Eccleston Christopher, Fisher Emma, Thomas Kyla H, Hearn Leslie, Derry Sheena, Stannard Cathy, Knaggs Roger, Moore R Andrew
Centre for Pain Research, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Nov 13;11(11):CD010323. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010323.pub3.
This is the first update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2013. The conclusions of this review have not changed from the 2013 publication. People with chronic non-cancer pain who are prescribed and are taking opioids can have a history of long-term, high-dose opioid use without effective pain relief. In those without good pain relief, reduction of prescribed opioid dose may be the desired and shared goal of both patient and clinician. Simple, unsupervised reduction of opioid use is clinically challenging, and very difficult to achieve and maintain.
To investigate the effectiveness of different methods designed to achieve reduction or cessation of prescribed opioid use for the management of chronic non-cancer pain in adults compared to controls.
For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in January 2017, as well as bibliographies and citation searches of included studies. We also searched one trial registry for ongoing trials.
Included studies had to be randomised controlled trials comparing opioid users receiving an intervention with a control group receiving treatment as usual, active control, or placebo. The aim of the study had to include a treatment goal of dose reduction or cessation of opioid medication.
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We sought data relating to prescribed opioid use, adverse events of opioid reduction, pain, and psychological and physical function. We planned to assess the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach, however, due to the heterogeneity of studies, we were unable to combine outcomes in a meta-analysis and therefore we did not assess the evidence with GRADE.
Three studies are new to this update, resulting in five included studies in total (278 participants). Participants were primarily women (mean age 49.63 years, SD = 11.74) with different chronic pain conditions. We judged the studies too heterogeneous to pool data in a meta-analysis, so we have summarised the results from each study qualitatively. The studies included acupuncture, mindfulness, and cognitive behavioral therapy interventions aimed at reducing opioid consumption, misuse of opioids, or maintenance of chronic pain management treatments. We found mixed results from the studies. Three of the five studies reported opioid consumption at post-treatment and follow-up. Two studies that delivered 'Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement' or 'Therapeutic Interactive Voice Response' found a significant difference between groups at post-treatment and follow-up in opioid consumption. The remaining study found reduction in opioid consumption in both treatment and control groups, and between-group differences were not significant. Three studies reported adverse events related to the study and two studies did not have study-related adverse events. We also found mixed findings for pain intensity and physical functioning. The interventions did not show between-group differences for psychological functioning across all studies. Overall, the risk of bias was mixed across studies. All studies included sample sizes of fewer than 100 and so we judged all studies as high risk of bias for that category.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence for the efficacy or safety of methods for reducing prescribed opioid use in chronic pain. There is a small number of randomised controlled trials investigating opioid reduction, which means our conclusions are limited regarding the benefit of psychological, pharmacological, or other types of interventions for people with chronic pain trying to reduce their opioid consumption. The findings to date are mixed: there were reductions in opioid consumption after intervention, and often in control groups too.
这是对2013年发表的原始Cochrane系统评价的首次更新。本系统评价的结论与2013年发表的内容没有变化。开具并正在服用阿片类药物的慢性非癌性疼痛患者可能有长期、高剂量使用阿片类药物但未有效缓解疼痛的病史。在那些疼痛未得到良好缓解的患者中,减少开具的阿片类药物剂量可能是患者和临床医生共同期望的目标。简单、无监督的阿片类药物使用减量在临床上具有挑战性,很难实现和维持。
与对照组相比,研究不同方法在减少或停用开具的阿片类药物以管理成人慢性非癌性疼痛方面的有效性。
本次更新中,我们于2017年1月检索了Cochrane系统评价数据库、医学期刊数据库(MEDLINE)和荷兰医学文摘数据库(Embase),以及纳入研究的参考文献和引文检索。我们还检索了一个试验注册库以查找正在进行的试验。
纳入的研究必须是随机对照试验,比较接受干预的阿片类药物使用者与接受常规治疗、活性对照或安慰剂的对照组。研究目的必须包括减少阿片类药物剂量或停用阿片类药物的治疗目标。
两位综述作者独立提取数据并评估偏倚风险。我们收集了与开具的阿片类药物使用、阿片类药物减量的不良事件、疼痛以及心理和身体功能相关的数据。我们计划使用GRADE方法评估证据的确定性,然而,由于研究的异质性,我们无法在荟萃分析中合并结果,因此我们没有使用GRADE评估证据。
本次更新中有三项新研究,总共纳入五项研究(278名参与者)。参与者主要为患有不同慢性疼痛疾病的女性(平均年龄49.63岁,标准差=11.74)。我们认为这些研究异质性太大,无法在荟萃分析中合并数据,因此我们对每项研究的结果进行了定性总结。这些研究包括旨在减少阿片类药物消耗、阿片类药物滥用或维持慢性疼痛管理治疗的针灸、正念和认知行为疗法干预。我们从这些研究中得到了混合结果。五项研究中的三项报告了治疗后和随访时的阿片类药物消耗情况。两项提供“以正念为导向的康复强化”或“治疗性交互式语音应答”的研究发现,治疗后和随访时两组在阿片类药物消耗方面存在显著差异。其余一项研究发现治疗组和对照组的阿片类药物消耗均减少,组间差异不显著。三项研究报告了与研究相关的不良事件,两项研究没有与研究相关的不良事件。我们在疼痛强度和身体功能方面也发现了混合结果。在所有研究中,干预措施在心理功能方面未显示出组间差异。总体而言,各研究的偏倚风险不一。所有研究的样本量均少于100,因此我们将所有研究在该类别中判定为高偏倚风险。
没有证据表明减少慢性疼痛患者开具阿片类药物使用的方法的有效性或安全性。有少量随机对照试验研究阿片类药物减量,这意味着我们关于心理、药理或其他类型干预措施对试图减少阿片类药物消耗的慢性疼痛患者的益处的结论有限。迄今为止的研究结果不一:干预后阿片类药物消耗减少,对照组通常也会减少。