Blog
About

14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      What percentage of chronic nonmalignant pain patients exposed to chronic opioid analgesic therapy develop abuse/addiction and/or aberrant drug-related behaviors? A structured evidence-based review.

      Pain Medicine (Malden, Mass.)

      methods, Risk Factors, Clinical Trials as Topic, statistics & numerical data, Comorbidity, Chronic Disease, Evidence-Based Medicine, Humans, Incidence, MEDLINE, Opioid-Related Disorders, epidemiology, Pain, drug therapy, Risk Assessment, Analgesics, Opioid, therapeutic use

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      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 a structured evidence-based review of all available studies on the development of abuse/addiction and aberrant drug-related behaviors (ADRBs) in chronic pain patients (CPPs) with nonmalignant pain on exposure to chronic opioid analgesic therapy (COAT). To determine what percentage of CPPs develop abuse/addiction and/or ADRBs on COAT exposure. Computer and manual literature searches yielded 79 references that addressed this area of study. Twelve of the studies were excluded from detailed review based on exclusion criteria important to this area. Sixty-seven studies were reviewed in detail and sorted according to whether they reported percentages of CPPs developing abuse/addiction or developing ADRBs, or percentages diagnosed with alcohol/illicit drug use as determined by urine toxicology. Study characteristics were abstracted into tabular form, and each report was characterized according to the type of study it represented based on the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Guidelines. Each study was independently evaluated by two raters according to 12 quality criteria and a quality score calculated. Studies were not utilized in the calculations unless their quality score (utilizing both raters) was greater than 65%. Within each of the above study groupings, the total number of CPPs exposed to opioids on COAT treatment was calculated. Similarly, the total number of CPPs in each grouping demonstrating abuse/addiction, ADRBs, or alcohol/illicit drug use was also calculated. Finally, a percentage for each of these behaviors was calculated in each grouping, utilizing the total number of CPPs exposed to opioids in each grouping. All 67 reports had quality scores greater than 65%. For the abuse/addiction grouping there were 24 studies with 2,507 CPPs exposed for a calculated abuse/addiction rate of 3.27%. Within this grouping for those studies that had preselected CPPs for COAT exposure for no previous or current history of abuse/addiction, the percentage of abuse/addiction was calculated at 0.19%. For the ADRB grouping, there were 17 studies with 2,466 CPPs exposed and a calculated ADRB rate of 11.5%. Within this grouping for preselected CPPs (as above), the percentage of ADRBs was calculated at 0.59%. In the urine toxicology grouping, there were five studies (15,442 CPPs exposed). Here, 20.4% of the CPPs had no prescribed opioid in urine and/or a nonprescribed opioid in urine. For five studies (1,965 CPPs exposed), illicit drugs were found in 14.5%. The results of this evidence-based structured review indicate that COAT exposure will lead to abuse/addiction in a small percentage of CPPs, but a larger percentage will demonstrate ADRBs and illicit drug use. These percentages appear to be much less if CPPs are preselected for the absence of a current or past history of alcohol/illicit drug use or abuse/addiction.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 78

          • 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: found
              • Article: not found

              Systematic review of psychosocial factors at work and private life as risk factors for back pain.

              A systematic review of observational studies. To assess whether psychosocial factors at work and in private life are risk factors for the occurrence of back pain. Several reviews on risk factors for back pain have paid attention to psychosocial factors. However, in none of the published reviews was a strict systematic approach used to identify and summarize the available evidence. A computerized bibliographical search of several databases was performed, restricted to studies with a cohort or case-control design. A rating system was used to assess the strength of the evidence for various factors, based on the methodologic quality of the studies and the consistency of the findings. Eleven cohort and two case-control studies were included in this review. Strong evidence was found for low social support in the workplace and low job satisfaction as risk factors for back pain. Insufficient evidence was found for an effect of a high work pace, high qualitative demands, low job content, low job control, and psychosocial factors in private life. Evidence was found for an effect of low workplace social support and low job satisfaction. However, the result for workplace social support was sensitive to slight changes in the rating system, and the effect found for low job satisfaction may be a result of insufficient adjustment for psychosocial work characteristics and physical load at work. In addition, the combined evaluation of job content and job control, both aspects of decision latitude, led to strong evidence of a role for low job decision latitude. Thus, based on this review, there is evidence for an effect of work-related psychosocial factors, but the evidence for the role of specific factors has not been established yet.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                18489635
                10.1111/j.1526-4637.2007.00370.x

                Comments

                Comment on this article