Park Rex, Mohiuddin Mohammed, Poulin Patricia A, Salomons Tim, Edwards Robert, Nathan Howard, Haley Chris, Gilron Ian
Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Kingston General Hospital, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Department of Psychology, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Pain Rep. 2020 Nov 25;5(6):e868. doi: 10.1097/PR9.0000000000000868. eCollection 2020 Nov-Dec.
Most patients with chronic pain do not find adequate pain relief with a single treatment, and accumulating evidence points to the added benefits of rational combinations of different treatments. Given that psychological therapies, such as mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), are often delivered in conjunction with concomitant analgesic drug therapies (CADTs), this systematic scoping review examines the evidence for any interactions between MBIs and CADTs. The protocol for this review has been published and registered. MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases were searched until July 2019. We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of MBIs for the treatment of chronic pain. A total of 40 randomized controlled trials (2978 participants) were included. Thirty-nine of 40 (97.5%) included mindfulness-based clinical trials allowed the use of CADTs. However, only 6 of these 39 (15.4%) trials provided adequate details of what these CADTs were, and only 4 (10.3%) trials controlled for CADTs. Of great relevance to this review, none of the included trials analyzed the interactions between MBIs and the CADTs to determine whether they have an additive, synergistic, or antagonistic effect on chronic pain. Adverse events were inconsistently reported, and no judgment could be made about safety. Future trials assessing the interactions between MBIs and CADTs, with better harms reporting, are needed to better define the role of MBIs in the management of chronic pain.
大多数慢性疼痛患者无法通过单一治疗获得充分的疼痛缓解,越来越多的证据表明不同治疗方法合理联合使用具有额外的益处。鉴于心理治疗,如基于正念的干预措施(MBIs),通常与伴随的镇痛药物治疗(CADTs)联合进行,本系统综述探讨了MBIs与CADTs之间相互作用的证据。本综述的方案已发表并注册。检索MEDLINE、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库、EMBASE和PsycINFO数据库至2019年7月。我们纳入了评估MBIs治疗慢性疼痛疗效的随机对照试验。共纳入40项随机对照试验(2978名参与者)。40项试验中的39项(97.5%)纳入基于正念的临床试验允许使用CADTs。然而,这39项试验中只有6项(15.4%)提供了这些CADTs具体是什么的充分细节,只有4项(10.3%)试验对CADTs进行了控制。与本综述高度相关的是,纳入的试验均未分析MBIs与CADTs之间的相互作用,以确定它们对慢性疼痛是否具有相加、协同或拮抗作用。不良事件报告不一致,无法对安全性做出判断。未来需要进行评估MBIs与CADTs之间相互作用且更好地报告危害的试验,以更好地确定MBIs在慢性疼痛管理中的作用。