Effectiveness of Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
John C Licciardone, Kush Rama, Antoine Nguyen, Cynthia Ramirez Prado, Chandler Stanteen, Subhash Aryal
{"title":"Effectiveness of Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain.","authors":"John C Licciardone, Kush Rama, Antoine Nguyen, Cynthia Ramirez Prado, Chandler Stanteen, Subhash Aryal","doi":"10.3122/jabfm.2023.230140R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Clinical trials generally have not assessed efficacy of long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) beyond 6 months because of methodological barriers and ethical concerns. We aimed to measure the effectiveness of LTOT for up to 12 months.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective cohort study among adults with chronic low back pain (CLBP) from April 2016 through August 2022. Participants reporting LTOT (>90 days) were matched to opioid nonusers with propensity scores. Primary outcomes involved low back pain intensity, back-related disability, and pain impact measured with a numerical rating scale, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, respectively. Secondary outcomes involved minimally important changes in primary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean age of 402 matched participants was 55.4 years (S.D., 11.9 years), and 297 (73.9%) were female. There were 119 (59.2%) LTOT users who took opioids continuously for 12 months. The mean daily morphine milligram equivalent dosage at baseline was 36.7 (95% CI, 32.8 to 40.7). There were no differences between LTOT and control groups in mean pain intensity (6.06, 95% CI, 5.80-6.32 vs 5.92, 95% CI, 5.68-6.17), back-related disability (15.32, 95% CI, 14.55-16.09 vs 14.81, 95% CI, 13.99-15.62), or pain impact (32.51, 95% CI, 31.33-33.70 vs 31.22, 95% CI, 30.00 to 32.43). Correspondingly, LTOT users did not report greater likelihood of minimally important changes in any outcome.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Using LTOT for up to 12 months is not more effective in improving CLBP outcomes than treatment without opioids. Clinicians should consider tapering opioid dosage among LTOT users in accordance with clinical practice guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":50018,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"59-72"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2023.230140R1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Clinical trials generally have not assessed efficacy of long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) beyond 6 months because of methodological barriers and ethical concerns. We aimed to measure the effectiveness of LTOT for up to 12 months.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among adults with chronic low back pain (CLBP) from April 2016 through August 2022. Participants reporting LTOT (>90 days) were matched to opioid nonusers with propensity scores. Primary outcomes involved low back pain intensity, back-related disability, and pain impact measured with a numerical rating scale, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, respectively. Secondary outcomes involved minimally important changes in primary outcomes.

Results: The mean age of 402 matched participants was 55.4 years (S.D., 11.9 years), and 297 (73.9%) were female. There were 119 (59.2%) LTOT users who took opioids continuously for 12 months. The mean daily morphine milligram equivalent dosage at baseline was 36.7 (95% CI, 32.8 to 40.7). There were no differences between LTOT and control groups in mean pain intensity (6.06, 95% CI, 5.80-6.32 vs 5.92, 95% CI, 5.68-6.17), back-related disability (15.32, 95% CI, 14.55-16.09 vs 14.81, 95% CI, 13.99-15.62), or pain impact (32.51, 95% CI, 31.33-33.70 vs 31.22, 95% CI, 30.00 to 32.43). Correspondingly, LTOT users did not report greater likelihood of minimally important changes in any outcome.

Conclusions: Using LTOT for up to 12 months is not more effective in improving CLBP outcomes than treatment without opioids. Clinicians should consider tapering opioid dosage among LTOT users in accordance with clinical practice guidelines.

长期阿片类药物治疗慢性腰背痛的效果。
目的:由于方法学障碍和伦理问题,临床试验一般不会评估长期阿片类药物治疗(LTOT)超过6个月的疗效。我们旨在评估长达 12 个月的 LTOT 疗效:我们在 2016 年 4 月至 2022 年 8 月期间对患有慢性腰背痛(CLBP)的成年人进行了一项回顾性队列研究。将报告 LTOT(>90 天)的参与者与未使用阿片类药物者进行倾向性评分匹配。主要结果包括腰背痛强度、腰背相关残疾和疼痛影响,分别采用数字评分量表、罗兰-莫里斯残疾问卷和患者报告结果测量信息系统进行测量。次要结果涉及主要结果的最小重要变化:402 名匹配参与者的平均年龄为 55.4 岁(S.D. 11.9 岁),其中 297 人(73.9%)为女性。有 119 名(59.2%)LTOT 使用者在 12 个月内连续服用阿片类药物。基线时每日吗啡毫克当量的平均剂量为 36.7(95% CI,32.8 至 40.7)。LTOT组和对照组在平均疼痛强度(6.06,95% CI,5.80-6.32 vs 5.92,95% CI,5.68-6.17)、背部相关残疾(15.32,95% CI,14.55-16.09 vs 14.81,95% CI,13.99-15.62)或疼痛影响(32.51,95% CI,31.33-33.70 vs 31.22,95% CI,30.00-32.43)方面没有差异。相应地,LTOT使用者没有报告在任何结果中出现最小重要变化的更大可能性:结论:与不使用阿片类药物治疗相比,使用长达12个月的LTOT并不能更有效地改善CLBP的疗效。临床医生应根据临床实践指南考虑减少LTOT使用者的阿片类药物剂量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
6.90%
发文量
168
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Published since 1988, the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine ( JABFM ) is the official peer-reviewed journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM). Believing that the public and scientific communities are best served by open access to information, JABFM makes its articles available free of charge and without registration at www.jabfm.org. JABFM is indexed by Medline, Index Medicus, and other services.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信