Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Harms and benefits of opioids for chronic noncancer pain remain unclear. Objective: To systematically review randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of opioids for chronic noncancer pain. Data Sources and Study Selection: The databases of CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to April 2018 for RCTs of opioids for chronic noncancer pain vs any nonopioid control. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Paired reviewers independently extracted data. The analyses used random-effects models and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to rate the quality of the evidence. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were pain intensity (score range, 0-10 cm on a visual analog scale for pain; lower is better and the minimally important difference [MID] is 1 cm), physical functioning (score range, 0-100 points on the 36-item Short Form physical component score [SF-36 PCS]; higher is better and the MID is 5 points), and incidence of vomiting. Results: Ninety-six RCTs including 26 169 participants (61% female; median age, 58 years [interquartile range, 51-61 years]) were included. Of the included studies, there were 25 trials of neuropathic pain, 32 trials of nociceptive pain, 33 trials of central sensitization (pain present in the absence of tissue damage), and 6 trials of mixed types of pain. Compared with placebo, opioid use was associated with reduced pain (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.69 cm [95% CI, -0.82 to -0.56 cm] on a 10-cm visual analog scale for pain; modeled risk difference for achieving the MID, 11.9% [95% CI, 9.7% to 14.1%]), improved physical functioning (WMD, 2.04 points [95% CI, 1.41 to 2.68 points] on the 100-point SF-36 PCS; modeled risk difference for achieving the MID, 8.5% [95% CI, 5.9% to 11.2%]), and increased vomiting (5.9% with opioids vs 2.3% with placebo for trials that excluded patients with adverse events during a run-in period). Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggested similar associations of opioids with improvements in pain and physical functioning compared with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (pain: WMD, -0.60 cm [95% CI, -1.54 to 0.34 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, -0.90 points [95% CI, -2.69 to 0.89 points]), tricyclic antidepressants (pain: WMD, -0.13 cm [95% CI, -0.99 to 0.74 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, -5.31 points [95% CI, -13.77 to 3.14 points]), and anticonvulsants (pain: WMD, -0.90 cm [95% CI, -1.65 to -0.14 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, 0.45 points [95% CI, -5.77 to 6.66 points]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this meta-analysis of RCTs of patients with chronic noncancer pain, evidence from high-quality studies showed that opioid use was associated with statistically significant but small improvements in pain and physical functioning, and increased risk of vomiting compared with placebo. Comparisons of opioids with nonopioid alternatives suggested that the benefit for pain and functioning may be similar, although the evidence was from studies of only low to moderate quality.

Performance of the RABBIT infection risk score in an Argentinian rheumatoid arthritis cohort.

Patients with rheumatic autoimmune diseases have a higher risk of infections compared with age-and sex-matched controls. In Latin America, there are no validated tools to assess the risk of serious infection. The objectives were to estimate the incidence of serious infections in a cohort of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients followed for 12 months and to validate the RABBIT risk score for serious infections. Patients with RA were included and followed for 12 months. Baseline sociodemographic data, comorbidities, RA characteristics, and vaccination status were recorded. The baseline RABBIT risk score was calculated. Serious infections were documented, describing site and time since enrollment. Six hundred five patients were included (13 centers). The incidence of serious infection was 5% (95% CI 3-7). The most frequent sites were respiratory and urinary (90%). Performance of RABBIT risk score: patients with no infection during follow-up had a median score of 1.2 (IQR 0.8-2.1) and patients with infection 5.1 (IQR 2.15-12.6) p 0.00001. ROC curve analysis: AUC 0.86 (95% CI 0.8-0.94), best cut-off 2.85 (sensibility 75%, specificity 85%). The incidence of serious infections was 5% during the follow-up. The RABBIT score performed excellently in our patients. Key Points • The RABBIT risk score for serious infections showed an excellent performance in a population different (Latin America) from the original one included in the German registry. • This may assist rheumatologists in selecting drugs for patients according to the individual risk of infection, in a fast and simple way.

Evaluation of the Educational Needs in Argentine Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Using the SpENAT Questionnaire. / Evaluación de las necesidades educacionales de los pacientes con artritis reumatoide mediante el cuestionario SpENAT.

BACKGROUND: The SpENAT, a Spanish version of the Educational Needs Assessment Tool, is a self-completed questionnaire that assesses educational needs (ENs) with the purpose of providing tailored and patient-centered information. It consists of 39 questions grouped into the 7 following domains: Pain management, Movement, Feelings, Arthritic process, Treatments, Self-help measures and Support system. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to describe the ENs of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients using the SpENAT and to determine the main sources of information consulted by these patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Multicenter, observational, cross-sectional study. We included consecutive patients≥18 years with diagnosis of RA (ACR 87/ACR-EULAR 2010). Sociodemographic data, disease characteristics and clinimetric properties were recorded. All patients completed the SpENAT and were asked about the sources employed to obtain information about their disease. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Population characteristics were described. ENs were determined as percentages of the highest possible score for each domain. Needs for each domain according to sex, years of education, disease duration, use of biologicals and functional capacity were analyzed by means of ANOVA, and bivariate comparisons were made with Student's t-test and the Bonferroni correction. Correlation between domains was determined with the Spearman correlation coefficient. We compared patients' age by source of information with Student's t-test. RESULTS: We included 496 patients from 20 centers across the country. More ENs were observed in the domains of Movement, Feelings and the Arthritic process. Patients with higher educational level (>7 years) reported more ENs in the Arthritic process and Self-help measure domains. A higher functional impairment (HAQ-A≥0.87) was associated with more ENs in every domain. Patients with high activity showed more ENs than those in remission in the domains of Pain management, Movement, Feelings, Treatments and Support system, as well as those with low activity in Self-help measures and Support system domains. All SpENAT domains showed positive correlations among each other (P<.0001), the most important being Pain management/Movement and Treatments/Arthritic process (r≥0.7). The source of information most frequently consulted was the rheumatologist (93.95%); those who made use of Internet were on average younger (P=.0004). CONCLUSION: RA patients were very interested about knowing more about their disease. High functional impairment was associated with more ENs. Patients with high disease activity had higher EN levels in almost every domain. The rheumatologist was the main source of information for the patient with RA.

[Spontaneous splenic rupture due to amyloidosis]. / Ruptura esplénica espontanea secundaria a amiloidosis.

Splenic rupture is frequently produced due to traumatic mechanisms, being referred to as spontaneous or pathological when there is no history of trauma or there is an underlying splenic disease. Spontaneous splenic rupture due to amyloid deposits is a very uncommon cause of surgical acute abdomen. The patient in this case is a woman admitted with acute abdomen secondary to spontaneous splenic rupture, whose final diagnosis was primary amyloidosis.

Asociación entre Artritis Reumatoidea y otras enfermedades autoinmunes / Association between Rheumatoid Arthritis and other autoimmune diseases

Objetivos: Determinar la frecuencia de enfermedades autoinmunes (EAI) en pacientes con Artritis Reumatoidea (AR) y comparar la frecuencia de EAI entre pacientes con AR y sin AR ni otra EAI reumatológica. Material y Métodos: Estudio multicéntrico, observacional, analítico, retrospectivo. Se incluyeron pacientes consecutivos con AR (ACR/EULAR 2010) y como grupo control pacientes con diagnóstico inicial de Osteoartritis primaria (OA). Resultados: Se incluyeron 1549 pacientes: 831 con AR (84% mujeres, edad media 55.2 años [DE 13.6]) y 718 con OA (82% mujeres, edad media 67 años [DE 11.1]). La frecuencia de EAI en el grupo AR fue del 22% (n=183). Estos presentaron mayor frecuencia de EAI reumatológicas (9.4 vs 3.3%, p< 0.001), y menor frecuencia de EAI no reumatológicas que aquellos con OA (15.3 vs 20.5, p=0.007). La EAI reumatológica más prevalente fue el Síndrome de Sjögren, el cual fue más frecuente en el grupo AR (87.2 vs 29.2%, p< 0,001). La frecuencia de EAI reumatológicas en los pacientes con AR fue mayor en la forma erosiva (11 vs 6.8%, p=0.048). Conclusión: La frecuencia de EAI en los pacientes con AR fue del 22%, en quienes predominaron las de etiología reumatológica mientras que, las no reumatológicas predominaron en pacientes con OA.

Objectives: To determine the frequency of autoimmune diseases (AID) in Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) patients and to compare this frequency between patients with and without RA or other rheumatologic AID. Methods: Multicenter, observational, analytical, retrospective study. Consecutive patients with diagnosis of RA (ACR/EULAR 2010) were included. Patients with initial diagnosis of primary ostearthritis (OA) were used as control group. Results: A total of 1549 patients were included: 831 RA (84% women, mean age 55.2 [±13.6]) and 718 OA (82% women, mean age 67 [± 11.1]). The frequency of AID in the RA group was 22% (n=183). RA patients showed higher frequency of rheumatologic AID (9.4 vs 3.3%, p< 0.001), and lower frequency of non-rheumatologic AID than OA patients (15.3 vs 20.5%, p= 0.007). The most prevalent rheumatic AID was Sjögren's Syndrome, which was more frequent in the AR group (87.2 vs 29.2%, p<0.001). The frequency of rheumatologic AID in RA patients was higher in those with erosive RA (11 vs 6.8%, p=0.048). Conclusion: The frequency of AID in RA patients was 22%. Rheumatologic AID were more frequent in RA patients, whereas non-rheumatologic AID prevailed in OA patients.

An efficient strategy allowed English-speaking reviewers to identify foreign-language articles eligible for a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess English-speaking reviewers' accuracy in determining the eligibility of foreign-language articles for a systematic review. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials of therapy for fibromyalgia. Guided by 10 questions, English-speaking reviewers screened non-English-language articles for eligibility. Teams of two native-language speakers provided reference standard judgments of eligibility. RESULTS: Of 15,466 potentially eligible articles, we retrieved 763 in full text, of which 133 were published in 19 non-English languages; 53 trials published in 11 languages other than English proved eligible. Of the 53 eligible articles, English-language reviewers guided by the 10 questions mistakenly judged 6 as ineligible; of the 80 ineligible articles, 8 were incorrectly judged eligible by English-language reviewers (sensitivity=0.89; specificity=0.90). Use of a simple three-step rule (excluding languages with less than three articles, reviewing titles and abstracts for clear indications of eligibility, and noting the lack of a clearly reported statistical analysis unless the word "random" appears) led to accurate classification of 51 of 53 articles (sensitivity=0.96; specificity=0.70). CONCLUSION: Our findings show promise for limiting the need for non-English-language review teams in systematic reviews with large numbers of potentially eligible non-English-language articles.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of interventions for fibromyalgia: a protocol.

BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia is associated with substantial socioeconomic loss and, despite considerable research including numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews, there exists uncertainty regarding what treatments are effective. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for fibromyalgia, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a network meta-analysis of all RCTs evaluating therapies for fibromyalgia to determine which therapies show evidence of effectiveness, and the relative effectiveness of these treatments. We will acquire eligible studies through a systematic search of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, HealthSTAR, PsychINFO, PapersFirst, ProceedingsFirst, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies will randomly allocate patients presenting with fibromyalgia or a related condition to an intervention or a control. Teams of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts and complete full text reviews to determine eligibility, and subsequently perform data abstraction and assess risk of bias of eligible trials. We will conduct meta-analyses to establish the effect of all reported therapies on patient-important outcomes when possible. To assess relative effects of treatments, we will construct a random effects model within the Bayesian framework using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. DISCUSSION: Our review will be the first to evaluate all treatments for fibromyalgia, provide relative effectiveness of treatments, and prioritize patient-important outcomes with a focus on functional gains. Our review will facilitate evidence-based management of patients with fibromyalgia, identify key areas for future research, and provide a framework for conducting large systematic reviews involving indirect comparisons.

Riesgo cardiovascular en una cohorte de pacientes con espondilitis anquilosante / Cardiovascular risk in patients with ankylosing spondylitis

Objetivos: Determinar la prevalencia de factores de riesgo y enfermedad cardiovascular en pacientes con EA, estimar el riesgo cardiovascular a 10 años a través del score de Framingham/ATPIII y evaluar la asociación entre actividad inflamatoria de la enfermedad y el riesgo de un evento cardiovascular. Métodos: Se incluyeron pacientes consecutivos con diagnóstico de EA según criterios de New York modificados. Se consignaron datos sobre factores de riesgo cardiovascular, evaluación clinimétrica, índice de actividad medida por BASDAI y tratamiento farmacológico. Se utilizó el score de Framingham/ATPIII para estimar el riesgo cardiovascular a 10 años. Resultados: Se evaluaron 44 pacientes con EA y 44 controles, con una edad mediana de 38,5 años, 86,4% varones. Los pacientes tuvieron una mediana de índice de BASDAI de 3,8 (RIC 2,10-5,81). La frecuencia de factores de riesgo cardiovascular y marcadores de inflamación fue similar en ambos grupos. La enfermedad cardiovascular fue más frecuente en el grupo con EA (13,6% vs. 2,3%, p= 0,11). No hubo diferencia en el riesgo cardiovascular estimado a 10 años entre pacientes y controles. La actividad de la enfermedad no se asoció con mayor riesgo cardiovascular. Conclusión: Los pacientes con EA tienen mayor frecuencia de enfermedad cardiovascular y su riesgo puede estar asociado con factores diferentes a los observados en la población general.

Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factorsand cardiovascular disease in patients with AS; to determine the 10 yearcardiovascular risk by Framingham/ATPIII score, and to establish an associationbetween disease activity and increased cardiovascular risk.Methods: Consecutive patients with AS diagnosed by the modifiedNew York classification criteria were included. Data about cardiovascularrisk factors, clinimetry, BASDAI activity score and pharmacologicaltreatment were registered.Results: 44 patients and 44 controls were included, with a medianage of 38.5 years, 86.4% were men. BASDAI score was 3.85 (IQR0-8). Patients and controls had similar frequency of cardiovascularrisk factors and inflammatory markers. Cardiovascular disease wasmore frequent in AS patients (13.6% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.11). No differencewas found in the estimated cardiovascular risk at 10 yearsbetween patients and controls. Disease activity did not associate withan increased cardiovascular risk.Conclusion: Patients with AS have more cardiovascular disease andthe risk may be associated with factors different than those observedin the general population.

Accidente cerebrovascular recurrente y adenocarcinoma mucinoso de páncreas / Mucin-secretine adenocarcinomas of pancreatobiliary origin, hypercoagulable states and stroke

El adenocarcinoma mucinoso de páncreas se caraacteriza por su rápido crecimiento, su alta mortalidad y su frecuente asociación a los síndromes de hipercoagulabilidad. Sin embargo, el accidente cerebrovascular recurrente (ACV) como manifestación inicial, es excepcional. Se prestenta un paciente masculino de 57 años con diagnóstico de adenocarcinoma mucinoso de probable origen pancreático con diseminación hepática, que presentó ACV múltiples. En la resonancia magnética nuclear (RMN) de encéfalo inicial se constató una lesión isquémica aguda temporoparietal izquierda, y desarrolló lesiones isquémicas agudas en diversos territorios vasculares. Ante la sospecha de síndrome de Trousseau, un síndrome paraneoplásico de hipercoagulabilidad y fenómenos trombóticos, se solicitó un ecocardiograma transesofágico que descartó focos embolígenos cardíacos (endocarditis trombótica no bacteriana o ETNB) pero visualizó pequeñas placas fibrocálcicas en el cayado aórtico. Este caso ilustra la asociación sinérgica de síndrome de Trousseau y embolias del cayado aórtico en un paciente con ACV recurrente multifocal y adenocarcinoma mucinoso.

Cómo construir una recomendación de tratamiento / How to recommend a treatment

La decisión terapéutica conlleva un proceso de análisis complejo, en el que intervienen por una parte el beneficio de la intervención, y por otro, el riesgo, los costos y las molestias para el paciente. El American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) junto con el grupo internacional de trabajo GRADE desarrolló una serie de criterios como guía para la confección de recomendaciones, que consisten en evaluar la fuerza de la recomendación y la calidad de la evidencia. Para tomar una decisión el médico debe, independientemente del grado de recomendación, aplicar su juicio crítico considerado las circunstancias locales e individuales de su paciente y sus preferencias.

El ABC de la literatura crítica: ¿Cómo deben ponderarse los artículos en un comité de redacción de una revista científica? ¿Cómo creer o no creer en lo que leemos? / The ABC of critical writing: How should the editorial committee of a scientific publication judge articles? Should we believe or disbelieve what we read?

La información que se publica en las revistas médicas influye, en gran medida, en la toma de decisiones de los profesionales de la salud. La evaluación de la calidad de los estudios que se publican ha sido la preocupación de numerosos investigadores que diseñaron diversas herramientas para su valoración. En los estudios controlados y aleatorizados debemos tener en cuenta la forma en que se realizó la randomización (enmascaramiento), los ciegos, el principio de intención del tratamiento y el segumiento de los pacientes. Estos criterios se usan para disminuir los sesgos que pueden aparecer, incluso en los estudios controlados aleatorizados.