Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Fármacos antiinflamatorios no esteroideos orales (AINE) para el dolor por cáncer en adultos

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012638.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 12 julio 2017see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Dolor y cuidados paliativos

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Sheena Derry

    Oxford, UK

  • Philip J Wiffen

    Thame, UK

  • R Andrew Moore

    Correspondencia a: Plymouth, UK

    [email protected]

  • Ewan D McNicol

    Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, USA

  • Rae Frances Bell

    Regional Centre of Excellence in Palliative Care, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway

  • Daniel B Carr

    Pain Research, Education and Policy (PREP) Program, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, USA

  • Mairead McIntyre

    West Hoe Surgery, Plymouth, UK

  • Bee Wee

    Nuffield Department of Medicine and Sir Michael Sobell House, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, UK

Contributions of authors

RAM, SD, and PW drafted the protocol, and other authors commented on that draft to produce the final version.

SD and RAM searched for studies, carried out data extraction, and assessed risk of bias. SD, RAM, and PW prepared a draft of the full review, and all authors contributed to the final version.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Oxford Pain Relief Trust, UK.

    General institutional support

External sources

  • The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK.

    NIHR Cochrane Programme Grant: 13/89/29 ‐ Addressing the unmet need of chronic pain: providing the evidence for treatments of pain

Declarations of interest

PW: none known.

SD: none known.

RAM has received grant support from Grünenthal relating to individual patient level analyses of trial data regarding tapentadol in osteoarthritis and back pain (2015). He has received honoraria for attending boards with Menarini concerning methods of analgesic trial design (2014), with Novartis (2014) about the design of network meta‐analyses, and RB on understanding pharmacokinetics of drug uptake (2015). He has received honoraria from Omega Pharma (2016) and Futura Pharma (2016) for providing advice on trial and data analysis methods.

EDM: none known.

RFB: none known; RFB is a specialised pain physician and has managed patients with cancer pain.

DBC: none known; DBC is a specialised pain physician and has managed patients with cancer pain.

MM: none known.

BW: none known. BW is a specialist Palliative Medicine Consultant physician and manages patients with advanced life threatening illnesses, including cancer.

This review was identified in a 2019 audit as not meeting the current definition of the Cochrane Commercial Sponsorship policy. At the time of its publication it was compliant with the interpretation of the existing policy. As with all reviews, new and updated, at update this review will be revised according to 2020 policy update.

Acknowledgements

We thank Ke Deng for timely help with obtaining and screening two Chinese papers (excluded studies).

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.

Institutional support was provided by the Oxford Pain Relief Trust.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2017 Jul 12

Oral nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for cancer pain in adults

Review

Sheena Derry, Philip J Wiffen, R Andrew Moore, Ewan D McNicol, Rae Frances Bell, Daniel B Carr, Mairead McIntyre, Bee Wee

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012638.pub2

2017 Apr 25

Oral nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for cancer pain in adults

Protocol

Sheena Derry, Philip J Wiffen, R Andrew Moore, Ewan D McNicol, Rae F Bell, Daniel B Carr, Mairead McIntyre, Bee Wee

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012638

Differences between protocol and review

Selective reporting bias added to risk of bias.

Notes

A restricted search in January 2019 identified one potentially relevant study [Liu 2017; 342 participants], but we judged the results were unlikely to change the conclusions. Therefore, this review has now been stabilised following discussion with the authors and editors. The review will be re‐assessed for updating in five years. If appropriate, we will update the review before this date if new evidence likely to change the conclusions is published, or if standards change substantially which necessitates major revisions.

Liu et al, Combined application of diclofenac and celecoxib with an opioid yields superior effcacy in metastatic bone cancer pain: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Clin Oncol (2017) 22:980–985. DOI 10.1007/s10147‐017‐1133‐y

Keywords

MeSH

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item for each included study.

NSAID for cancer pain ‐ non‐controlled data

Patient or population: people with cancer pain

Settings: inpatient or outpatient

Intervention: any NSAID, and dose

Comparison: no control ‐ cohort of treated participants

Outcomes

Probable outcome with NSAID

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Participants with at least 30% or at least 50% reduction in pain

No data

No data

Very low

Limited data, several risks of bias

PGIC much or very much improved

No data

No data

Very low

Limited data, several risks of bias

Pain no worse than mild at one or two weeks (or equivalent)

Range of estimates from 260 in 1000 to 510 in 1000

4 studies

415 participants randomised

Very low

Limited data, several risks of bias

Serious adverse events

2 serious adverse events reported

11 studies

949 participants

Very low

Limited data, several risks of bias

Adverse events

Dry mouth 10%

Loss of appetite 4%

Somnolence 9%

Dyspepsia 9%

Variously reported in studies

Very low

Limited data, several risks of bias

Withdrawals

All cause 23%

Lack of efficacy 24%

Adverse event 5%

Variously reported in studies

Very low

Limited data, several risks of bias

Death

22 deaths, not clearly related to treatment

11 studies

949 participants

Very low

Limited data, several risks of bias

Descriptors for levels of evidence (EPOC 2015):
High quality: This research provides a very good indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect will be substantially different is low.
Moderate quality: This research provides a good indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect will be substantially different is moderate.
Low quality: This research provides some indication of the likely effect. However, the likelihood that it will be substantially different is high.
Very low quality: This research does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect will be substantially different is very high.

Substantially different: a large enough difference that it might affect a decision.

Figuras y tablas -