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.

Evaluating Progression-Free Survival as a Surrogate Outcome for Health-Related Quality of Life in Oncology: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis.

Importance: Progression-free survival (PFS) has become a commonly used outcome to assess the efficacy of new cancer drugs. However, it is not clear if delay in progression leads to improved quality of life with or without overall survival benefit. Objective: To evaluate the association between PFS and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in oncology through a systematic review and quantitative analysis of published randomized clinical trials. Eligible trials addressed oral, intravenous, intraperitoneal, or intrapleural chemotherapy or biological treatments, and reported PFS or health-related quality of life. Data Sources: For this systematic review and quantitative analysis of randomized clinical trials of patients with cancer, we searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 2000, through May 4, 2016. Study Selection: Paired reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Data Extraction and Synthesis: We examined the association of difference in median PFS duration (in months) between treatment groups with difference in global, physical, and emotional HRQoL scores between groups (standardized to a range of 0-100, with higher scores representing better HRQoL) using weighted simple regressions. Main Outcome and Measure: The association between PFS duration and HRQoL. Results: Of 35 960 records screened, 52 articles reporting on 38 randomized clinical trials involving 13 979 patients across 12 cancer types using 6 different HRQoL instruments were included. The mean (SD) difference in median PFS between the intervention and the control arms was 1.91 (3.35) months. The mean (SD) differences in change of HRQoL adjusted to per-month values were -0.39 (3.59) for the global domain, 0.26 (5.56) for the physical domain, and 1.08 (3.49) for the emotional domain. The slope of the association between the difference in median PFS and the difference in change for global HRQoL (n = 30 trials) was 0.12 (95% CI, -0.27 to 0.52); for physical HRQoL (n = 20 trials) it was -0.20 (95% CI, -0.62 to 0.23); and for emotional HRQoL (n = 13 trials) it was 0.78 (95% CI, -0.05 to 1.60). Conclusions and Relevance: We failed to find a significant association between PFS and HRQoL in cancer clinical trials. These findings raise questions regarding the assumption that interventions prolonging PFS also improve HRQoL in patients with cancer. Therefore, to ensure that patients are truly obtaining important benefit from cancer therapies, clinical trial investigators should measure HRQoL directly and accurately, ensuring adequate duration and follow-up.

Reporting of IMMPACT-recommended core outcome domains among trials assessing opioids for chronic non-cancer pain.

The Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) has recommended that trialists evaluating treatments for chronic pain should consider reporting 9 patient-important outcome domains. We examined the extent to which clinical trials evaluating the effect of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) report outcome domains recommended by IMMPACT. We systematically searched electronic databases for English-language studies that randomized patients with CNCP to receive an opioid or a non-opioid control. In duplicate and independently, reviewers established the eligibility of each identified study and recorded all reported outcome domains from eligible trials. We conducted a priori regression analyses to explore factors that may be associated with IMMPACT-recommended outcome domains. Among 156 eligible trials, reporting of IMMPACT-recommended outcome domains was highly variable, ranging from 99% for pain to 7% for interpersonal functioning. Recently published trials were more likely to report the effect of treatment on physical functioning, emotional functioning, role functioning, sleep and fatigue, and participant disposition. Trials for which the corresponding author was from North America were more likely to report treatment effects on physical functioning and participant ratings of improvement and satisfaction with treatment. Trials published in higher impact journals were more likely to report treatment effects on emotional function, but less likely to report participant ratings of improvement and satisfaction with treatment. Most IMMPACT domains showed an increased rate of reporting over time, although many patient-important outcome domains remained unreported by over half of all trials evaluating the effects of opioids for CNCP.

Opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a protocol for a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are prescribed frequently and increasingly for the management of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Current systematic reviews have a number of limitations, leaving uncertainty with regard to the benefits and harms associated with opioid therapy for CNCP. We propose to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the evidence for using opioids in the treatment of CNCP and the risk of associated adverse events. METHODS AND DESIGN: Eligible trials will include those that randomly allocate patients with CNCP to treatment with any opioid or any non-opioid control group. We will use the guidelines published by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to inform the outcomes that we collect and present. We will use the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate confidence in the evidence on an outcome-by-outcome basis. Teams of reviewers will independently and in duplicate assess trial eligibility, abstract data, and assess risk of bias among eligible trials. To ensure interpretability of our results, we will present risk differences and measures of relative effect for all outcomes reported and these will be based on anchor-based minimally important clinical differences, when available. We will conduct a priori defined subgroup analyses consistent with current best practices. DISCUSSION: Our review will evaluate both the effectiveness and the adverse events associated with opioid use for CNCP, evaluate confidence in the evidence using the GRADE approach, and prioritize patient-important outcomes with a focus on functional gains guided by IMMPACT recommendations. Our results will facilitate evidence-based management of patients with CNCP and identify key areas for future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Our protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42012003023), http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO.

Nurse-led hypertension referral system in an emergency department for asymptomatic elevated blood pressure.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the characteristics of asymptomatic elevated blood pressure patients in an accident and emergency setting and assess the effect of a nurse-led intervention system. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Accident and Emergency Department of a regional hospital in Hong Kong. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with blood pressures of 140/90 mm Hg or above recorded twice (at triage and discharge) with no previous history of hypertension. Exclusion criteria were: (1) admission to hospital; (2) known hypertension; (3) referral for hypertension; (4) blood pressure higher than 180/120 mm Hg on rechecking. INTERVENTION: Patients were issued a referral by the discharge nurse to follow-up for blood pressure monitoring in primary care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnosis of hypertension, follow-up rate, and risk factors of hypertension. RESULTS: Of 245 patients with asymptomatic elevated blood pressure, we were able to contact 222 for follow-up, of whom 136 (61%) claimed to have been followed up for their blood pressure, and 48 (22%) were diagnosed to have hypertension. The nurse time for finding one case was 28 minutes. The projected impact could be large. If this simple nursing guideline is implemented territory-wide, more than 7000 new cases of asymptomatic hypertension might be picked up annually. CONCLUSION: The implementation of a simple nurse-led hypertension referral system is a cost-effective way to screen asymptomatic subjects with elevated blood pressures in the accident and emergency department.