OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and exercise therapy for knee osteoarthritis pain.
DESIGN: Systematic review with network meta-analysis.
LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 15, 2021. Web of Science was used for citation tracking.
STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing exercise therapy, NSAIDs, and opioids in any combination for knee osteoarthritis pain.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Network meta-analysis comparing exercise therapy, NSAIDs, opioids, and placebo/control for knee osteoarthritis pain. Additional trials from previous reviews were included to create the external placebo/control anchor.
RESULTS: We included 13 trials (1398 patients) with direct comparisons, supplemented with data from 101 additional trials. The treatment effect of NSAIDs for knee osteoarthritis pain was similar to that of opioids (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.14 to 0.18; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations [GRADE]: low certainty). Exercise therapy had a larger effect than NSAIDs (SMD, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.89; GRADE: very low certainty). No estimate could be made for exercise vs opioids due to the lack of studies. Exercise therapy ranked as the "best" intervention in the network meta-analysis, followed by NSAIDs, opioids, and placebo/control intervention (GRADE: low certainty).
CONCLUSION: Exercise therapy ranked as the best treatment for knee osteoarthritis pain, followed by NSAIDs and opioids. The difference between treatments was small and likely not clinically relevant, and the overall confidence in the ranking was low. The results highlight the limited evidence for comparative effectiveness between exercise therapy, NSAIDs, and opioids for knee osteoarthritis pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(4):207-216. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10490.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip osteoarthritis pain and physical function to enable effective and safe use of these drugs at their lowest possible dose.
DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.
DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, regulatory agency websites, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 28 June 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised trials published in English with ≥100 patients per group that evaluated NSAIDs, opioids, or paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat osteoarthritis.
OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The prespecified primary outcome was pain. Physical function and safety outcomes were also assessed.
REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently extracted outcomes data and evaluated the risk of bias of included trials. Bayesian random effects models were used for network meta-analysis of all analyses. Effect estimates are comparisons between active treatments and oral placebo.
RESULTS: 192 trials comprising 102 829 participants examined 90 different active preparations or doses (68 for NSAIDs, 19 for opioids, and three for paracetamol). Five oral preparations (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 60 and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg/day) had ≥99% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. Topical diclofenac (70-81 and 140-160 mg/day) had ≥92.3% probability, and all opioids had ≤53% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. 18.5%, 0%, and 83.3% of the oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of dropouts due to adverse events. 29.8%, 0%, and 89.5% of oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of any adverse event. Oxymorphone 80 mg/day had the highest risk of dropouts due to adverse events (51%) and any adverse event (88%).
CONCLUSIONS: Etoricoxib 60 mg/day and diclofenac 150 mg/day seem to be the most effective oral NSAIDs for pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis. However, these treatments are probably not appropriate for patients with comorbidities or for long term use because of the slight increase in the risk of adverse events. Additionally, an increased risk of dropping out due to adverse events was found for diclofenac 150 mg/day. Topical diclofenac 70-81 mg/day seems to be effective and generally safer because of reduced systemic exposure and lower dose, and should be considered as first line pharmacological treatment for knee osteoarthritis. The clinical benefit of opioid treatment, regardless of preparation or dose, does not outweigh the harm it might cause in patients with osteoarthritis.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number CRD42020213656.
BACKGROUND: Tramadol is often prescribed to treat pain and is associated physical disability in osteoarthritis (OA). Due to the pharmacologic mechanism of tramadol, it may lead to fewer associated adverse effects (i.e. gastrointestinal bleeding or renal problems) compared to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). This is an update of a Cochrane Review originally published in 2006.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of oral tramadol or tramadol combined with acetaminophen or NSAIDs in people with osteoarthritis.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase databases, as well as the US National Institutes of Health and World Health Organization trial registries up to February 2018. We searched the LILACS database up to August 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of tramadol, or tramadol in combination with acetaminophen (paracetamol) or NSAIDs versus placebo or any comparator in people with osteoarthritis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 RCTs (11 more than the previous review) of which 21 RCTs were included in meta-analyses for 3871 participants randomized to tramadol alone or tramadol in combination with another analgesic and 2625 participants randomized to placebo or active control. Seventeen studies evaluated tramadol alone and five evaluated tramadol plus acetaminophen. Thirteen studies used placebo controls and eleven studies used active controls (two trials had both placebo and active arms). The dose of tramadol ranged from 37.5 mg to 400 mg daily; all doses were pooled. Most trials were multicenter with a mean duration of two months. Participants were predominantly women with hip or knee osteoarthritis, with a mean age of 63 years and moderate to severe pain. There was a high risk of selection bias as only four trials reported both adequate sequence generation and allocation concealment. There was a low risk for performance bias as most studies blinded participants. There was a high risk of attrition bias as 10/22 trials showed incomplete outcome data. Most of the trials were funded by the pharmaceutical industry.Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that tramadol alone and in combination with acetaminophen had no important benefit on pain reduction compared to placebo control (tramadol alone: 4% absolute improvement, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3% to 5%; 8 studies, 3972 participants; tramadol in combination with acetaminophen: 4% absolute improvement, 95% CI 2% to 6%; 2 studies, 614 participants).Fifteen out of 100 people in the tramadol group improved by 20% (which corresponded to a clinically important difference in pain) compared to 10/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement). Twelve out of 100 people improved by 20% in the tramadol in combination with acetaminophen group compared to 7/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement).Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that tramadol alone and in combination with acetaminophen led to no important benefit in physical function compared to placebo (tramadol alone: 4% absolute improvement, 95% CI 2% to 6%; 5 studies, 2550 participants; tramadol in combination with acetaminophen: 4% absolute improvement, 95% CI 2% to 7%; 2 studies, 614 participants).Twenty-one out of 100 people in the tramadol group improved by 20% (which corresponded to a clinically important difference in physical function) compared to 16/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement). Fifteen out of 100 people improved by 20% in the tramadol in combination with acetaminophen group compared to 10/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement).Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that, compared to placebo, there was a greater risk of developing adverse events with tramadol alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.34, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.46; 4 studies, 2039 participants) and tramadol in combination with acetaminophen compared to placebo (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.76; 1 study, 308 participants). This corresponded to a 17% increase (95% CI 12% to 23%) with tramadol alone and 22% increase (95% CI 8% to 41%) with tramadol in combination with acetaminophen.The three most frequent adverse events were nausea, dizziness and tiredness. Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that there was a greater risk of withdrawing from the study because of adverse events with tramadol alone compared to placebo (RR 2.64, 95% CI 2.17 to 3.20; 9 studies, 4533 participants), which corresponded to a 12% increase (95% CI 9% to 16%).Low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency) indicated that there was a greater risk of withdrawing from the study because of adverse events with tramadol in combination with acetaminophen compared to placebo (RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.50 to 5.16; 2 studies, 614 participants), which corresponded to a 8% absolute improvement (95% CI 2% to 19%).Low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision) indicated that there was a greater risk of developing serious adverse events with tramadol alone compared to placebo (110/2459 participants with tramadol compared to 22/1153 participants with placebo; RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.84; 7 studies, 3612 participants), which corresponded to a 1% increase (95% CI 0% to 4%). There were no serious adverse events reported in one small study (15 participants) of tramadol with acetaminophen compared to placebo.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality evidence indicates that compared to placebo, tramadol alone or in combination with acetaminophen probably has no important benefit on mean pain or function in people with osteoarthritis, although slightly more people in the tramadol group report an important improvement (defined as 20% or more). Moderate quality evidence shows that adverse events probably cause substantially more participants to stop taking tramadol. The increase in serious adverse events with tramadol is less certain, due to the small number of events.
OBJECTIVES: To explore the relative efficacy of oral pharmacologic interventions in the treatment of knee OA.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases to identify trials conducted in patients with knee OA with a minimum 6 weeks of follow-up. The standardized mean differences of the change from baseline to week 6 in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain between the treatment groups were estimated using Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses. Subgroup analyses of baseline pain status (high, pain score ≥ 60 mm; low, pain score < 60 mm) were performed.
RESULTS: Of 4,067 manuscripts, 44 were included in the evidence synthesis. Etoricoxib had the highest ranking for improving WOMAC pain (probability of being top ranked, P (best)=0.43) followed by naproxen (P (best)=0.12), acetaminophen (P (best)=0.04), and celecoxib (P (best)=0.02). The top 3 ranked interventions were etoricoxib, celecoxib, and aceclofenac in the higher pain group, and tramadol, celecoxib, and diclofenac in the lower pain group.
CONCLUSIONS: In the overall analysis, etoricoxib, celecoxib, and aceclofenac had the highest rankings for improving WOMAC pain. The ability to improve knee OA symptoms may differ depending on baseline pain and radiologic features.
BACKGROUND: This review is an update of a review of tramadol for neuropathic pain, published in 2006; updating was to bring the review in line with current standards. Neuropathic pain, which is caused by a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system, may be central or peripheral in origin. Peripheral 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 peripheral nervous system.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy of tramadol compared with placebo or other active interventions for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.
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 tramadol (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, 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). 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), using standard methods. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified six randomised, double-blind studies involving 438 participants with suitably characterised neuropathic pain. In each, tramadol was started at a dose of about 100 mg daily and increased over one to two weeks to a maximum of 400 mg daily 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 due to cancer, cancer treatment, postherpetic neuralgia, peripheral diabetic neuropathy, spinal cord injury, or polyneuropathy. The mean age was 50 to 67 years with approximately equal numbers of men and women. Exclusions were typically people with other significant comorbidity or pain from other causes. Study duration for treatments was four to six weeks, and two studies had a cross-over design.Not all studies reported all the outcomes of interest, and there were limited data for pain outcomes. At least 50% pain intensity reduction was reported in three studies (265 participants, 110 events). Using a random-effects analysis, 70/132 (53%) had at least 50% pain relief with tramadol, and 40/133 (30%) with placebo; the risk ratio (RR) was 2.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 4.6). The NNT calculated from these data was 4.4 (95% CI 2.9 to 8.8). We downgraded the evidence for this outcome by two levels to low quality because of the small size of studies and of the pooled data set, because there were only 110 actual events, the analysis included different types of neuropathic pain, the studies all had at least one high risk of potential bias, and because of the limited duration of the studies.Participants experienced more adverse events with tramadol than placebo. Report of any adverse event was higher with tramadol (58%) than placebo (34%) (4 studies, 266 participants, 123 events; RR 1.6 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.1); NNH 4.2 (95% CI 2.8 to 8.3)). Adverse event withdrawal was higher with tramadol (16%) than placebo (3%) (6 studies, 485 participants, 45 events; RR 4.1 (95% CI 2.0 to 8.4); NNH 8.2 (95% CI 5.8 to 14)). Only four serious adverse events were reported, without obvious attribution to treatment, and no deaths were reported. We downgraded the evidence for this outcome by two or three levels to low or very low quality because of small study size, because there were few actual events, and because of the limited duration of the studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is only modest information about the use of tramadol in neuropathic pain, coming from small, largely inadequate studies with potential risk of bias. That bias would normally increase the apparent benefits of tramadol. The evidence of benefit from tramadol was of low or very low quality, meaning that it does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect, and the likelihood is very high that the effect will be substantially different from the estimate in this systematic review.
BACKGROUND: This is an update of an earlier review that considered both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia (Issue 6, 2014), which has now been split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review considers neuropathic pain only.Opioid drugs, including oxycodone, 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 oxycodone, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Separate reviews consider other opioids.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of oxycodone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 6 November 2013 for the original review and from January 2013 to 21 December 2015 for this update. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and two online clinical trial registries. This update differs from the earlier review in that we have included studies using oxycodone in combination with naloxone, and oxycodone used as add-on treatment to stable, but inadequate, treatment with another class of drug.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any dose or formulation of oxycodone 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. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers 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: The updated searches identified one additional published study, and one clinical trial registry report. We included five studies reporting on 687 participants; 637 had painful diabetic neuropathy and 50 had postherpetic neuralgia. Two studies used a cross-over design and three used a parallel group design; all studies used a placebo comparator, although one study used an active placebo (benztropine). Modified-release oxycodone (oxycodone MR) was titrated to effect and tolerability. One study used a fixed dose combination of oxycodone MR and naloxone. Two studies added oxycodone therapy to ongoing, stable treatment with either pregabalin or gabapentin. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study reported the proportion of participants experiencing 'substantial benefit' (at least 50% pain relief or who were very much improved). Three studies (537 participants) in painful diabetic neuropathy reported outcomes equivalent to 'moderate benefit' (at least 30% pain relief or who were much or very much improved), which was experienced by 44% of participants with oxycodone and 27% with placebo (number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) 5.7).All studies reported group mean pain scores at the end of treatment. Three studies reported a greater pain intensity reduction and better patient satisfaction with oxycodone MR alone than with placebo. There was a similar result in the study adding oxycodone MR to stable, ongoing gabapentin, but adding oxycodone MR plus naloxone to stable, ongoing pregabalin did not show any additional effect.More participants experienced adverse events with oxycodone MR alone (86%) than with placebo (63%); the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNH) was 4.3. Serious adverse events (oxycodone 3.4%, placebo 7.0%) and adverse event withdrawals (oxycodone 11%, placebo 6.4%) were not significantly different between groups. Withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were less frequent with oxycodone MR (1.1%) than placebo (11%), with a number needed to treat to prevent one withdrawal of 10. The add-on studies reported similar results.We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low for all outcomes, due to limitations in the study methods, heterogeneity in the pain condition and study methods, and sparse data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was only very low quality evidence that oxycodone (as oxycodone MR) is of value in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia. There was no evidence for other neuropathic pain conditions. Adverse events typical of opioids appeared to be common.
OBJECTIVE: Summarize the comparative effectiveness of oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids in reducing knee osteoarthritis (OA) pain.
METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published in English between 1982 and 2015, evaluating oral NSAIDs or opioids for knee OA. Included studies were at least 8 weeks duration, conducted in Western Europe, the Americas, New Zealand, or Australia, and reported baseline and follow-up pain using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain subscale (0-100, 100-worst). Effectiveness was evaluated as reduction in pain, accounting for study dropout and heterogeneity.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven treatment arms (nine celecoxib, four non-selective NSAIDs [diclofenac, naproxen, piroxicam], eleven less potent opioids [tramadol], and three potent opioids [hydromorphone, oxycodone]) from 17 studies were included. NSAID and opioid studies reported similar baseline demographics and efficacy withdrawal rates; NSAID studies reported lower baseline pain and toxicity withdrawal rates. Accounting for efficacy-related withdrawals, all drug classes were associated with similar pain reductions (NSAIDs: -18; less potent opioids: -18; potent opioids: -19). Meta-regression did not reveal differential effectiveness by drug class but found that study cohorts with a higher proportion of male subjects and worse mean baseline pain had greater pain reduction. Similarly, results of the network meta-analysis did not find a significant difference in WOMAC Pain reduction for the three analgesic classes.
CONCLUSION: NSAIDs and opioids offer similar pain relief in OA patients. These data could help clinicians and patients discuss likely benefits of alternative analgesics.
Background: We updated a systematic review on the comparative efficacy, tolerability and safety of opioids and of their routes of application in chronic noncancer pain (CNCP).
Methods: We screened MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up until October 2013, as well as the reference sections of original studies and systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of opioids in CNCP. We included randomized head-to-head comparisons of opioids (opioid of the sponsor of the study versus standard opioid) of at least 4 week’s duration. Using a random effects model, absolute risk differences (RD) were calculated for categorical data and standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous variables. The quality of evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
Results: We included 13 RCTs with 6748 participants. Median study duration was 15 weeks (range 4–56 weeks). Hydromorphone, morphine, oxymorphone and tapentadol were compared to oxycodone; fentanyl to morphine and buprenorphine to tramadol. In pooled analysis, there were no significant differences between the two groups of opioids in terms of mean pain reduction (low-quality evidence), the patient global impression to be much or very much improved outcome (low-quality evidence), physical function (very low-quality evidence), serious adverse events (moderate-quality evidence) or mortality (moderate-quality evidence). There was no significant difference between transdermal and oral application of opioids in terms of mean pain reduction, physical function, serious adverse events, mortality (all low-quality evidence) or dropout due to adverse events (very low-quality).
Conclusion: Pooled head-to-head comparisons of opioids (opioid of the sponsor of the study versus standard opioid) provide no rational for preferring one opioid and/or administration route over another in the therapy of patients with CNCP.
The English full-text version of this article is freely available at SpringerLink (under “Supplemental”).
Background: The efficacy, tolerability and safety of opioid therapy in chronic osteoarthritis (OA) pain is under debate. We updated a Cochrane systematic review on the efficacy and safety of opioids in chronic OA pain published in 2009.
Methods: We screened MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up until October 2013, as well as reference sections of original studies and systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of opioids in chronic osteoarthritis (OA) pain. We included double-blind randomized placebo-controlled studies lasting ≥ 4 weeks. Using a random effects model, absolute risk differences (RD) were calculated for categorical data and standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous variables.
Results: We included 20 RCTs with 33 treatment arms and 8545 participants. Median study duration was 12 (4–24) weeks. Oxycodone and tramadol were each tested in six studies; buprenorphine, hydromorphone, morphine and tapentadol each in two studies and codeine, fentanyl and oxymorphone in one study each. Results are reported with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Opioids were superior to placebo in reducing pain intensity (SMD − 0.22 [− 0.28, − 0.17], p < 0.00001; 16 studies with 6743 participants). Opioids were not superior to placebo in 50 % pain reduction (RD − 0.00 [− 0.07, 0.07], p = 0.96; two studies with 2684 participants). Opioids were superior to placebo in terms of reports of much or very much global improvement (RD 0.13 [0.05, 0.21], p = 0.002; three studies with 2251 participants). Opioids were superior to placebo in improving physical functioning (SMD − 0.22 [− 0.28, − 0.17], p < 0.00001; 14 studies with 5887 participants). Patients dropped out more frequently with opioids than with placebo (RD 0.17 [0.14, 0.21], p < 0.00001; 15 studies with 6834 participants; number needed to harm 5 [4–6]. There was no significant difference between opioids and placebo in the frequency of serious adverse events (SAE) or deaths over the respective observation periods.
Conclusion: Opioids were superior to placebo in terms of efficacy and inferior in terms of tolerability. The effect sizes of average reduction in pain intensity and physical disability were small. Opioids and placebo did not differ in terms of safety. The conclusion on the safety of opioids compared to placebo is limited by the low number of SAE and deaths. Short-term opioid therapy may be considered in selected chronic OA pain patients. No current evidence-based guideline recommends opioids as first-line treatment option for chronic OA pain. To provide superior evidence for future treatment guidelines, RCTs must directly compare existing pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapies and administer these in various combinations and sequences.
The English full-text version of this article is freely available at SpringerLink (under “Supplemental”).
Methods: We screened MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up until October 2013, as well as the reference sections of original studies and systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of opioids in CNP. We included double-blind randomized placebo-controlled studies of at least 4 weeks duration. Using a random effects model, absolute risk differences (RD) were calculated for categorical data and standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous variables.
Results: We included 12 RCTs with 1192 participants. The included diagnostic entities were painful diabetic neuropathy (four studies), postherpetic neuralgia (three studies), mixed polyneuropathic pain (two studies), and lumbar root, spinal cord injury and postamputation pain (one study each). Mean study duration was 6 (4–12) weeks. Four studies tested morphine, three studies tramadol, two studies oxycodone and one study tapentadol. These are the pooled results of studies with a parallel or cross-over design: opioids were superior to placebo in reducing pain intensity (SMD − 0.64 [95 % confidence interval, CI − 0.81, − 0.46], p < 0.0001; 11 studies with 1040 participants). Opioids were not superior to placebo in 50 % pain reduction (RD 0.16 [95 % CI − 0.04, 0.35], p = 0.11; one study with 93 participants). Opioids were not superior to placebo in reports of much or very much improved pain (RD 0.17 [95 % CI − 0.01, 0.36], p = 0.07; one study with 53 participants). Opioids were superior to placebo in improving physical functioning (SMD − 0.28 [95 % CI − 0.43, − 0.13], p < 0.0001; seven studies with 680 participants). Patients dropped out less frequently due to lack of efficacy with opioids than with placebo (RD − 0.07 [95 % CI − 0.13, − 0.02], p = 0.008; six studies with 656 participants). Patients dropped out due to adverse events more frequently with opioids than with placebo (RD 0.08 [95 % CI 0.05, 0.12], p < 0.0001; ten studies with 1018 participants; number needed to harm 11 [95 % CI 8–17]). There was no significant difference between opioids and placebo in terms of the frequency of serious adverse events (SAE) or deaths.
Background: The efficacy and safety of opioid therapy in chronic neuropathic pain (CNP) is under debate. We updated a recent Cochrane systematic review on the efficacy, tolerability and safety of opioids in CNP.
Conclusion: In short-term studies (4–12 weeks) in CNP, opioids were superior to placebo in terms of efficacy and inferior in terms of tolerability. Opioids and placebo did not differ in terms of safety. The conclusion relating to the safety of opioids compared to placebo in CNP is limited by the low number of SAE and deaths. Short-term opioid therapy may be considered in selected CNP patients.
The English full-text version of this article is freely available at SpringerLink (under “Supplementary Material”).
To compare the effectiveness of opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and exercise therapy for knee osteoarthritis pain.
DESIGN:
Systematic review with network meta-analysis.
LITERATURE SEARCH:
We searched the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 15, 2021. Web of Science was used for citation tracking.
STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA:
Randomized controlled trials comparing exercise therapy, NSAIDs, and opioids in any combination for knee osteoarthritis pain.
DATA SYNTHESIS:
Network meta-analysis comparing exercise therapy, NSAIDs, opioids, and placebo/control for knee osteoarthritis pain. Additional trials from previous reviews were included to create the external placebo/control anchor.
RESULTS:
We included 13 trials (1398 patients) with direct comparisons, supplemented with data from 101 additional trials. The treatment effect of NSAIDs for knee osteoarthritis pain was similar to that of opioids (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.14 to 0.18; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations [GRADE]: low certainty). Exercise therapy had a larger effect than NSAIDs (SMD, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.89;
GRADE:
very low certainty). No estimate could be made for exercise vs opioids due to the lack of studies. Exercise therapy ranked as the "best" intervention in the network meta-analysis, followed by NSAIDs, opioids, and placebo/control intervention (
GRADE:
low certainty).
CONCLUSION:
Exercise therapy ranked as the best treatment for knee osteoarthritis pain, followed by NSAIDs and opioids. The difference between treatments was small and likely not clinically relevant, and the overall confidence in the ranking was low. The results highlight the limited evidence for comparative effectiveness between exercise therapy, NSAIDs, and opioids for knee osteoarthritis pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(4):207-216. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10490.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
