Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center.
Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2014 Sep(218):1-219. doi: 10.23970/AHRQEPCERTA218.
OBJECTIVES: Chronic pain is common and use of long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain has increased dramatically. This report reviews the current evidence on effectiveness and harms of opioid therapy for chronic pain, focusing on long-term (≥1 year) outcomes. DATA SOURCES: A prior systematic review (searches through October 2008), electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Libraries January 2008 to August 2014), reference lists, and clinical trials registries. REVIEW METHODS: Using predefined criteria, we selected randomized trials and comparative observational studies of patients with cancer or noncancer chronic pain being considered for or prescribed long-term opioid therapy that addressed effectiveness or harms versus placebo, no opioid use, or nonopioid therapies; different opioid dosing methods; or risk mitigation strategies. We also included uncontrolled studies ≥1 year that reported rates of abuse, addiction, or misuse, and studies on the accuracy of risk prediction instruments for predicting subsequent opioid abuse or misuse. The quality of included studies was assessed, data were extracted, and results were summarized qualitatively. RESULTS: Of the 4,209 citations identified at the title and abstract level, a total of 39 studies were included. For a number of Key Questions, we identified no studies meeting inclusion criteria. Where studies were available, the strength of evidence was rated no higher than low, due to imprecision and methodological shortcomings, with the exception of buccal or intranasal fentanyl for pain relief outcomes within 2 hours after dosing (strength of evidence: moderate). No study evaluated effects of long-term opioid therapy versus no opioid therapy. In 10 uncontrolled studies, rates of opioid abuse were 0.6 percent to 8 percent and rates of dependence were 3.1 percent to 26 percent in primary care settings, but studies varied in methods used to define and ascertain outcomes. Rates of aberrant drug-related behaviors ranged from 5.7 percent to 37.1 percent. Compared with nonuse, long-term opioid therapy was associated with increased risk of abuse (one cohort study), overdose (one cohort study), fracture (two observational studies), myocardial infarction (two observational studies), and markers of sexual dysfunction (one cross-sectional study), with several studies showing a dose-dependent association. One randomized trial found no difference between a more liberal opioid dose escalation strategy and maintenance of current dose in pain or function, but differences between groups in daily opioid doses at the end of the trial were small. One cohort study found methadone associated with lower risk of mortality than long-acting morphine in a Veterans Affairs population in a propensity adjusted analysis (adjusted HR 0.56, 95 percent CI 0.51 to 0.62). Estimates of diagnostic accuracy for the Opioid Risk Tool were extremely inconsistent and other risk assessment instruments were evaluated in only one or two studies. No study evaluated the effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies on outcomes related to overdose, addiction, abuse, or misuse. Evidence was insufficient to evaluate benefits and harms of long-term opioid therapy in high-risk patients or in other subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain is very limited but suggests an increased risk of serious harms that appears to be dose-dependent. More research is needed to understand long-term benefits, risk of abuse and related outcomes, and effectiveness of different opioid prescribing methods and risk mitigation strategies.
目的:慢性疼痛很常见,长期使用阿片类药物治疗慢性疼痛的情况显著增加。本报告回顾了目前关于慢性疼痛的阿片类药物治疗的有效性和危害的证据,重点关注长期(≥1 年)结果。
数据来源:先前的系统评价(检索至 2008 年 10 月)、电子数据库(Ovid MEDLINE、Scopus 和 Cochrane 图书馆 2008 年 1 月至 2014 年 8 月)、参考文献列表和临床试验登记处。
审查方法:使用预设标准,我们选择了癌症或非癌症慢性疼痛患者接受或考虑长期阿片类药物治疗的随机试验和对照观察性研究,这些研究涉及有效性或危害,与安慰剂、无阿片类药物使用或非阿片类药物治疗相比;不同的阿片类药物剂量方法;或风险缓解策略。我们还包括了报告滥用、成瘾或误用率的未控制研究≥1 年,以及评估预测随后阿片类药物滥用或误用的风险预测工具准确性的研究。评估了纳入研究的质量,提取了数据,并进行了定性总结。
结果:在标题和摘要层面确定的 4209 条引用中,共有 39 项研究符合纳入标准。对于一些关键问题,我们没有发现符合纳入标准的研究。在有研究的情况下,由于不精确性和方法学缺陷,证据强度评级最高不超过低,除了颊或鼻内芬太尼在给药后 2 小时内缓解疼痛的结果(证据强度:中度)。没有研究评估长期阿片类药物治疗与无阿片类药物治疗的效果。在 10 项未控制研究中,初级保健环境中阿片类药物滥用的发生率为 0.6%至 8%,依赖的发生率为 3.1%至 26%,但研究在定义和确定结果的方法上存在差异。异常药物相关行为的发生率为 5.7%至 37.1%。与不使用相比,长期阿片类药物治疗与滥用风险增加(一项队列研究)、过量(一项队列研究)、骨折(两项观察性研究)、心肌梗死(两项观察性研究)和性功能障碍标志物(一项横断面研究)相关,一些研究表明存在剂量依赖性关联。一项随机试验发现,在疼痛或功能方面,更自由的阿片类药物剂量递增策略与维持当前剂量之间没有差异,但试验结束时两组之间的每日阿片类药物剂量差异较小。一项队列研究发现,在调整后的分析中,与长效吗啡相比,美沙酮与退伍军人事务人群的死亡率降低相关(调整后的 HR 0.56,95%CI 0.51 至 0.62)。阿片类药物风险工具的诊断准确性估计非常不一致,其他风险评估工具仅在一项或两项研究中进行了评估。没有研究评估风险缓解策略对与过量、成瘾、滥用或误用相关的结局的有效性。证据不足以评估高危患者或其他亚组中长期阿片类药物治疗的益处和危害。
结论:关于慢性疼痛的长期阿片类药物治疗的证据非常有限,但表明严重危害的风险似乎呈剂量依赖性增加。需要更多的研究来了解长期益处、滥用和相关结果的风险以及不同阿片类药物处方方法和风险缓解策略的有效性。
Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2014-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-2-1
Healthcare (Basel). 2025-2-18
Front Pain Res (Lausanne). 2024-9-24
Front Pain Res (Lausanne). 2024-7-18
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2024-9-1