Stephanie Mathieson1,2, Christopher G Maher3,4, Giovanni E Ferreira3,4, Melanie Hamilton3,4, Jesse Jansen4,5, Andrew J McLachlan6, Martin Underwood7,8, Chung-Wei Christine Lin3,4. 1. Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, Level 10 North, King George V Building, Missenden Road, Camperdown, Sydney, Australia. stephanie.mathieson@sydney.edu.au. 2. Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. stephanie.mathieson@sydney.edu.au. 3. Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, Level 10 North, King George V Building, Missenden Road, Camperdown, Sydney, Australia. 4. Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 5. Sydney Health Literacy Lab, ASK-GP Centre for Research Excellence, Sydney, Australia. 6. Sydney Pharmacy School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 7. Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. 8. University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, CV2 2DX, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deprescribing, the process of reducing or discontinuing unnecessary or harmful medicines is an essential part of clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of interventions designed to deprescribe opioid analgesics for pain relief in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. METHODS: We searched electronic databases, including clinical trial registries, from database inception to 13th January 2020 without restrictions, and conducted citation tracking. Our systematic review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions reducing the prescription, or use of opioid analgesics in patients with chronic pain versus control. Inventions could be aimed at the patient, clinician, or both. We excluded trials enrolling patients with cancer or illicit drug use. Two authors independently screened and extracted data. Outcome follow-up timepoints were short (≤ 3 months), intermediate (> 3 but < 12 months) or long (≥ 12 months) term. Primary outcome was the reduction in opioid dose [morphine milligram equivalent (MME) mg/day]. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. RESULTS: We included ten patient-focused RCT interventions (n = 835; median 37 participants) and 2 testing clinician-focused interventions (n = 291 clinicians); none at low risk of bias. Patient-focused interventions did not reduce opioid dose in the intermediate term [e.g. dose reduction protocol, mean difference (MD) - 19.9 MME, 95% CI - 107.5 to 67.7], nor did they increase the number of participants who ceased their dose, or increase the risk of serious adverse events or adverse events. One clinician intervention of education plus decision tools versus decision tools alone reduced the number of opioid prescriptions (risk difference (RD) - 0.1, 95% CI - 0.2 to - 0.1), dose (MD - 5.3 MME, 95% CI - 6.2 to - 4.5) and use (RD - 0.1, 95% CI - 0.1 to - 0.0) in the long term. LIMITATIONS: Study heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: The small number of studies and heterogeneity prevented firm conclusions to recommend any one opioid-analgesic-deprescribing strategy in patients with chronic pain. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42017068422.
BACKGROUND: Deprescribing, the process of reducing or discontinuing unnecessary or harmful medicines is an essential part of clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of interventions designed to deprescribe opioid analgesics for pain relief in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. METHODS: We searched electronic databases, including clinical trial registries, from database inception to 13th January 2020 without restrictions, and conducted citation tracking. Our systematic review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions reducing the prescription, or use of opioid analgesics in patients with chronic pain versus control. Inventions could be aimed at the patient, clinician, or both. We excluded trials enrolling patients with cancer or illicit drug use. Two authors independently screened and extracted data. Outcome follow-up timepoints were short (≤ 3 months), intermediate (> 3 but < 12 months) or long (≥ 12 months) term. Primary outcome was the reduction in opioid dose [morphine milligram equivalent (MME) mg/day]. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. RESULTS: We included ten patient-focused RCT interventions (n = 835; median 37 participants) and 2 testing clinician-focused interventions (n = 291 clinicians); none at low risk of bias. Patient-focused interventions did not reduce opioid dose in the intermediate term [e.g. dose reduction protocol, mean difference (MD) - 19.9 MME, 95% CI - 107.5 to 67.7], nor did they increase the number of participants who ceased their dose, or increase the risk of serious adverse events or adverse events. One clinician intervention of education plus decision tools versus decision tools alone reduced the number of opioid prescriptions (risk difference (RD) - 0.1, 95% CI - 0.2 to - 0.1), dose (MD - 5.3 MME, 95% CI - 6.2 to - 4.5) and use (RD - 0.1, 95% CI - 0.1 to - 0.0) in the long term. LIMITATIONS: Study heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: The small number of studies and heterogeneity prevented firm conclusions to recommend any one opioid-analgesic-deprescribing strategy in patients with chronic pain. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42017068422.
Authors: Olufunso M Agbalajobi; Theresa Gmelin; Andrew M Moon; Wheytnie Alexandre; Grace Zhang; Walid F Gellad; Naudia Jonassaint; Shari S Rogal Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-12-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nicholas Avery; Amy G McNeilage; Fiona Stanaway; Claire E Ashton-James; Fiona M Blyth; Rebecca Martin; Ali Gholamrezaei; Paul Glare Journal: BMJ Date: 2022-04-04
Authors: Erica Wennberg; Sarah B Windle; Kristian B Filion; Genevieve Gore; Brett D Thombs; Irina Kudrina; Elena Paraskevopoulos; Marc O Martel; Jonathan Kimmelman; Sonia Johnson; Andrew Taylor; Mark J Eisenberg Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Harbinder Kaur Sandhu; Jane Shaw; Dawn Carnes; Andrea D Furlan; Colin Tysall; Henry Adjei; Chockalingam Muthiah; Jennifer Noyes; Nicole K Y Tang; Stephanie Jc Taylor; Martin Underwood; Adrian Willis; Sam Eldabe Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-03-16 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Annely I Langejan; Loes de Kleijn; Hanneke J B M Rijkels-Otters; Stan F J Chudy; Alessandro Chiarotto; Bart W Koes Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 2.290