Pain management for rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular or renal comorbidity

Can we achieve pain stratification in musculoskeletal conditions? Implications for clinical practice

In the last few years there has been an increased appreciation that pain perception in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) has several mechanisms which include nociceptive, inflammatory, nociplastic and neuropathic components. Studies in specific patient groups have also demonstrated that the pain experienced by people with specific diagnoses can present with distinctive components over time. For example, the pain observed in rheumatoid arthritis has been widely accepted to be caused by the activation of nociceptors, potentiated by the release of inflammatory mediators, including prostaglandins, leukotrienes and cytokine networks in the joint environment. However, people with RA may also experience nociplastic and neuropathic pain components, particularly when treatments with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have been implemented and are insufficient to control pain symptoms. In other RMDs, the concept of pain sensitisation or nociplastic pain in driving ongoing pain symptoms e.g. osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia, is becoming increasingly recognised. In this review, we explore the hypothesis that pain has distinct modalities based on clinical, pathophysiological, imaging and genetic factors. The concept of pain stratification in RMD is explored and implications for future management are also discussed.

High-dose opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

This overview was originally published in 2017, and is being updated in 2022.  Chronic pain is typically described as pain on most days for at least three months. Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is any chronic pain that is not due to a malignancy. Chronic non-cancer pain in adults is a common and complex clinical issue, for which opioids are prescribed by some physicians for pain management. There are concerns that the use of high doses of opioids for CNCP lacks evidence of effectiveness, and may increase the risk of adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the evidence from Cochrane Reviews and overviews regarding the efficacy and safety of high-dose opioids (defined as 200 mg morphine equivalent or more per day) for CNCP.

METHODS

We identified Cochrane Reviews and overviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in The Cochrane Library. The date of the last search was 21 July 2022. Two overview authors independently assessed the search results. We planned to analyse data on any opioid agent used at a high dose for two weeks or more for the treatment of CNCP in adults.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any reviews or overviews that met the inclusion criteria. The excluded reviews largely reflected low doses or titrated doses, where all doses were analysed as a single group; we were unable to extract any data for high-dose use only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a critical lack of high-quality evidence, in the form of Cochrane Reviews, about how well high-dose opioids work for the management of CNCP in adults, and regarding the presence and severity of adverse events.  No evidence-based argument can be made on the use of high-dose opioids, i.e. 200 mg morphine equivalent or more daily, in clinical practice. Considering that high-dose opioids have been, and are still being used in clinical practice to treat CNCP, knowing about the efficacy and safety of these higher doses is imperative.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute gout

BACKGROUND

Gout is an inflammatory arthritis resulting from the deposition of monosodium urate crystals in and around joints. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used to treat acute gout. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (including cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (COXIBs)) for acute gout.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for studies to 28 August 2020. We applied no date or language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing NSAIDs with placebo or another therapy for acute gout. Major outcomes were pain, inflammation, function, participant-reported global assessment, quality of life, withdrawals due to adverse events, and total adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in this update 28 trials (3406 participants), including 5 new trials. One trial (30 participants) compared NSAIDs to placebo, 6 (1244 participants) compared non-selective NSAIDs to selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (COXIBs), 5 (712 participants) compared NSAIDs to glucocorticoids, 13 compared one NSAID to another NSAID (633 participants), and single trials compared NSAIDs to rilonacept (225 participants), acupuncture (163 participants), and colchicine (399 participants). Most trials were at risk of selection, performance, and detection biases. We report numerical data for the primary comparison NSAIDs versus placebo and brief results for the two comparisons - NSAIDs versus COX-2 inhibitors and NSAIDs versus glucocorticoids. Low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision) from 1 trial (30 participants) shows NSAIDs compared to placebo. More participants (11/15) may have a 50% reduction in pain at 24 hours with NSAIDs than with placebo (4/15) (risk ratio (RR) 2.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1 to 6.7), with absolute improvement of 47% (3.5% more to 152.5% more). NSAIDs may have little to no effect on inflammation (swelling) after four days (13/15 participants taking NSAIDs versus 12/15 participants taking placebo; RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.5), with absolute improvement of 6.4% (16.8% fewer to 39.2% more). There may be little to no difference in function (4-point scale; 1 = complete resolution) at 24 hours (4/15 participants taking NSAIDs versus 1/15 participants taking placebo; RR 4.0, 95% CI 0.5 to 31.7), with absolute improvement of 20% (3.3% fewer to 204.9% more). NSAIDs may result in little to no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (0 events in both groups) or in total adverse events; two adverse events (nausea and polyuria) were reported in the placebo group (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.0, 3.8), with absolute difference of 10.7% more (13.2% fewer to 38% more). Treatment success and health-related quality of life were not measured. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) from 6 trials (1244 participants) shows non-selective NSAIDs compared to selective COX-2 inhibitors (COXIBs). Non-selective NSAIDs probably result in little to no difference in pain (mean difference (MD) 0.03, 95% CI 0.07 lower to 0.14 higher), swelling (MD 0.08, 95% CI 0.07 lower to 0.22 higher), treatment success (MD 0.08, 95% CI 0.04 lower to 0.2 higher), or quality of life (MD -0.2, 95% CI -6.7 to 6.3) compared to COXIBs. Low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision) suggests no difference in function (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.25) between groups. Non-selective NSAIDs probably increase withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.3 to 4.1) and total adverse events (mainly gastrointestinal) (RR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.8). Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) based on 5 trials (712 participants) shows NSAIDs compared to glucocorticoids. NSAIDs probably result in little to no difference in pain (MD 0.1, 95% CI -2.7 to 3.0), inflammation (MD 0.3, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.6), function (MD -0.2, 95% CI -2.2 to 1.8), or treatment success (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.2). There was no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events with NSAIDs compared to glucocorticoids (RR 2.8, 95% CI 0.5 to 14.2). There was a decrease in total adverse events with glucocorticoids compared to NSAIDs (RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.5).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence from 1 placebo-controlled trial suggests that NSAIDs may improve pain at 24 hours and may have little to no effect on function, inflammation, or adverse events for treatment of acute gout. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that COXIBs and non-selective NSAIDs are probably equally beneficial with regards to improvement in pain, function, inflammation, and treatment success, although non-selective NSAIDs probably increase withdrawals due to adverse events and total adverse events. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic glucocorticoids and NSAIDs probably are equally beneficial in terms of pain relief, improvement in function, and treatment success. Withdrawals due to adverse events were also similar between groups, but NSAIDs probably result in more total adverse events. Low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in inflammation between groups. Only low-certainty evidence was available for the comparisons NSAID versus rilonacept and NSAID versus acupuncture from single trials, or one NSAID versus another NSAID, which also included many NSAIDs that are no longer in clinical use. Although these data were insufficient to support firm conclusions, they do not conflict with clinical guideline recommendations based upon evidence from observational studies, findings for other inflammatory arthritis, and expert consensus, all of which support the use of NSAIDs for acute gout.

The risk of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced heart failure in people with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review

Aim

To examine the risk of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced heart failure in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Methods

Embase, Medline, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for papers published in English between 1st January 1999 and 31st May 2020. Papers were included if some participants had chronic kidney disease, were exposed to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and where heart failure was measured as an outcome. Papers were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for randomised controlled trials, and ROBINS-I for observational studies.

Results

A total of 2480 independent papers were retrieved. Following abstract screening, 165 full texts were reviewed to identify seven eligible papers: two randomised controlled trials, four cohort studies, and one case-control study. For chronic kidney disease (stage 3–5), relative risk for heart failure ranged from 0.3 to 1.9 with 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 15.1. Results were not pooled due to study heterogeneity. We attributed bias to heterogenous populations studied, probable confounding due to partially adjusted risk estimates, and heterogenous measurement of the heart failure outcome.

Conclusion

Overall, there are only a few studies to refute or support an increased risk of heart failure associated with taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with chronic kidney disease, and therefore no robust evidence was available.

Chronic Pain in Inflammatory Arthritis: Mechanisms, Metrology, and Emerging Targets-A Focus on the JAK-STAT Pathway

Chronic pain is nowadays considered not only the mainstay symptom of rheumatic diseases but also "a disease itself." Pain is a multidimensional phenomenon, and in inflammatory arthritis, it derives from multiple mechanisms, involving both synovitis (release of a great number of cytokines) and peripheral and central pain-processing mechanisms (sensitization). In the last years, the JAK-STAT pathway has been recognized as a pivotal component both in the inflammatory process and in pain amplification in the central nervous system. This paper provides a summary on pain in inflammatory arthritis, from pathogenesis to clinimetric instruments and treatment, with a focus on the JAK-STAT pathway.

High-dose opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is typically described as pain on most days for at least three months. Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is any chronic pain that is not due to a malignancy. Chronic non-cancer pain in adults is a common and complex clinical issue where opioids are routinely used for pain management. There are concerns that the use of high doses of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain lacks evidence of effectiveness and may increase the risk of adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the evidence from Cochrane Reviews and Overviews regarding the efficacy and safety of high-dose opioids (here defined as 200 mg morphine equivalent or more per day) for chronic non-cancer pain.

METHODS

We identified Cochrane Reviews and Overviews through a search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (The Cochrane Library). The date of the last search was 18 April 2017. Two review authors independently assessed the search results. We planned to analyse data on any opioid agent used at high dose for two weeks or more for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain in adults.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any reviews or overviews meeting the inclusion criteria. The excluded reviews largely reflected low doses or titrated doses where all doses were analysed as a single group; no data for high dose only could be extracted.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a critical lack of high-quality evidence regarding how well high-dose opioids work for the management of chronic non-cancer pain in adults, and regarding the presence and severity of adverse events. No evidence-based argument can be made on the use of high-dose opioids, i.e. 200 mg morphine equivalent or more daily, in clinical practice. Trials typically used doses below our cut-off; we need to know the efficacy and harm of higher doses, which are often used in clinical practice.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug induced acute kidney injury in the community dwelling general population and people with chronic kidney disease: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a common cause of adverse drug events (ADEs), but renal risks of NSAIDs are less well quantified than gastrointestinal and cardiac risks. This paper reports a systematic review of published population-based observational studies examining the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) associated with NSAIDs in community-dwelling adults and those with pre-existing chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched until June 2016, and 3789 papers screened. Ten studies reporting NSAID risk of AKI in the general population were included in random effects meta-analysis, of which five additionally reported NSAID risk in people with CKD.

RESULTS

In the general population, the pooled odds ratio (OR) of AKI for current NSAID exposure was 1.73 (95%CI 1.44 to 2.07), with somewhat higher risk observed in older people (OR 2.51, 95%CI 1.52 to 2.68). In people with CKD, individual study OR of AKI due to current NSAID exposure ranged from 1.12 to 5.25, with pooled estimate OR 1.63 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.19).

CONCLUSIONS

No study reported baseline risk of AKI in different populations meaning absolute risks could not be estimated, but baseline risk and therefore the absolute risk of NSAID exposure is likely to be higher in people with CKD and older people. Large population based studies measuring AKI using current definitions and estimating the absolute risk of harm are needed in order to better inform clinical decision making.

Balneotherapy (or spa therapy) for rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

No cure for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is known at present, so treatment often focuses on management of symptoms such as pain, stiffness and mobility. Treatment options include pharmacological interventions, physical therapy treatments and balneotherapy. Balneotherapy is defined as bathing in natural mineral or thermal waters (e.g. mineral baths, sulphur baths, Dead Sea baths), using mudpacks or doing both. Despite its popularity, reported scientific evidence for the effectiveness or efficacy of balneotherapy is sparse. This review, which evaluates the effects of balneotherapy in patients with RA, is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003 and updated in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review on the benefits and harms of balneotherapy in patients with RA in terms of pain, improvement, disability, tender joints, swollen joints and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane 'Rehabilitation and Related Therapies' Field Register (to December 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2014, Issue 1), MEDLIINE (1950 to December 2014), EMBASE (1988 to December 2014), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to December 2014), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (1985 to December 2014), PsycINFO (1806 to December 2014) and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). We applied no language restrictions; however, studies not reported in English, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, German or French are awaiting assessment. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing and recently completed trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were eligible if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) consisting of participants with definitive or classical RA as defined by the American Rheumatism Association (ARA) criteria of 1958, the ARA/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria of 1988 or the ACR/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria of 2010, or by studies using the criteria of Steinbrocker.Balneotherapy had to be the intervention under study, and had to be compared with another intervention or with no intervention.The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International League Against Rheumatism (ILAR) determined in 1992 a core set of eight endpoints in clinical trials concerning patients with RA. We considered pain, improvement, disability, tender joints, swollen joints and adverse events among the main outcome measures. We excluded studies when only laboratory variables were reported as outcome measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus and, if necessary, by third party adjudication.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes two new studies and a total of nine studies involving 579 participants. Unfortunately, most studies showed an unclear risk of bias in most domains. Four out of nine studies did not contribute to the analysis, as they presented no data.One study involving 45 participants with hand RA compared mudpacks versus placebo. We found no statistically significant differences in terms of pain on a 0 to 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.84 to 1.84), improvement (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.70) or number of swollen joints on a scale from 0 to 28 (MD 0.60, 95% CI -0.90 to 2.10) (very low level of evidence). We found a very low level of evidence of reduction in the number of tender joints on a scale from 0 to 28 (MD -4.60, 95% CI -8.72 to -0.48; 16% absolute difference). We reported no physical disability and presented no data on withdrawals due to adverse events or on serious adverse events.Two studies involving 194 participants with RA evaluated the effectiveness of additional radon in carbon dioxide baths. We found no statistically significant differences between groups for all outcomes at three-month follow-up (low to moderate level of evidence). We noted some benefit of additional radon at six months in terms of pain frequency (RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.9; 31% reduction; improvement in one or more points (categories) on a 4-point scale; moderate level of evidence) and 9.6% reduction in pain intensity on a 0 to 100-mm VAS (MD 9.6 mm, 95% CI 1.6 to 17.6; moderate level of evidence). We also observed some benefit in one study including 60 participants in terms of improvement in one or more categories based on a 4-point scale (RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1 to 4.7; 30% absolute difference; low level of evidence). Study authors did not report physical disability, tender joints, swollen joints, withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events.One study involving 148 participants with RA compared balneotherapy (seated immersion) versus hydrotherapy (exercises in water), land exercises or relaxation therapy. We found no statistically significant differences in pain on the McGill Questionnaire or in physical disability (very low level of evidence) between balneotherapy and the other interventions. No data on improvement, tender joints, swollen joints, withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events were presented.One study involving 57 participants with RA evaluated the effectiveness of mineral baths (balneotherapy) versus Cyclosporin A. We found no statistically significant differences in pain intensity on a 0 to 100-mm VAS (MD 9.64, 95% CI -1.66 to 20.94; low level of evidence) at 8 weeks (absolute difference 10%). We found some benefit of balneotherapy in overall improvement on a 5-point scale at eight weeks of 54% (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.83). We found no statistically significant differences (low level of evidence) in the number of swollen joints, but some benefit of Cyclosporin A in the number of tender joints (MD 8.9, 95% CI 3.8 to 14; very low level of evidence). Physical disability, withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall evidence is insufficient to show that balneotherapy is more effective than no treatment, that one type of bath is more effective than another or that one type of bath is more effective than mudpacks, exercise or relaxation therapy.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute gout

BACKGROUND

Gout is an inflammatory arthritis that is characterised by the deposition of monosodium urate crystals in synovial fluid and other tissues. The natural history of articular gout is generally characterised by three periods: asymptomatic hyperuricaemia, episodes of acute gout and chronic gouty arthritis. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) including selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (COXIBs) are commonly used to treat acute gout. Published guidelines recommend their use to treat acute attacks, using maximum recommended doses for a short time.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefit and safety of NSAIDs (including COXIBs) for acute gout.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies to 7 October 2013, the 2010 and 2011 ACR and EULAR abstracts and performed a handsearch of reference lists of articles. We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) trial register and ClinicalTrials.gov. We applied no date or language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials that compared NSAIDs with placebo or another therapy (including non-pharmacological therapies) for acute gout. Major outcomes were pain (proportion with 50% or more reduction in pain or mean pain when the dichotomous outcome was unavailable), inflammation (e.g. measured by joint swelling/erythema/tenderness), function of target joint, participant's global assessment of treatment success, health-related quality of life, withdrawals due to adverse events and total adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the studies for inclusion, extracted the data, performed a risk of bias assessment and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 trials (2200 participants).One trial (30 participants) of low-quality evidence compared an NSAID (tenoxicam) with placebo. It found that significantly more participants had more than 50% reduction in pain after 24 hours (11/15 participants) compared with those taking placebo (4/15 participants) (risk ratio (RR) 2.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 6.72). A similar outcome was seen for more than 50% improvement in joint swelling after 24 hours (5/15 participants taking NSAIDs versus 2/15 participants taking placebo; RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.57 to 10.93). The trial did not measure function, participant global assessment of treatment success and health-related quality of life. There were no adverse events reported with the use of tenoxicam; two adverse events (nausea and polypuria) were reported in the placebo group. No between-group differences in outcome were observed after four days.Moderate-quality evidence based upon four trials (974 participants) indicated that NSAIDs and COXIBs produced similar benefits in terms of pain, swelling and global improvement, but COXIBs were associated with fewer adverse events. Pain reduction was 1.9 points on a 0- to 10-point scale with COXIBs (0 was no pain) while pain reduction with NSAIDs was 0.03 points lower or better (mean difference (MD) -0.03, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.13). Joint swelling in the COXIB group was 1.64 points on a 0- to 3-point scale (0 is no swelling) and 0.13 points higher with NSAIDs (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.34). Function was not reported. Participant-reported global assessment was 1.56 points on a 0- to 4-point scale with COXIBs (0 was the best score) and was 0.04 points higher with NSAIDs (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.20). Health-related quality of life assessed using the 36-item Short Form showed no evidence of a statistically significant between-group difference (MD 0.49, 95% CI -1.61 to 2.60 for the physical component). There were significantly fewer withdrawals due to adverse events in participants treated with COXIBs (3%) compared with NSAIDs (8%) (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.34 to 4.28). There was a significantly lower number of total adverse events in participants treated with COXIBs (38%) compared with NSAIDs (60%) (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.86).There was moderate-quality evidence based on two trials (210 participants) that oral glucocorticoids did not differ in pain reduction, function or adverse events when compared with NSAIDs. Pain reduction was 9.5 on a 0- to 100-point scale with glucocorticoids, pain reduction with NSAIDs was 1.74 higher or worse (MD 1.74, 95% CI -1.44 to 4.92). The trials did not assess inflammation. Function measured as walking disability was 17.4 points on a 0- to 100-point scale with glucocorticoids, function with NSAIDs was 0.1 lower or better (MD -0.10, 95% CI -4.72 to 4.52). The trials did not measure participant-reported global assessment and health-related quality of life. There were no withdrawals due to adverse events. There was no evidence of a difference in total number of adverse events with glucocorticoids (31%) versus NSAIDs (49%) (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.28).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence supported the use of NSAIDs in the treatment of acute gout. One placebo-controlled trial provided evidence of benefit at 24 hours and little or no harm. We downgraded the evidence due to potential selection and reporting biases, and imprecision. While these data were insufficient to draw firm conclusions, they did not conflict with clinical guideline recommendations based upon evidence from observational studies, other inflammatory arthritis and expert consensus, which support the use of NSAIDs in acute gout.Moderate-quality evidence suggested that selective COX-2 inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDs are probably equally beneficial although COX-2 inhibitors are likely to be associated with significantly fewer total and gastrointestinal adverse events. We downgraded the evidence due to an unclear risk of selection and reporting biases. Moderate-quality evidence indicated that systemic glucocorticoids and NSAIDs were also equally beneficial in terms of pain relief. There were no withdrawals due to adverse events and total adverse events were similar between groups. We downgraded the evidence due to unclear risk of selection and reporting bias. There was low-quality evidence that there was no difference in function. We downgraded the quality due to unclear risk of selection bias and imprecision.

Effect and treatment of chronic pain in inflammatory arthritis

Pain is the most common reason patients with inflammatory arthritis see a rheumatologist. Patients consistently rate pain as one of their highest priorities, and pain is the single most important determinant of patient global assessment of disease activity. Although pain is commonly interpreted as a marker of inflammation, the correlation between pain intensity and measures of peripheral inflammation is imperfect. The prevalence of chronic, non-inflammatory pain syndromes such as fibromyalgia is higher among patients with inflammatory arthritis than in the general population. Inflammatory arthritis patients with fibromyalgia have higher measures of disease activity and lower quality of life than inflammatory patients who do not have fibromyalgia. This review article focuses on current literature involving the effects of pain on disease assessment and quality of life for patients with inflammatory arthritis. It also reviews non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic options for treatment of pain for patients with inflammatory arthritis, focusing on the implications of comorbidities and concurrent disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy. Although several studies have examined the effects of reducing inflammation for patients with inflammatory arthritis, very few clinical trials have examined the safety and efficacy of treatment directed specifically towards pain pathways. Most studies have been small, have focused on rheumatoid arthritis or mixed populations (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis plus osteoarthritis), and have been at high risk of bias. Larger, longitudinal studies are needed to examine the mechanisms of pain in inflammatory arthritis and to determine the safety and efficacy of analgesic medications in this specific patient population.

Multinational evidence-based recommendations for pain management by pharmacotherapy in inflammatory arthritis: integrating systematic literature research and expert opinion of a broad panel of rheumatologists in the 3e Initiative

OBJECTIVE

To develop evidence-based recommendations for pain management by pharmacotherapy in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA).

METHODS

A total of 453 rheumatologists from 17 countries participated in the 2010 3e (Evidence, Expertise, Exchange) Initiative. Using a formal voting process, 89 rheumatologists representing all 17 countries selected 10 clinical questions regarding the use of pain medications in IA. Bibliographic fellows undertook a systematic literature review for each question, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and 2008-09 European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/ACR abstracts. Relevant studies were retrieved for data extraction and quality assessment. Rheumatologists from each country used this evidence to develop a set of national recommendations. Multinational recommendations were then formulated and assessed for agreement and the potential impact on clinical practice.

RESULTS

A total of 49,242 references were identified, from which 167 studies were included in the systematic reviews. One clinical question regarding different comorbidities was divided into two separate reviews, resulting in 11 recommendations in total. Oxford levels of evidence were applied to each recommendation. The recommendations related to the efficacy and safety of various analgesic medications, pain measurement scales and pain management in the pre-conception period, pregnancy and lactation. Finally, an algorithm for the pharmacological management of pain in IA was developed. Twenty per cent of rheumatologists reported that the algorithm would change their practice, and 75% felt the algorithm was in accordance with their current practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Eleven evidence-based recommendations on the management of pain by pharmacotherapy in IA were developed. They are supported by a large panel of rheumatologists from 17 countries, thus enhancing their utility in clinical practice.

Pain management for inflammatory arthritis (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and other spondylarthritis) and gastrointestinal or liver comorbidity

BACKGROUND

Even with optimal disease-modifying treatment and good control of disease activity, persistent pain due to structural damage is common in people with inflammatory arthritis and therefore additional treatment for pain might be required. Because comorbidity is highly prevalent in people with inflammatory arthritis, it is important to consider comorbidities such as gastrointestinal or liver diseases in deciding upon optimal pharmacologic pain therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological pain treatment in patients with inflammatory arthritis who have gastrointestinal or liver comorbidities, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL for studies to June 2010. We also searched the 2007-2010 ACR and EULAR abstracts and performed a hand search of reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs or CCTs) were considered for inclusion for assessment of efficacy. For safety we also considered single arm trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, cohort and case-control studies, and case series of 10 or more consecutive cases. Pain therapy comprised paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, opioid-like drugs (tramadol) and neuromodulators (anti-depressants, anticonvulsants and muscle relaxants). The study population comprised adults (>18 years) with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis or other spondyloarthritis who had gastrointestinal and/or hepatic comorbid conditions. Outcomes of interest were pain, adverse effects, function and quality of life. Studies that included a mixed population of inflammatory arthritis and other conditions were included only if results for inflammatory arthritis were reported separately.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 2869 articles only one single arm open trial was identified that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. This trial assessed the safety and efficacy of naproxen (dosage not specified) in 58 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and gastrointestinal comorbidities for up to 52 weeks. Thirteen participants (22%) remained on gold therapy, four participants (10%) remained on hydroxychloroquine, 27 (47%) remained on corticosteroids, 12 (21%) remained on salicylates and all participants continued on antacids and bland diet. The presence of faecal occult blood was reported in 1/58 participants tested between weeks 1 to 26 and 2/32 participants tested between weeks 27 to 52. Over the course of the study, seven participants (12.1%) withdrew due to adverse events but of these, only two participants withdrew due to gastrointestinal side effects (abdominal pain n=1, nausea n=1) and no serious adverse events were reported. Noteable, out of 14 studies excluded due to inclusion of mixed population (osteoarthritis or other rheumatic conditions) or intervention already withdrawn, five trials reported higher risk of developing gastrointestinal events in patients with prior gastrointestinal events when treated with NSAIDs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the current review, there is scant evidence to guide clinicians about how gastrointestinal or liver comorbidities should influence the choice of pain treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis or other spondylarthritis. Based upon additional studies that included a mixed population of participants with a range of rheumatic conditions, NSAIDs should be used cautiously in patients with inflammatory arthritis and a history of gastrointestinaI comorbidity as there is consistent evidence that they may be at increased risk.