The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.

/pdf/cochrane-handbook-for-systematic-reviews-of-interventions-1xbdy6uvru.pdf

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

BACKGROUND: Somatoform disorders are characterised by chronic, medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS). Although different medications are part of treatment routines for people with somatoform disorders in clinics and private practices, there exists no systematic review or meta-analysis on the efficacy and tolerability of these medications. We aimed to synthesise to improve optimal treatment decisions.OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders (specifically somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, and pain disorder) in adults.SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) (to 17 January 2014). This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from The Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). To identify ongoing trials, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials metaRegister, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry. For grey literature, we searched ProQuest Dissertation {\&} Theses Database, OpenGrey, and BIOSIS Previews. We handsearched conference proceedings and reference lists of potentially relevant papers and systematic reviews and contacted experts in the field.SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected RCTs or cluster RCTs of pharmacological interventions versus placebo, treatment as usual, another medication, or a combination of different medications for somatoform disorders in adults. We included people fulfilling standardised diagnostic criteria for somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, or somatoform pain disorder.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author and one research assistant independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes included the severity of MUPS on a continuous measure, and acceptability of treatment.MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 RCTs (33 reports), with 2159 participants, in the review. They examined the efficacy of different types of antidepressants, the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic, antipsychotics alone, or natural products (NPs). The duration of the studies ranged between two and 12 weeks.One meta-analysis of placebo-controlled studies showed no clear evidence of a significant difference between tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and placebo for the outcome severity of MUPS (SMD -0.13; 95{\%} CI -0.39 to 0.13; 2 studies, 239 participants; I(2) = 2{\%}; low-quality evidence). For new-generation antidepressants (NGAs), there was very low-quality evidence showing they were effective in reducing the severity of MUPS (SMD -0.91; 95{\%} CI -1.36 to -0.46; 3 studies, 243 participants; I(2) = 63{\%}). For NPs there was low-quality evidence that they were effective in reducing the severity of MUPS (SMD -0.74; 95{\%} CI -0.97 to -0.51; 2 studies, 322 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}).One meta-analysis showed no clear evidence of a difference between TCAs and NGAs for severity of MUPS (SMD -0.16; 95{\%} CI -0.55 to 0.23; 3 studies, 177 participants; I(2) = 42{\%}; low-quality evidence). There was also no difference between NGAs and other NGAs for severity of MUPS (SMD -0.16; 95{\%} CI -0.45 to 0.14; 4 studies, 182 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}).Finally, one meta-analysis comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) with a combination of SSRIs and antipsychotics showed low-quality evidence in favour of combined treatment for severity of MUPS (SMD 0.77; 95{\%} CI 0.32 to 1.22; 2 studies, 107 participants; I(2) = 23{\%}).Differences regarding the acceptability of the treatment (rate of all-cause drop-outs) were neither found between NGAs and placebo (RR 1.01, 95{\%} CI 0.64 to 1.61; 2 studies, 163 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}; low-quality evidence) or NPs and placebo (RR 0.85, 95{\%} CI 0.40 to 1.78; 3 studies, 506 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}; low-quality evidence); nor between TCAs and other medication (RR 1.48, 95{\%} CI 0.59 to 3.72; 8 studies, 556 participants; I(2) =14{\%}; low-quality evidence); nor between antidepressants and the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic (RR 0.80, 95{\%} CI 0.25 to 2.52; 2 studies, 118 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}; low-quality evidence). Percental attrition rates due to adverse effects were high in all antidepressant treatments (0{\%} to 32{\%}), but low for NPs (0{\%} to 1.7{\%}).The risk of bias was high in many domains across studies. Seventeen trials (65.4{\%}) gave no information about random sequence generation and only two (7.7{\%}) provided information about allocation concealment. Eighteen studies (69.2{\%}) revealed a high or unclear risk in blinding participants and study personnel; 23 studies had high risk of bias relating to blinding assessors. For the comparison NGA versus placebo, there was relatively high imprecision and heterogeneity due to one outlier study. Although we identified 26 studies, each comparison only contained a few studies and small numbers of participants so the results were imprecise.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current review found very low-quality evidence for NGAs and low-quality evidence for NPs being effective in treating somatoform symptoms in adults when compared with placebo. There was some evidence that different classes of antidepressants did not differ in efficacy; however, this was limited and of low to very low quality. These results had serious shortcomings such as the high risk of bias, strong heterogeneity in the data, and small sample sizes. Furthermore, the significant effects of antidepressant treatment have to be balanced against the relatively high rates of adverse effects. Adverse effects produced by medication can have amplifying effects on symptom perceptions, particularly in people focusing on somatic symptoms without medical causes. We can only draw conclusions about short-term efficacy of the pharmacological interventions because no trial included follow-up assessments. For each of the comparisons where there were available data on acceptability rates (NGAs versus placebo, NPs versus placebo, TCAs versus other medication, and antidepressants versus a combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic), no clear differences between the intervention and comparator were found.Future high-quality research should be carried out to determine the effectiveness of medications other than antidepressants, to compare antidepressants more thoroughly, and to follow-up participants over longer periods (the longest follow up was just 12 weeks). Another idea for future research would be to include other outcomes such as functional impairment or dysfunctional behaviours and cognitions as well as the classical outcomes such as symptom severity, depression, or anxiety.

Pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders in adults.

admission. This proportion could already be greater in some parts of the country and may increase if referrals of cases of self-poisoning increase faster than the facilities for their assessment and management. The provision of social work and psychiatric expertise in casualty departments may be one means of preventing unnecessary medical admissions without risk to the patients. Dr Blake's and Dr Bramble's figures do not demonstrate, however, that any advantage would attach to medical teams taking over assessment from psychiatrists except that, by implication, assessments would be completed sooner by staff working on the ward full time. What the figures actually suggest is that if assessment of overdoses were left to house doctors there would be an increase in admissions to psychiatric units (by 19°U), outpatients (by 5O°'), and referrals to social services (by 140o). So for house doctors to assess overdoses would provide no economy for the psychiatric or social services. The study does not tell us what the consequences would have been for the six patients who the psychiatrists would have admitted but to whom the house doctors would have offered outpatient appointments. E J SALTER

Vitamin D deficiency.

Importance Primary care clinicians find managing chronic pain challenging. Evidence of long-term efficacy of opioids for chronic pain is limited. Opioid use is associated with serious risks, including opioid use disorder and overdose. Objective To provide recommendations about opioid prescribing for primary care clinicians treating adult patients with chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care. Process The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated a 2014 systematic review on effectiveness and risks of opioids and conducted a supplemental review on benefits and harms, values and preferences, and costs. CDC used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess evidence type and determine the recommendation category. Evidence Synthesis Evidence consisted of observational studies or randomized clinical trials with notable limitations, characterized as low quality using GRADE methodology. Meta-analysis was not attempted due to the limited number of studies, variability in study designs and clinical heterogeneity, and methodological shortcomings of studies. No study evaluated long-term (≥1 year) benefit of opioids for chronic pain. Opioids were associated with increased risks, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death, with dose-dependent effects. Recommendations There are 12 recommendations. Of primary importance, nonopioid therapy is preferred for treatment of chronic pain. Opioids should be used only when benefits for pain and function are expected to outweigh risks. Before starting opioids, clinicians should establish treatment goals with patients and consider how opioids will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks. When opioids are used, clinicians should prescribe the lowest effective dosage, carefully reassess benefits and risks when considering increasing dosage to 50 morphine milligram equivalents or more per day, and avoid concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines whenever possible. Clinicians should evaluate benefits and harms of continued opioid therapy with patients every 3 months or more frequently and review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, for high-risk combinations or dosages. For patients with opioid use disorder, clinicians should offer or arrange evidence-based treatment, such as medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine or methadone. Conclusions and Relevance The guideline is intended to improve communication about benefits and risks of opioids for chronic pain, improve safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce risks associated with long-term opioid therapy.

/pdf/cdc-guideline-for-prescribing-opioids-for-chronic-pain-j4r6nt5nmj.pdf

CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain—United States, 2016

/pdf/cdc-guideline-for-prescribing-opioids-for-chronic-pain-48d7kdjqlr.pdf

CDC guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain

Objectives: To assess the incidence of gastrointestinal haemorrhage associated with long term aspirin therapy and to determine the effect of dose reduction and formulation on the incidence of such haemorrhage. Design: Meta-analysis of 24 randomised controlled trials (almost 66 000 participants). Intervention: Aspirin compared with placebo or no treatment, for a minimum of one year. Main outcome measures: Incidence of gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Results: Gastrointestinal haemorrhage occurred in 2.47% of patients taking aspirin compared with 1.42% taking placebo (odds ratio 1.68; 95% confidence interval 1.51 to 1.88); the number needed to harm was 106 (82 to 140) based on an average of 28 months9 therapy. At doses below 163 mg/day, gastrointestinal haemorrhage occurred in 2.30% of patients taking aspirin compared with 1.45% taking placebo (1.59; 1.40 to 1.81). Meta-regression showed no relation between gastrointestinal haemorrhage and dose. For modified release formulations of aspirin the odds ratio was 1.93 (1.15 to 3.23). Conclusions: Long term therapy with aspirin is associated with a significant increase in the incidence of gastrointestinal haemorrhage. No evidence exists that reducing the dose or using modified release formulations would reduce the incidence of gastrointestinal haemorrhage.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/321/7270/1183.full.pdf

Risk of gastrointestinal haemorrhage with long term use of aspirin: meta-analysis.

Background
Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s. Pregabalin is a recently developed antiepileptic drug also used in management of chronic neuropathic pain conditions.

Objectives
To assess analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of pregabalin in acute and chronic pain.

Search methods
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL to May 2009 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Additional studies were identified from the reference lists of retrieved papers and on-line clinical trial databases.

Selection criteria
Randomised, double blind trials reporting on the analgesic effect of pregabalin, with subjective pain assessment by the patient as either the primary or a secondary outcome.

Data collection and analysis
Two independent review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality. Numbers-needed-to-treat-to-benefit (NNTs) were calculated, where possible, from dichotomous data for effectiveness, adverse events and study withdrawals.

Main results
There was no clear evidence of beneficial effects of pregabalin in established acute postoperative pain. No studies evaluated pregabalin in chronic nociceptive pain, like arthritis.

Pregabalin at doses of 300 mg, 450 mg, and 600 mg daily was effective in patients with postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy, central neuropathic pain, and fibromyalgia (19 studies, 7003 participants). Pregabalin at 150 mg daily was generally ineffective. Efficacy was demonstrated for dichotomous outcomes equating to moderate or substantial pain relief, alongside lower rates for lack of efficacy discontinuations with increasing dose. The best (lowest) NNT for each condition for at least 50% pain relief over baseline (substantial benefit) for 600 mg pregabalin daily compared with placebo were 3.9 (95% confidence interval 3.1 to 5.1) for postherpetic neuralgia, 5.0 (4.0 to 6.6) for painful diabetic neuropathy, 5.6 (3.5 to 14) for central neuropathic pain, and 11 (7.1 to 21) for fibromyalgia.

With 600 mg pregabalin daily somnolence typically occurred in 15% to 25% and dizziness occurred in 27% to 46%. Treatment was discontinued due to adverse events in 18 to 28%. The proportion of participants reporting at least one adverse event was not affected by dose, nor was the number with a serious adverse event, which was not more than with placebo.

Higher rates of substantial benefit were found in postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy than in central neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia. For moderate and substantial benefit on any outcome NNTs for the former were generally six and below for 300 mg and 600 mg daily; for fibromyalgia NNTs were much higher, and generally seven and above.

Authors' conclusions
Pregabalin has proven efficacy in neuropathic pain conditions and fibromyalgia. A minority of patients will have substantial benefit with pregabalin, and more will have moderate benefit. Many will have no or trivial benefit, or will discontinue because of adverse events. Individualisation of treatment is needed to maximise pain relief and minimise adverse events. There is no evidence to support the use of pregabalin in acute pain scenarios.

/pdf/pregabalin-for-acute-and-chronic-pain-in-adults-4lh2hi3fwr.pdf

Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults

Neuropathic pain is pain coming from damaged nerves. It differs from pain messages carried along healthy nerves from damaged tissue (a fall, cut, or arthritic knee). Neuropathic pain is treated by different medicines than pain from damaged tissue. Medicines like paracetamol or ibuprofen are not effective in neuropathic pain, while medicines that are sometimes used to treat depression or epilepsy can be very effective in some people with neuropathic pain. Our understanding of fibromyalgia (a condition of persistent, widespread pain and tenderness, sleep problems, and fatigue) is poor, but fibromyalgia can respond to the same medicines as neuropathic pain.
Gabapentin was developed to treat epilepsy, but it is now used to treat various forms of chronic pain. On 17 March 2014 we performed searches to look for clinical trials where gabapentin was used to treat neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. We found that 5633 participants had been involved in 37 studies of reasonable quality. They tested gabapentin against placebo for four weeks or more. Studies lasting only one or two weeks are unhelpful when pain can last for years.
Only two conditions had useful amounts of data - postherpetic neuralgia (chronic pain following shingles) and painful diabetic neuropathy (where nerves are damaged in diabetes). Gabapentin helped 3 or 4 people in 10 by reducing their pain by at least half, while with placebo only 2 in 10 had this result.
With gabapentin 6 people in 10 can expect to have some adverse events, including dizziness (2 in 10), somnolence (1 or 2 in 10), peripheral oedema (1 in 10), and gait disturbance (1 in 10). Serious adverse events (1 in 33) were no more common than with placebo. One person in 10 withdrew because of adverse events. Persons taking gabapentin can expect to have at least one adverse event (6 in 10), or stop taking gabapentin because of an adverse event (about 1 in 10).
Gabapentin is helpful for some people with chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. It is not possible to know beforehand who will benefit and who will not. Current knowledge suggests that a short trial is the best way of telling.

/pdf/gabapentin-for-chronic-neuropathic-pain-and-fibromyalgia-in-uf3avo3n9y.pdf

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

Objective To determine the efficacy and safety of topically applied capsaicin for chronic pain from neuropathic or musculoskeletal disorders. Data sources Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, PubMed, an in-house database, and contact with manufacturers of topical capsaicin. Study selection Randomised controlled trials comparing topically applied capsaicin with placebo or another treatment in adults with chronic pain. Data extraction Primary outcome was dichotomous information for the number of patients with about a 50% reduction in pain. Outcomes were extracted at four weeks for musculoskeletal conditions and eight weeks for neuropathic conditions. Secondary outcomes were adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. Data synthesis Six double blind placebo controlled trials (656 patients) were pooled for analysis of neuropathic conditions. The relative benefit from topical capsaicin 0.075% compared with placebo was 1.4 (95% confidence interval 1.2 to 1.7) and the number needed to treat was 5.7 (4.0 to 10.0). Three double blind placebo controlled trials (368 patients) were pooled for analysis of musculoskeletal conditions. The relative benefit from topical capsaicin 0.025% or plaster compared with placebo was 1.5 (1.1 to 2.0) and the number needed to treat was 8.1 (4.6 to 34). Around one third of patients experienced local adverse events with capsaicin, which would not have been the case with placebo. Conclusions Although topically applied capsaicin has moderate to poor efficacy in the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal or neuropathic pain, it may be useful as an adjunct or sole therapy for a small number of patients who are unresponsive to, or intolerant of, other treatments.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/328/7446/991.full.pdf

Systematic review of topical capsaicin for the treatment of chronic pain

Background
Topical creams with capsaicin are used to treat peripheral neuropathic pain. Following application to the skin capsaicin causes enhanced sensitivity, followed by a period with reduced sensitivity and, after repeated applications, persistent desensitisation. High-concentration (8%) capsaicin patches were developed to increase the amount of capsaicin delivered; rapid delivery was thought to improve tolerability because cutaneous nociceptors are 'defunctionalised' quickly. The single application avoids noncompliance. Only the 8% patch formulation of capsaicin is available, with a capsaicin concentration about 100 times greater than conventional creams.

High-concentration topical capsaicin is given as a single patch application to the affected part. It must be applied under highly controlled conditions, normally under local anaesthetic, due to the initial intense burning sensation it causes. The benefits are expected to last for about 12 weeks, when another application might be made.

Objectives
To review the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of topically applied, high-concentration (8%) capsaicin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

Search methods
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and clinicaltrials.gov to December 2012.

Selection criteria
Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of at least six weeks' duration, using topical capsaicin to treat neuropathic pain.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and validity, and extracted data on numbers of participants with pain relief (clinical improvement) after at least six weeks, and with local skin reactions. We calculated risk ratio and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) and harm (NNH). We sought details of definition of pain relief and specific adverse events.

Efficacy outcomes reflecting long-duration pain relief after a single drug application were from the patient global impression of change (PGIC) at specific points, usually eight and 12 weeks. We regarded these outcomes as first-tier evidence. We regarded average pain scores over weeks 2 to 8 and 2 to 12 and the number and/or percentage of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 30% or at least 50% over baseline as second-tier evidence.

Main results
We included six studies, involving 2073 participants; they were of generally good reporting quality; the control was 0.04% topical capsaicin to help maintain blinding. Efficacy outcomes were inconsistently reported between studies, however, resulting in analyses for most outcomes being based on less than complete data.

Four studies involved 1272 participants with postherpetic neuralgia. All efficacy outcomes were significantly better than control. At both eight and 12 weeks there was a significant benefit for high-concentration over low-concentration topical capsaicin for participants reporting themselves to be much or very much better, with point estimates of the NNTs of 8.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.3 to 26) and 7.0 (95% CI 4.6 to 15) respectively. More participants had average 2 to 8-week and 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% and at least 50% with active treatment than control, with NNT values between 10 and 12.

Two studies involved 801 participants with painful HIV-neuropathy. In a single study the NNT at 12 weeks for participants to be much or very much better was 5.8 (95% CI 3.8 to 12). Over both studies more participants had average 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% with active treatment than control, with an NNT of 11.

Local adverse events were common, but not consistently reported. Serious adverse events were no more common with active treatment (4.1%) than control (3.2%). Adverse event withdrawals did not differ between groups, but lack of efficacy withdrawals were somewhat more common with control than active treatment, based on small numbers of events. No deaths were judged to be related to study medication.

Authors' conclusions
High-concentration topical capsaicin used to treat postherpetic neuralgia and HIV-neuropathy generates more participants with high levels of pain relief than does control treatment using a much lower concentration of capsaicin. The additional proportion who benefit over control is not large, but for those who do obtain high levels of pain relief there are additional improvements in sleep, fatigue, depression and an improved quality of life. High-concentration topical capsaicin is therefore similar to other therapies for chronic pain. In this case, the high cost of single and repeated applications suggest that high-concentration topical capsaicin is likely to be used when other available therapies have failed, and that it should probably not be used repeatedly without substantial documented pain relief. Even when efficacy is established, there are unknown risks, especially on epidermal innervation, of repeated application of long periods.

/pdf/topical-capsaicin-high-concentration-for-chronic-neuropathic-yysswp74xc.pdf

Sheena Derry

Papers

Risk of gastrointestinal haemorrhage with long term use of aspirin: meta-analysis.

Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

Systematic review of topical capsaicin for the treatment of chronic pain

Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults