Prevalence of opioid adverse events in chronic non-malignant pain: systematic review of randomised trials of oral opioids

Adverse events of opioids may restrict their use in non-cancer pain. Analysis of the incidence of common adverse events in trials conducted in non-cancer pain has usually been limited to opioids used to treat severe pain according to the WHO three-step ladder. To examine the incidence of common adverse events of opioids in non-cancer pain, a systematic review and meta-analysis of information from randomised trials of all opioids in non-cancer pain was undertaken. Studies used were published randomised trials of oral opioid in non-cancer pain, with placebo or active comparator. Thirty-four trials with 5,546 patients were included with 4,212 patients contributing some information on opioid adverse events. Most opioids used (accounting for 90% of patients) were for treating moderate rather than severe pain. Including trials without a placebo increased the amount of information available by 1.4 times. Because of clinical heterogeneity in condition, opioid, opioid dose, duration, and use of titration, only broad results could be calculated. Use of any oral opioid produced higher rates of adverse events than did placebo. Dry mouth (affecting 25% of patients), nausea (21%), and constipation (15%) were the most common adverse events. A substantial proportion of patients on opioids (22%) withdrew because of adverse events. Because most trials were short, less than four weeks, and because few titrated the dose, these results have limited applicability to longer-term use of opioids in clinical practice. Suggestions for improved studies are made

Faecal blood loss with aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitors: systematic review of randomized trials using autologous chromium-labelled erythrocytes

INTRODUCTION: Faecal blood loss has been measured using autologous erythrocytes labelled with radioactive chromium for several decades, using generally similar methods. We conducted a systematic review of studies employing this technology to determine the degree of blood loss associated with use of aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitors (coxibs). METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library (to December 2006) was conducted to identify randomized trials in which treatment with aspirin, NSAIDs, or coxibs was continued for at least 7 days, and with at least 7 days of washout for crossover trials. Rates of faecal blood loss associated with these agents were determined in the randomized trials identified. Comparators were placebo, active, or no treatment. Outcomes of interest were mean daily faecal blood loss, and the number or proportion of individuals recording faecal blood above 5 ml/day and above 10 ml/day. RESULTS: Forty-five reports of 47 trials were included, including 1,162 individuals, mostly healthy volunteers and predominantly young men. Only 136 patients (as opposed to healthy volunteers; 12%) were included, and these were mostly older people with an arthritic condition. Most NSAIDs and low-dose (325 mg) aspirin resulted in a small average increase in faecal blood loss of 1 to 2 ml/day from about 0.5 ml/day at baseline. Aspirin at full anti-inflammatory doses resulted in much higher average levels of blood loss of about 5 ml/day. Some individuals lost much more blood than average, at least for some of the time, with 5% of those taking NSAIDs having daily blood loss of 5 ml or more and 1% having daily blood loss of 10 ml or more; rates of daily blood loss of 5 ml/day or 10 ml/day were 31% and 10%, respectively, for aspirin at daily doses of 1,800 mg or greater. CONCLUSION: At baseline, or with placebo, faecal blood loss is measured at 1 ml/day or below. With low-dose aspirin and some NSAIDs, average values may be two to four times this, and anti-inflammatory doses of aspirin result in much higher average losses. A small proportion of individuals respond to aspirin or NSAIDs with much higher faecal blood loss of above 5 ml/day or 10 ml/day. There are significant limitations regarding the quality and validity of reporting of these studies, such as limited size and inclusion of inappropriate participants. The potential for blood loss and consequent anaemia requires more study

Numbers needed to treat calculated from responder rates give a better indication of efficacy in osteoarthritis trials than mean pain scores

INTRODUCTION: Osteoarthritis trials usually report average changes in visual analogue scale (VAS) pain, and examine the difference between treatment and placebo. We investigated whether dichotomous responder analysis provides a more informative interpretation of drug efficacy. METHODS: Merck supplied the number of patients who, by 6 weeks, had achieved pain relief compared with a baseline of 0% or more, 10% or more, 20% or more, and so on at equal intervals up to 90% or more. These different levels of pain relief were used to distinguish different definitions of responders, for example at least 50% pain relief from baseline. Numbers and percentages of patients achieving each level were identified. Information was sought from a dose-response trial over 6 weeks in osteoarthritis using placebo and using etoricoxib at 5, 10, 30 and 60 mg daily. RESULTS: With placebo, the proportions of patients achieving at least 20%, 50% and 70% pain relief over baseline at 6 weeks were 30%, 11% and 2%. With 60 mg etoricoxib the equivalent percentages were 74%, 49% and 29%. The numbers needed to treat for 30 mg and 60 mg etoricoxib to produce at least 50% pain relief at 6 weeks compared with placebo were 4.2 (95% confidence interval 3.8 to 8.6) and 2.6 (2.0 to 3.9), respectively. Levels of pain relief of 50% and above discriminated best between different doses of etoricoxib. CONCLUSION: Responder analysis seemed to be more sensitive than examination of average changes in VAS pain scores. Validation would require calculations to be performed on a set of trials using individual patient data not available in publications

Single-dose oral naproxen for acute postoperative pain: a quantitative systematic review

BACKGROUND: Naproxen and naproxen sodium are non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs used in a variety of painful conditions, including the treatment of postoperative pain. This review aims to assess the efficacy, safety and duration of action of a single oral dose of naproxen/naproxen sodium for moderate to severe acute postoperative pain in adults, compared with placebo. METHODS: The Cochrane Library (issue 4 2002), EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE and an in-house database were searched for randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trials of a single dose of orally administered naproxen or naproxen sodium in adults with acute postoperative pain. Pain relief or pain intensity data were extracted and converted into dichotomous information to give the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours. Relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat were then calculated. The percentage of patients with any adverse event, number-needed-to-harm, and time to remedication were also calculated. RESULTS: Ten trials with 996 patients in met the inclusion criteria. Six trials compared naproxen sodium 550 mg (252 patients) with placebo (248 patients); the NNT for at least 50% pain relief over six hours was 2.6 (95% confidence interval 2.2 to 3.2). There was no significant difference between the number of patients experiencing any adverse event on treatment compared with placebo. Weighted mean time to remedication was 7.6 hours for naproxen sodium 550 mg (206 patients) and 2.6 hours for placebo (205 patients). Four other trials used lower doses. CONCLUSION: A single oral dose of naproxen sodium 550 mg is an effective analgesic in the treatment of acute postoperative pain. A low incidence of adverse events was found, although these were not reported consistently

Tolerability and adverse events in clinical trials of celecoxib in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis of information from company clinical trial reports

The objective was to improve understanding of adverse events occurring with celecoxib in the treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Data were extracted from company clinical trial reports of randomised trials of celecoxib in osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis lasting 2 weeks or more. Outcomes were discontinuations (all cause, lack of efficacy, adverse event, gastrointestinal adverse event), endoscopically detected ulcers, gastrointestinal or cardio-renal events, and major changes in haematological parameters. The main comparisons were celecoxib (all doses) versus placebo, paracetamol (acetaminophen) 4,000 mg daily, rofecoxib 25 mg daily, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (naproxen, diclofenac, ibuprofen, and loxoprofen). For NSAIDs, celecoxib was compared both at all doses and at licensed doses (200 to 400 mg daily). Thirty-one trials included 39,605 randomised patients. Most patients had osteoarthritis and were women of average age 60 years or above. Most trials lasted 12 weeks or more. Doses of celecoxib were 50 to 800 mg/day. Compared with placebo, celecoxib had fewer discontinuations for any cause or for lack of efficacy, fewer serious adverse events, and less nausea. It had more patients with dyspepsia, diarrhoea, oedema, more adverse events that were gastrointestinal or treatment related, and more patients experiencing an adverse event. There were no differences for hypertension, gastrointestinal tolerability, or discontinuations for adverse events. Compared with paracetamol, celecoxib had fewer discontinuations for any cause, for lack of efficacy, or diarrhoea, but no other differences. Compared with rofecoxib, celecoxib had fewer patients with abdominal pain and oedema, but no other differences. Compared with NSAIDs, celecoxib had fewer symptomatic ulcers and bleeds, endoscopically detected ulcers, and discontinuations for adverse events or gastrointestinal adverse events. Fewer patients had any, or a gastrointestinal, or a treatment-related adverse event, or vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, or reduced haemoglobin or haematocrit. Discontinuations for lack of efficacy were higher. No differences were found for all-cause discontinuations, serious adverse events, hypertension, diarrhoea, nausea, oedema, myocardial infarction, cardiac failure, or raised creatinine. Company clinical trial reports present much more information than published papers. Adverse event information is clearly presented in company clinical trial reports, which are an ideal source of information for systematic review and meta-analysis

Primary care incidence and treatment of four neuropathic pain conditions: A descriptive study, 2002–2005

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Between 1992 and 2001 the UK general practice incidence of post-herpetic neuralgia and trigeminal neuralgia declined, whilst the incidence of painful diabetic neuropathy increased. The most common first line treatments were compound analgesics. As therapeutic options have subsequently changed, this study presents updated data on incidence and prescribing patterns in neuropathic pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A descriptive analysis of the epidemiology and prescription treatment at diagnosis of incident post-herpetic neuralgia (n = 1,923); trigeminal neuralgia (1,862); phantom limb pain (57) and painful diabetic neuropathy (1,444) using computerised UK general practice records (THIN): May 2002 to July 2005.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Primary care incidences per 100,000 person years observation of 28 (95% confidence interval (CI) 27–30) for post-herpetic neuralgia, 27 (95%CI 26–29) for trigeminal neuralgia, 0.8 (95%CI 0.6–1.1) for phantom limb pain and 21 (95%CI 20–22) for painful diabetic neuropathy are reported. The most common initial treatments were tricyclic antidepressants (post-herpetic neuralgia) or antiepileptics (trigeminal neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy) and opioid analgesics (phantom limb pain). The mean number of changes before a stable drug regimen was 1.2 to 1.5 for trigeminal neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy and post-herpetic neuralgia, and 2.4 for phantom limb pain.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The incidence of phantom limb pain and post-herpetic neuralgia are decreasing whilst painful diabetic neuropathy plateaued and trigeminal neuralgia remained constant. Despite more frequent use of antidepressants and antiepileptics for first line treatment, as opposed to conventional non-opioid analgesics, changes to therapy are common before a stable regimen is reached.</p

Simpson's paradox and calculation of number needed to treat from meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Calculation of numbers needed to treat (NNT) is more complex from meta-analysis than from single trials. Treating the data as if it all came from one trial may lead to misleading results when the trial arms are imbalanced. DISCUSSION: An example is shown from a published Cochrane review in which the benefit of nursing intervention for smoking cessation is shown by formal meta-analysis of the individual trial results. However if these patients were added together as if they all came from one trial the direction of the effect appears to be reversed (due to Simpson's paradox). Whilst NNT from meta-analysis can be calculated from pooled Risk Differences, this is unlikely to be a stable method unless the event rates in the control groups are very similar. Since in practice event rates vary considerably, the use a relative measure, such as Odds Ratio or Relative Risk is advocated. These can be applied to different levels of baseline risk to generate a risk specific NNT for the treatment. SUMMARY: The method used to calculate NNT from meta-analysis should be clearly stated, and adding the patients from separate trials as if they all came from one trial should be avoided

Rofecoxib for dysmenorrhoea: meta-analysis using individual patient data

BACKGROUND: Individual patient meta-analysis to determine the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose rofecoxib in primary dysmenorrhoea. METHODS: Individual patient information was available from three randomised, double blind, placebo and active controlled trials of rofecoxib. Data were combined through meta-analysis. Number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for at least 50% pain relief and the proportion of patients who had taken rescue medication over 12 hours were calculated. Information was collected on adverse effects. RESULTS: For single-dose rofecoxib 50 mg compared with placebo, the NNTs (with 95% CI) for at least 50% pain relief were 3.2 (2.4 to 4.5) at six, 3.1 (2.4 to 9.0) at eight, and 3.7 (2.8 to 5.6) at 12 hours. For naproxen sodium 550 mg they were 3.1 (2.4 to 4.4) at six, 3.0 (2.3 to 4.2) at eight, and 3.8 (2.7 to 6.1) at 12 hours. The proportion of patients who needed rescue medication within 12 hours was 27% with rofecoxib 50 mg, 29% with naproxen sodium 550 mg, and 50% with placebo. In the single-dose trial, the proportion of patients reporting any adverse effect was 8% (4/49) with rofecoxib 50 mg, 12% (6/49) with ibuprofen 400 mg, and 6% (3/49) with placebo. In the other two multiple dose trials, the proportion of patients reporting any adverse effect was 23% (42/179) with rofecoxib 50 mg, 24% (45/181) with naproxen sodium 550 mg, and 18% (33/178) with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Single dose rofecoxib 50 mg provided similar pain relief to naproxen sodium 550 mg over 12 hours. The duration of analgesia with rofecoxib 50 mg was similar to that of naproxen sodium 550 mg. Adverse effects were uncommon suggesting safety in short-term use of rofecoxib and naproxen sodium. Future research should include restriction on daily life and absence from work or school as outcomes

Interference with work in fibromyalgia - effect of treatment with pregabalin and relation to pain response

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials in chronic pain often collect information about interference with work as answers to component questions of commonly used questionnaires but these data are not normally analysed separately. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of individual patient data from four large trials of pregabalin for fibromyalgia lasting 8-14 weeks. We analysed data on interference with work, inferred from answers to component questions of Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ), Short Form 36 Health Survey, Sheehan Disability Scale, and Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue, including "How many days in the past week did you miss work, including housework, because of fibromyalgia?" from FIQ. Analyses were performed according to randomised treatment group (pregabalin 150-600 mg daily or placebo), pain improvement (0-10 numerical pain rating scale scores at trial beginning vs. end), and end of trial pain state (100 mm visual analogue pain scale [VAS]). RESULTS: Comparing treatment group average outcomes revealed modest improvement over the duration of the trials, more so with active treatment than with placebo. For the 'work missed' question from FIQ the change for patients on placebo was from 2.2 (standard deviation [SD] 2.3) days of work lost per week at trial beginning to 1.9 (SD 2.1) days lost at trial end (p &lt; 0.01). For patients on 600 mg pregabalin the change was from 2.1 (SD 2.2) days to 1.6 (SD 2.0) days (p &lt; 0.001). However, the change in days of work lost was substantial in patients with a good pain response: from 2.0 (SD 2.2) days to 0.97 (SD 1.6) days (p &lt; 0.0001) for those experiencing &gt;/= 50% pain improvement and from 1.9 (SD 2.2) days to 0.73 (SD 1.4) days (p &lt; 0.0001) for those achieving a low level of pain at trial end (&lt;30 mm on the VAS). Patients achieving both &gt;/= 50% pain improvement and a pain score &lt;30 mm on the VAS had the largest improvement, from 2.0 (SD 2.2) days to 0.60 (SD 1.3) days (p &lt; 0.0001). Analysing answers to the other questions yielded qualitatively similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Effective pain treatment goes along with benefit regarding work. A reduction in time off work &gt;1 day per week can be achieved in patients with good pain responses

Pregabalin in fibromyalgia - responder analysis from individual patient data

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Population mean changes are difficult to use in clinical practice. Responder analysis may be better, but needs validating for level of response and treatment duration. A consensus group has defined what constitutes minimal, moderate, and substantial benefit based on pain intensity and Patient Global Impression of Change scores.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We obtained individual patient data from four randomised double blind trials of pregabalin in fibromyalgia lasting eight to 14 weeks. We calculated response for all efficacy outcomes using any improvement (≥ 0%), minimal improvement (≥ 15%), moderate improvement (≥ 30%), substantial improvement (≥ 50%), and extensive improvement (≥ 70%), with numbers needed to treat (NNT) for pregabalin 300 mg, 450 mg, and 600 mg daily compared with placebo.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Information from 2,757 patients was available. Pain intensity and sleep interference showed reductions with increasing level of response, a significant difference between pregabalin and placebo, and a trend towards lower (better) NNTs at higher doses. Maximum response rates occurred at 4-6 weeks for higher levels of response, and were constant thereafter. NNTs (with 95% confidence intervals) for ≥ 50% improvement in pain intensity compared with placebo after 12 weeks were 22 (11 to 870) for pregabalin 300 mg, 16 (9.3 to 59) for pregabalin 450 mg, and 13 (8.1 to 31) for pregabalin 600 mg daily. NNTs for ≥ 50% improvement in sleep interference compared with placebo after 12 weeks were 13 (8.2 to 30) for pregabalin 300 mg, 8.4 (6.0 to 14) for pregabalin 450 mg, and 8.4 (6.1 to 14) for pregabalin 600 mg. Other outcomes had fewer respondents at higher response levels, but generally did not discriminate between pregabalin and placebo, or show any dose response. Shorter duration and use of 'any improvement' over-estimated treatment effect compared with longer duration and higher levels of response.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Responder analysis is useful in fibromyalgia, particularly for pain and sleep outcomes. Some fibromyalgia patients treated with pregabalin experience a moderate or substantial pain response that is consistent over time. Short trials using 'any improvement' as an outcome overestimate treatment effects.</p