8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Interventions for the reduction of prescribed opioid use in chronic non-cancer pain

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This is the first update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2013. The conclusions of this review have not changed from the 2013 publication. People with chronic non‐cancer pain who are prescribed and are taking opioids can have a history of long‐term, high‐dose opioid use without effective pain relief. In those without good pain relief, reduction of prescribed opioid dose may be the desired and shared goal of both patient and clinician. Simple, unsupervised reduction of opioid use is clinically challenging, and very difficult to achieve and maintain. To investigate the effectiveness of different methods designed to achieve reduction or cessation of prescribed opioid use for the management of chronic non‐cancer pain in adults compared to controls. For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in January 2017, as well as bibliographies and citation searches of included studies. We also searched one trial registry for ongoing trials. Included studies had to be randomised controlled trials comparing opioid users receiving an intervention with a control group receiving treatment as usual, active control, or placebo. The aim of the study had to include a treatment goal of dose reduction or cessation of opioid medication. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We sought data relating to prescribed opioid use, adverse events of opioid reduction, pain, and psychological and physical function. We planned to assess the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach, however, due to the heterogeneity of studies, we were unable to combine outcomes in a meta‐analysis and therefore we did not assess the evidence with GRADE. Three studies are new to this update, resulting in five included studies in total (278 participants). Participants were primarily women (mean age 49.63 years, SD = 11.74) with different chronic pain conditions. We judged the studies too heterogeneous to pool data in a meta‐analysis, so we have summarised the results from each study qualitatively. The studies included acupuncture, mindfulness, and cognitive behavioral therapy interventions aimed at reducing opioid consumption, misuse of opioids, or maintenance of chronic pain management treatments. We found mixed results from the studies. Three of the five studies reported opioid consumption at post‐treatment and follow‐up. Two studies that delivered 'Mindfulness‐Oriented Recovery Enhancement' or 'Therapeutic Interactive Voice Response' found a significant difference between groups at post‐treatment and follow‐up in opioid consumption. The remaining study found reduction in opioid consumption in both treatment and control groups, and between‐group differences were not significant. Three studies reported adverse events related to the study and two studies did not have study‐related adverse events. We also found mixed findings for pain intensity and physical functioning. The interventions did not show between‐group differences for psychological functioning across all studies. Overall, the risk of bias was mixed across studies. All studies included sample sizes of fewer than 100 and so we judged all studies as high risk of bias for that category. There is no evidence for the efficacy or safety of methods for reducing prescribed opioid use in chronic pain. There is a small number of randomised controlled trials investigating opioid reduction, which means our conclusions are limited regarding the benefit of psychological, pharmacological, or other types of interventions for people with chronic pain trying to reduce their opioid consumption. The findings to date are mixed: there were reductions in opioid consumption after intervention, and often in control groups too. Reducing prescribed opioid use in adults with chronic non‐cancer pain Bottom line Based on the available evidence, we do not know the best method of reducing opioids in adults with chronic pain conditions. We found mixed results from a small number of studies included in this review. Background This is an updated review. The first review was published in 2013. About one in five adults suffer from moderate or severe chronic pain that is not caused by cancer. Some people with this type of pain are treated with opioids (typically with drugs such as morphine, codeine, oxycodone, fentanyl, or buprenorphine, either as tablets or as patches placed on the skin). It is not unusual for this medication to be ineffective or to stop working over time, and, sometimes, effective pain relief is not achieved despite doses being increased. Stopping using opioid drugs is not easy, especially when they have been used for some time, because stopping abruptly can cause unpleasant side effects.This review looked for high‐quality studies (randomised controlled trials) of treatments to help adults safely stop taking opioids prescribed for their pain. Study characteristics We searched for studies up to January 2017. We found five studies, and they investigated 278 people. Most people included in the studies were women, who were around 50 years of age, and reported a mixture of chronic pain conditions (e.g. headache, back pain, muscle pain). The studies included acupuncture, mindfulness, and cognitive behavioral therapy as strategies to decrease the amount of opioids taken by adults with chronic pain. Key results No conclusions can be drawn from this small amount of information. Therefore, it is not clear whether these treatments decrease the amount of opioids in adults with chronic pain (primary outcome) or reduce pain intensity, physical ability or mood (secondary outcomes). Three studies did include negative effects of their treatment, and two reported that the participants did not have anything negative happen to them because of the trial they were in. Non‐randomised studies, not included in this review, do indicate that for many people intensive rehabilitation packages may bring about major reduction in opioid use. Reducing prescribed opioid use in chronic non‐cancer pain is an important topic in need of more systematic research. Quality of the evidence We were not able to judge the quality of evidence included in this review because the studies were so different and could not be combined.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Opioids in chronic non-cancer pain: systematic review of efficacy and safety.

          Opioids are used increasingly for chronic non-cancer pain. Controversy exists about their effectiveness and safety with long-term use. We analysed available randomised, placebo-controlled trials of WHO step 3 opioids for efficacy and safety in chronic non-cancer pain. The Oxford Pain Relief Database (1950-1994) and Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched until September 2003. Inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of WHO step 3 opioids with placebo in chronic non-cancer pain. Double-blind studies reporting on pain intensity outcomes using validated pain scales were included. Fifteen randomised placebo-controlled trials were included. Four investigations with 120 patients studied intravenous opioid testing. Eleven studies (1025 patients) compared oral opioids with placebo for four days to eight weeks. Six of the 15 included trials had an open label follow-up of 6-24 months. The mean decrease in pain intensity in most studies was at least 30% with opioids and was comparable in neuropathic and musculoskeletal pain. About 80% of patients experienced at least one adverse event, with constipation (41%), nausea (32%) and somnolence (29%) being most common. Only 44% of 388 patients on open label treatments were still on opioids after therapy for between 7 and 24 months. The short-term efficacy of opioids was good in both neuropathic and musculoskeletal pain conditions. However, only a minority of patients in these studies went on to long-term management with opioids. The small number of selected patients and the short follow-ups do not allow conclusions concerning problems such as tolerance and addiction.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Opioids for chronic noncancer pain: a meta-analysis of effectiveness and side effects.

            Chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) is a major health problem, for which opioids provide one treatment option. However, evidence is needed about side effects, efficacy, and risk of misuse or addiction. This meta-analysis was carried out with these objectives: to compare the efficacy of opioids for CNCP with other drugs and placebo; to identify types of CNCP that respond better to opioids; and to determine the most common side effects of opioids. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (up to May 2005) and reference lists for randomized controlled trials of any opioid administered by oral or transdermal routes or rectal suppositories for CNCP (defined as pain for longer than 6 mo). Extracted outcomes included pain, function or side effects. Methodological quality was assessed with the Jadad instrument; analyses were conducted with Revman 4.2.7. Included were 41 randomized trials involving 6019 patients: 80% of the patients had nociceptive pain (osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis or back pain); 12%, neuropathic pain (postherpetic neuralgia, diabetic neuropathy or phantom limb pain); 7%, fibromyalgia; and 1%, mixed pain. The methodological quality of 87% of the studies was high. The opioids studied were classified as weak (tramadol, propoxyphene, codeine) or strong (morphine, oxycodone). Average duration of treatment was 5 (range 1-16) weeks. Dropout rates averaged 33% in the opioid groups and 38% in the placebo groups. Opioids were more effective than placebo for both pain and functional outcomes in patients with nociceptive or neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. Strong, but not weak, opioids were significantly superior to naproxen and nortriptyline, and only for pain relief. Among the side effects of opioids, only constipation and nausea were clinically and statistically significant. Weak and strong opioids outperformed placebo for pain and function in all types of CNCP. Other drugs produced better functional outcomes than opioids, whereas for pain relief they were outperformed only by strong opioids. Despite the relative shortness of the trials, more than one-third of the participants abandoned treatment.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Opioid therapy for chronic pain.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
                Wiley
                14651858
                November 13 2017
                Affiliations
                [1 ]University of Bath; Centre for Pain Research; Claverton Down Bath UK
                [2 ]Seattle Children’s Research Institute; Center for Child Health, Behavior, and Development; 2001 8th Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle USA
                [3 ]University of Bristol; School of Social and Community Medicine; Canynge Hall 39 Whatley Road Bristol UK BS8 2PS
                [4 ]University of Oxford; Pain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics); Pain Research Unit, Churchill Hospital Oxford Oxfordshire UK OX3 7LE
                [5 ]Frenchay Hospital; Pain Clinic, Macmillan Centre; Bristol UK BS16 1LE
                [6 ]University of Nottingham; School of Pharmacy; University Park Nottingham UK NG7 2RD
                Article
                10.1002/14651858.CD010323.pub3
                6486018
                29130474
                aa07e425-491d-47ed-a099-28dae2ecd594
                © 2017
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article