Patient Values and Preferences Regarding Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review

Commonly used interventional procedures for non-cancer chronic spine pain: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

What is the comparative effectiveness and safety of commonly used interventional procedures (such as spinal injections and ablation procedures) for chronic axial and radicular spine pain that is not associated with cancer or inflammatory arthropathy?

CURRENT PRACTICE

Chronic spine pain is a common, potentially disabling complaint, for which clinicians often administer interventional procedures. However, clinical practice guidelines provide inconsistent recommendations for their use.

RECOMMENDATIONS

For people living with chronic axial spine pain (≥3 months), the guideline panel issued strong recommendations against: joint radiofrequency ablation with or without joint targeted injection of local anaesthetic plus steroid; epidural injection of local anaesthetic, steroids, or their combination; joint-targeted injection of local anaesthetic, steroids, or their combination; and intramuscular injection of local anaesthetic with or without steroids. For people living with chronic radicular spine pain (≥3 months), the guideline panel issued strong recommendations against: dorsal root ganglion radiofrequency with or without epidural injection of local anaesthetic or local anaesthetic plus steroids; and epidural injection of local anaesthetic, steroids, or their combination.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

An international guideline development panel including four people living with chronic spine pain, 10 clinicians with experience managing chronic spine pain, and eight methodologists, produced these recommendations in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation provided methodological support. The guideline panel applied an individual patient perspective when formulating recommendations.

THE EVIDENCE

These recommendations are informed by a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials and a systematic review of observational studies, summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms of common interventional procedures for axial and radicular, chronic, non-cancer spine pain. Specifically, injection of local anaesthetic, steroids, or their combination into the cervical or lumbar facet joint or sacroiliac joint; epidural injections of local anaesthetic, steroids, or their combination; radiofrequency of dorsal root ganglion; radiofrequency denervation of cervical or lumbar facet joints or the sacroiliac joint; and paravertebral intramuscular injections of local anaesthetic, steroids, or their combination.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

These recommendations apply to people living with chronic spine pain (≥3 months duration) that is not associated with cancer or inflammatory arthropathy and do not apply to the management of acute spine pain. Further research is warranted and may alter recommendations in the future: in particular, whether there are differences in treatment effects based on subtypes of chronic spine pain, establishing the effectiveness of interventional procedures currently supported by low or very low certainty evidence, and effects on poorly reported patient-important outcomes (such as opioid use, return to work, and sleep quality).

The impact of chiropractic care on prescription opioid use for non-cancer spine pain: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In recent studies, receipt of chiropractic care has been associated with lower odds of receiving prescription opioids and, among those already prescribed, reduced doses of opioids among patients with non-cancer spine pain. These findings suggest that access to chiropractic services may reduce reliance on opioids for musculoskeletal pain.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of chiropractic care on initiation, or continued use, of prescription opioids among patients with non-cancer spine pain.

METHODS

We will search for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies indexed in MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from database inception to June 2024. Article screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment will be conducted independently by pairs of reviewers. We will conduct separate analyses for RCTs and observational studies and pool binary outcomes (e.g. prescribed opioid receipt, long-term opioid use, and higher versus lower opioid dose) as odds ratios (ORs) with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). When studies provide hazard ratios (HRs) or relative risks (RRs) for time-to-event data (e.g. time-to-first opioid prescription) or incidence rates (number of opioid prescriptions over time), we will first convert them to an OR before pooling. Continuous outcomes such as pain intensity, sleep quality, or morphine equivalent dose will be pooled as weighted mean differences with associated 95% CIs. We will conduct meta-analyses using random-effects models and explore sources of heterogeneity using subgroup analyses and meta-regression. We will evaluate the certainty of evidence of all outcomes using the GRADE approach and the credibility of all subgroup effects with ICEMAN criteria. Our systematic review will follow the PRISMA statement and MOOSE guidelines.

DISCUSSION

Our review will establish the current evidence informing the impact of chiropractic care on new or continued prescription opioid use for non-cancer spine pain. We will disseminate our results through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. The findings of our review will be of interest to patients, health care providers, and policy-makers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42023432277.

The GRADE Working Group and CINeMA approaches provided inconsistent certainty of evidence ratings for a network meta-analysis of opioids for chronic noncancer pain

OBJECTIVES

Assessment of the certainty of evidence (CoE) from network meta-analysis is critical to convey the strength of inferences for clinical decision-making. Both the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group (GWG) and the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework have been designed to assess the CoE of treatment effects informed by network meta-analysis; however, the concordance of results is uncertain.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We assessed the CoE for treatment effects of individual opioids on pain relief and physical functioning from a network meta-analysis for chronic noncancer pain using the GWG approach and the CINeMA framework. Both approaches evaluate the CoE as high, moderate, low or very low. We quantified the number of discrepant CoE ratings between approaches and the magnitude of the difference (ie, one level, two levels, or three levels).

RESULTS

Across 105 comparisons among individual opioids for pain relief, the GWG and CINeMA approaches provided different CoE ratings in 34% of cases (36 of 105). Across 66 comparisons for physical functioning, there was discordance in 17% of cases (11 of 66). All discrepancies were separated by one level. The CINeMA framework typically provided lower CoE ratings compared to the GWG approach, predominantly because of differences in the assessment of transitivity and heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest there are differences between the CoE ratings provided by the GWG and CINeMA approaches when applied to network meta-analyses. Further research is needed to replicate or refute our findings in other network meta-analyses and assess the implications for clinical decision-making.

CDC Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain - United States, 2022

This guideline provides recommendations for clinicians providing pain care, including those prescribing opioids, for outpatients aged ≥18 years. It updates the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain - United States, 2016 (MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65[No. RR-1]:1-49) and includes recommendations for managing acute (duration of <1 month), subacute (duration of 1-3 months), and chronic (duration of >3 months) pain. The recommendations do not apply to pain related to sickle cell disease or cancer or to patients receiving palliative or end-of-life care. The guideline addresses the following four areas: 1) determining whether or not to initiate opioids for pain, 2) selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages, 3) deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up, and 4) assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Recommendations are based on systematic reviews of the scientific evidence and reflect considerations of benefits and harms, patient and clinician values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (a federally chartered advisory committee), the public, and peer reviewers. CDC recommends that persons with pain receive appropriate pain treatment, with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of all treatment options in the context of the patient's circumstances. Recommendations should not be applied as inflexible standards of care across patient populations. This clinical practice guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the benefits and risks of pain treatments, including opioid therapy; improve the effectiveness and safety of pain treatment; mitigate pain; improve function and quality of life for patients with pain; and reduce risks associated with opioid pain therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death.

Methods to Summarize Discrete-Choice Experiments in a Systematic Review: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Systematic reviews of discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) are being increasingly conducted. The objective of this scoping review was to identify and describe the methodologies that have been used to summarize results across DCEs.

METHODS

We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to March 18, 2021, to identify English-language systematic reviews of patient preferences that included at least two DCEs and extracted data on attribute importance. The methods used to summarize results across DCEs were classified into narrative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative (meta-analytic) approaches and compared. Approaches to characterize the extent of preference heterogeneity were also described.

RESULTS

From 7362 unique records, we identified 54 eligible reviews from 2010 to Mar 2021, across a broad range of health conditions. Most (83%) used a narrative approach to summarize findings of DCEs, often citing differences in studies as the reason for not formally pooling findings. Semi-quantitative approaches included summarizing the frequency of the most important attributes, the frequency of attribute statistical significance, or tabulated comparisons of attribute importance for each pair of attributes. One review conducted a meta-analysis using the maximum acceptable risk. While reviews often commented on the heterogeneity of patient preferences, few (6%) addressed this systematically across studies.

CONCLUSION

While not commonly used, several semi-quantitative and one quantitative approach for synthesizing results of DCEs were identified, which may be useful for generating summary estimates across DCEs when appropriate. Further work is needed to assess the validity and usefulness of these approaches.

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.

The Application of Preference Elicitation Methods in Clinical Trial Design to Quantify Trade-Offs: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Patients can express preferences for different treatment options in a healthcare context, and these can be measured with quantitative preference elicitation methods.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to conduct a scoping review to determine how preference elicitation methods have been used in the design of clinical trials.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review to identify primary research studies, involving any health condition, that used quantitative preference elicitation methods, including direct utility-based approaches, and stated preference studies, to value health trade-offs in the context of clinical trial design. Studies were identified by screening existing systematic and scoping reviews and with a primary literature search in MEDLINE from 2010 to the present. We extracted study characteristics and the application of preference elicitation methods to clinical trial design according to the SPIRIT checklist from primary studies and summarized the findings descriptively.

RESULTS

We identified 18 eligible studies. The included studies applied patient preferences to five areas of clinical trial design: intervention selection (n = 1), designing N-of-1 trials (n = 1), outcome selection and weighting composite and ordinal outcomes (n = 12), sample size calculations (n = 2), and recruitment (n = 2). Using preference elicitation methods led to different decisions being made, such as using preference-weighted composite outcomes instead of equally weighted composite outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Preference elicitation methods are infrequently used to design clinical trials but may lead to changes throughout the trial that could affect the evidence generated. Future work should consider measurement challenges and explore stakeholder perceptions.

Evaluation of Factors Relevant to Pain Control Among Patients After Surgical Treatment

IMPORTANCE

Opioids are often prescribed after elective surgical treatment despite the potential for misuse. Although various pain control regimens exist, patient preferences for acute postoperative pain management are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To describe patient-reported key attributes of postoperative pain management.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This decision analytical model used responses from a survey based on conjoint analysis to investigate the value patients placed on different aspects of postoperative pain management. Participants were patients aged 18 years or older who underwent elective hand surgical procedures between July 1, 2018, and July 23, 2019, at a single academic center. The survey was completed on a web-based platform and took place between November 2019 and January 2020. Data were analyzed from May through July 2021.

EXPOSURES

Participants were presented with a series of discrete-choice tasks and asked to select between 2 postoperative medication options that changed from question to question and had varying characteristics.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Attribute importance scores and part-worth utility values for the queried aspects of pain control were calculated.

RESULTS

Of 710 individuals invited, 321 (45.2%) completed the survey; there were 212 (66.0%) women and 108 (33.6%) men, and the most common age category was 60 to 69 years (102 participants [31.8%]). Most patients reported previous opioid use (282 individuals [87.9%]). Factors in the decision-making process with the highest attribute importance scores (SDs) were risk of addiction (26.3% [13.0%]) and amount of pain relief (25.6% [14.6%]). Adverse effects 13.9% (7.2%), functional independence 11.8% (7.3%), and level of trust in the prescriber 11.4% (5.8%) had intermediate attribute importance scores (SDs). Cost 7.9% (4.4%) and stigma 3.1% (1.3%) had the lowest attribute importance scores (SDs) in patient decisions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that multimodal pain control regimens that are associated with optimized pain relief and minimized risk of addiction are preferable to treat acute postoperative pain. The results suggest that identifying procedures for which patients prioritize minimizing risk of addiction over pain relief and incorporating patient preferences into decision-making may be associated with decreased postoperative opioid prescribing.

Opioid-sparing effects of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and harms of adding medical cannabis to prescription opioids among people living with chronic pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

CENTRAL, EMBASE and MEDLINE.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Opioid dose reduction, pain relief, sleep disturbance, physical and emotional functioning and adverse events.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA AND METHODS

We included studies that enrolled patients with chronic pain receiving prescription opioids and explored the impact of adding medical cannabis. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

RESULTS

Eligible studies included five randomised trials (all enrolling chronic cancer-pain patients) and 12 observational studies. All randomised trials instructed participants to maintain their opioid dose, which resulted in a very low certainty evidence that adding cannabis has little or no impact on opioid use (weighted mean difference (WMD) -3.4 milligram morphine equivalent (MME); 95% CI (CI) -12.7 to 5.8). Randomised trials provided high certainty evidence that cannabis addition had little or no effect on pain relief (WMD -0.18 cm; 95% CI -0.38 to 0.02; on a 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain) or sleep disturbance (WMD -0.22 cm; 95% CI -0.4 to -0.06; on a 10 cm VAS for sleep disturbance; minimally important difference is 1 cm) among chronic cancer pain patients. Addition of cannabis likely increases nausea (relative risk (RR) 1.43; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.96; risk difference (RD) 4%, 95% CI 0% to 7%) and vomiting (RR 1.5; 95% CI 1.01 to 2.24; RD 3%; 95% CI 0% to 6%) (both moderate certainty) and may have no effect on constipation (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.35; RD -1%; 95% CI -4% to 2%) (low certainty). Eight observational studies provided very low certainty evidence that adding cannabis reduced opioid use (WMD -22.5 MME; 95% CI -43.06 to -1.97).

CONCLUSION

Opioid-sparing effects of medical cannabis for chronic pain remain uncertain due to very low certainty evidence.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018091098.

Attitudes Towards and Management of Opioid-induced Hyperalgesia: A Survey of Chronic Pain Practitioners

OBJECTIVES

Opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH) is a phenomenon whereby opioids increase patients' pain sensitivity, complicating their use in analgesia. We explored practitioners' attitudes towards, and knowledge concerning diagnosis, risk factors, and treatment of OIH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We administered an 18-item cross-sectional survey to 850 clinicians that managed chronic pain with opioid therapy.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 37% (318/850). Most respondents (240/318, 76%) reported they had observed patients with OIH in their practice, of which 38% (84/222) reported OIH affected >5% of their chronic pain patients. The majority (133/222, 60%) indicated that OIH could result from any dose of opioid therapy. The most commonly endorsed chronic pain conditions associated with the development of OIH were fibromyalgia (109/216, 51%) and low back pain (91/216, 42%), while 42% (91/216) indicated that no individual chronic pain condition was associated with greater risk of OIH. The most commonly endorsed opioids associated with the development of OIH were oxycodone (94/216, 44%), fentanyl (86/216, 40%), and morphine (84/216, 39%); 27% (59/216) endorsed that no specific opioid was more likely to result in OIH. Respondents commonly managed OIH by opioid dose reduction (147/216, 68%), administering a nonopioid adjuvant (133/216, 62%), or discontinuing opioids (95/216, 44%).

DISCUSSION

Most clinicians agreed that OIH is a complication of opioid therapy, but were divided regarding the prevalence of OIH, etiological factors, and optimal management.

European* clinical practice recommendations on opioids for chronic noncancer pain - Part 1: Role of opioids in the management of chronic noncancer pain

BACKGROUND

Opioid use for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is complex. In the absence of pan-European guidance on this issue, a position paper was commissioned by the European Pain Federation (EFIC).

METHODS

The clinical practice recommendations were developed by eight scientific societies and one patient self-help organization under the coordination of EFIC. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE (up until January 2020) was performed. Two categories of guidance are given: Evidence-based recommendations (supported by evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials or of observational studies) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) statements (supported either by indirect evidence or by case-series, case-control studies and clinical experience). The GRADE system was applied to move from evidence to recommendations. The recommendations and GCP statements were developed by a multiprofessional task force (including nursing, service users, physicians, physiotherapy and psychology) and formal multistep procedures to reach a set of consensus recommendations. The clinical practice recommendations were reviewed by five external reviewers from North America and Europe and were also posted for public comment.

RESULTS

The key clinical practice recommendations suggest: (a) first optimizing established non-pharmacological treatments and non-opioid analgesics and (b) considering opioid treatment if established non-pharmacological treatments or non-opioid analgesics are not effective and/or not tolerated and/or contraindicated. Evidence- and clinical consensus-based potential indications and contraindications for opioid treatment are presented. Eighteen GCP recommendations give guidance regarding clinical evaluation, as well as opioid treatment assessment, monitoring, continuation and discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

Opioids remain a treatment option for some selected patients with CNCP under careful surveillance.

SIGNIFICANCE

In chronic pain, opioids are neither a universal cure nor a universally dangerous weapon. They should only be used for some selected chronic noncancer pain syndromes if established non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment options have failed in supervised pain patients as part of a comprehensive, multi-modal, multi-disciplinary approach to treatment. In this context alone, opioid therapy can be a useful tool in achieving and maintaining an optimal level of pain control in some patients.

Long-term opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain: second update of the German guidelines

The opioid epidemic in North America challenges national guidelines worldwide to define the importance of opioids for the management of chronic noncancer pain (CNCP).

METHODS

The second update of the German guidelines on long-term opioid therapy for CNCP was developed by 26 scientific associations and 2 patient self-help organizations. A systematic literature search in CENTRAL, Medline, and Scopus (to May 2019) was performed. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and open-label extension studies with opioids for CNCP were conducted. Levels of evidence were assigned according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine classification system. The formulation and strength of recommendations were established by multistep formalized procedures to reach a consensus according to German Association of the Medical Scientific Societies regulations. The guidelines underwent external review by 4 experts and public commentary.

RESULTS

Opioids are one drug-based treatment option for short- (4-12 weeks), intermediate- (13-26 weeks), and long-term (>26 weeks) therapy of chronic pain in osteoarthritis, diabetic polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and low back pain. Contraindications are primary headaches, functional somatic syndromes, and mental disorders with the (cardinal) symptom of pain. For specified other clinical pain conditions, short- and long-term therapy with opioids should be evaluated on an individual basis. Long-term therapy with opioids is associated with relevant risks.

CONCLUSION

Responsible application of opioids requires consideration of possible indications and contraindications, as well as regular assessment of clinical response and adverse effects. Neither uncritical opioid prescription nor general rejection of opioids is justified in patients with CNCP.

[Method report of the second update of the guidelines on long-term opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain]

BACKGROUND

The update of the German S3 guidelines on long-term opioid therapy of chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), the LONTS (AWMF registration number 145/003), was scheduled for February 2020 due to the expiry of the validity period.

METHODS

The guidelines were updated by 28 scientific societies and 2 patient self-help organizations under the coordination of the German Pain Society and the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF).

RESULTS

A systematic literature search was performed in the CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Scopus databases from October 2013 to December 2018. The previous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCT) of opioids in CNPC syndromes with a study duration of ≥4 weeks were updated. Levels of evidence were assigned according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine version 2009 classification system. The formulation and strength of recommendations was established in a multistep formalized consensus procedure, in accordance with AWMF rules and standards. The guidelines were reviewed by four experts not involved in the development of the guidelines. The public was given the opportunity to comment on the guidelines. The guidelines were approved by the executive boards of the societies that were engaged in development of the guidelines.

CONCLUSION

The guidelines will be published in several forms: complete and short scientific versions as well as clinical practice and patient versions.

Hormone Replacement Therapy and Opioid Tapering for Opioid-Induced Hypogonadism Among Patients with Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review evidence addressing the efficacy of testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) and opioid tapering for opioid-induced hypogonadism among patients with chronic noncancer pain.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, DARE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO through August 2017. Eligible studies enrolled ≥10 patients with chronic noncancer pain and opioid-induced hypogonadism and reported the effect of TRT or opioid tapering on a patient-important outcome collected ≥14 days after treatment. Pairs of reviewers independently screened for eligible studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to rate quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Of 666 abstracts reviewed, five studies including one RCT (N = 84) and four observational studies (N = 157) were eligible. No studies explored the effect of opioid tapering for opioid-induced hypogonadism. Very low-quality evidence found that TRT was associated with improvements in pain (median reduction of 2 points on the 11-point numerical rating scale for pain; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.4 to -2.6; minimally important difference [MID] = 2 points), and emotional functioning (mean increase of 9 points on the 100-point SF-36 Mental Component Summary score; 95% CI = 4.40 to 13.60; MID = 5 points). Low-quality evidence suggested that TRT had no effect on sleep quality, sexual function, physical functioning, role functioning, or social functioning; very low-quality evidence suggested no association with depressive symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality to very low-quality evidence suggests that TRT may improve pain and emotional functioning, but not other outcomes, in chronic noncancer pain patients with opioid-induced hypogonadism.

Use of Cannabis to Relieve Pain and Promote Sleep by Customers at an Adult Use Dispensary

Medical cannabis patients consistently report using cannabis as a substitute for prescription medications; however, little is known about individuals accessing cannabis through adult-use markets. A survey at two retail stores was conducted in Colorado, United States. Between August 2016 and October 2016, store staff asked customers if they wanted to participate and, if so, provided an electronic survey link. All customers reporting medical certification were excluded. Of 1,000 adult-use only customer respondents, 65% reported taking cannabis to relieve pain and 74% reported taking cannabis to promote sleep. Among respondents taking cannabis for pain, 80% reported that it was very or extremely helpful, and most of those taking over-the-counter pain medications (82%) or opioid analgesics (88%) reported reducing or stopping use of those medications. Among respondents taking cannabis for sleep, 84% found it very or extremely helpful, and most of those taking over-the-counter (87%) or prescription sleep aids (83%) reported reducing or stopping use of those medications. De facto medical use of cannabis for symptom relief was common among adult-use dispensary customers and the majority reported that cannabis decreased their medication use. Adult use cannabis laws may broaden access to cannabis for the purpose of symptom relief.

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.