Jessica A Otte, Gloria Chu, Benji Heran, Ken Bassett
{"title":"Tramadol (with or without acetaminophen) efficacy and harm: Systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Jessica A Otte, Gloria Chu, Benji Heran, Ken Bassett","doi":"10.46747/cfp.7109574","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tramadol (with or without acetaminophen) in adult pain management compared with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and acetaminophen alone.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Studies were identified through a search of the entire Ovid MEDLINE database, the Ovid MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print database, Embase, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 1946 to August 19, 2022.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Included studies comprised double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of oral tramadol (with or without acetaminophen) compared with opioids, NSAIDs, or acetaminophen for treatment of acute or chronic pain that reported at least 1 of 11 outcomes: total adverse events (AEs), fatal serious AEs (SAEs), nonfatal SAEs, patient withdrawals from the study due to AEs (WDAEs), total study withdrawals, measures of dependence or addiction, quality of life, functional improvement, 30% or more pain reduction, 50% or more pain reduction, and rescue medication use. Overall, 3184 articles were screened and 37 RCTs (21 opioid, 15 NSAID, 1 acetaminophen; N=7156; length 1 hour to 12 weeks) were included. Trials were critically appraised and assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials 1.0. Meta-analyzed outcomes were reported as risk ratios (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]).</p><p><strong>Synthesis: </strong>Compared with opioids, tramadol with or without acetaminophen did not significantly differ in efficacy based on 50% or more or 30% or more reduction in pain or in any harm outcomes (nonfatal SAEs [risk ratio (RR)=1.35, 95% CI 0.43 to 4.20]; WDAEs [RR=0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22]; total withdrawals [RR=0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.11]; or total AEs [RR=0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.05]). Compared with NSAIDs, tramadol with or without acetaminophen was less likely to achieve a 30% or more reduction in pain (RR=0.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.90), and was more likely to result in WDAEs (RR=2.86, 95% CI 2.23 to 3.66), total withdrawals (RR=1.68, 95% CI 1.47 to 1.93), and total AEs (RR=1.37, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.47). Evidence was insufficient for meta-analysis of fatal SAEs, drug dependence or addiction, quality of life, functional improvement, or use of rescue medications.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Tramadol with or without acetaminophen did not differ significantly from other opioids, and was less effective and more poorly tolerated than NSAIDs. Short study duration, small sample size, extensive patient exclusion, and inconsistency in outcome reporting limit the scientific validity of conclusions.</p>","PeriodicalId":55288,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Family Physician","volume":"71 9","pages":"574-581"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12454558/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Family Physician","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46747/cfp.7109574","RegionNum":4,"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
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tramadol (with or without acetaminophen) in adult pain management compared with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and acetaminophen alone.
Data sources: Studies were identified through a search of the entire Ovid MEDLINE database, the Ovid MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print database, Embase, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 1946 to August 19, 2022.
Study selection: Included studies comprised double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of oral tramadol (with or without acetaminophen) compared with opioids, NSAIDs, or acetaminophen for treatment of acute or chronic pain that reported at least 1 of 11 outcomes: total adverse events (AEs), fatal serious AEs (SAEs), nonfatal SAEs, patient withdrawals from the study due to AEs (WDAEs), total study withdrawals, measures of dependence or addiction, quality of life, functional improvement, 30% or more pain reduction, 50% or more pain reduction, and rescue medication use. Overall, 3184 articles were screened and 37 RCTs (21 opioid, 15 NSAID, 1 acetaminophen; N=7156; length 1 hour to 12 weeks) were included. Trials were critically appraised and assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials 1.0. Meta-analyzed outcomes were reported as risk ratios (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]).
Synthesis: Compared with opioids, tramadol with or without acetaminophen did not significantly differ in efficacy based on 50% or more or 30% or more reduction in pain or in any harm outcomes (nonfatal SAEs [risk ratio (RR)=1.35, 95% CI 0.43 to 4.20]; WDAEs [RR=0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22]; total withdrawals [RR=0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.11]; or total AEs [RR=0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.05]). Compared with NSAIDs, tramadol with or without acetaminophen was less likely to achieve a 30% or more reduction in pain (RR=0.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.90), and was more likely to result in WDAEs (RR=2.86, 95% CI 2.23 to 3.66), total withdrawals (RR=1.68, 95% CI 1.47 to 1.93), and total AEs (RR=1.37, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.47). Evidence was insufficient for meta-analysis of fatal SAEs, drug dependence or addiction, quality of life, functional improvement, or use of rescue medications.
Conclusion: Tramadol with or without acetaminophen did not differ significantly from other opioids, and was less effective and more poorly tolerated than NSAIDs. Short study duration, small sample size, extensive patient exclusion, and inconsistency in outcome reporting limit the scientific validity of conclusions.
目的:评价曲马多(联合或不联合对乙酰氨基酚)与非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)、阿片类药物和单独对乙酰氨基酚治疗成人疼痛的疗效和安全性。数据来源:从1946年到2022年8月19日,通过搜索整个Ovid MEDLINE数据库、Ovid MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print数据库、Embase和循证医学评论(Cochrane中央对照试验登记)来确定研究。研究选择:纳入的研究包括双盲,随机对照试验(rct),口服曲马多(含或不含对乙酰氨基酚)与阿片类药物,非甾体抗炎药或对乙酰氨基酚治疗急性或慢性疼痛,报告至少11个结果中的1个:总不良事件(ae)、致死性严重ae (SAEs)、非致死性SAEs、因ae而退出研究的患者(WDAEs)、总研究退出、依赖或成瘾的测量、生活质量、功能改善、疼痛减轻30%或以上、疼痛减轻50%或以上以及抢救用药。总共筛选了3184篇文章,纳入了37项随机对照试验(21项阿片类药物,15项非甾体抗炎药,1项对乙酰氨基酚,N=7156,长度为1小时至12周)。使用Cochrane随机试验1.0的偏倚风险工具对试验进行严格评价和评估。meta分析结果报告为风险比(95%置信区间[ci])。合成:与阿片类药物相比,曲马多加或不加对乙酰氨基酚在疼痛减轻50%或以上或30%或以上或任何伤害结果的疗效上没有显著差异(非致命性SAEs[风险比(RR)=1.35, 95% CI 0.43至4.20];WDAEs [RR=0.99, 95% CI 0.80 ~ 1.22];总取款量[RR=0.93, 95% CI 0.78 ~ 1.11];或总ae [RR=0.97, 95% CI 0.89 ~ 1.05])。与非甾体抗炎药相比,曲马多联合或不联合对乙酰氨基酚均不太可能实现30%或更多的疼痛减轻(RR=0.82, 95% CI 0.76至0.90),更可能导致WDAEs (RR=2.86, 95% CI 2.23至3.66)、总停药(RR=1.68, 95% CI 1.47至1.93)和总ae (RR=1.37, 95% CI 1.28至1.47)。证据不足的荟萃分析致命的SAEs,药物依赖或成瘾,生活质量,功能改善,或使用抢救药物。结论:曲马多加或不加对乙酰氨基酚与其他阿片类药物无显著差异,其疗效低于非甾体抗炎药,耐受性更差。研究时间短,样本量小,患者排除范围广,结果报告不一致,限制了结论的科学有效性。
期刊介绍:
Mission: Canadian Family Physician (CFP), a peer-reviewed medical journal, is the official publication of the College of Family Physicians of Canada. Our mission is to ensure that practitioners, researchers, educators and policy makers are informed on current issues and in touch with the latest thinking in the discipline of family medicine; to serve family physicians in all types of practice in every part of Canada in both official languages; to advance the continuing development of family medicine as a discipline; and to contribute to the ongoing improvement of patient care.