Predictors of fatal and nonfatal overdose after prescription of opioids for chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Higher doses of opioids, mental health comorbidities, co-prescription of sedatives, lower socioeconomic status and a history of opioid overdose have been reported as risk factors for opioid overdose; however, the magnitude of these associations and their credibility are unclear. We sought to identify predictors of fatal and nonfatal overdose from prescription opioids. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science up to Oct. 30, 2022, for observational studies that explored predictors of opioid overdose after their prescription for chronic pain. We performed random-effects meta-analyses for all predictors reported by 2 or more studies using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies (23 963 716 patients) reported the association of 103 predictors with fatal or nonfatal opioid overdose. Moderate- to high-certainty evidence supported large relative associations with history of overdose (OR 5.85, 95% CI 3.78-9.04), higher opioid dose (OR 2.57, 95% CI 2.08-3.18 per 90-mg increment), 3 or more prescribers (OR 4.68, 95% CI 3.57-6.12), 4 or more dispensing pharmacies (OR 4.92, 95% CI 4.35-5.57), prescription of fentanyl (OR 2.80, 95% CI 2.30-3.41), current substance use disorder (OR 2.62, 95% CI 2.09-3.27), any mental health diagnosis (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.73-2.61), depression (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.57-3.14), bipolar disorder (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.77-2.41) or pancreatitis (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.52-2.64), with absolute risks among patients with the predictor ranging from 2-6 per 1000 for fatal overdose and 4-12 per 1000 for nonfatal overdose. INTERPRETATION: We identified 10 predictors that were strongly associated with opioid overdose. Awareness of these predictors may facilitate shared decision-making regarding prescribing opioids for chronic pain and inform harm-reduction strategies SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/vznxj/).

Comparative benefits and harms of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Most systematic reviews of opioids for chronic pain have pooled treatment effects across individual opioids under the assumption they provide similar benefits and harms. We examined the comparative effects of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain through a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to March 2021 for studies that enrolled patients with chronic non-cancer pain, randomised them to receive different opioids, or opioids vs placebo, and followed them for at least 4 weeks. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified 82 eligible trials (22 619 participants) that evaluated 14 opioids. Compared with placebo, several opioids showed superiority to others for analgesia and improvement in physical function; however, when restricted to pooled-effect estimates supported by moderate certainty evidence, no differences between opioids were evident. Among opioids with moderate certainty evidence, all increased the risk of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with placebo, although no opioids were more harmful than others. Low to very low certainty evidence suggests that extended-release vs immediate-release opioids may provide similar benefits for pain relief and physical functioning, and gastrointestinal harms. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the pooling of effect estimates across different types and formulations of opioids to inform effectiveness for chronic non-cancer pain.

Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic non-cancer and cancer related pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the benefits and harms of medical cannabis and cannabinoids for chronic pain. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycInfo, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, Cannabis-Med, Epistemonikos, and trial registries up to January 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised clinical trials of medical cannabis or cannabinoids versus any non-cannabis control for chronic pain at ≥1 month follow-up. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Paired reviewers independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We performed random-effects models meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 32 trials with 5174 adult patients were included, 29 of which compared medical cannabis or cannabinoids with placebo. Medical cannabis was administered orally (n=30) or topically (n=2). Clinical populations included chronic non-cancer pain (n=28) and cancer related pain (n=4). Length of follow-up ranged from 1 to 5.5 months. Compared with placebo, non-inhaled medical cannabis probably results in a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing at least the minimally important difference (MID) of 1 cm (on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS)) in pain relief (modelled risk difference (RD) of 10% (95% confidence interval 5% to 15%), based on a weighted mean difference (WMD) of -0.50 cm (95% CI -0.75 to -0.25 cm, moderate certainty)). Medical cannabis taken orally results in a very small improvement in physical functioning (4% modelled RD (0.1% to 8%) for achieving at least the MID of 10 points on the 100-point SF-36 physical functioning scale, WMD of 1.67 points (0.03 to 3.31, high certainty)), and a small improvement in sleep quality (6% modelled RD (2% to 9%) for achieving at least the MID of 1 cm on a 10 cm VAS, WMD of -0.35 cm (-0.55 to -0.14 cm, high certainty)). Medical cannabis taken orally does not improve emotional, role, or social functioning (high certainty). Moderate certainty evidence shows that medical cannabis taken orally probably results in a small increased risk of transient cognitive impairment (RD 2% (0.1% to 6%)), vomiting (RD 3% (0.4% to 6%)), drowsiness (RD 5% (2% to 8%)), impaired attention (RD 3% (1% to 8%)), and nausea (RD 5% (2% to 8%)), but not diarrhoea; while high certainty evidence shows greater increased risk of dizziness (RD 9% (5% to 14%)) for trials with <3 months follow-up versus RD 28% (18% to 43%) for trials with ≥3 months follow-up; interaction test P=0.003; moderate credibility of subgroup effect). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate to high certainty evidence shows that non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids results in a small to very small improvement in pain relief, physical functioning, and sleep quality among patients with chronic pain, along with several transient adverse side effects, compared with placebo. The accompanying BMJ Rapid Recommendation provides contextualised guidance based on this body of evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/3pwn2.

Management of Acute Pain From Non-Low Back, Musculoskeletal Injuries : A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients and clinicians can choose from several treatment options to address acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. PURPOSE: To assess the comparative effectiveness of outpatient treatments for acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries by performing a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to 2 January 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Pairs of reviewers independently identified interventional RCTs that enrolled patients presenting with pain of up to 4 weeks' duration from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. DATA EXTRACTION: Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data. Certainty of evidence was evaluated by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: The 207 eligible studies included 32 959 participants and evaluated 45 therapies. Ninety-nine trials (48%) enrolled populations with diverse musculoskeletal injuries, 59 (29%) included patients with sprains, 13 (6%) with whiplash, and 11 (5%) with muscle strains; the remaining trials included various injuries ranging from nonsurgical fractures to contusions. Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) proved to have the greatest net benefit, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac. Effects of these agents on pain were modest (around 1 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale, approximating the minimal important difference). Regarding opioids, compared with placebo, acetaminophen plus an opioid improved intermediate pain (1 to 7 days) but not immediate pain (≤2 hours), tramadol was ineffective, and opioids increased the risk for gastrointestinal and neurologic harms (all moderate-certainty evidence). LIMITATIONS: Only English-language studies were included. The number of head-to-head comparisons was limited. CONCLUSION: Topical NSAIDs, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac, showed the most convincing and attractive benefit-harm ratio for patients with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. No opioid achieved benefit greater than that of NSAIDs, and opioids caused the most harms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Safety Council. (PROSPERO: CRD42018094412).

Reporting preclinical anesthesia study (REPEAT): Evaluating the quality of reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature.

Poor reporting quality may contribute to irreproducibility of results and failed 'bench-to-bedside' translation. Consequently, guidelines have been developed to improve the complete and transparent reporting of in vivo preclinical studies. To examine the impact of such guidelines on core methodological and analytical reporting items in the preclinical anesthesiology literature, we sampled a cohort of studies. Preclinical in vivo studies published in Anesthesiology, Anesthesia & Analgesia, Anaesthesia, and the British Journal of Anaesthesia (2008-2009, 2014-2016) were identified. Data was extracted independently and in duplicate. Reporting completeness was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Principles and Guidelines for Reporting Preclinical Research. Risk ratios were used for comparative analyses. Of 7615 screened articles, 604 met our inclusion criteria and included experiments reporting on 52 490 animals. The most common topic of investigation was pain and analgesia (30%), rodents were most frequently used (77%), and studies were most commonly conducted in the United States (36%). Use of preclinical reporting guidelines was listed in 10% of applicable articles. A minority of studies fully reported on replicates (0.3%), randomization (10%), blinding (12%), sample-size estimation (3%), and inclusion/exclusion criteria (5%). Statistics were well reported (81%). Comparative analysis demonstrated few differences in reporting rigor between journals, including those that endorsed reporting guidelines. Principal items of study design were infrequently reported, with few differences between journals. Methods to improve implementation and adherence to community-based reporting guidelines may be necessary to increase transparent and consistent reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature.

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.