Adverse Outcomes Associated with Prescription Opioids for Acute Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute low back pain (ALBP) is a common clinical complaint that can last anywhere from 24 hours to 12 weeks. In recent years, there has been an opioid epidemic which is linked to the increased availability of prescription opioids. Though guidelines recommend that in the treatment of ALBP, opioids should be used when other treatments fail, we have seen an increase in opioid prescriptions for ALBP. With this crisis, it is important to examine if there are any adverse outcomes associated with prescribing opioids for ALBP. OBJECTIVE: We aim to review the published literature to examine the adverse outcomes associated with opioid use for ALBP. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis in accordance with our published protocol and PRISMA guidelines. SETTING: The review was conducted at McMaster University. METHODS: Various electronic databases for articles published from inception to September 30, 2017, inclusive. Both randomized clinical trials and observational studies on the impact of opioid use in ALBP in the adult population were included. Eight pairs of independent reviewers performed screening, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality. The identified articles were assessed for risk of bias using sensitivity analysis. Trials with comparative outcomes were reported in a meta-analysis using a fixed effects model. RESULTS: A total of 13,889 studies were initially screened for the review and a total of 4 studies were included in the full review, of which 2 studies were meta-analyzed. Our results showed that prescribing opioids for ALBP was significantly associated with long-term continued opioid use (1.57, 95% CI, 1.06-2.33). There was no significant association found between unemployment duration and prescribing opioids for ALBP (3.54, 95% CI, -7.57 to 14.66). LIMITATIONS: Due to the limited number of studies that considered unemployment, only an unpooled analysis was conducted. Among the included studies there was both statistical and clinical heterogeneity due to differences in methodology, study design, risk of selection or performance bias. Most of the studies had an unclear or high risk of bias and poorly defined side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of literature examining long-term adverse outcomes associated with prescribing opioids for ALBP, no definitive conclusions can be made. However, with the literature available, there does seem to be risk associated with prescribing opioids for ALBP so there is a great need to conduct further investigations examining these adverse outcomes for ALBP patients. KEY WORDS: Acute low back pain, opioids, prescriptions, low back pain, long-term use, opioid use disorder.

Less toxic chemotherapy improves uptake of all lines of chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a 10-year retrospective population-based review.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, well tolerated second-line therapies for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer have been approved including erlotinib and pemetrexed in addition to docetaxel. We hypothesize that the introduction of less toxic chemotherapy has increased treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer resulting in improved survival. METHODS: The BC Cancer Agency provides cancer care to 4.5 million. A retrospective review was conducted of all referred Stage IIIB/IV patients in four 1-year time cohorts; C1 baseline (1998) and 6 months after the provincial approval of C2 docetaxel (2001), C3 erlotinib (2006), and C4 pemetrexed (2007). RESULTS: Two-thousand six-hundred and twenty-three patients were referred and 720 had systemic therapy. Characteristics: M/F 55%/45%, median age 67 (33-101), ECOG PS <=1/>=2/unknown 33%/56%/11%, squam/nonsquam/NOS 18%/41%/41%. More patients received first-line chemotherapy over time; 16%, 23%, 34%, and 33% C1-C4 respectively. In C1-C4 uptake of second line (21%, 27%, 37% and 55%) increased. Second-line docetaxel was frequently used in C2 (51%) but usage decreased in C4 to 7% versus erlotinib 50% and pemetrexed 26%. The median overall survival in the best supportive care group remained stable over time; however, increased use of systemic therapy was associated with improved survival C1 9.4 m versus C4 11.8 m (p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: This population-based data set represents the trend of treatments over time at community and tertiary care cancer treatment sites. Over a 10-year period an increased proportion of patients were treated with first-line chemotherapy and an even greater number with second-/third-line treatment with an associated improvement in overall survival.