在初级医疗机构减少慢性非癌症疼痛患者使用阿片类药物的干预措施:系统回顾和荟萃分析

Qian Cai, Christos Grigoroglou, Thomas Allen, Teng-Chou Chen, Li-Chia Chen, Evangelos Kontopantelis
{"title":"在初级医疗机构减少慢性非癌症疼痛患者使用阿片类药物的干预措施:系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Qian Cai, Christos Grigoroglou, Thomas Allen, Teng-Chou Chen, Li-Chia Chen, Evangelos Kontopantelis","doi":"10.1101/2024.03.13.24304059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess interventions to reduce opioid use for patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) versus usual care or active controls in primary care settings.\nMethods: In this registered study (PROSPERO: CRD42022338458), we searched MEDLINE, Embase PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from inception to December 28th 2021, and updated on Dec 14th 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with no restrictions. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and Newcastle Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Primary outcomes included mean reduction in morphine equivalent daily dose (reported as mean differences [MDs] mg/day; 95% confidence intervals [95%CIs]) and/or opioid cessation proportion. Secondary outcomes were mean changes in pain severity (reported as standardized mean difference [SMDs]; 95%CIs) and (serious) adverse events. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models.\nResults: We identified 3,826 records, of which five RCTs (953 participants) and six cohort studies (967 participants) were included. Overall, opioid dosage was significantly reduced in intervention groups compared to controls (MD: -24.88 mg/day, 95%CI: -36.40 to -13.36; I2=59.41%; nine studies). Subgroup analyses revealed significant opioid dose reductions with mindfulness (MD: -29.36 mg/day 95%CI: -40.55 to -18.17; I2=0.0%; two trials) and CBT-based multimodalities (MD: -41.68 mg/day; 95%CI: -58.47 to -24.89; I2=0.0%; two cohort studies), respectively, compared to usual care. No significant differences were observed in opioid cessation (Odds ratio: 1.55, 95%CI: 0.3 to 2.81, I2=50.79%; three studies) or pain severity (SMD: -0.13, 95%CI: -0.37 to 0.11; I2=33.51%; three trials). Adverse events were infrequently examined, with withdrawal symptoms commonly reported.\nConclusions: The studied interventions were effective in reducing opioid dosage for people with CNCP in primary care. They highlighted the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration. Large-scale RCTs measuring the long-term effects and cost of these interventions are needed before their implementation.","PeriodicalId":501023,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Primary Care Research","volume":"69 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interventions to reduce opioid use for patients with chronic non-cancer pain in primary care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Qian Cai, Christos Grigoroglou, Thomas Allen, Teng-Chou Chen, Li-Chia Chen, Evangelos Kontopantelis\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2024.03.13.24304059\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess interventions to reduce opioid use for patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) versus usual care or active controls in primary care settings.\\nMethods: In this registered study (PROSPERO: CRD42022338458), we searched MEDLINE, Embase PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from inception to December 28th 2021, and updated on Dec 14th 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with no restrictions. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and Newcastle Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Primary outcomes included mean reduction in morphine equivalent daily dose (reported as mean differences [MDs] mg/day; 95% confidence intervals [95%CIs]) and/or opioid cessation proportion. Secondary outcomes were mean changes in pain severity (reported as standardized mean difference [SMDs]; 95%CIs) and (serious) adverse events. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models.\\nResults: We identified 3,826 records, of which five RCTs (953 participants) and six cohort studies (967 participants) were included. Overall, opioid dosage was significantly reduced in intervention groups compared to controls (MD: -24.88 mg/day, 95%CI: -36.40 to -13.36; I2=59.41%; nine studies). Subgroup analyses revealed significant opioid dose reductions with mindfulness (MD: -29.36 mg/day 95%CI: -40.55 to -18.17; I2=0.0%; two trials) and CBT-based multimodalities (MD: -41.68 mg/day; 95%CI: -58.47 to -24.89; I2=0.0%; two cohort studies), respectively, compared to usual care. No significant differences were observed in opioid cessation (Odds ratio: 1.55, 95%CI: 0.3 to 2.81, I2=50.79%; three studies) or pain severity (SMD: -0.13, 95%CI: -0.37 to 0.11; I2=33.51%; three trials). Adverse events were infrequently examined, with withdrawal symptoms commonly reported.\\nConclusions: The studied interventions were effective in reducing opioid dosage for people with CNCP in primary care. They highlighted the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration. Large-scale RCTs measuring the long-term effects and cost of these interventions are needed before their implementation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501023,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv - Primary Care Research\",\"volume\":\"69 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv - Primary Care Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.13.24304059\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Primary Care Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.13.24304059","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要 目的:本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估慢性非癌性疼痛(CNCP)患者减少阿片类药物使用的干预措施与常规护理或初级护理环境中的积极对照:在这项注册研究(PROSPERO:CRD42022338458)中,我们检索了 MEDLINE、Embase PsycInfo、CINAHL 和 Cochrane 图书馆从开始到 2021 年 12 月 28 日的数据,并在 2023 年 12 月 14 日更新了随机对照试验 (RCT) 和队列研究的数据。对随机对照试验采用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具进行方法学质量评估,对队列研究采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表进行方法学质量评估。主要结果包括吗啡当量日剂量的平均减少量(报告为平均差异[MDs] mg/天;95%置信区间[95%CIs])和/或阿片类药物戒断比例。次要结果是疼痛严重程度的平均变化(报告为标准化平均差异 [SMDs];95% 置信区间 [95%CIs])和(严重)不良事件。采用随机效应模型进行 Meta 分析:我们确定了 3826 项记录,其中包括 5 项 RCT(953 名参与者)和 6 项队列研究(967 名参与者)。总体而言,与对照组相比,干预组的阿片类药物用量明显减少(MD:-24.88 mg/天,95%CI:-36.40 至 -13.36;I2=59.41%;9 项研究)。亚组分析显示,与常规护理相比,正念疗法(MD:-29.36 mg/day 95%CI: -40.55 to -18.17;I2=0.0%;两项试验)和基于 CBT 的多模式疗法(MD:-41.68 mg/day; 95%CI: -58.47 to -24.89;I2=0.0%;两项队列研究)分别显著降低了阿片类药物剂量。在阿片类药物戒断率(Odds ratio:1.55,95%CI:0.3 至 2.81,I2=50.79%;三项研究)或疼痛严重程度(SMD:-0.13,95%CI:-0.37 至 0.11;I2=33.51%;三项试验)方面未观察到明显差异。对不良反应的研究不多,常见的是戒断症状:结论:所研究的干预措施可有效减少初级保健中的中枢神经系统慢性炎症患者的阿片类药物用量。这些研究强调了多学科合作的重要性。在实施这些干预措施之前,需要对其长期效果和成本进行大规模的 RCT 研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Interventions to reduce opioid use for patients with chronic non-cancer pain in primary care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess interventions to reduce opioid use for patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) versus usual care or active controls in primary care settings. Methods: In this registered study (PROSPERO: CRD42022338458), we searched MEDLINE, Embase PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from inception to December 28th 2021, and updated on Dec 14th 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with no restrictions. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and Newcastle Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Primary outcomes included mean reduction in morphine equivalent daily dose (reported as mean differences [MDs] mg/day; 95% confidence intervals [95%CIs]) and/or opioid cessation proportion. Secondary outcomes were mean changes in pain severity (reported as standardized mean difference [SMDs]; 95%CIs) and (serious) adverse events. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models. Results: We identified 3,826 records, of which five RCTs (953 participants) and six cohort studies (967 participants) were included. Overall, opioid dosage was significantly reduced in intervention groups compared to controls (MD: -24.88 mg/day, 95%CI: -36.40 to -13.36; I2=59.41%; nine studies). Subgroup analyses revealed significant opioid dose reductions with mindfulness (MD: -29.36 mg/day 95%CI: -40.55 to -18.17; I2=0.0%; two trials) and CBT-based multimodalities (MD: -41.68 mg/day; 95%CI: -58.47 to -24.89; I2=0.0%; two cohort studies), respectively, compared to usual care. No significant differences were observed in opioid cessation (Odds ratio: 1.55, 95%CI: 0.3 to 2.81, I2=50.79%; three studies) or pain severity (SMD: -0.13, 95%CI: -0.37 to 0.11; I2=33.51%; three trials). Adverse events were infrequently examined, with withdrawal symptoms commonly reported. Conclusions: The studied interventions were effective in reducing opioid dosage for people with CNCP in primary care. They highlighted the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration. Large-scale RCTs measuring the long-term effects and cost of these interventions are needed before their implementation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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