Mean analgesic consumption is inappropriate for testing analgesic efficacy in post-operative pain: analysis and alternative suggestion:

Comparing pain intensity rating scales in acute postoperative pain: boundary values and category disagreements

Pain intensity assessment scales are important in evaluating postoperative pain and guiding management. Different scales can be used for patients to self-report their pain, but research determining cut points between mild, moderate and severe pain has been limited to studies with < 1500 patients. We examined 13,017 simultaneous acute postoperative pain ratings from 913 patients taken at rest and on activity, between 4 h and 48 h following surgery using both a verbal rating scale (no, mild, moderate or severe pain) and 0-100 mm visual analogue scale. We determined the best cut points on the visual analogue scale between mild and moderate pain as 35 mm, and moderate and severe pain as 80 mm. These remained consistent for pain at rest and on activity, and over time. We also explored the presence of category disagreements, defined as patients verbally describing no or mild pain scored above the mild/moderate cut point on the visual analogue scale, and patients verbally describing moderate or severe pain scored below the mild/moderate cut point on the visual analogue scale. Using 30 and 60 mm cut points, 1533 observations (12%) showed a category disagreement and using 35 and 80 mm cut points, 1632 (13%) showed a category disagreement. Around 1 in 8 simultaneous pain scores implausibly disagreed, possibly resulting in incorrect pain reporting. The reasons are not known but low rates of literacy and numeracy may be contributing factors. Understanding these disagreements between pain scales is important for pain research and medical practice.

The safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block in postoperative analgesic of PCNL: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The patients received percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) with severe postoperative pain and discomfort. The erector spinae plane block (ESPB), as a new anesthesia method of plane block, has a positive effect on postoperative analgesia. But evidence of ESPB in PCNL is still lacking. The objective of this study was to systematically analyze the postoperative analgesic effect of ESPB in patients receiving PCNL.

METHODS

The literature searching was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Clinical Trial Database (clinicaltrials.gov). Two independent researchers screened the included studies and extracted data. Meta-analysis was conducted by using the random-effect model with 95% confidence intervals. Chi-squared test with a significance level of 0.1 was utilized to evaluate the heterogeneity of included studies. The subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis were conducted in studies with high heterogeneity. The publication bias was assessed based on whether there were discrepancies between prospective trial registration and reported protocols.

RESULTS

There were 8 studies involving 456 patients assessing the efficacy of ESPB in reducing postoperative pain score of PCNL compared with no block or other blocks, such as subcutaneous infiltration, general anesthesia or TPVB intrathecal morphine. ESPB was a significantly effective and safe anesthesia method, which not only improved postoperative pain response (MD -1.76; 95% CI -2.57 to -0.94; I 2 = 85%; p<0.01), but also reduced analgesic consumption (MD -16.92; 95% CI -26.25 to -7.59; I 2 = 92.2%; p<0.01) and prolonged the time of first request for postoperative analgesia (MD 93.27; 95% CI 35.79 to 150.75; I 2 = 85.3%; p = 0.001) in patients receiving PCNL without significant postoperative complications (MD 0.80; 95% CI 0.31 to 2.03; I 2 = 0%; p = 0.404).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with no block or other blocks, the ESPB was a safe and effective anesthesia for patients receiving PCNL.

Flawed, futile, and fabricated-features that limit confidence in clinical research in pain and anaesthesia: a narrative review

The randomised controlled trial is the foundation of clinical research; yet there is concern that many trials have flaws in design, conduct, and reporting that undermine trustworthiness. Common flaws in trials include high risk of bias, small size, outcomes irrelevant to clinical care and patient's experience, and inability to detect efficacy even if present. These flaws carry forward into systematic reviews, which can confer the label of 'high-quality evidence' on inadequate data. Trials can be futile because their flaws mean that they cannot deliver any meaningful result in that different results in a small number of patients would be sufficient to change conclusions. Some trials have been discovered to be fabricated, the number of which is growing. The fields of anaesthesia and pain have more fabricated trials than other clinical fields, possibly because of increased vigilance. This narrative review examines these themes in depth whilst acknowledging an inescapable conclusion: that much of our clinical evidence is in trouble, and special measures are needed to bolster quality and confidence.

New insight into the analgesic recipe: A cohort study based on smart patient-controlled analgesia pumps records

Purpose: Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) has been widely used; however, regimen criteria have not yet been established. In China, the most often used opioid is sufentanil, for which repeated doses are a concern, and empirical flurbiprofen axetil (FBP) as an adjuvant. We hypothesized that hydromorphone would be a better choice and also evaluated the effectiveness of FBP as an adjuvant.

Methods: This historical cohort study was conducted in two tertiary hospitals in China and included 12,674 patients using hydromorphone or sufentanil for IV-PCA between April 1, 2017, and January 30, 2021. The primary outcome was analgesic insufficiency at static (AIS). The secondary outcomes included analgesic insufficiency with movement (AIM) and common opioid-related adverse effects such as postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and dizziness.

Results: Sufentanil, but not the sufentanil-FBP combination, was associated with higher risks of AIS and AIM compared to those for hydromorphone (OR 1.64 [1.23, 2.19], p < 0.001 and OR 1.42 [1.16, 1.73], p < 0.001). Hydromorphone combined with FBP also decreased the risk of both AIS and AIM compared to those for pure hydromorphone (OR 0.74 [0.61, 0.90], p = 0.003 and OR 0.80 [0.71, 0.91], p < 0.001). However, the risk of PONV was higher in patients aged ≤35 years using FBP (hydromorphone-FBP vs. hydromorphone and sufentanil-FBP vs. hydromorphone, OR 1.69 [1.22, 2.33], p = 0.001 and 1.79 [1.12, 2.86], p = 0.015).

Conclusion: Hydromorphone was superior to sufentanil for IV-PCA in postoperative analgesia. Adding FBP may improve the analgesic effects of both hydromorphone and sufentanil but was associated with an increased risk of PONV in patients <35 years of age.

Erector spinae plane block for analgesia after cesarean delivery: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a regional block that may be used for several surgeries. However, the evidence regarding obstetrical procedures is not pooled in the literature.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether ESPB improves the postoperative pain after cesarean section by a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

The protocol of this review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020192760). We included randomized controlled trials from databases until August 2020. The primary outcome was pain measured on a visual analogic scale; secondary outcomes were analgesic duration, postoperative opioid dose within the 24 hours, nausea/vomiting. The risk of bias and the GRADE criteria to assess quality of evidence were analyzed.

RESULTS

From 436 retrieved studies, three were selected. There was no difference in the pain scores between ESPB and controls at rest after surgery at 4 h (mean difference [MD] = 0.00; 95% CI: -0.72 to 0.72; I² = 0%; very low certainty), 12 h (MD = -1.00; 95% CI: -2.00 to -0.00; I² = 0%, low certainty) and 24 h (MD = -0.68; 95% CI: -1.56 to 0.20; I² = 50%; very low certainty). There was a smaller consumption of tramadol with ESPB compared with controls (MD = -47.66; 95% CI: -77.24 to -18.08; I² = 59%; very low certainty). The analgesic duration of ESPB was longer than the controls (MD = 6.97; 95% CI: 6.30 to 7.65; I² = 58%; very low certainty).

CONCLUSION

ESPB did not decrease the postoperative pain scores when compared to other comparators. However, ESPB showed a lower consumption of tramadol and a longer blockade duration, although the quality of evidence of these outcomes were very low.

Topical clonidine for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Clonidine is a presynaptic alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist that has been used for many years to treat hypertension and other conditions, including chronic pain. Adverse events associated with systemic use of the drug have limited its application. Topical use of drugs has been gaining interest since the beginning of the century, as it may limit adverse events without loss of analgesic efficacy. Topical clonidine (TC) formulations have been investigated for almost 20 years in clinical trials. This is an update of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 8, 2015.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the analgesic efficacy and safety of TC compared with placebo or other drugs in adults aged 18 years or above with chronic neuropathic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid) databases, and reference lists of retrieved papers and trial registries. We also contacted experts in the field. The most recent search was performed on 27 October 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing TC versus placebo or other active treatment in adults with chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened references for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third review author if necessary. Where required, we contacted trial authors to request additional information. We presented pooled estimates for dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) with P values. We used Review Manager Web software to perform the meta-analyses. We used a fixed-effect model if we considered heterogeneity as not important; otherwise, we used a random-effects model.  The review primary outcomes were: participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater; participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater; much or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC); and very much improved on PGIC. Secondary outcomes included withdrawals due to adverse events; participants experiencing at least one adverse event; and withdrawals due to lack of efficacy. All outcomes were measured at the longest follow-up period. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE and created two summary of findings tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies in the review (two new in this update), with a total of 743 participants with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). TC (0.1% or 0.2%) was applied in gel form to the painful area two to three times daily. The double-blind treatment phase of three studies lasted 8 weeks to 85 days and compared TC versus placebo. In the fourth study, the double-blind treatment phase lasted 12 weeks and compared TC versus topical capsaicin. We assessed the studies as at unclear or high risk of bias for most domains; all studies were at unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessment; one study was at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel; two studies were at high risk of attrition bias; and three studies were at high risk of bias due to notable funding concerns. We judged the certainty of evidence (GRADE) to be moderate to very low, downgrading for study limitations, imprecision of results, and publication bias. TC compared to placebo There was no evidence of a difference in number of participants with participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater during longest follow-up period (12 weeks) between groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.86; 179 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence). However, the number of participants with participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater during longest follow-up period (8 to 12 weeks) was higher in the TC group compared with placebo (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.77; 344 participants; 2 studies, very low certainty evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for this comparison was 8.33 (95% CI 4.3 to 50.0). Also, there was no evidence of a difference between groups for the outcomes much or very much improved on the PGIC during longest follow-up period (12 weeks) or very much improved on PGIC during the longest follow-up period (12 weeks) (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.49 and RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.89 to 3.72, respectively; 179 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence). We observed no evidence of a difference between groups in withdrawals due to adverse events and withdrawals due to lack of efficacy during the longest follow-up period (12 weeks) (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.18 and RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.92, respectively; 179 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence) and participants experiencing at least one adverse event during longest follow-up period (12 weeks) (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.05; 344 participants; 2 studies; low certainty evidence).  TC compared to active comparator There was no evidence of a difference in the number of participants with participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater during longest follow-up period (12 weeks) between groups (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.0; 139 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence). Other outcomes were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This is an update of a review published in 2015, for which our conclusions remain unchanged. Topical clonidine may provide some benefit to adults with painful diabetic neuropathy; however, the evidence is very uncertain. Additional trials are needed to assess TC in other neuropathic pain conditions and to determine whether it is possible to predict who or which groups of people will benefit from TC.

Opioids in acute pain: Towards getting the right balance

Misuse of prescription opioids forced an inevitable response from authorities to intervene with consequences felt by all.In the Australian community one person will die for approximately every 3600 adults prescribed opioids, while in the hospital setting a postoperative patient managed primarily with opioids, as opposed to epidural analgesia, has an additional risk of death as high as between one in 56 to 477.Opioids maintain a valid role in acute pain management when use is reasoned and with full awareness of the harms and how they are to be avoided, such as in those at risk of ongoing use, the opioid naïve, and when opioid-induced ventilatory impairment may occur.Clinicians managing acute pain can focus on assessing pain versus nociception, strategically apply antinociceptive medications and neural blockade when indicated, assess pain with an emphasis on the degree of bothersomeness and functional impairment and, finally, optimise the use of framing and placebo-enhancing communication to minimise reliance on medications.

S-ketamine in patient-controlled analgesia reduces opioid consumption in a dose-dependent manner after major lumbar fusion surgery: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial

Background

Spinal fusion surgery causes severe pain. Strong opioids, commonly used as postoperative analgesics, may have unwanted side effects. S-ketamine may be an effective analgesic adjuvant in opioid patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). However, the optimal adjunct S-ketamine dose to reduce postoperative opioid consumption is still unknown.

Methods

We randomized 107 patients at two tertiary hospitals in a double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial of adults undergoing major lumbar spinal fusion surgery. Patients were randomly allocated to four groups in order to compare the effects of three different doses of adjunct S-ketamine (0.25, 0.5, and 0.75 mg ml-1) or placebo on postoperative analgesia in oxycodone PCA. Study drugs were administered for 24 hours postoperative after which oxycodone-PCA was continued for further 48 hours. Our primary outcome was cumulative oxycodone consumption at 24 hours after surgery.

Results

Of the 100 patients analyzed, patients receiving 0.75 mg ml^-1 S-ketamine in oxycodone PCA needed 25% less oxycodone at 24 h postoperatively (61.2 mg) compared with patients receiving 0.5 mg ml^-1 (74.7 mg) or 0.25 mg ml^-1 (74.1 mg) S-ketamine in oxycodone or oxycodone alone (81.9 mg) (mean difference: -20.6 mg; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -41 to -0.20; P = 0.048). A beneficial effect in mean change of pain intensity at rest was seen in the group receiving 0.75 mg ml^-1 S-ketamine in oxycodone PCA compared with patients receiving lower ketamine doses or oxycodone alone (standardized effect size: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.013–0.32, P = 0.033). The occurrence of adverse events was similar among the groups.

Conclusions

Oxycodone PCA containing S-ketamine as an adjunct at a ratio of 1: 0.75 decreased cumulative oxycodone consumption at 24 h after major lumbar spinal fusion surgery without additional adverse effects.

Efficacy of erector spinae plane block with opioid-sparing analgesic technique in breast-conserving surgery

Purpose

Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is a surgical method designed to minimize intraoperative tissue injury. Although this technique is minimally invasive, it can cause significant postoperative pain and may be a risk factor for persistent pain. Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is an easy interfascial plane block for analgesia in patients undergoing breast surgery. The primary outcome was the numeric rating scale scores measured separately on the breast and axilla. Secondary outcomes included correlation between pain score and skin sensitivity test.

Methods

Forty patients were divided into 2 groups (ESPB group and control group). Patients in the ESPB group received an ESPB 30 minutes before the induction of general anesthesia, whereas patients in the control group did not receive any regional analgesia during the perioperative period.

Results

Median pain scores of the breast were significantly lower in the ESPB group than that in the control group at 12, 24, and 48 hours after surgery. However, the median pain scores of the axilla were not significantly different between the groups, and the pain score was unrelated to skin sensitivity.

Conclusion

ESPB can effectively alleviate acute postoperative pain with an opioid-sparing analgesic technique in patients undergoing BCS, and a strong correlation is lacking between pain scores and skin sensitivity test.

The use of intravenous lidocaine for postoperative pain and recovery: international consensus statement on efficacy and safety

Intravenous lidocaine is used widely for its effect on postoperative pain and recovery but it can be, and has been, fatal when used inappropriately and incorrectly. The risk-benefit ratio of i.v. lidocaine varies with type of surgery and with patient factors such as comorbidity (including pre-existing chronic pain). This consensus statement aims to address three questions. First, does i.v. lidocaine effectively reduce postoperative pain and facilitate recovery? Second, is i.v. lidocaine safe? Third, does the fact that i.v. lidocaine is not licensed for this indication affect its use? We suggest that i.v. lidocaine should be regarded as a 'high-risk' medicine. Individual anaesthetists may feel that, in selected patients, i.v. lidocaine may be beneficial as part of a multimodal peri-operative pain management strategy. This approach should be approved by hospital medication governance systems, and the individual clinical decision should be made with properly informed consent from the patient concerned. If i.v. lidocaine is used, we recommend an initial dose of no more than 1.5 mg.kg^-1 , calculated using the patient's ideal body weight and given as an infusion over 10 min. Thereafter, an infusion of no more than 1.5 mg.kg^-1 .h^-1 for no longer than 24 h is recommended, subject to review and re-assessment. Intravenous lidocaine should not be used at the same time as, or within the period of action of, other local anaesthetic interventions. This includes not starting i.v. lidocaine within 4 h after any nerve block, and not performing any nerve block until 4 h after discontinuing an i.v. lidocaine infusion.

Efficacy of erector spinae plane block for analgesia in breast surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The erector spinae plane block is a new regional anaesthesia technique that provides truncal anaesthesia for breast surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to determine if the erector spinae plane block is effective at reducing pain scores and opioid consumption after breast surgery. This study also evaluated the outcomes of erector spinae plane blocks compared with other regional blocks. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched. We included randomised controlled trials reporting the use of the erector spinae plane block in adult breast surgery. Risk of bias was assessed with the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to assess trial quality. Thirteen randomised controlled trials (861 patients; 418 erector spinae plane block, 215 no blocks, 228 other blocks) were included. Erector spinae plane block reduced postoperative pain compared with no block: at 0-2 hours (mean difference (95% CI) -1.63 (-2.97 to -0.29), 6 studies, 329 patients, high-quality evidence, I²  = 98%, p = 0.02); at 6 hours (mean difference (95% CI) -0.90 (-1.49 to -0.30), 5 studies, 250 patients, high-quality evidence, I²  = 91%, p = 0.003); at 12 hours (mean difference (95% CI) -0.46 (-0.67 to -0.25), 5 studies, 250 patients, high-quality evidence, I²  = 58%, p < 0.0001); and at 24 hours (mean difference (95% CI) -0.50 (-0.70 to -0.30), 6 studies, 329 patients, high-quality evidence, I²  = 76%, p < 0.00001). Compared with no block, erector spinae plane block also showed significantly lower postoperative oral morphine equivalent requirements (mean difference (95% CI) -21.55mg (-32.57 to -10.52), 7 studies, 429 patients, high-quality evidence, I²  = 99%, p = 0.0001). Separate analysis of studies comparing erector spinae plane block with pectoralis nerve block and paravertebral block showed that its analgesic efficacy was inferior to pectoralis nerve block and similar to paravertebral block. The incidence of pneumothorax was 2.6% in the paravertebral block group; there were no reports of complications of the other blocks. This review has shown that the erector spinae plane block is more effective at reducing postoperative opioid consumption and pain scores up to 24 hours compared with general anaesthesia alone. However, it was inferior to the pectoralis nerve block and its efficacy was similar to paravertebral block. Further evidence, preferably from properly blinded trials, is required to confirm these findings.

Amitriptyline for fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 12, 2012. That review considered both fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain, but the efficacy of amitriptyline for neuropathic pain is now dealt with in a separate review. Amitriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant that is widely used to treat fibromyalgia, and is recommended in many guidelines. It is usually used at doses below those at which the drugs act as antidepressants.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of amitriptyline for relief of fibromyalgia, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to March 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers, previous systematic reviews and other reviews, and two clinical trial registries. We also used our own hand searched database for older studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least four weeks' duration comparing amitriptyline with placebo or another active treatment in fibromyalgia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and two study authors examined issues of study quality independently. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNT), and for harm we calculated the number needed to treat to harm (NNH) for adverse events and withdrawals. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies from the earlier review and two new studies (nine studies, 649 participants) of 6 to 24 weeks' duration, enrolling between 22 and 208 participants; none had 50 or more participants in each treatment arm. Two studies used a cross-over design. The daily dose of amitriptyline was 25 mg to 50 mg, and some studies had an initial titration period. There was no first or second tier evidence for amitriptyline in the treatment of fibromyalgia. Using third tier evidence the risk ratio (RR) for at least 50% pain relief, or equivalent, with amitriptyline compared with placebo was 3.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7 to 4.9), with an NNT) of 4.1 (2.9 to 6.7) (very low quality evidence). There were no consistent differences between amitriptyline and placebo or other active comparators for relief of symptoms such as fatigue, poor sleep, quality of life, or tender points. More participants experienced at least one adverse event with amitriptyline (78%) than with placebo (47%). The RR was 1.5 (1.3 to 1.8) and the NNH was 3.3 (2.5 to 4.9). Adverse event and all-cause withdrawals were not different, but lack of efficacy withdrawals were more common with placebo (12% versus 5%; RR 0.42 (0.19 to 0.95)) (very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Amitriptyline has been a first-line treatment for fibromyalgia for many years. The fact that there is no supportive unbiased evidence for a beneficial effect is disappointing, but has to be balanced against years of successful treatment in many patients with fibromyalgia. There is no good evidence of a lack of effect; rather our concern should be of overestimation of treatment effect. Amitriptyline will be one option in the treatment of fibromyalgia, while recognising that only a minority of patients will achieve satisfactory pain relief. It is unlikely that any large randomised trials of amitriptyline will be conducted in fibromyalgia to establish efficacy statistically, or measure the size of the effect.

A Single Site Population Study to Investigate CYP2D6 Phenotype of Patients with Persistent Non-Malignant Pain

Background and Objectives: Codeine requires biotransformation by the CYP2D6 enzyme, encoded by the polymorphic CYP2D6 gene, to morphine for therapeutic efficacy. CYP2D6 phenotypes of poor, intermediate, and ultra-rapid metabolisers are at risk of codeine non-response and adverse drug reactions due to altered CYP2D6 function. The aim of this study was to determine whether genotype, inferred phenotype, and urinary and oral fluid codeine O-demethylation metabolites could predict codeine non-response following a short course of codeine. Materials and Methods: There were 131 Caucasians with persistent pain enrolled. Baseline assessments were recorded, prohibited medications ceased, and DNA sampling completed before commencing codeine 30 mg QDS for 5 days. Day 4 urine samples were collected 1–2 h post morning dose for codeine O-demethylation metabolites analysis. Final pain assessments were conducted on day 5. Results: None of the poor, intermediate, ultra-rapid metabolisers and only 24.5% of normal metabolisers responded to codeine. A simple scoring system to predict analgesic response from day 4 urinary metabolites was devised with overall prediction success of 79% (sensitivity 0.8, specificity 0.78) for morphine and 79% (sensitivity 0.76, specificity 0.83) for morphine:creatinine ratio. Conclusions: In conclusion, this study provides tentative evidence that day 4 urinary codeine O-demethylation metabolites could predict non-response following a short course of codeine and could be utilised in the clinical assessment of codeine response at the point of care to improve analgesic efficacy and safety in codeine therapy. We offer a scoring system to predict codeine response from urinary morphine and urinary morphine:creatinine ratio collected on the morning of day 4 of codeine 30 mg QDS, but this requires validation before it could be considered for use to assess codeine response in clinical practice.

Perioperative intravenous ketamine for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Inadequate pain management after surgery increases the risk of postoperative complications and may predispose for chronic postsurgical pain. Perioperative ketamine may enhance conventional analgesics in the acute postoperative setting.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of perioperative intravenous ketamine in adult patients when used for the treatment or prevention of acute pain following general anaesthesia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to July 2018 and three trials registers (metaRegister of controlled trials, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomised, double-blind, controlled trials of adults undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia and being treated with perioperative intravenous ketamine. Studies compared ketamine with placebo, or compared ketamine plus a basic analgesic, such as morphine or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), with a basic analgesic alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, examined issues of study quality and potential bias, and performed analyses. Primary outcomes were opioid consumption and pain intensity at rest and during movement at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were time to first analgesic request, assessment of postoperative hyperalgesia, central nervous system (CNS) adverse effects, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 130 studies with 8341 participants. Ketamine was given to 4588 participants and 3753 participants served as controls. Types of surgery included ear, nose or throat surgery, wisdom tooth extraction, thoracotomy, lumbar fusion surgery, microdiscectomy, hip joint replacement surgery, knee joint replacement surgery, anterior cruciate ligament repair, knee arthroscopy, mastectomy, haemorrhoidectomy, abdominal surgery, radical prostatectomy, thyroid surgery, elective caesarean section, and laparoscopic surgery. Racemic ketamine bolus doses were predominantly 0.25 mg to 1 mg, and infusions 2 to 5 µg/kg/minute; 10 studies used only S-ketamine and one only R-ketamine. Risk of bias was generally low or uncertain, except for study size; most had fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm, resulting in high heterogeneity, as expected, for most analyses. We did not stratify the main analysis by type of surgery or any other factor, such as dose or timing of ketamine administration, and used a non-stratified analysis.Perioperative intravenous ketamine reduced postoperative opioid consumption over 24 hours by 8 mg morphine equivalents (95% CI 6 to 9; 19% from 42 mg consumed by participants given placebo, moderate-quality evidence; 65 studies, 4004 participants). Over 48 hours, opioid consumption was 13 mg lower (95% CI 10 to 15; 19% from 67 mg with placebo, moderate-quality evidence; 37 studies, 2449 participants).Perioperative intravenous ketamine reduced pain at rest at 24 hours by 5/100 mm on a visual analogue scale (95% CI 4 to 7; 19% lower from 26/100 mm with placebo, high-quality evidence; 82 studies, 5004 participants), and at 48 hours by 5/100 mm (95% CI 3 to 7; 22% lower from 23/100 mm, high-quality evidence; 49 studies, 2962 participants). Pain during movement was reduced at 24 hours (6/100 mm, 14% lower from 42/100 mm, moderate-quality evidence; 29 studies, 1806 participants), and 48 hours (6/100 mm, 16% lower from 37 mm, low-quality evidence; 23 studies, 1353 participants).Results for primary outcomes were consistent when analysed by pain at rest or on movement, operation type, and timing of administration, or sensitivity to study size and pain intensity. No analysis by dose was possible. There was no difference when nitrous oxide was used. We downgraded the quality of the evidence once if numbers of participants were large but small-study effects were present, or twice if numbers were small and small-study effects likely but testing not possible.Ketamine increased the time for the first postoperative analgesic request by 54 minutes (95% CI 37 to 71 minutes), from a mean of 39 minutes with placebo (moderate-quality evidence; 31 studies, 1678 participants). Ketamine reduced the area of postoperative hyperalgesia by 7 cm² (95% CI -11.9 to -2.2), compared with placebo (very low-quality evidence; 7 studies 333 participants). We downgraded the quality of evidence because of small-study effects or because the number of participants was below 400.CNS adverse events occurred in 52 studies, while 53 studies reported of absence of CNS adverse events. Overall, 187/3614 (5%) participants receiving ketamine and 122/2924 (4%) receiving control treatment experienced an adverse event (RR 1.2, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.4; high-quality evidence; 105 studies, 6538 participants). Ketamine reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting from 27% with placebo to 23% with ketamine (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96; the number needed to treat to prevent one episode of postoperative nausea and vomiting with perioperative intravenous ketamine administration was 24 (95% CI 16 to 54; high-quality evidence; 95 studies, 5965 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative intravenous ketamine probably reduces postoperative analgesic consumption and pain intensity. Results were consistent in different operation types or timing of ketamine administration, with larger and smaller studies, and by higher and lower pain intensity. CNS adverse events were little different with ketamine or control. Perioperative intravenous ketamine probably reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting by a small extent, of arguable clinical relevance.

Pharmacological therapies for fibromyalgia in adults ‐ an overview of Cochrane Reviews

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Overview). The objectives are as follows:

To provide an overview of the therapeutic efficacy of pharmacological therapies for fibromyalgia, and to report on adverse events associated with their use. The major comparison of interest will be with placebo.

Mirtazapine for fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia is a clinically defined chronic condition of unknown etiology characterised by chronic widespread pain, sleep disturbance, cognitive dysfunction, and fatigue. Many patients report high disability levels and poor quality of life. Drug therapy aims to reduce key symptoms, especially pain, and improve quality of life. The tetracyclic antidepressant, mirtazapine, may help by increasing serotonin and noradrenaline in the central nervous system (CNS).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of the tetracyclic antidepressant, mirtazapine, compared with placebo or other active drug(s) in the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, the US National Institutes of Health, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for published and ongoing trials, and examined reference lists of reviewed articles, to 9 July 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any formulation of mirtazapine against placebo, or any other active treatment of fibromyalgia, in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, outcomes of efficacy, tolerability and safety, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias, resolving discrepancies by discussion. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain relief (at least 50% or 30% pain reduction), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC; much or very much improved), safety (serious adverse events), and tolerability (adverse event withdrawal). Other outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improved by 20% or more, fatigue, sleep problems, mean pain intensity, negative mood and particular adverse events. We used a random-effects model to calculate risk difference (RD), standardised mean difference (SMD), and numbers needed to treat. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies with 606 participants compared mirtazapine with placebo (but not other drugs) over seven to 13 weeks. Two studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in six or seven of eight domains. We judged the evidence for all outcomes to be low- or very low-quality because of poor study quality, indirectness, imprecision, risk of publication bias, and sometimes low numbers of events.There was no difference between mirtazapine and placebo for any primary outcome: participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater (22% versus 16%; RD 0.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.12; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); no data available for PGIC; only a single serious adverse event for evaluation of safety (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; three studies with 606 participants; very low-quality evidence); and tolerability as frequency of dropouts due to adverse events (3% versus 2%; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence).Mirtazapine showed a clinically-relevant benefit compared to placebo for some secondary outcomes: participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater (47% versus 34%; RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.21; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 8, 95% CI 5 to 20; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported mean pain intensity (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.13; three studies with 591 participants; low-quality evidence); and participant-reported sleep problems (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.06; three studies with 573 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no benefit for improvement of participant-reported improvement of HRQoL of 20% or greater (58% versus 50%; RD 0.08, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.16; three studies with 586 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported fatigue (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.16; two studies with 533 participants; low-quality evidence); participant-reported negative mood (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -1.44 to 0.10; three studies with 588 participants; low-quality evidence); or withdrawals due to lack of efficacy (1.5% versus 0.1%; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; three studies with 605 participants; very low-quality evidence).There was no difference between mirtazapine and placebo for participants reporting any adverse event (76% versus 59%; RD 0.12, 95 CI -0.01 to 0.26; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence). There was a clinically-relevant harm with mirtazapine compared to placebo: in the number of participants with somnolence (42% versus 14%; RD 0.24, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.30; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 5, 95% CI 3 to 6; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence); weight gain (19% versus 1%; RD 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.23; NNTH 6, 95% CI 5 to 10; three studies with 606 participants; low-quality evidence); and elevated alanine aminotransferase (13% versus 2%; RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.22; NNTH 8, 95% CI 5 to 25; two studies with 566 participants; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Studies demonstrated no benefit of mirtazapine over placebo for pain relief of 50% or greater, PGIC, improvement of HRQoL of 20% or greater, or reduction of fatigue or negative mood. Clinically-relevant benefits were shown for pain relief of 30% or greater, reduction of mean pain intensity, and sleep problems. Somnolence, weight gain, and elevated alanine aminotransferase were more frequent with mirtazapine than placebo. The quality of evidence was low or very low, with two of three studies of questionable quality and issues over indirectness and risk of publication bias. On balance, any potential benefits of mirtazapine in fibromyalgia were outweighed by its potential harms, though, a small minority of people with fibromyalgia might experience substantial symptom relief without clinically-relevant adverse events.

Continuous intravenous perioperative lidocaine infusion for postoperative pain and recovery in adults

BACKGROUND

The management of postoperative pain and recovery is still unsatisfactory in a number of cases in clinical practice. Opioids used for postoperative analgesia are frequently associated with adverse effects, including nausea and constipation, preventing smooth postoperative recovery. Not all patients are suitable for, and benefit from, epidural analgesia that is used to improve postoperative recovery. The non-opioid, lidocaine, was investigated in several studies for its use in multimodal management strategies to reduce postoperative pain and enhance recovery. This review was published in 2015 and updated in January 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and risks) of perioperative intravenous (IV) lidocaine infusion compared to placebo/no treatment or compared to epidural analgesia on postoperative pain and recovery in adults undergoing various surgical procedures.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and reference lists of articles in January 2017. We searched one trial registry contacted researchers in the field, and handsearched journals and congress proceedings. We updated this search in February 2018, but have not yet incorporated these results into the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of continuous perioperative IV lidocaine infusion either with placebo, or no treatment, or with thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) in adults undergoing elective or urgent surgery under general anaesthesia. The IV lidocaine infusion must have been started intraoperatively, prior to incision, and continued at least until the end of surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: pain score at rest; gastrointestinal recovery and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included: postoperative nausea and postoperative opioid consumption. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 new trials in the update. In total, the review included 68 trials (4525 randomized participants). Two trials compared IV lidocaine with TEA. In all remaining trials, placebo or no treatment was used as a comparator. Trials involved participants undergoing open abdominal (22), laparoscopic abdominal (20), or various other surgical procedures (26). The application scheme of systemic lidocaine strongly varies between the studies related to both dose (1 mg/kg/h to 5 mg/kg/h) and termination of the infusion (from the end of surgery until several days after).The risk of bias was low with respect to selection bias (random sequence generation), performance bias, attrition bias, and detection bias in more than 50% of the included studies. For allocation concealment and selective reporting, the quality assessment yielded low risk of bias for only approximately 20% of the included studies.IV Lidocaine compared to placebo or no treatment We are uncertain whether IV lidocaine improves postoperative pain compared to placebo or no treatment at early time points (1 to 4 hours) (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to -0.28; 29 studies, 1656 participants; very low-quality evidence) after surgery. Due to variation in the standard deviation (SD) in the studies, this would equate to an average pain reduction of between 0.37 cm and 2.48 cm on a 0 to 10 cm visual analogue scale . Assuming approximately 1 cm on a 0 to 10 cm pain scale is clinically meaningful, we ruled out a clinically relevant reduction in pain with lidocaine at intermediate (24 hours) (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.04; 33 studies, 1847 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and at late time points (48 hours) (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.04; 24 studies, 1404 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Due to variation in the SD in the studies, this would equate to an average pain reduction of between 0.10 cm to 0.48 cm at 24 hours and 0.08 cm to 0.42 cm at 48 hours. In contrast to the original review in 2015, we did not find any significant subgroup differences for different surgical procedures.We are uncertain whether lidocaine reduces the risk of ileus (risk ratio (RR) 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.87; 4 studies, 273 participants), time to first defaecation/bowel movement (mean difference (MD) -7.92 hours, 95% CI -12.71 to -3.13; 12 studies, 684 participants), risk of postoperative nausea (overall, i.e. 0 up to 72 hours) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91; 35 studies, 1903 participants), and opioid consumption (overall) (MD -4.52 mg morphine equivalents , 95% CI -6.25 to -2.79; 40 studies, 2201 participants); quality of evidence was very low for all these outcomes.The effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects compared to placebo treatment is uncertain, as only a small number of studies systematically analysed the occurrence of adverse effects (very low-quality evidence).IV Lidocaine compared to TEAThe effects of IV lidocaine compared with TEA are unclear (pain at 24 hours (MD 1.51, 95% CI -0.29 to 3.32; 2 studies, 102 participants), pain at 48 hours (MD 0.98, 95% CI -1.19 to 3.16; 2 studies, 102 participants), time to first bowel movement (MD -1.66, 95% CI -10.88 to 7.56; 2 studies, 102 participants); all very low-quality evidence). The risk for ileus and for postoperative nausea (overall) is also unclear, as only one small trial assessed these outcomes (very low-quality evidence). No trial assessed the outcomes, 'pain at early time points' and 'opioid consumption (overall)'. The effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects compared to TEA is uncertain (very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether IV perioperative lidocaine, when compared to placebo or no treatment, has a beneficial impact on pain scores in the early postoperative phase, and on gastrointestinal recovery, postoperative nausea, and opioid consumption. The quality of evidence was limited due to inconsistency, imprecision, and study quality. Lidocaine probably has no clinically relevant effect on pain scores later than 24 hours. Few studies have systematically assessed the incidence of adverse effects. There is a lack of evidence about the effects of IV lidocaine compared with epidural anaesthesia in terms of the optimal dose and timing (including the duration) of the administration. We identified three ongoing studies, and 18 studies are awaiting classification; the results of the review may change when these studies are published and included in the review.

Cannabis-based medicines for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat chronic neuropathic pain. Estimates of the population prevalence of chronic pain with neuropathic components range between 6% and 10%. Current pharmacological treatment options for neuropathic pain afford substantial benefit for only a few people, often with adverse effects that outweigh the benefits. There is a need to explore other treatment options, with different mechanisms of action for treatment of conditions with chronic neuropathic pain. Cannabis has been used for millennia to reduce pain. Herbal cannabis is currently strongly promoted by some patients and their advocates to treat any type of chronic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of cannabis-based medicines (herbal, plant-derived, synthetic) compared to placebo or conventional drugs for conditions with chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registries for published and ongoing trials, and examined the reference lists of reviewed articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised, double-blind controlled trials of medical cannabis, plant-derived and synthetic cannabis-based medicines against placebo or any other active treatment of conditions with chronic neuropathic pain in adults, with a treatment duration of at least two weeks and at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data of study characteristics and outcomes of efficacy, tolerability and safety, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for pain relief of 30% and 50% or greater, patient's global impression to be much or very much improved, dropout rates due to lack of efficacy, and the standardised mean differences for pain intensity, sleep problems, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and psychological distress. For tolerability, we calculated number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for withdrawal due to adverse events and specific adverse events, nervous system disorders and psychiatric disorders. For safety, we calculated NNTH for serious adverse events. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a random-effects model. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 studies with 1750 participants. The studies were 2 to 26 weeks long and compared an oromucosal spray with a plant-derived combination of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) (10 studies), a synthetic cannabinoid mimicking THC (nabilone) (two studies), inhaled herbal cannabis (two studies) and plant-derived THC (dronabinol) (two studies) against placebo (15 studies) and an analgesic (dihydrocodeine) (one study). We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess study quality. We defined studies with zero to two unclear or high risks of bias judgements to be high-quality studies, with three to five unclear or high risks of bias to be moderate-quality studies, and with six to eight unclear or high risks of bias to be low-quality studies. Study quality was low in two studies, moderate in 12 studies and high in two studies. Nine studies were at high risk of bias for study size. We rated the quality of the evidence according to GRADE as very low to moderate.Primary outcomesCannabis-based medicines may increase the number of people achieving 50% or greater pain relief compared with placebo (21% versus 17%; risk difference (RD) 0.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.09); NNTB 20 (95% CI 11 to 100); 1001 participants, eight studies, low-quality evidence). We rated the evidence for improvement in Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) with cannabis to be of very low quality (26% versus 21%;RD 0.09 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.17); NNTB 11 (95% CI 6 to 100); 1092 participants, six studies). More participants withdrew from the studies due to adverse events with cannabis-based medicines (10% of participants) than with placebo (5% of participants) (RD 0.04 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.07); NNTH 25 (95% CI 16 to 50); 1848 participants, 13 studies, moderate-quality evidence). We did not have enough evidence to determine if cannabis-based medicines increase the frequency of serious adverse events compared with placebo (RD 0.01 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.03); 1876 participants, 13 studies, low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesCannabis-based medicines probably increase the number of people achieving pain relief of 30% or greater compared with placebo (39% versus 33%; RD 0.09 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.15); NNTB 11 (95% CI 7 to 33); 1586 participants, 10 studies, moderate quality evidence). Cannabis-based medicines may increase nervous system adverse events compared with placebo (61% versus 29%; RD 0.38 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.58); NNTH 3 (95% CI 2 to 6); 1304 participants, nine studies, low-quality evidence). Psychiatric disorders occurred in 17% of participants using cannabis-based medicines and in 5% using placebo (RD 0.10 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.15); NNTH 10 (95% CI 7 to 16); 1314 participants, nine studies, low-quality evidence).We found no information about long-term risks in the studies analysed.Subgroup analysesWe are uncertain whether herbal cannabis reduces mean pain intensity (very low-quality evidence). Herbal cannabis and placebo did not differ in tolerability (very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The potential benefits of cannabis-based medicine (herbal cannabis, plant-derived or synthetic THC, THC/CBD oromucosal spray) in chronic neuropathic pain might be outweighed by their potential harms. The quality of evidence for pain relief outcomes reflects the exclusion of participants with a history of substance abuse and other significant comorbidities from the studies, together with their small sample sizes.

Acupuncture for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain may be caused by nerve damage, and is often followed by changes to the central nervous system. Uncertainty remains regarding the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture treatments for neuropathic pain, despite a number of clinical trials being undertaken.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of acupuncture treatments for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four Chinese databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 14 February 2017. We also cross checked the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with treatment duration of eight weeks or longer comparing acupuncture (either given alone or in combination with other therapies) with sham acupuncture, other active therapies, or treatment as usual, for neuropathic pain in adults. We searched for studies of acupuncture based on needle insertion and stimulation of somatic tissues for therapeutic purposes, and we excluded other methods of stimulating acupuncture points without needle insertion. We searched for studies of manual acupuncture, electroacupuncture or other acupuncture techniques used in clinical practice (such as warm needling, fire needling, etc).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and pain relief. The secondary outcomes were any pain-related outcome indicating some improvement, withdrawals, participants experiencing any adverse event, serious adverse events and quality of life. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and for continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. We also calculated number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) where possible. We combined all data using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE to generate 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies involving 462 participants with chronic peripheral neuropathic pain (442 completers (251 male), mean ages 52 to 63 years). The included studies recruited 403 participants from China and 59 from the UK. Most studies included a small sample size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm) and all studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. Most studies had unclear risk of bias for sequence generation (four out of six studies), allocation concealment (five out of six) and selective reporting (all included studies). All studies investigated manual acupuncture, and we did not identify any study comparing acupuncture with treatment as usual, nor any study investigating other acupuncture techniques (such as electroacupuncture, warm needling, fire needling).One study compared acupuncture with sham acupuncture. We are uncertain if there is any difference between the two interventions on reducing pain intensity (n = 45; MD -0.4, 95% CI -1.83 to 1.03, very low-quality evidence), and neither group achieved 'no worse than mild pain' (visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-10) average score was 5.8 and 6.2 respectively in the acupuncture and sham acupuncture groups, where 0 = no pain). There was limited data on quality of life, which showed no clear difference between groups. Evidence was not available on pain relief, adverse events or other pre-defined secondary outcomes for this comparison.Three studies compared acupuncture alone versus other therapies (mecobalamin combined with nimodipine, and inositol). Acupuncture may reduce the risk of 'no clinical response' to pain than other therapies (n = 209; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.51), however, evidence was not available for pain intensity, pain relief, adverse events or any of the other secondary outcomes.Two studies compared acupuncture combined with other active therapies (mecobalamin, and Xiaoke bitong capsule) versus other active therapies used alone. We found that the acupuncture combination group had a lower VAS score for pain intensity (n = 104; MD -1.02, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.95) and improved quality of life (n = 104; MD -2.19, 95% CI -2.39 to -1.99), than those receiving other therapy alone. However, the average VAS score of the acupuncture and control groups was 3.23 and 4.25 respectively, indicating neither group achieved 'no worse than mild pain'. Furthermore, this evidence was from a single study with high risk of bias and a very small sample size. There was no evidence on pain relief and we identified no clear differences between groups on other parameters, including 'no clinical response' to pain and withdrawals. There was no evidence on adverse events.The overall quality of evidence is very low due to study limitations (high risk of performance, detection, and attrition bias, and high risk of bias confounded by small study size) or imprecision. We have limited confidence in the effect estimate and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimated effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the limited data available, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of acupuncture for neuropathic pain in general, or for any specific neuropathic pain condition when compared with sham acupuncture or other active therapies. Five studies are still ongoing and seven studies are awaiting classification due to the unclear treatment duration, and the results of these studies may influence the current findings.

Benefit and harm of adding ketamine to an opioid in a patient-controlled analgesia device for the control of postoperative pain: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analyses

Ketamine is often added to opioids in patient-controlled analgesia devices. We tested whether in surgical patients, ketamine added to an opioid patient-controlled analgesia decreased pain intensity by ≥25%, cumulative opioid consumption by ≥30%, the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting by ≥30%, the risk of respiratory adverse effects by ≥50%, and increased the risk of hallucination not more than 2-fold. In addition, we searched for evidence of dose-responsiveness. Nineteen randomized trials (1349 adults, 104 children) testing different ketamine regimens added to various opioids were identified through searches in databases and bibliographies (to 04.2016). In 9 trials (595 patients), pain intensity at rest at 24 hours was decreased by 32% with ketamine (weighted mean difference -1.1 cm on the 0-10 cm visual analog scale [98% CI, -1.8 to -0.39], P < 0.001). In 7 trials (495 patients), cumulative 24 hours morphine consumption was decreased by 28% with ketamine (weighted mean difference -12.9 mg [-22.4 to -3.35], P = 0.002). In 7 trials (435 patients), the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was decreased by 44% with ketamine (risk ratio 0.56 [0.40 to 0.78], P < 0.001). There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of respiratory adverse events (9 trials, 871 patients; risk ratio 0.31 [0.06 to 1.51], P = 0.08) or hallucination (7 trials, 690 patients; odds ratio 1.16 [0.47 to 2.79], P = 0.70). Trial sequential analyses confirmed the significant benefit of ketamine on pain intensity, cumulative morphine consumption, and postoperative nausea and vomiting and its inability to double the risk of hallucination. The available data did not allow us to make a conclusion on respiratory adverse events or to establish dose-responsiveness.

Loss-of-function polymorphisms in the organic cation transporter OCT1 are associated with reduced postoperative tramadol consumption

The organic cation transporter OCT1 (SLC22A1) mediates uptake and metabolism of the active tramadol metabolite (+)O-desmethyltramadol in the liver. In this study, the influence of OCT1 genetic polymorphisms on pharmacokinetics and analgesic efficacy of tramadol in patients recovering from surgery was analyzed in addition to the CYP2D6 genotype. Postoperative patients who received tramadol through patient-controlled analgesia were enrolled. Genotypes resulting in 0, 1, or 2 active OCT1 alleles were determined as well as CYP2D6 genotypes. The primary endpoint was the 24-hour postoperative tramadol consumption in patients with 0 vs at least 1 active OCT1 allele. Secondary endpoint was the OCT1-dependent plasma concentration (areas under the concentration-time curves) of the active tramadol metabolite (+)O-desmethyltramadol. Of 205 patients, 19, 82, and 104 carried 0, 1, and 2 active OCT1 alleles, respectively. Cumulative tramadol consumption through patient-controlled analgesia was lowest in patients with 0 active OCT1 allele compared with the group of patients with 1 or 2 active alleles (343 ± 235 vs 484 ± 276 mg; P = 0.03). Multiple regression revealed that the number of active OCT1 alleles (P = 0.014), CYP2D6 (P = 0.001), pain scores (P < 0.001), and the extent of surgery (0.034) had a significant influence on tramadol consumption. Plasma areas under the concentration-time curves of (+)O-desmethyltramadol were 111.8 (95% confidence interval: 63.4-160.1), 80.2 (65.1-95.3), and 64.5 (51.9-77.2) h·ng·mL in carriers of 0, 1, or 2 active OCT1 alleles (P = 0.03). Loss of OCT1 function resulted in reduced tramadol consumption and increased plasma concentrations of (+)O-desmethyltramadol in patients recovering from surgery. Therefore, analyzing OCT1 next to CYP2D6 genotype might further improve future genotype-dependent dose recommendations for tramadol.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia is characterised by persistent, widespread pain; sleep problems; and fatigue. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is the delivery of pulsed electrical currents across the intact surface of the skin to stimulate peripheral nerves and is used extensively to manage painful conditions. TENS is inexpensive, safe, and can be self-administered. TENS reduces pain during movement in some people so it may be a useful adjunct to assist participation in exercise and activities of daily living. To date, there has been only one systematic review in 2012 which included TENS, amongst other treatments, for fibromyalgia, and the authors concluded that TENS was not effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of TENS alone or added to usual care (including exercise) compared with placebo (sham) TENS; no treatment; exercise alone; or other treatment including medication, electroacupuncture, warmth therapy, or hydrotherapy for fibromyalgia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases up to 18 January 2017: CENTRAL (CRSO); MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid); CINAHL (EBSCO); PsycINFO (Ovid); LILACS; PEDRO; Web of Science (ISI); AMED (Ovid); and SPORTDiscus (EBSCO). We also searched three trial registries. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised trials of TENS treatment for pain associated with fibromyalgia in adults. We included cross-over and parallel-group trial designs. We included studies that evaluated TENS administered using non-invasive techniques at intensities that produced perceptible TENS sensations during stimulation at either the site of pain or over nerve bundles proximal (or near) to the site of pain. We included TENS administered as a sole treatment or TENS in combination with other treatments, and TENS given as a single treatment or as a course of treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently determined study eligibility by assessing each record and reaching agreement by discussion. A third review author acted as arbiter. We did not anonymise the records of studies before assessment. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies before entering information into a 'Characteristics of included studies' table. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain relief from baseline of 30% or greater or 50% or greater, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). We assessed the evidence using GRADE and added 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies (seven RCTs, one quasi-RCT, 315 adults (299 women), aged 18 to 75 years): six used a parallel-group design and two used a cross-over design. Sample sizes of intervention arms were five to 43 participants.Two studies, one of which was a cross-over design, compared TENS with placebo TENS (82 participants), one study compared TENS with no treatment (43 participants), and four studies compared TENS with other treatments (medication (two studies, 74 participants), electroacupuncture (one study, 44 participants), superficial warmth (one cross-over study, 32 participants), and hydrotherapy (one study, 10 participants)). Two studies compared TENS plus exercise with exercise alone (98 participants, 49 per treatment arm). None of the studies measured participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater or PGIC. Overall, the studies were at unclear or high risk of bias, and in particular all were at high risk of bias for sample size.Only one study (14 participants) measured the primary outcome participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater. Thirty percent achieved 30% or greater reduction in pain with TENS and exercise compared with 13% with exercise alone. One study found 10/28 participants reported pain relief of 25% or greater with TENS compared with 10/24 participants using superficial warmth (42 °C). We judged that statistical pooling was not possible because there were insufficient data and outcomes were not homogeneous.There were no data for the primary outcomes participant-reported pain relief from baseline of 50% or greater and PGIC.There was a paucity of data for secondary outcomes. One pilot cross-over study of 43 participants found that the mean (95% confidence intervals (CI)) decrease in pain intensity on movement (100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS)) during one 30-minute treatment was 11.1 mm (95% CI 5.9 to 16.3) for TENS and 2.3 mm (95% CI 2.4 to 7.7) for placebo TENS. There were no significant differences between TENS and placebo for pain at rest. One parallel group study of 39 participants found that mean ± standard deviation (SD) pain intensity (100-mm VAS) decreased from 85 ± 20 mm at baseline to 43 ± 20 mm after one week of dual-site TENS; decreased from 85 ± 10 mm at baseline to 60 ± 10 mm after single-site TENS; and decreased from 82 ± 20 mm at baseline to 80 ± 20 mm after one week of placebo TENS. The authors of seven studies concluded that TENS relieved pain but the findings of single small studies are unlikely to be correct.One study found clinically important improvements in Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) subscales for work performance, fatigue, stiffness, anxiety, and depression for TENS with exercise compared with exercise alone. One study found no additional improvements in FIQ scores when TENS was added to the first three weeks of a 12-week supervised exercise programme.No serious adverse events were reported in any of the studies although there were reports of TENS causing minor discomfort in a total of 3 participants.The quality of evidence was very low. We downgraded the GRADE rating mostly due to a lack of data; therefore, we have little confidence in the effect estimates where available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of TENS for fibromyalgia. We found a small number of inadequately powered studies with incomplete reporting of methodologies and treatment interventions.

Antidepressants for chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time and relief of pain is now seen as important.We designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions.As the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can arise in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) from genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, as well as for other unknown reasons.Antidepressants have been used in adults for pain relief and pain management since the 1970s. The clinical impression from extended use over many years is that antidepressants are useful for some neuropathic pain symptoms, and that effects on pain relief are divorced and different from effects on depression; for example, the effects of tricyclic antidepressants on pain may occur at different, and often lower, doses than those on depression. Amitriptyline is one of the most commonly used drugs for treating neuropathic pain in the UK.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of antidepressants used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, of any dose and any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any antidepressant with placebo or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies with a total of 272 participants (6 to 18 years of age) who had either chronic neuropathic pain, complex regional pain syndrome type 1, irritable bowel syndrome, functional abdominal pain, or functional dyspepsia. All of the studies were small. One study investigated amitriptyline versus gabapentin (34 participants), two studies investigated amitriptyline versus placebo (123 participants), and one study investigated citalopram versus placebo (115 participants). Due to a lack of available data we were unable to complete any quantitative analysis.Risk of bias for the four included studies varied, due to issues with randomisation and allocation concealment (low to unclear risk); blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessors (low to unclear risk); reporting of results (low to unclear risk); and size of the study populations (high risk). We judged the remaining domains, attrition and other potential sources of bias, as low risk of bias. Primary outcomesNo studies reported our primary outcomes of participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater or 50% or greater (very low-quality evidence).No studies reported on Patient Global Impression of Change (very low-quality evidence).We rated the overall quality of the evidence (GRADE rating) as very low. We downgraded the quality of the evidence by three levels to very low because there was no evidence to support or refute. Secondary outcomesAll studies measured adverse events, with very few reported (11 out of 272 participants). All but one adverse event occurred in the active treatment groups (amitriptyline, citalopram, and gabapentin). Adverse events in all studies, across active treatment and comparator groups, were considered to be a mild reaction, such as nausea, dizziness, drowsiness, tiredness, and abdominal discomfort (very low-quality evidence).There were also very few withdrawals due to adverse events, again all but one from the active treatment groups (very low-quality evidence).No serious adverse events were reported across any of the studies (very low-quality evidence).There were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).We rated the overall quality of the evidence (GRADE rating) for these secondary outcomes as very low. We downgraded the quality of the evidence by three levels to very low due to too few data and the fact that the number of events was too small to be meaningful.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified only a small number of studies with small numbers of participants and insufficient data for analysis.As we could undertake no meta-analysis, we are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of antidepressants to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we cannot comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.There is evidence from adult randomised controlled trials that some antidepressants, such as amitriptyline, can provide some pain relief in certain chronic non-cancer pain conditions.There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support or refute the use of antidepressants to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children or adolescents.

Antiepileptic drugs for chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as importantWe designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions in children and adolescents.As the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can occur in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) relating to genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, and for other unknown reasons.Antiepileptic (anticonvulsant) drugs, which were originally developed to treat convulsions in people with epilepsy, have in recent years been used to provide pain relief in adults for many chronic painful conditions and are now recommended for the treatment of chronic pain in the WHO list of essential medicines. Known side effects of antiepileptic drugs range from sweating, headache, elevated temperature, nausea, and abdominal pain to more serious effects including mental or motor function impairment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of antiepileptic drugs used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews as well as online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, by any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any antiepileptic drug with placebo or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods if data were available. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies with a total of 141 participants (aged 7 to 18 years) with chronic neuropathic pain, complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-I), or fibromyalgia. One study investigated pregabalin versus placebo in participants with fibromyalgia (107 participants), and the other study investigated gabapentin versus amitriptyline in participants with CRPS-I or neuropathic pain (34 participants). We were unable to perform any quantitative analysis.Risk of bias for the two included studies varied, due to issues with randomisation (low to unclear risk), blinding of outcome assessors (low to unclear risk), reporting bias (low to unclear risk), the size of the study populations (high risk), and industry funding in the 'other' domain (low to unclear risk). We judged the remaining domains of sequence generation, blinding of participants and personnel, and attrition as low risk of bias. Primary outcomesOne study (gabapentin 900 mg/day versus amitriptyline 10 mg/day, 34 participants, for 6 weeks) did not report our primary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).The second study (pregabalin 75 to 450 mg/day versus placebo 75 to 450 mg/day, 107 participants, for 15 weeks) reported no significant change in pain scores for pain relief of 30% or greater between pregabalin 18/54 (33.3%), and placebo 16/51 (31.4%), P = 0.83 (very low-quality evidence). This study also reported Patient Global Impression of Change, with the percentage of participants feeling "much or very much improved" with pregabalin 53.1%, and placebo 29.5% (very low-quality evidence).We downgraded the evidence by three levels to very low for one of two reasons: due to the fact that there was no evidence to support or refute the use of the intervention, or that there were too few data and the number of events was too small to be meaningful. Secondary outcomesIn one small study, adverse events were uncommon: gabapentin 2 participants (2 adverse events); amitriptyline 1 participant (1 adverse event) (6-week trial). The second study reported a higher number of adverse events: pregabalin 38 participants (167 adverse events); placebo 34 participants (132 adverse events) (15-week trial) (very low-quality evidence).Withdrawals due to adverse events were infrequent in both studies: pregabalin (4 participants), placebo (4 participants), gabapentin (2 participants), and amitriptyline (1 participant) (very low-quality evidence).Serious adverse events were reported in both studies. One study reported only one serious adverse event (cholelithiasis and major depression resulting in hospitalisation in the pregabalin group) and the other study reported no serious adverse events (very low-quality evidence).There were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes (very low-quality evidence).We downgraded the evidence by three levels to very low due to too few data and the fact that the number of events was too small to be meaningful.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review identified only two small studies, with insufficient data for analysis.As we could undertake no meta-analysis, we were unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we could not comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.We know from adult randomised controlled trials that some antiepileptics, such as gabapentin and pregabalin, can be effective in certain chronic pain conditions.We found no evidence to support or refute the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) for chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as important.We designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol as priority areas) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions in children and adolescents.As the leading cause of morbidity in children and adolescents in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (lasting three months or longer) can arise in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications: nociceptive, neuropathic, idiopathic, visceral, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, and other unknown reasons.Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is one of the most widely used analgesics in both adults and children. The recommended dosage in the UK, Europe, Australia, and the USA for children and adolescents is generally 10 to 15 mg/kg every four to six hours, with specific age ranges from 60 mg (6 to 12 months old) up to 500 to 1000 mg (over 12 years old). Paracetamol is the only recommended analgesic for children under 3 months of age. Paracetamol has been proven to be safe in appropriate and controlled dosages, however potential adverse effects of paracetamol if overdosed or overused in children include liver and kidney failure.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of paracetamol (acetaminophen) used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, of any dose and any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing paracetamol with placebo or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat, using standard methods where data were available. We assessed GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and planned to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low. We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels due to the lack of data reported for any outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support or refute the use of paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. We are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of paracetamol to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.We know from adult randomised controlled trials that paracetamol, can be effective, in certain doses, and in certain pain conditions (not always chronic).This means that no conclusions could be made about efficacy or harm in the use of paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as important.We designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions.As the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can arise in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) from genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, as well as for other unknown reasons.Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used to treat pain, reduce fever, and for their anti-inflammation properties. They are commonly used within paediatric pain management. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are currently licensed for use in Western countries, however they are not approved for infants under three months old. The main adverse effects include renal impairment and gastrointestinal issues. Common side effects in children include diarrhoea, headache, nausea, constipation, rash, dizziness, and abdominal pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of NSAIDs used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, as well as online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, of any dose and any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any NSAID with placebo or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed GRADE and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies with a total of 1074 participants (aged 2 to 18 years) with chronic juvenile polyarthritis or chronic juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. All seven studies compared an NSAID with an active comparator. None of the studies were placebo controlled. No two studies investigated the same type of NSAID compared with another. We were unable to perform a meta-analysis.Risk of bias varied. For randomisation and allocation concealment, one study was low risk and six studies were unclear risk. For blinding of participants and personnel, three studies were low risk and four studies were unclear to high risk. For blinding of outcome assessors, all studies were unclear risk. For attrition, four studies were low risk and three studies were unclear risk. For selective reporting, four studies were low risk, two studies were unclear risk, and one study was high risk. For size, three studies were unclear risk and four studies were high risk. For other potential sources of bias, seven studies were low risk. Primary outcomesThree studies reported participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater, showing no statistically significant difference in pain scores between meloxicam and naproxen, celecoxib and naproxen, or rofecoxib and naproxen (P > 0.05) (low-quality evidence).One study reported participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater, showing no statistically significant difference in pain scores between low-dose meloxicam (0.125 mg/kg) and high-dose meloxicam (0.25 mg/kg) when compared to naproxen 10 mg/kg (P > 0.05) (low-quality evidence).One study reported Patient Global Impression of Change, showing 'very much improved' in 85% of ibuprofen and 90% of aspirin participants (low-quality evidence). Secondary outcomesAll seven studies reported adverse events. Participants reporting an adverse event (one or more per person) by drug were: aspirin 85/202; fenoprofen 28/49; ibuprofen 40/45; indomethacin 9/30; ketoprofen 9/30; meloxicam 18/47; naproxen 44/202; and rofecoxib 47/209 (very low-quality evidence).All seven studies reported withdrawals due to adverse events. Participants withdrawn due to an adverse event by drug were: aspirin 16/120; celecoxib 10/159; fenoprofen 0/49; ibuprofen 0/45; indomethacin 0/30; ketoprofen 0/30; meloxicam 10/147; naproxen 17/285; and rofecoxib 3/209 (very low-quality evidence).All seven studies reported serious adverse events. Participants experiencing a serious adverse event by drug were: aspirin 13/120; celecoxib 5/159; fenoprofen 0/79; ketoprofen 0/30; ibuprofen 4/45; indomethacin 0/30; meloxicam 11/147; naproxen 10/285; and rofecoxib 0/209 (very low-quality evidence).There were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning as defined by validated scales; and quality of life as defined by validated scales (very low-quality evidence).We rated the overall quality of the evidence (GRADE rating) for our primary and secondary outcomes as very low because there were limited data from studies and no opportunity for a meta-analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified only a small number of studies, with insufficient data for analysis.As we could undertake no meta-analysis, we are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of NSAIDs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we cannot comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.We know from adult randomised controlled trials that some NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, naproxen, and aspirin, can be effective in certain chronic pain conditions.

Opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as importantWe designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol as priority areas) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions in children and adolescents.As the leading cause of morbidity in children and adolescents in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (lasting three months or longer) can arise in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications: nociceptive, neuropathic, idiopathic, visceral, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, and other unknown reasons.Opioids are used worldwide for the treatment of pain. They bind to opioid receptors in the central nervous system (mu, kappa, delta, and sigma) and can be agonists, antagonists, mixed agonist-antagonists, or partial agonists. Opioids are generally available in healthcare settings across most high-income countries, but access may be restricted in low- and middle-income countries. For example, opioids currently available in the UK include: buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, and tramadol. Opioids are used in varying doses (generally based on body weight for paediatric patients) by means of parenteral, transmucosal, transdermal, or oral administration (immediate release or modified release). To achieve adequate pain relief in children using opioids, with an acceptable grade of adverse effects, the recommended method is a lower dose gradually titrated to effect in the child.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of opioids used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, of any dose and any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing opioids with placebo or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat, using standard methods. We assessed GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and planned to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low. We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels due to the lack of data reported for any outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support or refute the use of opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. We are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.We know from adult randomised controlled trials that some opioids, such as morphine and codeine, can be effective in certain chronic pain conditions.This means that no conclusions could be made about efficacy or harm in the use of opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for cancer-related pain in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for pharmacological treatments for persisting pain in children acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. Views on children's pain have changed over time and relief of pain is now seen as important. In the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, and it was assumed that children quickly forgot about painful experiences.We designed a suite of seven reviews in chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol as priority areas) to review the evidence for children's pain using pharmacological interventions.As one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity for children and adolescents in the world today, childhood cancer (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Specific mortality and morbidity data relating to children are not currently identified. All childhood cancer rates are on the rise; for example, in the USA approximately 10,380 children aged under 15 years were expected to be diagnosed with cancer by the end of 2016. However, with survival rates also increasing, over 80% of paediatric cancer patients are expected to survive for five years or more, thus identifying the need to address pain management in this population.Cancer pain in infants, children, and adolescents is primarily nociceptive pain with negative long term effects. Cancer-related pain is generally caused directly by the tumour itself such as compressing on the nerve or inflammation of the organs. Cancer-related pain generally occurs as a result of perioperative procedures, nerve damage caused by radiation or chemotherapy treatments, or mucositis. However, this review focused on pain caused directly by the tumour itself such as nerve infiltration, external nerve compression, and other inflammatory events.Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used to treat pain, reduce fever, and for their anti-inflammatory properties. They are commonly used within paediatric pain management. NSAIDs are currently licensed for use in western countries, however not approved for infants aged under three months. Primary adverse effects include gastrointestinal issues and possible renal impairment with long term use. Other adverse effects in children include diarrhoea, headache, nausea, constipation, rash, dizziness, and abdominal pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy, and adverse events, of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) used to treat cancer-related pain in children and adolescents aged from birth and 17 years, in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 21 February 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind trials of any dose, and any route, treating cancer-related pain in children and adolescents, comparing NSAIDs with placebo or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and planned to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies were eligible for inclusion in this review (very low quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels due to the lack of data reported for any outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduce cancer-related pain in children and adolescents. This means that no reliance or conclusions can be made about efficacy or harm in the use of NSAIDs to treat chronic cancer-related pain in children and adolescents.

Opioids for cancer-related pain in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. Views on children's pain have changed over time and relief of pain is now seen as important. In the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, and it was assumed that children quickly forgot about painful experiences.We designed a suite of seven reviews in chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) to review the evidence for children's pain using pharmacological interventions.As one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity for children and adolescents in the world today, childhood cancer (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Cancer pain in infants, children, and adolescents is primarily nociceptive pain with negative long term effects. Cancer-related pain is generally caused directly by the tumour itself such as compressing on the nerve or inflammation of the organs. Cancer-related pain generally occurs as a result of perioperative procedures, nerve damage caused by radiation or chemotherapy treatments, or mucositis. However, this review focused on pain caused directly by the tumour itself such as nerve infiltration, external nerve compression, and other inflammatory events.Opioids are used worldwide for the treatment of pain. Currently available opioids include: buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, and tramadol. Opioids are generally available in healthcare settings across most developed countries but access may be restricted in developing countries. To achieve adequate pain relief in children using opioids, with an acceptable grade of adverse effects, the recommended method is to start with a low dose gradually titrated to effect or unacceptable adverse effect in the child.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy, and adverse events, of opioids used to treat cancer-related pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid and Embase via Ovid from inception to 22 February 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with or without blinding, of any dose, and any route, treating cancer-related pain in children and adolescents, comparing opioids with placebo or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and planned to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies were identified that were eligible for inclusion in this review (very low quality evidence). Several studies tested opioids on adults with cancer-related pain, but none in participants aged from birth to 17 years.We rated the quality of evidence as very low, downgraded due to a lack of available data; no analyses could be undertaken.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No conclusions can be drawn about efficacy or harm in the use of opioids to treat cancer-related pain in children and adolescents. As a result, there is no RCT evidence to support or refute the use of opioids to treat cancer-related pain in children and adolescents.

Morphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain, which is caused by a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system, may be central or peripheral in origin. Neuropathic pain often includes symptoms such as burning or shooting sensations, abnormal sensitivity to normally painless stimuli, or an increased sensitivity to normally painful stimuli. Neuropathic pain is a common symptom in many diseases of the nervous system. Opioid drugs, including morphine, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for morphine; other opioids are considered in separate reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of morphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from inception to February 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing morphine (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five randomised, double-blind, cross-over studies with treatment periods of four to seven weeks, involving 236 participants in suitably characterised neuropathic pain; 152 (64%) participants completed all treatment periods. Oral morphine was titrated to maximum daily doses of 90 mg to 180 mg or the maximum tolerated dose, and then maintained for the remainder of the study. Participants had experienced moderate or severe neuropathic pain for at least three months. Included studies involved people with painful diabetic neuropathy, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia criteria, phantom limb or postamputation pain, and lumbar radiculopathy. Exclusions were typically people with other significant comorbidity or pain from other causes.Overall, we judged the studies to be at low risk of bias, but there were concerns over small study size and the imputation method used for participants who withdrew from the studies, both of which could lead to overestimation of treatment benefits and underestimation of harm.There was insufficient or no evidence for the primary outcomes of interest for efficacy or harm. Four studies reported an approximation of moderate pain improvement (any pain-related outcome indicating some improvement) comparing morphine with placebo in different types of neuropathic pain. We pooled these data in an exploratory analysis. Moderate improvement was experienced by 63% (87/138) of participants with morphine and 36% (45/125) with placebo; the risk difference (RD) was 0.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.38, fixed-effects analysis) and the NNT 3.7 (2.6 to 6.5). We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low because of the small number of events; available information did not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect, and the likelihood that the effect will be substantially different was very high. A similar exploratory analysis for substantial pain relief on three studies (177 participants) showed no difference between morphine and placebo.All-cause withdrawals in four studies occurred in 16% (24/152) of participants with morphine and 12% (16/137) with placebo. The RD was 0.04 (-0.04 to 0.12, random-effects analysis). Adverse events were inconsistently reported, more common with morphine than with placebo, and typical of opioids. There were two serious adverse events, one with morphine, and one with a combination of morphine and nortriptyline. No deaths were reported. These outcomes were assessed as very low quality because of the limited number of participants and events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that morphine has any efficacy in any neuropathic pain condition.

Methadone for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review replaces an earlier review, "Methadone for chronic non-cancer pain in adults". This review serves to update the original and includes only studies of neuropathic pain. Methadone belongs to a class of analgesics known as opioids, that are considered the cornerstone of therapy for moderate-to-severe postsurgical pain and pain due to life-threatening illnesses; however, their use in neuropathic pain is controversial. Methadone has many characteristics that differentiate it from other opioids, which suggests that it may have a different efficacy and safety profile.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of methadone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: CENTRAL (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid), and two clinical trial registries. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved articles. The date of the most recent search was 30 November 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing methadone (in any dose, administered by any route, and in any formulation) with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. There were insufficient data to perform pooled analyses. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three studies, involving 105 participants. All were cross-over studies, one involving 19 participants with diverse neuropathic pain syndromes, the other two involving 86 participants with postherpetic neuralgia. Study phases ranged from 20 days to approximately eight weeks. All administered methadone orally, in doses ranging from 10 mg to 80 mg daily. Comparators were primarily placebo, but one study also included morphine and tricyclic antidepressants.The included studies had several limitations related to risk of bias, particularly incomplete reporting, selective outcome reporting, and small sample sizes.There were very limited data for our primary outcomes of participants with at least 30% or at least 50% pain relief. Two studies reported that 11/29 participants receiving methadone achieved 30% pain relief versus 7/29 participants receiving placebo. Only one study presented data in a manner that allowed us to calculate the number of participants with at least 50% pain relief. None of the 19 participants achieved a 50% reduction in pain intensity, either when receiving methadone or when receiving placebo. No study provided data for our other primary outcomes of Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC) much or very much improved (equivalent to at least 30% pain relief) and PGIC very much improved (equivalent to at least 50% pain relief).For secondary efficacy outcomes, one study reported maximum and mean pain intensity and pain relief, and reported statistically significant improvements versus placebo for all outcomes with 20 mg daily doses of methadone, but not with 10 mg daily doses. The second study reported differences in pain reduction between methadone (n = 26) and morphine (n = 38) and found morphine to be statistically superior. The third study reported the number of responders (variously defined) for several pain and functional outcomes and found methadone to be statistically superior to placebo for the outcomes of categorical pain intensity and evoked pain. In the two studies that reported data, 0/29 participants withdrew due to lack of efficacy, whereas 4/29 participants withdrew due to adverse events while taking methadone versus 3/29 while taking placebo.One study reported incidences for several individual adverse events, but found a statistically significant increased incidence for methadone over placebo for only one event, dizziness. The other studies did not report data in a manner that enabled us to analyze adverse events. There were no serious adverse events or deaths reported.We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low for all efficacy and safety outcomes using GRADE, primarily because of the heterogeneity of study designs and populations, short durations, cross-over methodology, and few participants and events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The three studies provide very limited, very low quality evidence of the efficacy and safety of methadone for chronic neuropathic pain, and there were too few data for pooled analysis of efficacy or harm, or to have confidence in the results of the individual studies. No conclusions can be made regarding differences in efficacy or safety between methadone and placebo, other opioids, or other treatments.

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia, despite being considered not to be effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy, tolerability (drop-out due to adverse events), and safety (serious adverse events) of oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for fibromyalgia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from inception to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID with placebo or another active treatment for relief of pain in fibromyalgia, with subjective pain assessment by the participant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)) or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC), serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events; secondary outcomes were adverse events, withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, and outcomes relating to sleep, fatigue, and quality of life. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT), using standard methods. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Our searches identified six randomised, double-blind studies involving 292 participants in suitably characterised fibromyalgia. The mean age of participants was between 39 and 50 years, and 89% to 100% were women. The initial pain intensity was around 7/10 on a 0 to 10 pain scale, indicating severe pain. NSAIDs tested were etoricoxib 90 mg daily, ibuprofen 2400 mg daily, naproxen 1000 mg daily, and tenoxicam 20 mg daily; 146 participants received NSAID and 146 placebo. The duration of treatment in the double-blind phase varied between three and eight weeks.Not all studies reported all the outcomes of interest. Analyses consistently showed no significant difference between NSAID and placebo: substantial benefit (at least 50% pain intensity reduction) (risk difference (RD) -0.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.18 to 0.04) 2 studies, 146 participants; moderate benefit (at least 30% pain intensity reduction) (RD -0.04 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.08) 3 studies, 192 participants; withdrawals due to adverse events (RD 0.04 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.09) 4 studies, 230 participants; participants experiencing any adverse event (RD 0.08 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.19) 4 studies, 230 participants; all-cause withdrawals (RD 0.03 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.14) 3 studies, 192 participants. There were no serious adverse events or deaths. Although most studies had some measures of health-related quality of life, fibromyalgia impact, or other outcomes, none reported the outcomes beyond saying that there was no or little difference between the treatment groups.We downgraded evidence on all outcomes to very low quality, meaning that this research does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect could be substantially different is very high. This is based on the small numbers of studies, participants, and events, as well as other deficiencies of reporting study quality allowing possible risks of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is only a modest amount of very low-quality evidence about the use of NSAIDs in fibromyalgia, and that comes from small, largely inadequate studies with potential risk of bias. That bias would normally be to increase the apparent benefits of NSAIDs, but no such benefits were seen. Consequently, NSAIDs cannot be regarded as useful for treating fibromyalgia.

Opioids for cancer‐related pain in children and adolescents

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To assess the analgesic efficacy, and adverse events, of opioids used to treat cancer pain in children and adolescents between birth and 17 years, in any setting.

Antidepressants for chronic non‐cancer pain in children and adolescents

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To assess the analgesic efficacy, and adverse events, of antidepressants used to treat chronic non‐cancer pain in children and adolescents between birth and 17 years, in any setting.

Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for chronic non‐cancer pain in children and adolescents

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To assess the analgesic efficacy, and adverse events, of NSAIDs used to treat chronic non‐cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.

Gabapentin for fibromyalgia pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review replaces part of an earlier review that evaluated gabapentin for both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, now split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review will consider pain in fibromyalgia only.Fibromyalgia is associated with widespread pain lasting longer than three months, and is frequently associated with symptoms such as poor sleep, fatigue, depression, and reduced quality of life. Fibromyalgia is more common in women.Gabapentin is an antiepileptic drug widely licensed for treatment of neuropathic pain. It is not licensed for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but is commonly used because fibromyalgia can respond to the same medicines as neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of gabapentin for fibromyalgia pain in adults and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid and Embase via Ovid from inception to 24 May 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind trials of eight weeks' duration or longer for treating fibromyalgia pain in adults, comparing gabapentin with placebo or an active comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality and risk of bias. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies tested gabapentin to treat fibromyalgia pain. One was identified in previous versions of the review and is included here. We identified another study as a conference abstract, with insufficient detail to determine eligibility for inclusion; it is awaiting assessment. The one included study of 150 participants was a 12-week, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study using last-observation-carried-forward imputation for withdrawals. The maximum dose was 2400 mg daily. The overall risk of bias was low, except for attrition bias.At the end of the trial, the outcome of 50% reduction in pain over baseline was not reported. The outcome of 30% or greater reduction in pain over baseline was achieved by 38/75 participants (49%) with gabapentin compared with 23/75 (31%) with placebo (very low quality). A patient global impression of change any category of "better" was achieved by 68/75 (91%) with gabapentin and 35/75 (47%) with placebo (very low quality).Nineteen participants discontinued the study because of adverse events: 12 in the gabapentin group (16%) and 7 in the placebo group (9%) (very low quality). The number of serious adverse events were not reported, and no deaths were reported (very low quality).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have only very low quality evidence and are very uncertain about estimates of benefit and harm because of a small amount of data from a single trial. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that gabapentin reduces pain in fibromyalgia.

Parecoxib, propacetamol, and their combination for analgesia after total hip arthroplasty: a randomized non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

This study assessed non-inferiority of parecoxib vs. combination parecoxib+propacetamol and compared the opioid-sparing effects of parecoxib, propacetamol, and parecoxib+propacetamol vs. placebo after total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

In this randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, non-inferiority study, patients received one of four IV treatments after surgery: parecoxib 40 mg bid (n = 72); propacetamol 2 g qid (n = 71); parecoxib 40 mg bid plus propacetamol 2 g qid (n = 72); or placebo (n = 38) with supplemental IV patient-controlled analgesia (morphine). Patients and investigators were blinded to treatment. Pain intensity at rest and with movement was assessed regularly, together with functional recovery (modified Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form) and opioid-related side effects (Opioid-Related Symptom Distress Scale) questionnaires up to 48 h.

RESULTS

After 24 h, cumulative morphine consumption was reduced by 59.8% (P < 0.001), 38.9% (P < 0.001), and 26.8% (P = 0.005) in the parecoxib+propacetamol, parecoxib, and propacetamol groups, respectively, compared with placebo. Parecoxib did not meet criteria for non-inferiority to parecoxib+propacetamol. Parecoxib+propacetamol and parecoxib significantly reduced least-squares mean pain intensity scores at rest and with movement compared with propacetamol (P < 0.05). One day after surgery, parecoxib+propacetamol significantly reduced opioid-related symptom distress and decreased pain interference with function compared with propacetamol or placebo.

CONCLUSION

Parecoxib and parecoxib+propacetamol provided significant opioid-sparing efficacy compared with placebo; non-inferiority of parecoxib to parecoxib+propacetamol was not demonstrated. Opioid-sparing efficacy was accompanied by significant reductions in pain intensity on movement, improved functional outcome, and less opioid-related symptom distress. Study medications were well tolerated.

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) with or without codeine or dihydrocodeine for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Paracetamol, either alone or in combination with codeine or dihydrocodeine, is commonly used to treat chronic neuropathic pain. This review sought evidence for efficacy and harm from randomised double-blind studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of paracetamol with or without codeine or dihydrocodeine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to July 2016, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing paracetamol, alone or in combination with codeine or dihydrocodeine, with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

No study satisfied the inclusion criteria. Effects of interventions were not assessed as there were no included studies. We have only very low quality evidence and have no reliable indication of the likely effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that paracetamol alone, or in combination with codeine or dihydrocodeine, works in any neuropathic pain condition.

Fentanyl for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Opioid drugs, including fentanyl, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for fentanyl, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of fentanyl for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to June 2016, together with the reference lists of retrieved articles, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing fentanyl (in any dose, administered by any route, and in any formulation) with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one study met our inclusion criteria. Participants were men and women (mean age 67 years), with postherpetic neuralgia, complex regional pain syndrome, or chronic postoperative pain. They were experiencing inadequate relief from non-opioid analgesics, and had not previously taken opioids for their neuropathic pain. The study used an enriched enrolment randomised withdrawal design. It was adequately blinded, but we judged it at unclear risk of bias for other criteria.Transdermal fentanyl (one-day fentanyl patch) was titrated over 10 to 29 days to establish the maximum tolerated and effective dose (12.5 to 50 µg/h). Participants who achieved a prespecified good level of pain relief with a stable dose of fentanyl, without excessive use of rescue medication or intolerable adverse events ('responders'), were randomised to continue with fentanyl or switch to placebo for 12 weeks, under double-blind conditions. Our prespecified primary outcomes were not appropriate for this study design, but the measures reported do give an indication of the efficacy of fentanyl in this condition.In the titration phase, 1 in 3 participants withdrew because of adverse events or inadequate pain relief, and almost 90% experienced adverse events. Of 258 participants who underwent open-label titration, 163 were 'responders' and entered the randomised withdrawal phase. The number of participants completing the study (and therefore continuing on treatment) without an increase of pain by more than 15/100 was 47/84 (56%) with fentanyl and 28/79 (35%) with placebo. Because only 63% responded sufficiently to enter the randomised withdrawal phase, this implies that only a maximum of 35% of participants entering the study would have had useful pain relief and tolerability with transdermal fentanyl, compared with 22% with placebo. Almost 60% of participants taking fentanyl were 'satisfied' and 'very satisfied' with their treatment at the end of the study, compared with about 40% with placebo. This outcome approximates to our primary outcome of moderate benefit using the Patient Global Impression of Change scale, but the group was enriched for responders and the method of analysis was not clear. The most common adverse events were constipation, nausea, somnolence, and dizziness.There was no information about other types of neuropathic pain, other routes of administration, or comparisons with other treatments.We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low because there was only one study, with few participants and events, and there was no information about how data from people who withdrew were analysed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that fentanyl works in any neuropathic pain condition.