Efficacy, safety, and dose-dependence of the analgesic effects of opioid therapy for people with osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of opioids for analgesic therapy for people with osteoarthritis. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, placebo-controlled trials of opioid therapies for treating the pain of osteoarthritis. The primary outcome was medium term pain relief (six weeks to less than 12 months). Quality of evidence was assessed with GRADE criteria. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry; trials published to 31 October 2020. DATA SYNTHESIS: We extracted pain, disability, health-related quality of life, and adverse events data for 36 eligible trials (overall dose range: 10-210 oral morphine milligram equivalents [MME] per day). Continuous pain and disability outcomes were converted to common 0-100-point scales; changes of less than ten points were deemed to be very small effects. Differences in dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratios. Data were pooled for meta-analysis in random effects models. The evidence from 19 trials (8965 participants; dose range, 10-126 MME/day) for very small medium term pain relief (mean difference [MD], -4.59 points; 95% CI, -7.17 to -2.02 points) was low quality, as was that from 16 trials (6882 participants; dose range, 10-126 MME/day) for a very small effect on disability (MD, -4.15 points; 95% CI, -6.94 to -1.35 points). Opioid dose was not statistically significantly associated with either degree of pain relief or incidence of adverse events in a meta-regression analysis. Evidence that opioid therapy increased the risk of adverse events (risk ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.29-1.59) was of very low quality. CONCLUSIONS: Opioid medications may provide very small pain and disability benefits for people with osteoarthritis, but may also increase the risk of adverse events. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42019142813 (prospective).

Diagnostic codes for low back pain, nomenclature or noise? A descriptive study of disease classification system coding of low back pain.

AIM: To compare and contrast the diagnostic codes for spinal causes of low back pain (LBP) in 3 disease classification systems (International Classification of Diseases [ICD]-10, International Classification of Primary Care [ICPC]-2 PLUS and Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms - Australia [SNOMED CT-AU]) and consider how well they are aligned with the diagnostic approach recommended in contemporary clinical practice guidelines for LBP. METHOD: This was a descriptive study which included 3 disease classification systems: ICD-10, ICPC-2 PLUS and SNOMED CT-AU. Two independent authors extracted relevant LBP codes from each system and mapped the codes to 3 guideline-endorsed categories of spine-related diagnoses for LBP (specific spinal pathology, radicular syndromes, and non-specific LBP) and the various clinical conditions (sub-categories) within each of the 3 categories. RESULTS: ICD-10, ICPC-2 PLUS, and SNOMED CT-AU had 126, 118 and 100 codes for LBP, respectively. All systems provided codes that would cover the 3 guideline-endorsed categories of spine-related diagnoses for LBP. On the basis of contemporary guidelines, the authors developed lists of discrete sub-categories of specific spinal pathology (56 sub-categories), radicular syndromes (7 sub-categories), and non-specific LBP (10 sub-categories). Each of the classification systems was then mapped against these sub-categories to tally redundancy and determine exhaustiveness. However, no system covered all 73 sub-categories of LBP, and within each system, there was substantial redundancy with up to 22 codes for the same clinical condition. CONCLUSION: LBP diagnostic codes used in popular disease classification systems are out of touch with current approaches to diagnosis, as reflected in contemporary LBP guidelines. Our findings suggest these disease classification systems need revision, but precisely how they should be revised is unclear.

Completeness and quality of low back pain prevalence data in the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017.

INTRODUCTION: Completeness of Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study data is acknowledged as a limitation. To date, no study has evaluated this issue for low back pain, a leading contributor to disease burden globally. METHODS: We retrieved reports, in any language, based on citation details from the GBD 2017 study website. Pairs of raters independently extracted the following data: number of prevalence reports tallied across countries, age groups, gender and years from 1987 to 2017. We also considered if studies enrolled a representative sample and/or used an acceptable measure of low back pain. RESULTS: We retrieved 488 country-level reports that provide prevalence data for 103 of 204 countries (50.5%), with most prevalence reports (61%) being for high-income countries. Only 16 countries (7.8%) have prevalence reports for each of the three decades of the GBD. Most of the reports (79%) did not use an acceptable measure of low back pain when estimating prevalence. CONCLUSION: We found incomplete coverage across countries and time, and limitations in the primary prevalence studies included in the GBD 2017 study. This means there is considerable uncertainty about GBD estimates of low back pain prevalence and the disease burden metrics derived from prevalence.