Experiences of people taking opioid medication for chronic non-malignant pain : a qualitative evidence synthesis using meta-ethnography

Objective To review qualitative studies on the experience of taking opioid medication for chronic non-malignant pain (CNMP) or coming off them. Design This is a qualitative evidence synthesis using a seven-step approach from the methods of meta-ethnography. Data sources and eligibility criteria We searched selected databases—Medline, Embase, AMED, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus (Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index)—for qualitative studies which provide patients’ views of taking opioid medication for CNMP or of coming off them (June 2017, updated September 2018). Data extraction and synthesis Papers were quality appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool, and the GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group - Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) guidelines were applied. We identified concepts and iteratively abstracted these concepts into a line of argument. Results We screened 2994 unique citations and checked 153 full texts, and 31 met our review criteria. We identified five themes: (1) reluctant users with little choice; (2) understanding opioids: the good and the bad; (3) a therapeutic alliance: not always on the same page; (4) stigma: feeling scared and secretive but needing support; and (5) the challenge of tapering or withdrawal. A new overarching theme of ‘constantly balancing’ emerged from the data. Conclusions People taking opioids were constantly balancing tensions, not always wanting to take opioids, and weighing the pros and cons of opioids but feeling they had no choice because of the pain. They frequently felt stigmatised, were not always ‘on the same page’ as their healthcare professional and felt changes in opioid use were often challenging

Impact of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on medical technology uptake: analysis of the uptake of spinal cord stimulation in England 2008-2012.

This is the final version of the article. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Technology Appraisal Guidance on spinal cord stimulation (SCS) was published in 2008 and updated in 2012 with no change. This guidance recommends SCS as a cost-effective treatment for patients with neuropathic pain. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of NICE guidance by comparing SCS uptake in England pre-NICE (2008-2009) and post-NICE (2009-2012) guidance. We also compared the English SCS uptake rate with that of Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Germany. DESIGN: SCS implant data for England was obtained from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database and compared with other European countries where comparable data were available. RESULTS: The HES data showed small increases in SCS implantation and replacement/revision procedures, and a large increase in SCS trials between 2008 and 2012. The increase in the total number of SCS procedures per million of population in England is driven primarily by revision/replacements and increased trial activity. Marked variability in SCS uptake at both health regions and primary care trust level was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the positive NICE recommendation for the routine use of SCS, we found no evidence of a significant impact on SCS uptake in England. Rates of SCS implantation in England are lower than many other European countries.Access to the QUANTIS database to extract the relevant Hospital Episode Statistics data was funded by Medtronic UK

Rethinking clinical trials of transcranial direct current stimulation: Participant and assessor blinding is inadequate at intensities of 2mA

Copyright @ 2012 The Authors. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and 85 reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. The article was made available through the Brunel University Open Access Publishing Fund.Background: Many double-blind clinical trials of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) use stimulus intensities of 2 mA despite the fact that blinding has not been formally validated under these conditions. The aim of this study was to test the assumption that sham 2 mA tDCS achieves effective blinding. Methods: A randomised double blind crossover trial. 100 tDCS-naïve healthy volunteers were incorrectly advised that they there were taking part in a trial of tDCS on word memory. Participants attended for two separate sessions. In each session, they completed a word memory task, then received active or sham tDCS (order randomised) at 2 mA stimulation intensity for 20 minutes and then repeated the word memory task. They then judged whether they believed they had received active stimulation and rated their confidence in that judgement. The blinded assessor noted when red marks were observed at the electrode sites post-stimulation. Results: tDCS at 2 mA was not effectively blinded. That is, participants correctly judged the stimulation condition greater than would be expected to by chance at both the first session (kappa level of agreement (κ) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 0.47 p = 0.005) and the second session (κ = 0.77, 95%CI 0.64 to 0.90), p = <0.001) indicating inadequate participant blinding. Redness at the reference electrode site was noticeable following active stimulation more than sham stimulation (session one, κ = 0.512, 95%CI 0.363 to 0.66, p<0.001; session two, κ = 0.677, 95%CI 0.534 to 0.82) indicating inadequate assessor blinding. Conclusions: Our results suggest that blinding in studies using tDCS at intensities of 2 mA is inadequate. Positive results from such studies should be interpreted with caution.GLM is supported by the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia ID 571090

Assessing the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of subcutaneous nerve stimulation in patients with predominant back pain due to failed back surgery syndrome (SubQStim study): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

This is a freely-available open access publication. Please cite the published version which is available via the DOI link in this record.Chronic radicular pain can be effectively treated with spinal cord stimulation, but this therapy is not always sufficient for chronic back pain. Subcutaneous nerve stimulation (SQS) refers to the placement of percutaneous leads in the subcutaneous tissue within the area of pain. Case series data show that failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) patients experience clinically important levels of pain relief following SQS and may also reduce their levels of analgesic therapy and experience functional well-being. However, to date, there is no randomized controlled trial evidence to support the use of SQS in FBSS.Medtronic Inc

Intrathecal drug delivery systems for the management of chronic non-cancer pain : a systematic review of economic evaluations

Background: Intrathecal drug delivery (ITDD) systems are one of a limited number of management options for chronic non-cancer pain, cancer pain and spasticity. Concerns over their effectiveness and high initial costs led NHS England to decommission ITDD for patients with chronic non-cancer pain. However, the extent to which this decision is in line with existing economic evidence is unclear. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and review the existing evidence on the cost-effectiveness of ITDD for chronic non-cancer pain. Methods: Full and partial economic evaluations on ITDD were identified through systematic searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases. Database searches were complemented by hand searching of reference lists of relevant studies and searches of grey literature. Study selection was carried out by two assessors, independently. Study quality assessment was performed to inform critical appraisal of health economics studies. Data were extracted using a data extraction form developed for this study. Results: 4464 unique studies were identified, of which seven met the inclusion criteria. With the exception of one study, the studies found ITDD to be either cost-saving or cost-effective compared to conventional medical management. ITDD becomes cost-ineffective in one further study following price year adjustment to 2016. Conclusions: Study findings show ITDD as not cost-effective only in extremely conservative scenarios. There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of ITDD in non-cancer pain; however, the available economic evidence controverts arguments to refute the treatment on economic grounds

Brain and spinal stimulation therapies for phantom limb pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Although many treatments exist for phantom limb pain (PLP), the evidence supporting them is limited and there are no guidelines for PLP management. Brain and spinal cord neurostimulation therapies are targeted at patients with chronic PLP but have yet to be systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVE: To determine which types of brain and spinal stimulation therapy appear to be the best for treating chronic PLP. DESIGN: Systematic reviews of effectiveness and epidemiology studies, and a survey of NHS practice. POPULATION: All patients with PLP. INTERVENTIONS: Invasive interventions - deep brain stimulation (DBS), motor cortex stimulation (MCS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation. Non-invasive interventions - repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Phantom limb pain and quality of life. DATA SOURCES: Twelve databases (including MEDLINE and EMBASE) and clinical trial registries were searched in May 2017, with no date limits applied. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts and full texts. Data extraction and quality assessments were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by another. A questionnaire was distributed to clinicians via established e-mail lists of two relevant clinical societies. All results were presented narratively with accompanying tables. RESULTS: Seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 30 non-comparative group studies, 18 case reports and 21 epidemiology studies were included. Results from a good-quality RCT suggested short-term benefits of rTMS in reducing PLP, but not in reducing anxiety or depression. Small randomised trials of tDCS suggested the possibility of modest, short-term reductions in PLP. No RCTs of invasive therapies were identified. Results from small, non-comparative group studies suggested that, although many patients benefited from short-term pain reduction, far fewer maintained their benefits. Most studies had important methodological or reporting limitations and few studies reported quality-of-life data. The evidence on prognostic factors for the development of chronic PLP from the longitudinal studies also had important limitations. The results from these studies suggested that pre-amputation pain and early PLP intensity are good predictors of chronic PLP. Results from the cross-sectional studies suggested that the proportion of patients with severe chronic PLP is between around 30% and 40% of the chronic PLP population, and that around one-quarter of chronic PLP patients find their PLP to be either moderately or severely limiting or bothersome. There were 37 responses to the questionnaire distributed to clinicians. SCS and DRG stimulation are frequently used in the NHS but the prevalence of use of DBS and MCS was low. Most responders considered SCS and DRG stimulation to be at least sometimes effective. Neurosurgeons had mixed views on DBS, but most considered MCS to rarely be effective. Most clinicians thought that a randomised trial design could be successfully used to study neurostimulation therapies. LIMITATION: There was a lack of robust research studies. CONCLUSIONS: Currently available studies of the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of neurostimulation treatments do not provide robust, reliable results. Therefore, it is uncertain which treatments are best for chronic PLP. FUTURE WORK: Randomised crossover trials, randomised N-of-1 trials and prospective registry trials are viable study designs for future research. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017065387. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Refractory Angina (RASCAL Study): A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Patients with “refractory angina” (RA) unsuitable for coronary revascularization experience high levels of hospitalization and poor health‐related quality of life. Randomized trials have shown spinal cord stimulation (SCS) to be a promising treatment for chronic stable angina and RA; however, none has compared SCS with usual care (UC). The aim of this pilot study was to address the key uncertainties of conducting a definitive multicenter trial to assess the clinical and cost‐effectiveness of SCS in RA patients, i.e., recruitment and retention of patients, burden of outcome measures, our ability to standardize UC in a UK NHS setting. Methods: RA patients deemed suitable were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to SCS plus UC (SCS group) or UC alone (UC group). We sought to assess: recruitment, uptake, and retention of patients; feasibility and acceptability of SCS treatment; the feasibility and acceptability of standardizing UC; and the feasibility and acceptability of the proposed trial outcome measures. Patient outcomes were assessed at baseline (prerandomization) and three and six months postrandomization. Results: We failed to meet our planned recruitment target (45 patients) and randomized 29 patients (15 SCS group, 14 UC group) over a 42‐month period across four sites. None of the study participants chose to withdraw following consent and randomization. With exception of two deaths, all completed evaluation at baseline and follow‐up. Although the study was not formally powered to compare outcomes between groups, we saw a trend toward larger improvements in both primary and secondary outcomes in the SCS group. Conclusions: While patient recruitment was found to be challenging, levels of participant retention, outcome completion, and acceptability of SCS therapy were high. A number of lessons are presented in order to take forward a future definitive pragmatic randomized trial

Process evaluation protocol for the I-WOTCH study : an opioid tapering support programme for people with chronic non-malignant pain

Introduction The Improving the Wellbeing of people with Opioid Treated CHronic Pain (I-WOTCH) randomised controlled trial uses a multicomponent self-management intervention to help people taper their opioid use. This approach is not widely used and its efficacy is unknown. A process evaluation alongside the trial will help to assess how the intervention was delivered, looking at the dose of intervention received and the fidelity of the delivery. We will explore how the intervention may have brought about change through the experiences of the participants receiving and the staff delivering the intervention and whether there were contextual factors involved. Methods and analysis A mixed methods process evaluation will assess how the processes of the I-WOTCH intervention fared and whether these affected the outcomes. We will collect quantitative data, for example, group attendance analysed with statistical methods. Qualitative data, for example, from interviews and feedback forms will be analysed using framework analysis. We will use a ‘following a thread’ and a mixed methods matrix for the final integrated analysis. Ethics and dissemination The I-WOTCH trial and process evaluation were granted full ethics approval by Yorkshire and The Humber—South Yorkshire Research Ethics Committee on 13 September 2016 (16/YH/0325). All data were collected in accordance with data protection guidelines. Participants provided written informed consent for the main trial, and all interviewees provided additional written informed consent. The results of the process evaluation will be published and presented at conferences

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation for refractory angina (RASCAL study): study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial

This is the final version of the article. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.BACKGROUND: The RASCAL (Refractory Angina Spinal Cord stimulation and usuAL care) pilot study seeks to assess the feasibility of a definitive trial to assess if addition of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) to usual care is clinically superior and more cost-effective than usual care alone in patients with refractory angina. METHODS/DESIGN: This is an external pilot, patient-randomized controlled trial.The study will take place at three centers in the United Kingdom - South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (The James Cook University Hospital), Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.The subjects will be 45 adults with refractory angina, that is, limiting angina despite optimal anti-angina therapy, Canadian Cardiovascular Society Functional Classification Class III and IV, angiographically documented coronary artery disease not suitable for revascularization, satisfactory multidisciplinary assessment and demonstrable ischemia on functional testing.The study will be stratified by center, age and Canadian Cardiovascular Society Functional Classification.Interventions will involve spinal cord stimulation plus usual care ('SCS group') or usual care alone ('UC group'). Usual care received by both groups will include consideration of an education session with a pain consultant, trial of a transcutaneous electrical neurostimulation, serial thoracic sympathectomy and oral/systemic analgesics.Expected outcomes will be recruitment and retention rates; reasons for agreeing/declining participation; variability in primary and secondary outcomes (to inform power calculations for a definitive trial); and completion rates of outcome measures. Trial patient-related outcomes include disease-specific and generic health-related quality of life, angina exercise capacity, intake of angina medications, frequency of angina attacks, complications and adverse events, and satisfaction. DISCUSSION: The RASCAL pilot trial seeks to determine the feasibility and design of a definitive randomized controlled trial comparing the addition of spinal cord stimulation to usual care versus usual care alone for patients with refractory angina.Fifteen patients have been recruited since recruitment opened in October 2011. The trial was originally scheduled to end in April 2013 but due to slow recruitment may have to be extended to late 2013. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN65254102.This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute of Health. Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) program (grant reference: PB-PG-1208-18031)

The incidence and healthcare costs of persistent post-operative pain following lumbar spine surgery in the United Kingdom: a cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) : a cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES)

OBJECTIVE: To characterise incidence and healthcare costs associated with persistent postoperative pain (PPP) following lumbar surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective, population-based cohort study. SETTING: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) databases. PARTICIPANTS: Population-based cohort of 10 216 adults who underwent lumbar surgery in England from 1997/1998 through 2011/2012 and had at least 1 year of presurgery data and 2 years of postoperative follow-up data in the linked CPRD-HES. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES: Incidence and total healthcare costs over 2, 5 and 10 years attributable to persistent PPP following initial lumbar surgery. RESULTS: The rate of individuals undergoing lumbar surgery in the CPRD-HES linked data doubled over the 15-year study period, fiscal years 1997/1998 to 2011/2012, from 2.5 to 4.9 per 10 000 adults. Over the most recent 5-year period (2007/2008 to 2011/2012), on average 20.8% (95% CI 19.7% to 21.9%) of lumbar surgery patients met criteria for PPP. Rates of healthcare usage were significantly higher for patients with PPP across all types of care. Over 2 years following initial spine surgery, the mean cost difference between patients with and without PPP was £5383 (95% CI £4872 to £5916). Over 5 and 10 years following initial spine surgery, the mean cost difference between patients with and without PPP increased to £10 195 (95% CI £8726 to £11 669) and £14 318 (95% CI £8386 to £19 771), respectively. Extrapolated to the UK population, we estimate that nearly 5000 adults experience PPP after spine surgery annually, with each new cohort costing the UK National Health Service in excess of £70 million over the first 10 years alone. CONCLUSIONS: Persistent pain affects more than one-in-five lumbar surgery patients and accounts for substantial long-term healthcare costs. There is a need for formal, evidence-based guidelines for a coherent, coordinated management strategy for patients with continuing pain after lumbar surgery