TY - JOUR
T1 - Opioid Reduction Following Interventional Procedures for Chronic Pain
T2 - A Synthesis of the Evidence
AU - Maher, Dermot P.
AU - Cohen, Steven P.
PY - 2017/11/1
Y1 - 2017/11/1
N2 - The past decade has witnessed the tremendous growth of procedures to treat chronic pain, which has resulted in increased third-party scrutiny. Although most of these procedures appear to be associated with significant pain relief, at least in the short and intermediate term, their ability to improve secondary outcome measures, including function and work status is less clear-cut. One of these secondary outcome measures that has garnered substantial interest in the pain and general medical communities is whether interventions can reduce opioid intake, which is associated with significant risks that in most cases outweigh the benefits in the long term. In the article, we examine whether procedural interventions for chronic pain can reduce opioid intake. Most studies that have examined analgesic reduction as a secondary outcome measure have not separated opioid and nonopioid analgesics, and, among those studies that have, few have demonstrated between-group differences. Reasons for failure to demonstrate opioid reduction can be broadly classified into procedural, design-related, clinical, psychosocial, biological, and pharmacological categories, all of which are discussed. In the future, clinical trials in which this outcome is examined should be designed to evaluate this, at least on a preliminary basis.
AB - The past decade has witnessed the tremendous growth of procedures to treat chronic pain, which has resulted in increased third-party scrutiny. Although most of these procedures appear to be associated with significant pain relief, at least in the short and intermediate term, their ability to improve secondary outcome measures, including function and work status is less clear-cut. One of these secondary outcome measures that has garnered substantial interest in the pain and general medical communities is whether interventions can reduce opioid intake, which is associated with significant risks that in most cases outweigh the benefits in the long term. In the article, we examine whether procedural interventions for chronic pain can reduce opioid intake. Most studies that have examined analgesic reduction as a secondary outcome measure have not separated opioid and nonopioid analgesics, and, among those studies that have, few have demonstrated between-group differences. Reasons for failure to demonstrate opioid reduction can be broadly classified into procedural, design-related, clinical, psychosocial, biological, and pharmacological categories, all of which are discussed. In the future, clinical trials in which this outcome is examined should be designed to evaluate this, at least on a preliminary basis.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024494743&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024494743&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002276
DO - 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002276
M3 - Review article
C2 - 28719427
AN - SCOPUS:85024494743
SN - 0003-2999
VL - 125
SP - 1658
EP - 1666
JO - Anesthesia and analgesia
JF - Anesthesia and analgesia
IS - 5
ER -