -12.7 to 5.8). Randomised trials provided high certainty evidence that cannabis addition had little or no effect on pain relief (WMD -0.18 cm; 95% CI -0.38 to 0.02; on a 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain) or sleep disturbance (WMD -0.22 cm; 95% CI -0.4 to -0.06; on a 10 cm VAS for sleep disturbance; minimally important difference is 1 cm) among chronic cancer pain patients. Addition of cannabis likely increases nausea (relative risk (RR) 1.43; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.96; risk difference (RD) 4%, 95% CI 0% to 7%) and vomiting (RR 1.5; 95% CI 1.01 to 2.24; RD 3%; 95% CI 0% to 6%) (both moderate certainty) and may have no effect on constipation (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.35; RD -1%; 95% CI -4% to 2%) (low certainty). Eight observational studies provided very low certainty evidence that adding cannabis reduced opioid use (WMD -22.5 MME; 95% CI -43.06 to -1.97).
CONCLUSION
Opioid-sparing effects of medical cannabis for chronic pain remain uncertain due to very low certainty evidence.CRD42018091098.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Cannabinoids; Chronic Pain; Humans; Medical Marijuana; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vomiting
PubMed: 34321302
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047717 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2017Chronic pain is common and can be challenging to manage. Despite increased utilisation of opioids, the safety and efficacy of long-term use of these compounds for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic pain is common and can be challenging to manage. Despite increased utilisation of opioids, the safety and efficacy of long-term use of these compounds for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) remains controversial. This overview of Cochrane Reviews complements the overview entitled 'High-dose opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews'.
OBJECTIVES
To provide an overview of the occurrence and nature of adverse events associated with any opioid agent (any dose, frequency, or route of administration) used on a medium- or long-term basis for the treatment of CNCP in adults.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (the Cochrane Library) Issue 3, 2017 on 8 March 2017 to identify all Cochrane Reviews of studies of medium- or long-term opioid use (2 weeks or more) for CNCP in adults aged 18 and over. We assessed the quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR criteria (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) as adapted for Cochrane Overviews. We assessed the quality of the evidence for the outcomes using the GRADE framework.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 16 reviews in our overview, of which 14 presented unique quantitative data. These 14 Cochrane Reviews investigated 14 different opioid agents that were administered for time periods of two weeks or longer. The longest study was 13 months in duration, with most in the 6- to 16-week range. The quality of the included reviews was high using AMSTAR criteria, with 11 reviews meeting all 10 criteria, and 5 of the reviews meeting 9 out of 10, not scoring a point for either duplicate study selection and data extraction, or searching for articles irrespective of language and publication type. The quality of the evidence for the generic adverse event outcomes according to GRADE ranged from very low to moderate, with risk of bias and imprecision being identified for the following generic adverse event outcomes: any adverse event, any serious adverse event, and withdrawals due to adverse events. A GRADE assessment of the quality of the evidence for specific adverse events led to a downgrading to very low- to moderate-quality evidence due to risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision.We calculated the equivalent milligrams of morphine per 24 hours for each opioid studied (buprenorphine, codeine, dextropropoxyphene, dihydrocodeine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, levorphanol, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, tapentadol, tilidine, and tramadol). In the 14 Cochrane Reviews providing unique quantitative data, there were 61 studies with a total of 18,679 randomised participants; 12 of these studies had a cross-over design with two to four arms and a total of 796 participants. Based on the 14 selected Cochrane Reviews, there was a significantly increased risk of experiencing any adverse event with opioids compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.66) as well as with opioids compared to a non-opioid active pharmacological comparator, with a similar risk ratio (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.33). There was also a significantly increased risk of experiencing a serious adverse event with opioids compared to placebo (RR 2.75, 95% CI 2.06 to 3.67). Furthermore, we found significantly increased risk ratios with opioids compared to placebo for a number of specific adverse events: constipation, dizziness, drowsiness, fatigue, hot flushes, increased sweating, nausea, pruritus, and vomiting.There was no data on any of the following prespecified adverse events of interest in any of the included reviews in this overview of Cochrane Reviews: addiction, cognitive dysfunction, depressive symptoms or mood disturbances, hypogonadism or other endocrine dysfunction, respiratory depression, sexual dysfunction, and sleep apnoea or sleep-disordered breathing. We found no data for adverse events analysed by sex or ethnicity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
A number of adverse events, including serious adverse events, are associated with the medium- and long-term use of opioids for CNCP. The absolute event rate for any adverse event with opioids in trials using a placebo as comparison was 78%, with an absolute event rate of 7.5% for any serious adverse event. Based on the adverse events identified, clinically relevant benefit would need to be clearly demonstrated before long-term use could be considered in people with CNCP in clinical practice. A number of adverse events that we would have expected to occur with opioid use were not reported in the included Cochrane Reviews. Going forward, we recommend more rigorous identification and reporting of all adverse events in randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews on opioid therapy. The absence of data for many adverse events represents a serious limitation of the evidence on opioids. We also recommend extending study follow-up, as a latency of onset may exist for some adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Chronic Pain; Humans; Patient Dropouts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 29084357
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012509.pub2 -
JAMA Network Open Nov 2021The use of intercostal nerve block (ICNB) analgesia with local anesthesia is common in thoracic surgery. However, the benefits and safety of ICNB among adult patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The use of intercostal nerve block (ICNB) analgesia with local anesthesia is common in thoracic surgery. However, the benefits and safety of ICNB among adult patients undergoing surgery is unknown.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the analgesic benefits and safety of ICNB among adults undergoing thoracic surgery.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic search was performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases using terms for ICNB and thoracic surgery (including thoracic surgery, thoracoscopy, thoracotomy, nerve block, intercostal nerves). The search and results were not limited by date, with the last search conducted on July 24, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Selected studies were experimental or observational and included adult patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery in which ICNB was administered with local anesthesia via single injection, continuous infusion, or a combination of both techniques in at least 1 group of patients. For comparison with ICNB, studies that examined systemic analgesia and different forms of regional analgesia (such as thoracic epidural analgesia [TEA], paravertebral block [PVB], and other techniques) were included. These criteria were applied independently by 2 authors, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. A total of 694 records were selected for screening.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data including patient characteristics, type of surgery, intervention analgesia, comparison analgesia, and primary and secondary outcomes were extracted independently by 3 authors. Synthesis was performed using a fixed-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The coprimary outcomes were postoperative pain intensity (measured as the worst static or dynamic pain using a validated 10-point scale, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating severe pain) and opioid consumption (measured in morphine milligram equivalents [MMEs]) at prespecified intervals (0-6 hours, 7-24 hours, 25-48 hours, 49-72 hours, and >72 hours). Clinically relevant analgesia was defined as a 1-point or greater difference in pain intensity score at any interval. Secondary outcomes included 30-day postoperative complications and pulmonary function.
RESULTS
Of 694 records screened, 608 were excluded based on prespecified exclusion criteria. The remaining 86 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 20 of those articles were excluded. All of the 66 remaining studies (5184 patients; mean [SD] age, 53.9 [10.2] years; approximately 59% men and 41% women) were included in the qualitative analysis, and 59 studies (3325 patients) that provided data for at least 1 outcome were included in the quantitative meta-analysis. Experimental studies had a high risk of bias in multiple domains, including allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, and blinding of outcome assessors. Marked differences (eg, crossover studies, timing of the intervention [intraoperative vs postoperative], blinding, and type of control group) were observed in the design and implementation of studies. The use of ICNB vs systemic analgesia was associated with lower static pain (0-6 hours after surgery: mean score difference, -1.40 points [95% CI, -1.46 to -1.33 points]; 7-24 hours after surgery: mean score difference, -1.27 points [95% CI, -1.40 to -1.13 points]) and lower dynamic pain (0-6 hours after surgery: mean score difference, -1.66 points [95% CI, -1.90 to -1.41 points]; 7-24 hours after surgery: mean score difference, -1.43 points [95% CI, -1.70 to -1.17 points]). Intercostal nerve block analgesia was noninferior to TEA (mean score difference in worst dynamic panic at 7-24 hours after surgery: 0.79 points; 95% CI, 0.28-1.29 points) and marginally inferior to PVB (mean score difference in worst dynamic pain at 7-24 hours after surgery: 1.29 points; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.41 points). The largest opioid-sparing effect of ICNB vs systemic analgesia occurred at 48 hours after surgery (mean difference, -10.97 MMEs; 95% CI, -12.92 to -9.02 MMEs). The use of ICNB was associated with higher MME values compared with TEA (eg, 48 hours after surgery: mean difference, 48.31 MMEs; 95% CI, 36.11-60.52 MMEs) and PVB (eg, 48 hours after surgery: mean difference, 3.87 MMEs; 95% CI, 2.59-5.15 MMEs).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this study, single-injection ICNB was associated with a reduction in pain during the first 24 hours after thoracic surgery and was clinically noninferior to TEA or PVB. Intercostal nerve block analgesia had opioid-sparing effects; however, TEA and PVB were associated with larger decreases in postoperative MMEs, suggesting that ICNB may be most beneficial for cases in which TEA and PVB are not indicated.
Topics: Acute Pain; Analgesia, Epidural; Anesthesia, Epidural; Female; Humans; Intercostal Nerves; Male; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Thoracic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 34779845
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.33394