Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Adverse events associated with medium‐ and long‐term use of opioids for chronic non‐cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012509.pub2Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 30 October 2017see what's new
Type:
  1. Overview
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Charl Els

    Department of Psychiatry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

  • Tanya D Jackson

    Department of Medicine, Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

  • Diane Kunyk

    Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

  • Vernon G Lappi

    Department of Medicine, Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

  • Barend Sonnenberg

    Medical Services, Workers' Compensation Board of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

  • Reidar Hagtvedt

    AOIS, Alberta School of Business, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

  • Sangita Sharma

    Indigenous and Global Health Research Group, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

  • Fariba Kolahdooz

    Indigenous and Global Health Research Group, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

  • Sebastian Straube

    Correspondence to: Department of Medicine, Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

Contributions of authors

SSt conceived of the idea. All authors except TJ were involved in writing the protocol. TJ joined the project after the protocol was published. TJ did the searching with the help of the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group. Two authors (of CE, VL, and TJ) screened the abstracts. At least two authors (of CE, TJ, DK, VL, BS, and FK) decided on eligibility of the identified Cochrane Reviews and extracted data. Two authors (CE, TJ) assessed the quality of the evidence, consulting a third author (SSt) where needed to make a majority decision. TJ and SSt performed the analysis; CE, TJ, and SSt drafted the full overview. All authors approved the final version of the overview.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • No sources of support supplied

External sources

  • Workers' Compensation Board of Alberta, Canada.

    We acknowledge funding from the Workers' Compensation Board of Alberta for the project 'Adverse events associated with medium‐ and long‐term use of opioids for chronic non‐cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews'.

Declarations of interest

Charl Els: none known.

Tanya D Jackson: none known; Tanya D Jackson is a clinical psychologist whose practice includes patients with chronic pain.

Diane Kunyk: none known.

Vernon G Lappi: none known; Vernon G Lappi is a specialist occupational medicine physician. His past practice included assessment of patients with chronic pain.

Barend Sonnenberg: none known.

Reidar Hagtvedt: none known.

Sangita Sharma: none known.

Fariba Kolahdooz: none known.

Sebastian Straube's institution (University of Alberta) received fees for his contribution to an advisory board from Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. (2015). Sebastian Straube is a specialist occupational medicine physician and some of the patients he assesses have chronic pain.

Acknowledgements

This overview complements another Cochrane overview entitled 'High‐dose opioids for chronic non‐cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews' (Els 2017). For consistency and following discussion with the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care editorial office, we have utilised text from that overview for the present overview.

Cochrane Review Group funding acknowledgement: the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is the largest single funder of the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group. Disclaimer: the views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR, National Health Service (NHS), or the Department of Health.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2017 Oct 30

Adverse events associated with medium‐ and long‐term use of opioids for chronic non‐cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

Review

Charl Els, Tanya D Jackson, Diane Kunyk, Vernon G Lappi, Barend Sonnenberg, Reidar Hagtvedt, Sangita Sharma, Fariba Kolahdooz, Sebastian Straube

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012509.pub2

2017 Jan 19

Adverse events associated with medium‐ and long‐term use of opioids for chronic non‐cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

Protocol

Charl Els, Diane Kunyk, Vernon G Lappi, Barend Sonnenberg, Reidar Hagtvedt, Sangita Sharma, Fariba Kolahdooz, Sebastian Straube

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012509

Keywords

MeSH

Study selection.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Study selection.

Analysis 1.1: Opioids versus placebo, any adverse event.CI: confidence interval
 df: degrees of freedom
 M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
 P: probability
 Z: Z score (standard score)
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

Analysis 1.1: Opioids versus placebo, any adverse event.

CI: confidence interval
df: degrees of freedom
M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
P: probability
Z: Z score (standard score)

Analysis 1.2: Opioids versus placebo, any serious adverse event.CI: confidence interval
 df: degrees of freedom
 M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
 P: probability
 Z: Z score (standard score)
Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

Analysis 1.2: Opioids versus placebo, any serious adverse event.

CI: confidence interval
df: degrees of freedom
M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
P: probability
Z: Z score (standard score)

Analysis 1.3: Opioids versus placebo, withdrawals due to adverse events.CI: confidence interval
 df: degrees of freedom
 M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
 P: probability
 Z: Z score (standard score)
Figures and Tables -
Figure 4

Analysis 1.3: Opioids versus placebo, withdrawals due to adverse events.

CI: confidence interval
df: degrees of freedom
M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
P: probability
Z: Z score (standard score)

Analysis 2.1: Opioids versus placebo, constipation.CI: confidence interval
 df: degrees of freedom
 M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
 P: probability
 Z: Z score (standard score)
Figures and Tables -
Figure 5

Analysis 2.1: Opioids versus placebo, constipation.

CI: confidence interval
df: degrees of freedom
M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
P: probability
Z: Z score (standard score)

Analysis 2.6: Opioids versus placebo, dizziness.CI: confidence interval
 df: degrees of freedom
 M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
 P: probability
 Z: Z score (standard score)
Figures and Tables -
Figure 6

Analysis 2.6: Opioids versus placebo, dizziness.

CI: confidence interval
df: degrees of freedom
M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
P: probability
Z: Z score (standard score)

Analysis 2.7: Opioids versus placebo, drowsiness.CI: confidence interval
 df: degrees of freedom
 M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
 P: probability
 Z: Z score (standard score)
Figures and Tables -
Figure 7

Analysis 2.7: Opioids versus placebo, drowsiness.

CI: confidence interval
df: degrees of freedom
M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
P: probability
Z: Z score (standard score)

Analysis 2.8: Opioids versus placebo, fatigue.CI: confidence interval
 df: degrees of freedom
 M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
 P: probability
 Z: Z score (standard score)
Figures and Tables -
Figure 8

Analysis 2.8: Opioids versus placebo, fatigue.

CI: confidence interval
df: degrees of freedom
M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
P: probability
Z: Z score (standard score)

Analysis 2.10: Opioids versus placebo, hot flushes.CI: confidence interval
 df: degrees of freedom
 M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
 P: probability
 Z: Z score (standard score)
Figures and Tables -
Figure 9

Analysis 2.10: Opioids versus placebo, hot flushes.

CI: confidence interval
df: degrees of freedom
M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
P: probability
Z: Z score (standard score)

Analysis 2.11: Opioids versus placebo, increased sweating.CI: confidence interval
 df: degrees of freedom
 M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
 P: probability
 Z: Z score (standard score)
Figures and Tables -
Figure 10

Analysis 2.11: Opioids versus placebo, increased sweating.

CI: confidence interval
df: degrees of freedom
M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
P: probability
Z: Z score (standard score)

Analysis 2.12: Opioids versus placebo, nausea.CI: confidence interval
 df: degrees of freedom
 M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
 P: probability
 Z: Z score (standard score)
Figures and Tables -
Figure 11

Analysis 2.12: Opioids versus placebo, nausea.

CI: confidence interval
df: degrees of freedom
M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
P: probability
Z: Z score (standard score)

Analysis 2.13: opioids versus placebo, pruritus.CI: confidence interval
 df: degrees of freedom
 M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
 P: probability
 Z: Z score (standard score)
Figures and Tables -
Figure 12

Analysis 2.13: opioids versus placebo, pruritus.

CI: confidence interval
df: degrees of freedom
M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
P: probability
Z: Z score (standard score)

Analysis 2.15: Opioids versus placebo, vomiting.CI: confidence interval
 df: degrees of freedom
 M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
 P: probability
 Z: Z score (standard score)
Figures and Tables -
Figure 13

Analysis 2.15: Opioids versus placebo, vomiting.

CI: confidence interval
df: degrees of freedom
M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
P: probability
Z: Z score (standard score)

Analysis 3.1: Opioids versus active pharmacological comparator, any adverse event.CI: confidence interval
 df: degrees of freedom
 M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
 P: probability
 Z: Z score (standard score)
Figures and Tables -
Figure 14

Analysis 3.1: Opioids versus active pharmacological comparator, any adverse event.

CI: confidence interval
df: degrees of freedom
M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
P: probability
Z: Z score (standard score)

Analysis 3.2: Opioids versus active pharmacological comparator, any serious adverse event.CI: confidence interval
 df: degrees of freedom
 M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
 P: probability
 Z: Z score (standard score)
Figures and Tables -
Figure 15

Analysis 3.2: Opioids versus active pharmacological comparator, any serious adverse event.

CI: confidence interval
df: degrees of freedom
M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
P: probability
Z: Z score (standard score)

Analysis 3.3: Opioids versus active pharmacological comparator, withdrawals due to adverse events.CI: confidence interval
 df: degrees of freedom
 M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
 P: probability
 Z: Z score (standard score)
Figures and Tables -
Figure 16

Analysis 3.3: Opioids versus active pharmacological comparator, withdrawals due to adverse events.

CI: confidence interval
df: degrees of freedom
M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
P: probability
Z: Z score (standard score)

Analysis 4.1: Opioids versus active non‐pharmacological comparator, any adverse event.CI: confidence interval
 df: degrees of freedom
 M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
 P: probability
 Z: Z score (standard score)
Figures and Tables -
Figure 17

Analysis 4.1: Opioids versus active non‐pharmacological comparator, any adverse event.

CI: confidence interval
df: degrees of freedom
M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis
P: probability
Z: Z score (standard score)

Table 1. Reasons for exclusion

Review

Reason for exclusion

Challapalli 2005

Trials either included cancer pain, did not use opioids, or were not at least 2 weeks in duration.

Duehmke 2006

Did not exclude cancer pain

Gaskell 2014

Review update published as Gaskell 2016.

Moore 2015a

No opioids studied.

Mujakperuo 2010

No opioids studied.

Ramiro 2011

Trials with opioids were less than 2 weeks in duration.

Rubinstein 2012

No opioids studied.

Seidel 2013

Trials with opioids were for acute pain.

Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Reasons for exclusion
Table 2. Number of trials in reviews with quantitative data

Review

Total number of trials

Number of eligible trials

Number of trials also in other reviews

Number of de‐duplicated trials

Cepeda 2006

11

8

0

8

Chaparro 2012

21

5

4

5

Chaparro 2013

15

10

2

9

da Costa 2014

22

19

2

18

Derry 2015

6

1

1

0

Derry 2016

1

1

0

1

Enthoven 2016

13

1

0

1

Gaskell 2016

5

5

4

1

Haroutiunian 2012

3

2

2

2

McNicol 2013

31

13

10

6

Noble 2010

26

6

1

6

Rubinstein 2011

3

1

0

1

Santos 2015

4

4

2

2

Stannard 2016

1

1

0

1

Whittle 2011

11

2

2

2

Totals

173

79

29

63

Figures and Tables -
Table 2. Number of trials in reviews with quantitative data
Table 3. Outcome matrix: opioids versus placebo for reviews contributing quantitative outcomes

Events reported

Cepeda 2006

Chaparro 2012

Chaparro 2013

da Costa 2014

Derry 2016

Gaskell 2016

Haroutiunian 2012

McNicol 2013

Noble 2010

Santos 2015

Stannard 2016

Whittle 2011

Totals

Any adverse event

X

X

X

X

X

X

6

Any serious adverse event

X

X

X

X

X

X

6

Withdrawals due to adverse events

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

10

Deaths

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

9

Anorexia

X

1

Constipation

X

X

X

X

4

Diarrhoea

X

1

Dizziness

X

X

X

X

X

5

Drowsiness or somnolence

X

X

X

X

4

Fatigue

X

1

Gastrointestinal (unspecified)

X

1

Headache

X

1

Hot flushes

X

1

Increased sweating

X

1

Infection

X

X

2

Nausea

X

X

X

X

4

Nervous system (unspecified)

X

1

Pruritus

X

1

Sinusitis

X

1

Vomiting

X

X

X

3

Xerostomia

X

1

An "X" indicates that the outcome was reported (whether or not any participants experienced it).

In Cepeda 2006, "serious adverse events" were defined as adverse events that resulted in withdrawals. These data are therefore included in both categories for the review in question.

Figures and Tables -
Table 3. Outcome matrix: opioids versus placebo for reviews contributing quantitative outcomes
Table 4. Outcome matrix: opioids versus active comparator

Events reported

Cepeda 2006

Chaparro 2012

Enthoven 2016

Haroutiunian 2012

McNicol 2013

Rubinstein 2011

Totals

Any adverse event

X

X

2

Any serious adverse event

X

1

Withdrawals due to adverse events

X

X

X

X

4

Constipation

X

X

2

Dizziness

X

1

Drowsiness or somnolence

X

1

Nausea

X

1

Vomiting

X

1

An "X" indicates that the outcome was reported (whether or not any participants experienced it).

Figures and Tables -
Table 4. Outcome matrix: opioids versus active comparator
Table 5. Characteristics of reviews

Review

Date assessed as up‐to‐date

Condition(s) studied

Participant characteristics

Inclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria

Duration of treatment in eligible studies

Alviar 2011

Oct‐11

Phantom limb pain

Participants of any age with established phantom limb pain

Pharmacologic agents given singly or in combination

Stump/residual limb pain alone, or postamputation pain that was not phantom pain, or phantom pain mixed with other neuropathic pains; pharmacologic interventions aimed at preventing phantom limb pain

10 weeks

(no quantitative data reported on outcomes of interest)

Cepeda 2006

May‐06

Osteoarthritis

Adults with primary or secondary osteoarthritis of the hip or knee

Tramadol or tramadol plus paracetamol used

Other types of arthritis; non‐osteoarthritic joint pain or back pain

14 to 91 days

Chaparro 2012

Apr‐12

Neuropathic pain

Adults with neuropathic pain

Compared combinations of 2 or more drugs against placebo or another comparator

Studies with a neuraxial approach or that included injection therapies, transcutaneous electrical stimulation, or vitamins

5 to 36 weeks

(includes a cross‐over trial of 9 weeks with 4 conditions)

Chaparro 2013

Apr‐13

CLBP

Adults with persistent pain in the low back for at least 12 weeks

Any opioid prescribed in an outpatient setting for 1 month or longer

Participants with cancer, infections, inflammatory arthritic conditions, compression fractures, or studies where less than 50% of participants had CLBP

4 to 15 weeks

da Costa 2014

Aug‐12

Osteoarthritis

Adults with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

Any type of opioid except tramadol

Trials with inflammatory arthritis exclusively or with less than 75% of participants having osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

2 to 30 weeks

Derry 2015

Jan‐15

Neuropathic pain

Adults with a chronic neuropathic pain condition

Nortriptyline at any dose, by any route, compared to placebo or any active comparator

Nortriptyline given in combination with other drugs, without separate reporting

28 weeks

(no unique data was reported)

Derry 2016

Jun‐16

Neuropathic pain

Adults with postherpetic neuralgia, complex regional pain syndrome, or chronic postoperative pain

Fentanyl at any dose, by any route

Treatment of < 2 weeks

94 to 113 days

Enthoven 2016

Jun‐15

CLBP

Adults with non‐specific CLBP for at least 12 weeks

1 or more types of NSAIDs used

Trials of NSAIDs no longer available on the market; participants with sciatica or with specific low back pain caused by pathological entities, e.g. infection, neoplasm, metastases, osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis, or fractures

6 weeks

Gaskell 2016

Dec‐15

Chronic neuropathic pain

Adults with painful diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia

Any dose or formulation of oxycodone

Fewer than 10 participants per treatment arm, or less than 2 weeks of treatment

12 weeks

Haroutiunian 2012

Apr‐12

CNCP

Adults having any type of CNCP

Methadone by any route in randomised or quasi‐randomised studies

Studies with fewer than 10 participants

40 to 119 days

McNicol 2013

Aug‐13

Neuropathic pain

Adults with central or peripheral neuropathic pain of any aetiology

Opioid agonists used in an RCT

Partial opioid agonists or agonist‐antagonists used

6 to 16 weeks (includes a 6‐ and 8‐week cross‐over trial with 2 conditions)

Noble 2010

May‐09

CNCP

Adults with chronic pain for at least 3 months

Treament for at least 6 months

Fewer than 10 participants

2 weeks to 13 months

Rubinstein 2011

Dec‐09

CLBP

Adults with CLBP, with or without radiating pain

Mean duration of CLBP > 12 weeks

Single‐treatment studies; studies examining specific pathologies (e.g. sciatica)

6 weeks

Santos 2015

Mar‐14

CNCP

Adults with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip, CLBP

Tapentadol ER in doses of 100 to 500 mg/day

Pain for less than 3 months or that was not moderate to severe

15 to 52 weeks

Stannard 2016

Nov‐15

Neuropathic pain

Adults with 1 or more chronic neuropathic pain conditions

Hydromorphone at any dose, by any route

Treatment of < 2 weeks

14 to 16 weeks

Whittle 2011

May‐10

Rheumatoid arthritis pain

Adults with rheumatoid arthritis

Opioids of any formulation at any dose, by any route

Studies of opioid therapy for rheumatoid arthritis in the immediate postoperative setting

6 to 10 weeks

CLBP: chronic low back pain
CNCP: chronic non‐cancer pain
NSAIDs: non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs
RCT: randomised controlled trial
Tapentadol ER: tapentadol extended‐release

Figures and Tables -
Table 5. Characteristics of reviews
Table 6. Opioids in included reviews reporting unique quantitative data

Drug

Formulations

Dosing Schedule

Dose (lowest)

Dose (highest)

MEq (lowest)

MEq (highest)

Cepeda 2006

Chaparro 2012

Chaparro 2013

da Costa 2014

Derry 2016

Enthoven 2016

Gaskell 2016

Haroutiunian 2012

McNicol 2013

Noble 2010

Rubinstein 2011

Santos 2015

Stannard 2016

Whittle 2011

Buprenorphine

Transdermal patch (µg/h)

5 µg/h

40 µg/h

12

96

X

X

Codeine

Contin

Twice a day, 3 times a day

32

200

4.8

30

X

X

Dextropropoxyphene

3 times a day

300

30

X

Dihydrocodeine

LA

Every 12 hours

30

240

3

24

X

X

Fentanyl

Transdermal patch (µg/h)

12.5 µg/h

250 µg/h

45

944

X

X

X

Hydromorphone

ER, OROS

Once a day

4

64

16

256

X

X

Levorphanol

3 times a day

0.45

15.75

4.95

173.5

X

Methadone

Twice a day

5

80

15

240

X

X

Morphine

Avinza, Contin, CR, ER, LA, SR

Twice a day, once a day, every 12 hours, as needed

15

300

15

300

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Oxycodone

CR, ER, LA, MR, PR, immediate‐release, liquid

Twice a day, 3 times a day to 6 times a day

10

160

15

240

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Oxycodone and naloxone

PR

X

Oxycodone and naltrexone

4 times a day

10

40

15

60

X

Oxymorphone

ER

Twice a day, every 12 hours

10

140

30

420

X

X

Tapentadol

ER, immediate‐release

Twice a day, 3 times a day to 6 times a day

100

500

40

200

X

X

X

Tilidine and naloxone

4

12

10

30

X

Tramadol

ER, LP, Retard

Twice a day, as needed, 3 times a day, 4 times a day, once a day, every 12 hours

37.5

400

3.75

40

X

X

X

X

X

Dose is given in milligrams, except for transdermal opioids, which are given in micrograms.

CR: controlled‐release
ER: extended‐release
LA: long‐acting
LP: sustained‐release (libération prolongée)
MEq: the equivalent number of milligrams of morphine per 24‐hour period
MR: modified‐release
OROS: extended‐release (registered trademark)

PR: Prolonged release
Retard: prolonged‐release
SR: sustained‐release

Figures and Tables -
Table 6. Opioids in included reviews reporting unique quantitative data
Table 7. Opioid dose conversions

Opioid

Source

Equivalent dose of oral morphine, in mg, per 1 mg of the converted opioid

Buprenorphine (transdermal)

EMRPCC 2016

100

Codeine

OARRS 2016

0.15

Dextropropoxyphene

Van Griensven

0.1

Dihydrocodeine

NHS Wales

0.1

Fentanyl (transdermal)

Fentanyl monograph 2017

158*

Hydromorphone

OARRS 2016

4

Levorphanol

University of Alberta 2017

7.5

Methadone

OARRS 2016

3

Oxycodone

OARRS 2016

1.5

Oxymorphone

OARRS 2016

3

Tapentadol

OARRS 2016

0.4

Tilidine

Radbruch 2013

0.2

Tramadol

OARRS 2016

0.1

Transdermally delivered opioid doses (buprenorphine and fentanyl) are usually expressed as an hourly rate of delivery, but were converted to the dose per 24 hours before being converted into morphine equivalents.

*Calculated as the mean conversion factor from data in Fentanyl monograph 2017.

Figures and Tables -
Table 7. Opioid dose conversions
Table 8. Any adverse event with opioids (from studies with or without comparators)

Review

Events

Total

Event rate (%)

Average

95% CI

Cepeda 2006

481

1613

29.8

27.6 to 32.1

da Costa 2014

2145

2725

78.7

77.2 to 80.3

Enthoven 2016

454

785

57.8

54.4 to 61.3

Gaskell 2016

40

48

83.3

72.8 to 93.9

Rubinstein 2011

1

17

5.9

‐5.3 to 17.1

Santos 2015

766

894

85.7

83.4 to 88

Stannard 2016

21

43

48.8

33.9 to 63.8

Total events

3908

6622

59.0

57.8 to 60.2

CI: confidence interval

Figures and Tables -
Table 8. Any adverse event with opioids (from studies with or without comparators)
Table 9. Any serious adverse event with opioids (from studies with or without comparators)

Review

Events

Total

Event rate (%)

Average

95% CI

Cepeda 2006

196

899

21.8

19.1 to 24.5

da Costa 2014

9

355

2.5

0.9 to 4.2

Gaskell 2016

4

48

8.3

0.5 to 16.2

Santos 2015

73

1767

4.1

3.2 to 5.1

Stannard 2016

6

134

4.5

1 to 8

Total events

288

3203

9.0

8 to 10

CI: confidence interval

Figures and Tables -
Table 9. Any serious adverse event with opioids (from studies with or without comparators)
Table 10. Withdrawals due to adverse events with opioids (from studies with or without comparators)

Review

Events

Total

Event rate (%)

Average

95% CI

Cepeda 2006

196

899

21.8

19.1 to 24.5

Chaparro 2012

63

526

12.0

9.2 to 14.8

da Costa 2014

1169

4398

26.6

25.3 to 27.9

Enthoven 2016

132

785

16.8

14.2 to 19.5

Gaskell 2016

3

48

6.3

0 to 13.1

Haroutiunian 2012

11

90

12.2

5.5 to 19

McNicol 2013

19

177

10.7

6.2 to 15.3

Noble 2010

620

1830

33.9

31.7 to 36.1

Santos 2015

480

1770

27.1

24.9 to 29.3

Stannard 2016

3

43

7.0

7 to 7

Whittle 2011

3

11

27.3

27.3 to 27.3

Total events

2699

10,577

25.5

25.5 to 25.5

Figures and Tables -
Table 10. Withdrawals due to adverse events with opioids (from studies with or without comparators)
Table 11. Results of AMSTAR quality assessment

AMSTAR criteria

Alviar 2011

Cepeda 2006

Chaparro 2012

Chaparro 2013

da Costa 2014

Derry 2015

Derry 2016

Enthoven 2016

Gaskell 2016

Haroutiunian 2012

McNicol 2013

Noble 2010

Rubinstein 2011

Santos 2015

Stannard 2016

Whittle 2011

1. A priori design

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2. Duplicate selection and extraction

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3. Comprehensive literature search

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

4. Published and unpublished, no language restrictions

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

5. List of studies provided

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

6. Characteristics of studies provided

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

7. Scientific quality assessed

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8. Scientific quality used in formulating conclusions

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

9. Methods used to combine appropriate

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

10. Conflict of interest stated

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Total score/10

10

10

9

9

10

10

10

9

10

10

9

9

10

10

10

10

AMSTAR: Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews

Figures and Tables -
Table 11. Results of AMSTAR quality assessment
Table 12. GRADE quality judgement: opioids versus placebo

Participants

(reviews)

Risk of bias

Inconsistency

Indirectness

Imprecision

Other considerations

Overall quality of evidence

Any adverse event

1583
(1 review)

Serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

+++◯
MODERATE

Any serious adverse event

108
(1 review)

Serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

+++◯

MODERATE

Withdrawals due to adverse events

2375
(4 reviews)

Serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

+++◯
MODERATE

Figures and Tables -
Table 12. GRADE quality judgement: opioids versus placebo
Table 13. GRADE quality judgement: opioids versus placebo, specific adverse events

Participants

(reviews)

Risk of bias

Inconsistency

Indirectness

Imprecision

Other considerations

Overall quality of evidence

Constipation

4255

(4 reviews)

Serious

Not serious

Serious

Not serious

Strong association

+++◯
MODERATE

Dizziness

4130

(4 reviews)

Serious

Not serious

Serious

Not serious

Strong association

+++◯
MODERATE

Drowsiness or somnolence

3856

(3 reviews)

Serious

Not serious

Serious

Not serious

Strong association

+++◯
MODERATE

Fatigue

1589

(1 review)

Serious

Not serious

Very serious

Not serious

None

+◯◯◯
VERY LOW

Hot flushes

593

(1 review)

Serious

Not serious

Very serious

Not serious

None

+◯◯◯
VERY LOW

Increased sweating

1350

(1 review)

Serious

Not serious

Very serious

Not serious

Very strong association

+++◯
MODERATE

Nausea

4346

(3 reviews)

Serious

Not serious

Serious

Not serious

Strong association

+++◯
MODERATE

Pruritus

2865

(1 review)

Serious

Not serious

Very serious

Not serious

None

+◯◯◯
VERY LOW

Vomiting

3368

(2 reviews)

Serious

Not serious

Very serious

Not serious

Strong association

++◯◯
LOW

Figures and Tables -
Table 13. GRADE quality judgement: opioids versus placebo, specific adverse events
Table 14. GRADE quality judgement: opioids versus active pharmacological comparator

Participants

(reviews)

Risk of bias

Inconsistency

Indirectness

Imprecision

Other considerations

Overall quality of evidence

Any adverse event

1583
(1 review)

Serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

+++◯
MODERATE

Any serious adverse event

108
(1 review)

Serious

Not serious

Not serious

Very serious

None

+◯◯◯
VERY LOW

Withdrawals due to adverse events

2375
(4 reviews)

Serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

+++◯
MODERATE

Figures and Tables -
Table 14. GRADE quality judgement: opioids versus active pharmacological comparator
Table 15. GRADE quality judgement: opioids versus non‐pharmacological intervention

Participants

(reviews)

Risk of bias

Inconsistency

Indirectness

Imprecision

Other considerations

Overall quality of evidence

Any adverse event

32

(1 review)

Very serious

Not serious

Not serious

Not serious

None

+◯◯◯
VERY LOW

Figures and Tables -
Table 15. GRADE quality judgement: opioids versus non‐pharmacological intervention
Table 16. Opioids versus placebo: risk ratio and number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for generic adverse events

Adverse event

Studies

Participants

Statistical method

Risk ratio

NNTH

Any adverse event

6

5004

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.42 (1.22, 1.66)

4.20 (3.78, 4.74)

Any serious adverse event

6

4324

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.75 (2.06, 3.67)

28.71 (20.50, 47.88)

Withdrawals due to adverse events

10

11,510

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.40 (3.02, 3.82)

5.55 (5.19, 5.97)

CI: confidence interval
M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis

Figures and Tables -
Table 16. Opioids versus placebo: risk ratio and number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for generic adverse events
Table 17. Absolute event rates: opioids versus placebo

Opioid

Placebo

Number of participants

Event rate (%)

Number of participants

Event rate (%)

Analysis

Adverse event

With AE

Total

Average

95% CI

With AE

Total

Average

95% CI

1.1

Any adverse event

2436

3113

78.3

76.8 to 79.7

1030

1891

54.5

52.2 to 56.7

1.2

Any serious adverse event

216

2893

7.5

6.5 to 8.4

57

1431

4.0

3 to 5

1.3

Withdrawals due to adverse events

1836

7316

25.1

24.1 to 26.1

297

4194

7.1

6.3 to 7.9

2.1

Constipation

285

2513

11.3

10.1 to 12.6

94

1742

5.4

4.3 to 6.5

2.6

Dizziness

284

2448

11.6

10.3 to 12.9

71

1682

4.2

3.3 to 5.2

2.7

Drowsiness or somnolence

237

2313

10.3

9 to 11.5

57

1543

3.7

2.8 to 4.6

2.8

Fatigue

57

796

7.2

5.4 to 8.9

29

793

3.7

2.4 to 5

2.10

Hot flushes

14

295

4.8

2.3 to 7.2

5

298

1.7

0.2 to 3.1

2.11

Increased sweating

32

674

4.7

3.1 to 6.3

2

676

0.3

0.0 to 0.7

2.12

Nausea

535

2556

20.9

20.9 to 20.9

151

1790

8.4

8.4 to 8.4

2.13

Pruritus

155

1809

8.6

8.6 to 8.6

52

1056

4.9

4.9 to 4.9

2.15

Vomiting

184

2058

8.9

8.9 to 8.9

28

1310

2.1

2.1 to 2.1

AE: adverse event
CI: confidence interval

Figures and Tables -
Table 17. Absolute event rates: opioids versus placebo
Table 18. Opioids versus placebo: risk ratio and number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for specific adverse events

Adverse event

Studies

Participants

Statistical method

Risk ratio

NNTH

Anorexia

1

330

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

13.64 (0.77, 240.21)

Constipation

4

4255

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.23 (1.39, 3.59)

16.82 (13.20, 23.19)

Diarrhoea

1

313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.55 (0.69, 9.43)

Dizziness

4

4130

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.76 (2.15, 3.55)

13.55 (11.15, 17.28)

Drowsiness, sleepiness, somnolence, or anergia

3

3856

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.89 (2.19, 3.83)

15.26 (12.34, 20.00)

Fatigue

1

1589

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.96 (1.27, 3.03)

28.54 (17.48, 77.71)

Gastrointestinal (unspecified)

1

98

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.77 (0.90, 3.47)

Headache

1

313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 (0.33, 1.84)

Hot flushes

1

593

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.83 (1.03, 7.75)

32.60 (16.95, 421.76)

Increased sweating

1

1350

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

16.05 (3.86, 66.69)

22.46 (16.37, 35.78)

Infection

2

631

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 (0.47, 1.61)

Nausea

3

4346

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.46 (2.08, 2.92)

8.00 (6.88, 9.56)

Nervous system disorders (unspecified)

1

98

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.50 (0.95, 6.56)

Pruritus

1

2865

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.74 (1.28, 2.36)

27.44 (18.25, 55.27)

Sinusitis

1

318

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.56 (0.52, 4.67)

Vomiting

2

3368

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.29 (2.90, 6.34)

14.70 (12.10, 18.72)

Xerostomia

1

1668

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.10 (0.47, 2.57)

CI: confidence interval
M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis

Figures and Tables -
Table 18. Opioids versus placebo: risk ratio and number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for specific adverse events
Table 19. Active comparators in included reviews

Drug

Total dose per day

Dosing schedule

Cepeda 2006

Chaparro 2012

Enthoven 2016

Haroutiunian 2012

Celecoxib

400 mg

X

Desipramine

10 to 160 mg

X

Diclofenac

25 to 150 mg

Up to 3 times a day

X

Gabapentin

1200 to 3600 mg

3 times a day

X

Lorazepam

0.7 to 1.6 mg

Twice a day and 3 times a day

X

Naproxen

250 to 1000 mg

X

Nortriptyline

10 to 160 mg

Twice a day

X

X

An "X" indicates that the drug was used as an active comparator to opioids in the review.

Rubinstein 2011 used a non‐pharmacological comparator (spinal manipulative therapy).

Figures and Tables -
Table 19. Active comparators in included reviews
Table 20. Absolute event rates: opioids versus active pharmacological comparator

Opioid

Active comparator

Number of participants

Event rate (%)

Number of participants

Event rate (%)

Analysis

Adverse event

With AE

Total

Average

95% CI

With AE

Total

Average

95% CI

1.1

Any adverse event

454

785

57.8

54.4 to 61.3

381

798

47.7

44.3 to 51.2

1.2

Any serious adverse event

5

54

9.3

1.5 to 17

1

54

1.9

0 to 5.4

1.3

Withdrawals due to adverse events

185

1201

15.4

13.4 to 17.4

56

1174

4.8

3.6 to 6

AE: adverse event
CI: confidence interval

Figures and Tables -
Table 20. Absolute event rates: opioids versus active pharmacological comparator
Table 21. Opioids versus active pharmacological comparator: risk ratio and number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for generic adverse events

Adverse event

Studies

Participants

Statistical method

Risk ratio

NNTH

Any adverse event

1

1583

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.21 (1.10, 1.33)

9.91 (6.67, 19.24)

Any serious adverse event

1

108

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.00 (0.60, 41.39)

Withdrawals due to adverse events

4

2375

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.23 (2.42, 4.30)

9.40 (7.69, 12.11)

CI: confidence interval
M‐H: Mantel‐Haenszel method of meta‐analysis

Figures and Tables -
Table 21. Opioids versus active pharmacological comparator: risk ratio and number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for generic adverse events
Table 22. Absolute event rates: opioids versus active non‐pharmacological comparator

Opioid

Active comparator

Number of participants

Event rate (%)

Number of participants

Event rate (%)

Analysis

Adverse event

With AE

Total

Average

95% CI

With AE

Total

Average

95% CI

1.1

Any adverse event

1

17

5.8

0 to 17.1

0

15

0

0 to 0

AE: adverse event
CI: confidence interval

Figures and Tables -
Table 22. Absolute event rates: opioids versus active non‐pharmacological comparator