Opioid analgesics for nociceptive cancer pain: A comprehensive review.

Pain is one of the most burdensome symptoms in people with cancer, and opioid analgesics are considered the mainstay of cancer pain management. For this review, the authors evaluated the efficacy and toxicities of opioid analgesics compared with placebo, other opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and nonpharmacologic treatments for background cancer pain (continuous and relatively constant pain present at rest), and breakthrough cancer pain (transient exacerbation of pain despite stable and adequately controlled background pain). They found a paucity of placebo-controlled trials for background cancer pain, although tapentadol or codeine may be more efficacious than placebo (moderate-certainty to low-certainty evidence). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs including aspirin, piroxicam, diclofenac, ketorolac, and the antidepressant medicine imipramine, may be at least as efficacious as opioids for moderate-to-severe background cancer pain. For breakthrough cancer pain, oral transmucosal, buccal, sublingual, or intranasal fentanyl preparations were identified as more efficacious than placebo but were more commonly associated with toxicities, including constipation and nausea. Despite being recommended worldwide for the treatment of cancer pain, morphine was generally not superior to other opioids, nor did it have a more favorable toxicity profile. The interpretation of study results, however, was complicated by the heterogeneity in the study populations evaluated. Given the limited quality and quantity of research, there is a need to reappraise the clinical utility of opioids in people with cancer pain, particularly those who are not at the end of life, and to further explore the effects of opioids on immune system function and quality of life in these individuals.

General practitioners' decision-making process to prescribe pain medicines for low back pain: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Pain medicines are widely prescribed by general practitioners (GPs) when managing people with low back pain (LBP), but little is known about what drives decisions to prescribe these medicines. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate what influences GPs' decision to prescribe pain medicines for LBP. DESIGN: Qualitative study with in-depth interviews. SETTING: Australian primary care. PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 25 GPs practising in Australia experienced in managing LBP (mean (SD) age 53.4 (9.1) years, mean (SD) years of experience: 24.6 (9.3), 36% female). GPs were provided three vignettes describing common LBP presentations (acute exacerbation of chronic LBP, subacute sciatica and chronic LBP) and were asked to think aloud how they would manage the cases described in the vignettes. DATA ANALYSIS: We summarised GP's choices of pain medicines for each vignette using content analysis and used framework analysis to investigate factors that affected GP's decision-making. RESULTS: GPs more commonly prescribed opioid analgesics. Anticonvulsants and antidepressants were also commonly prescribed depending on the presentation described in the vignette. GP participants made decisions about what pain medicines to prescribe for LBP largely based on previous experiences, including their own personal experiences of LBP, rather than guidelines. The choice of pain medicine was influenced by a range of clinical factors, more commonly the patient's pathoanatomical diagnosis. While many adhered to principles of judicious use of pain medicines, polypharmacy scenarios were also common. Concerns about drug-seeking behaviour, adverse effects, stigma around opioid analgesics and pressure from regulators also shaped their decision-making process. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several aspects of decision-making that help explain the current profile of pain medicines prescribed for LBP by GPs. Themes identified by our study could inform future implementation strategies to improve the quality use of medicines for LBP.

Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for sciatica: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness and safety of surgery compared with non-surgical treatment for sciatica. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to June 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials comparing any surgical treatment with non-surgical treatment, epidural steroid injections, or placebo or sham surgery, in people with sciatica of any duration due to lumbar disc herniation (diagnosed by radiological imaging). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data. Leg pain and disability were the primary outcomes. Adverse events, back pain, quality of life, and satisfaction with treatment were the secondary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). Data were pooled using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) framework. Follow-up times were into immediate term (≤six weeks), short term (>six weeks and ≤three months), medium term (>three and <12 months), and long term (at 12 months). RESULTS: 24 trials were included, half of these investigated the effectiveness of discectomy compared with non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections (1711 participants). Very low to low certainty evidence showed that discectomy, compared with non-surgical treatment, reduced leg pain: the effect size was moderate at immediate term (mean difference -12.1 (95% confidence interval -23.6 to -0.5)) and short term (-11.7 (-18.6 to -4.7)), and small at medium term (-6.5 (-11.0 to -2.1)). Negligible effects were noted at long term (-2.3 (-4.5 to -0.2)). For disability, small, negligible, or no effects were found. A similar effect on leg pain was found when comparing discectomy with epidural steroid injections. For disability, a moderate effect was found at short term, but no effect was observed at medium and long term. The risk of any adverse events was similar between discectomy and non-surgical treatment (risk ratio 1.34 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.98)). CONCLUSION: Very low to low certainty evidence suggests that discectomy was superior to non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections in reducing leg pain and disability in people with sciatica with a surgical indication, but the benefits declined over time. Discectomy might be an option for people with sciatica who feel that the rapid relief offered by discectomy outweighs the risks and costs associated with surgery. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021269997.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of antidepressants for pain in adults: overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive overview of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of antidepressants for pain according to condition. DESIGN: Overview of systematic reviews. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 20 June 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Systematic reviews comparing any antidepressant with placebo for any pain condition in adults. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data. The main outcome measure was pain; for headache disorders it was frequency of headaches. Continuous pain outcomes were converted into a scale of 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain) and were presented as mean differences (95% confidence intervals). Dichotomous outcomes were presented as risk ratios (95% confidence intervals). Data were extracted from the time point closest to the end of treatment. When end of treatment was too variable across trials in a review, data were extracted from the outcome or time point with the largest number of trials and participants. Secondary outcomes were safety and tolerability (withdrawals because of adverse events). Findings were classified from each comparison as efficacious, not efficacious, or inconclusive. Certainty of evidence was assessed with the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation framework. RESULTS: 26 reviews (156 unique trials and >25 000 participants) were included. These reviews reported on the efficacy of eight antidepressant classes covering 22 pain conditions (42 distinct comparisons). No review provided high certainty evidence on the efficacy of antidepressants for pain for any condition. 11 comparisons (nine conditions) were found where antidepressants were efficacious, four with moderate certainty evidence: serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) for back pain (mean difference -5.3, 95% confidence interval -7.3 to -3.3), postoperative pain (-7.3, -12.9 to -1.7), neuropathic pain (-6.8, -8.7 to -4.8), and fibromyalgia (risk ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 1.6). For the other 31 comparisons, antidepressants were either not efficacious (five comparisons) or the evidence was inconclusive (26 comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of efficacy of antidepressants was found in 11 of the 42 comparisons included in this overview of systematic reviews-seven of the 11 comparisons investigated the efficacy of SNRIs. For the other 31 comparisons, antidepressants were either inefficacious or evidence on efficacy was inconclusive. The findings suggest that a more nuanced approach is needed when prescribing antidepressants for pain conditions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022311073.

Disseminated Mycobacterium chelonae infection complicating rheumatoid arthritis: A case report and review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may predispose patients to opportunistic infections-either from innate immune dysregulation, or as a result of immunosuppressant use to treat the RA. Particularly concerning opportunistic infections are those caused by non-tuberculous mycobacterial (NTM) organisms, the incidence of which has been increasing in epidemiological studies. Despite this, guidelines on the management of patients with RA who develop NTM infections are scarce, particularly with respect to immunosuppressant regimen modulation and duration of antibiotic therapy. CASE REPORT: Herein, we present a case of disseminated Mycobacterium chelonae infection, manifesting as arthralgia and cutaneous nodules. DISCUSSION: In addition, a review of the literature was conducted to Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify similar cases in the literature-revealing that all RA-associated M. Chelonae infections occurred in immunosuppressed patients (the majority with corticosteroids or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors), and considerable heterogeneity in management approaches. Further research regarding risk factors, preventative approaches and best management of such NTM infections in vulnerable patients with RA is required in order to establish consensus guidelines and consistency.

Immunomodulatory effects of pharmaceutical opioids and antipyretic analgesics: Mechanisms and relevance to infection.

Understanding how pharmaceutical opioids and antipyretic analgesics interact with the immune system potentially has major clinical implications for management of patients with infectious diseases and surgical and critical care patients. An electronic search was carried out on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and the Cochrane library to identify reports describing the immunomodulatory effects of opioid analgesics and antipyretic analgesics, and their effects in infectious diseases. In adaptive immunity, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have divergent effects: augmenting cell-mediated immunity but inhibiting humoral immunity. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have demonstrated a beneficial role in Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection and histoplasmosis in animals, and may be plausible adjuvants to antimicrobial agents in these diseases. There is a need to evaluate these findings rigorously in human clinical trials. There is preliminary evidence demonstrating antiviral effects of indomethacin in SARS CoV-2 in vitro; however, uncertainty regarding its clinical benefit in humans needs to be resolved in large clinical trials. Certain opioid analgesics are associated with immunosuppressive effects, with a developing understanding that fentanyl, morphine, methadone and buprenorphine suppress innate immunity, whilst having diverse effects on adaptive immunity. Morphine suppresses key cells of the innate immunity and is associated with greater risk of infection in the postsurgical setting. Efforts are needed to achieve adequate analgesia whilst avoiding suppression of the innate immunity in the immediate postoperative period caused by certain opioids, particularly in cancer surgery.

Assessing the role for nailfold videocapillaroscopy in interstitial lung disease classfication: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The nailfold videocapillaroscopy (NVC) has been known to assist with interstitial lung disease (ILD) classification. However, evidence on its diagnostic efficacy is limited, particularly in some connective tissue disease-related interstitial lung diseases (CTD-ILD), and in interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features (IPAF). This study aimed to address this limitation by conducting a meta-analysis on the efficacy of the NVC in ILD subgroups of CTD-ILD, IPAF and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL were screened from inception to December 2020 according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies that report prevalence of nailfold abnormalities (NVC+) in CTD-ILD, IPAF and IPF cohorts were included. Data were presented as prevalence ratio (PR) with 95% CI using a random-effects model. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were eligible. Prevalence of NVC+ was highest in CTD-ILD; PR (95 CI%) 80.4% (74.3%, 85.3%), followed by IPAF; 27.4% (10.9%, 53.7%), and IPF; 13.8% (5.7%, 29.9%). Late scleroderma pattern was the most prevalent nailfold pattern; 40.4% (28.1%, 54.1%) in our CTD-ILD cohort. Quality of evidence was low for CTD-ILD, IPAF and IPF cohorts, moderate for the late scleroderma pattern cohort. CONCLUSION: NVC can increase the diagnostic accuracy of ILD when used in a multi-disciplinary setting, and appears to have greatest utility in CTD-ILD, followed by IPAF and IPF. The Late Scleroderma Pattern was the most frequent nailfold capillary pattern in SSc-ILD. Future research will allow for greater understanding of the prognostic value of the NVC in ILD.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: The effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and anti-platelet therapy on the incidence and recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Chemoprevention with NSAIDs, including aspirin, and anti-platelet therapy (APT), has been suggested to reduce the incidence and recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). AIM: To determine by meta-analysis whether NSAIDs and APT use affected HCC incidence, HCC recurrence and liver-related mortality in at-risk populations with chronic liver disease. METHOD: Electronic databases including Pubmed, Scopus, Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched (from inception to 31 May 2021) for eligible studies evaluating the impacts of NSAID or APT use on HCC incidence, recurrence and mortality. Data on HCC incidence, recurrence, liver-related mortality or bleeding complications had to be available. Studies were included if they evaluated adults with hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), alcohol-related liver disease (ALD) or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis that were administered at least one NSAID or APT for a defined period of time and were followed for at least 6 months. The primary outcome was HCC incidence. Secondary outcomes included: HCC recurrence, liver-related mortality and bleeding complications. Data were pooled using a random effects model with hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) presented. RESULTS: Of 3773 articles screened, 19 studies were included, with a total of 147 283 participants. Aspirin use reduced the risk of HCC incidence (HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.36-0.72); and improved liver-related mortality (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.15-0.70), with a small increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding events (OR: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.08-1.94). With respect to HCC recurrence following treatment, analysis of all aspirin and NSAID treatment (including; aspirin only; non-aspirin NSAIDs only; and combination NSAIDs groups) was associated with a decreased risk of HCC recurrence (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.75-0.86). By stratified analysis, only the non-aspirin NSAID group showed significant risk reduction (HR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.63-0.84). CONCLUSION: The study supports the use of aspirin in at-risk individuals to reduce the incidence of HCC and liver-related mortality. HCC recurrence following treatment was lower with NSAID treatment.

Efficacy and safety of antidepressants for the treatment of back pain and osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for back and osteoarthritis pain compared with placebo. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 15 November and updated on 12 May 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy or safety, or both of any antidepressant drug with placebo (active or inert) in participants with low back or neck pain, sciatica, or hip or knee osteoarthritis. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data. Pain and disability were primary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). A random effects model was used to calculate weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Safety (any adverse event, serious adverse events, and proportion of participants who withdrew from trials owing to adverse events) was a secondary outcome. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) framework. RESULTS: 33 trials (5318 participants) were included. Moderate certainty evidence showed that serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) reduced back pain (mean difference -5.30, 95% confidence interval -7.31 to -3.30) at 3-13 weeks and low certainty evidence that SNRIs reduced osteoarthritis pain (-9.72, -12.75 to -6.69) at 3-13 weeks. Very low certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced sciatica at two weeks or less (-18.60, -31.87 to -5.33) but not at 3-13 weeks (-17.50, -42.90 to 7.89). Low to very low certainty evidence showed that tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) did not reduce sciatica at two weeks or less (-7.55, -18.25 to 3.15) but did at 3-13 weeks (-15.95, -31.52 to -0.39) and 3-12 months (-27.0, -36.11 to -17.89). Moderate certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced disability from back pain at 3-13 weeks (-3.55, -5.22 to -1.88) and disability due to osteoarthritis at two weeks or less (-5.10, -7.31 to -2.89), with low certainty evidence at 3-13 weeks (-6.07, -8.13 to -4.02). TCAs and other antidepressants did not reduce pain or disability from back pain. CONCLUSION: Moderate certainty evidence shows that the effect of SNRIs on pain and disability scores is small and not clinically important for back pain, but a clinically important effect cannot be excluded for osteoarthritis. TCAs and SNRIs might be effective for sciatica, but the certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020158521.

Efficacy and Safety of Low-dose Codeine-containing Combination Analgesics for Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of combination analgesic products containing low-dose codeine (up to 30 mg/dose) for pain. METHODS: Electronic databases were used to identify eligible placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two authors extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Data were pooled using a random-effects model with the strength of evidence assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. The primary outcome was immediate pain relief (3 hours post administration) on a 0 to 100 pain scale. RESULTS: Ten RCTs were eligible. There is low-quality evidence (4 RCTs, n=211 participants) that a single dose of a combination analgesic product (with an nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory) containing low-dose codeine (15 to 30 mg) provides small pain relief for acute dental pain (mean difference [MD], -12.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], -18.5 to -6.9) and moderate-quality evidence (1 RCT, n=93) of small pain relief for post-episiotomy pain and orthopedic surgery pain (MD,, -10.0; 95% CI, -19.0 to -1.0 and MD, -11.0; 95% CI, -20.7 to -1.3), respectively. There is low-quality evidence (1 RCT, n=80) that a multiple-dose regimen provides small pain relief for acute pain following photorefractive keratectomy (MD, -16.0; 95% CI, -24.5 to -7.5) and moderate-quality evidence of moderate pain relief for certain chronic pain conditions: for hip osteoarthritis (MD, -19.0; 95% CI, -31.2 to -6.8) and for temporomandibular joint pain (MD, -26.0; 95% CI, -44.5 to -7.5). Two studies reported a higher incidence of drowsiness in the treatment group compared with the placebo group (relative risk, 8.50; 95% CI, 1.96, 36.8 and 19.3; 95% CI, 1.2-306.5, respectively). DISCUSSION: There is low to moderate level evidence that combination analgesic products containing low-dose codeine provide small to moderate pain relief for acute and chronic pain conditions in the immediate short term with limited trial data on use beyond 24 hours. Further research examining regular use of these medicines is needed with more emphasis on measuring potential harmful effects.