Comparison of effect sizes between enriched and nonenriched trials of analgesics for chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review

Does opioid therapy enhance quality of life in patients suffering from chronic non-malignant pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and objective

Chronic pain is associated with a poor health-related quality of life (HRQL). Whereas the prescription rate of opioids increased during the last decades, their use in chronic non-malignant pain remains unclear. However, there is currently no clinical consensus or evidence-based guidelines that consider the long-term effects of opioid therapy on HRQL in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. This systematic review aims to address the question of whether opioid therapy improves HRQL in patients with chronic non-malignant pain and provide some guidance to practitioners.

Databases and data treatment

PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched in June 2020 for double-blind, randomized trials (RCTs), comparing opioid therapy to placebo and assessed a HRQL questionnaire. The review comprises a qualitative vote counting approach and a meta-analysis of the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), EQ-5D questionnaire and the pain interference scale of the Brief pain inventory (BPI).

Results

35 RCTs were included, of which the majority reported a positive effect of opioids for the EQ-5D, the BPI and the physical component score (PCS) of the SF-36 compared to placebo. The meta-analysis of the PCS showed a mean difference of 1.82 [confidence interval: 1.32, 2.32], the meta-analysis of the EQ-5D proved a significant advantage of 0.06 [0.00, 0.12]. In the qualitative analysis of the mental component score (MCS) of the SF-36, no positive or negative trend was seen. No significant differences were seen in the MCS (MD: 0.65 [-0.43, 1.73]). A slightly higher premature dropout rate was found in the opioid group (risk difference: 0.04 [0.00, 0.07], p = .07). The body of evidence is graded as low to medium.

Conclusion

Opioids have a statistically significant, but small and clinical not relevant effect on the physical dimensions of HRQL, whereas there is no effect on mental dimensions of HRQL in patients with chronic non-malignant pain during the initial months of treatment. In clinical practice, opioid prescriptions for chronic non-cancer pain should be individually assessed as their broad efficacy in improving quality of life is not confirmed. The duration of opioid treatment should be determined carefully, as this review primarily focuses on the initial months of therapy.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for adults with acute non-specific low back pain: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to 20 February 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials of analgesic medicines (eg, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anti-convulsant drugs, skeletal muscle relaxants, or corticosteroids) compared with another analgesic medicine, placebo, or no treatment. Adults (≥18 years) who reported acute non-specific low back pain (for less than six weeks).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity (0-100 scale) at end of treatment and safety (number of participants who reported any adverse event during treatment). Secondary outcomes were low back specific function, serious adverse events, and discontinuation from treatment. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was done and confidence was evaluated by the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis method.

RESULTS

98 randomised controlled trials (15 134 participants, 49% women) included 69 different medicines or combinations. Low or very low confidence was noted in evidence for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference -26.1 (95% confidence intervals -34.0 to -18.2)), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (-26.1 (-38.5 to -13.6)), pregabalin (-24.7 (-34.6 to -14.7)), and 14 other medicines compared with placebo. Low or very low confidence was noted for no difference between the effects of several of these medicines. Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 4.5)), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (2.4 (1.5 to 3.8)), baclofen (2.3 (1.5 to 3.4)), and paracetamol plus tramadol (2.1 (1.3 to 3.4)) compared with placebo. These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain are uncertain. Until higher quality randomised controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are published, clinicians and patients are recommended to take a cautious approach to manage acute non-specific low back pain with analgesic medicines.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019145257.

Targeting Neurotrophic Factors for Low Back Pain and Sciatica: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of medicines that target neurotrophic factors for low back pain (LBP) or sciatica.

METHODS

We searched published and trial registry reports of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of medicines that target neurotrophic factors to LBP or sciatica in seven databases from inception to December 2020. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty in the evidence.

RESULTS

Nine studies (3349 participants) were included in the meta-analyses. Low certainty evidence showed that anti-NGF may reduce pain at four weeks (MD -6.63, 95% CI -8.51 to -4.76), and 12 weeks (MD -6.10, -8.34 to -3.87), and may increase adverse effects for chronic LBP (OR 1.16, 0.99-1.36). Higher doses of anti-NGF may offer a clinically important reduction in pain at the cost of increased adverse effects for chronic LBP. Very low certainty evidence showed that anti-NGF and glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (pro-GDNF) may not reduce pain for sciatica at four weeks (MD -1.40, -8.26-5.46), at 12 weeks (MD -2.91, -13.69-7.67), and may increase adverse effects for sciatica (OR 3.27, 1.78-6.00).

CONCLUSION

Anti-NGF may offer small reductions in pain intensity for chronic LBP. The effect may depend on the dose and types of medicines. For sciatica, anti-NGF or pro-GDNF may not reduce pain. Medicines that target neurotrophic factors for LBP or sciatica are associated with different adverse effects from commonly prescribed medicines for these conditions.

Analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence for the comparative effectiveness of analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to determine the analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, effect on function, and relative rank according to analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, and effect on function of a single course of [an] analgesic medicine(s) or combination of these medicines for people with low back pain.

METHODS

We will include published and unpublished randomised trials written in any language that compare an analgesic medicine to either another medicine, placebo/sham, or no intervention in adults with low back pain, grouped according to pain duration: acute (fewer than 6 weeks), sub-acute (6 to 12 weeks), and chronic (greater than 12 weeks). The co-primary outcomes are pain intensity following treatment and safety (adverse events). The secondary outcomes are function and acceptability (all-cause dropouts). We will perform a network meta-analysis to compare and rank analgesic medicines. We will form judgements of confidence in the results using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) methodology.

DISCUSSION

This network meta-analysis will establish which medicine, or combination of medicines, is most effective for reducing pain and safest for adults with low back pain.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019145257.

Are Opioids Needed to Treat Chronic Low Back Pain? A Review of Treatment Options and Analgesics in Development

The continued prevalence of chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a testament to our lack of understanding of the potential causes, leading to significant treatment challenges. CLBP is the leading cause of years lived with disability and the fifth leading cause of disability-adjusted life-years. No single non-pharmacologic, pharmacologic, or interventional therapy has proven effective as treatment for the majority of patients with CLBP. Although non-pharmacologic therapies are generally helpful, they are often ineffective as monotherapy and many patients lack adequate access to these treatments. Noninvasive treatment measures supported by evidence include physical and chiropractic therapy, yoga, acupuncture, and non-opioid and opioid pharmacologic therapy; data suggest a moderate benefit, at most, for any of these therapies. Until our understanding of the pathophysiology and treatment of CLBP advances, clinicians must continue to utilize rational multimodal treatment protocols. Recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for opioid prescribing recommend that opioids not be utilized as first-line therapy and to limit the doses when possible for fear of bothersome or dangerous adverse effects. In combination with the current opioid crisis, this has caused providers to minimize or eliminate opioid therapy when treating patients with chronic pain, leaving many patients suffering despite optimal nonopioid therapies. Therefore, there remains an unmet need for effective and tolerable opioid receptor agonists for the treatment of CLBP with improved safety properties over legacy opioids. There are several such agents in development, including opioids and other agents with novel mechanisms of action. This review critiques non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment modalities for CLBP and examines the potential of novel opioids and other analgesics that may be a useful addition to the treatment options for patients with chronic pain.

Designing and conducting proof-of-concept chronic pain analgesic clinical trials

Introduction:

The evolution of pain treatment is dependent on successful development and testing of interventions. Proof-of-concept (POC) studies bridge the gap between identification of a novel target and evaluation of the candidate intervention's efficacy within a pain model or the intended clinical pain population.

Methods:

This narrative review describes and evaluates clinical trial phases, specific POC pain trials, and approaches to patient profiling.

Results:

We describe common POC trial designs and their value and challenges, a mechanism-based approach, and statistical issues for consideration.

Conclusion:

Proof-of-concept trials provide initial evidence for target use in a specific population, the most appropriate dosing strategy, and duration of treatment. A significant goal in designing an informative and efficient POC study is to ensure that the study is safe and sufficiently sensitive to detect a preliminary efficacy signal (ie, a potentially valuable therapy). Proof-of-concept studies help avoid resources wasted on targets/molecules that are not likely to succeed. As such, the design of a successful POC trial requires careful consideration of the research objective, patient population, the particular intervention, and outcome(s) of interest. These trials provide the basis for future, larger-scale studies confirming efficacy, tolerability, side effects, and other associated risks.

Comparison of effect sizes between enriched and nonenriched trials of analgesics for chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review

AIMS

To investigate the use of an enriched study design on the estimates of treatment effect in analgesic trials for chronic musculoskeletal pain.

METHODS

Database searches were conducted from 2004 to 2014. We included randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating pain medications for chronic musculoskeletal pain. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. The estimates of treatment effect on pain and adverse events were compared between enriched and nonenriched designs. Metaregression was used to assess the association between the effect size estimate and the study design controlling for analgesic dose and methodological quality.

RESULTS

We included 108 trials, of which 99 were included in the meta-analysis (n = 44 171). There were no overall differences in effect sizes between enriched and nonenriched designs for pain intensity. There was a significant difference for a reduction in any adverse events favouring enriched designs for opioids, but not for other analgesics or the outcome serious adverse events. There was an association between effect size and methodological quality, with failure to blind the outcome assessor and failure to use intention-to-treat analysis being associated with larger effect sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence that the use of an enriched study design changes the treatment effect size estimate for pain. There is some evidence that clinical trials that employ enriched designs report a reduced risk of adverse events in trials for chronic musculoskeletal pain, but it is unclear whether enriched designs influence estimates of serious adverse events. Features of trial design and study quality were associated with treatment effect estimates.