Systematic review on the clinical management of chronic pain and comorbid opioid use disorder. / Revisión sistemática sobre el manejo clínico del dolor crónico y el trastorno por uso de opioides simultáneo.

The crisis caused by prescribed opioids and their related side effects are a public health problem worldwide. Most of these are prescribed for coping with chronic pain. The coexistence of opioid use disorder (OUD) in patients with chronic pain represents a complex challenge due to the need for managing both pain and OUD. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy of feasible treatments for this population with OUD and comorbid chronic pain for both conditions. A systematic database search has been performed using Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and ClinicalTrials.gov in compliance with PRISMA guidelines. Eligible articles addressed the outcomes in chronic pain patients with comorbid opioid use disorder after treatment interventions were applied. Of 593 identified articles, nine were eligible for qualitative review (n = 7 pharmacological interventions; n = 2 psychological interventions). Methadone, buprenorphine, cognitive-behavioral and mindfulness showed promising results, but data were inconclusive (<2 RCT with low risk of bias). It is unclear whether the opioid agonist treatment should be maintained or tapered and which drug should be prescribed for the opioid substitution therapy (methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone). Mindfulness and cognitive behavioral therapy have a discrete effect on improving negative affect but not pain. The therapeutic approach might be individualized under a shared decision-making basis.

La crisis causada por los opioides recetados y sus efectos secundarios relacionados son un problema de salud pública en todo el mundo. La mayoría de estos medicamentos se recetan para el afrontamiento del dolor crónico. La coexistencia del trastorno por uso de opioides (TUO) en pacientes con dolor crónico representa un desafío complejo debido a la necesidad de controlar tanto el dolor como el TUO. El objetivo de esta revisión sistemática es evaluar la eficacia de los tratamientos posibles para dicha población con TUO y dolor crónico. Se ha realizado una revisión sistemática usando las bases de datos Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PsycINFO y ClinicalTrials.gov, conforme a las pautas PRISMA. Los artículos elegibles abordaron los resultados en pacientes con dolor crónico y diagnóstico comórbido de TUO, después de aplicar una intervención. De 593 artículos identificados, nueve eran elegibles para la revisión cualitativa (n = 7 intervenciones farmacológicas; n = 2 intervenciones psicológicas). La metadona, la buprenorfina, la terapia cognitivo-conductual y el mindfulness mostraron resultados prometedores, pero los datos no eran concluyentes (<2 ECA con bajo riesgo de sesgo). No está claro si el tratamiento con agonistas opioides debe mantenerse o disminuirse y qué fármaco debe prescribirse para la terapia de sustitución de opioides (metadona o buprenorfina/naloxona). El mindfulness y la terapia cognitivo-conductual tienen un efecto discreto en la mejora del afecto negativo, pero no del dolor. El enfoque terapéutico podría individualizarse sobre la base de una toma de decisiones conjunta.

Motivational Interviewing for Cannabis Use Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis is one of the most used drugs worldwide. There is no gold standard treatment for cannabis use disorder (CUD). Motivational interviewing (MI) has shown efficacy in some substance use disorders. Therefore, a systematic review was conducted to assess the effectiveness of MI in CUD. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials or open-label studies published until September 2019 from 3 different databases (Pubmed, Scopus, and PsycINFO) were included, following the PRISMA guidelines and a predetermined set of criteria for article selection. Meta-analyses were conducted. The end point was determined as month 3, and 4 outcomes were analysed (abstinence rates, reduction in frequency of use, reduction in quantity of use, and reduction in cannabis use disorder symptoms) in 2 populations (adolescents and adults). RESULTS: Forty studies were identified, of which 24 were performed in adults and 16 in adolescents. MI showed efficacy in achieving abstinence in both adults (odds ratio [OR] = 3.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.40-6.16, p < 0.0001) and adolescents (OR = 2.02, 95% CI 1.42-2.89, p < 0.0001). MI showed efficacy in reducing frequency and quantity of use in adults but not in adolescents. Those adults who were in the MI group consumed less joints per day than those in the control group (mean difference = -0.69 joints per day, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.53, p < 0.001), and they consumed on less days per month (mean difference = -3.9 days per month, 95% CI -7.47 to -0.34, p = 0.0317) than those in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: MI is an effective intervention to reduce cannabis use and achieve abstinence, especially among adults and patients with no prior history of psychotic disorder. Further investigation is needed to assess the effect on CUD symptoms. MI should be included in guidelines for treating cannabis use disorder as one of the essential psychological interventions.