Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
  • Listen to CMAJ podcasts
Review

Opioids for chronic noncancer pain: a meta-analysis of effectiveness and side effects

Andrea D. Furlan, Juan A. Sandoval, Angela Mailis-Gagnon and Eldon Tunks
CMAJ May 23, 2006 174 (11) 1589-1594; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.051528
Andrea D. Furlan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Juan A. Sandoval
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Angela Mailis-Gagnon
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eldon Tunks
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
Submit a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
References
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. [email protected]
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Minimum 7 characters.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'. Minimum 12 characters.
Your organization, institution's or residential address.
Statement of Competing Interests

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • The "at best available upper limit of effect"?
    Hardo W. Sorgatz
    Posted on: 20 September 2006
  • The Fundamental Problem With Opioid Trials for Chronic Pain
    Tushar mehta
    Posted on: 12 June 2006
  • Posted on: (20 September 2006)
    Page navigation anchor for The "at best available upper limit of effect"?
    The "at best available upper limit of effect"?
    • Hardo W. Sorgatz

    Dear Editor: Despite the fact that our comments may methodically emphasize a "case for failed meta-analyses" (Naylor, 1995), we do not doubt the significance of the review for clinical decisions and guideline development. Although it is frequently doubted whether studies concerning the application of opioids in chronic non-cancer pain can be processed in a "state of the art" manner with meta-anlaytical procedures, Furla...

    Show More

    Dear Editor: Despite the fact that our comments may methodically emphasize a "case for failed meta-analyses" (Naylor, 1995), we do not doubt the significance of the review for clinical decisions and guideline development. Although it is frequently doubted whether studies concerning the application of opioids in chronic non-cancer pain can be processed in a "state of the art" manner with meta-anlaytical procedures, Furlan et al. have performed this task and have achieved a clinically significant result. The following remarks concern the method and the result:

    The meta-analytical Review is surprising with its positive evaluations of the original studies and by the aggregation of data from different abstraction levels. The data accumulation is questionable, because statistically filtered indices (Gimbel et al., 2003) are calculated together with the mean values and standard deviations from the raw data of other rct-studies. Values from studies with a change of substance within one investigational phase (Raja et al., 2002; Watson 2003) or with active placebo (Watson et al., 2003) were summarized with values from classical placebo comparisons. The aggregated studies partially exhibit high dropout rates; the cumulated individual findings are not always statistically significant.

    The efforts of the review authors in placing the overall result on an adequate study basis are undeniable. The analgesic effect of opioids on chronic noncancer pain is reported as an effect size of 0.60. This could be classified as a so moderate effect size that its clinical relevance might be questionable. Transformed into a ‘Number Needed to Treat’ measure, an effect size of .60 (under the assumption: Mean = 5 on a 10- point VAS, SD = 1) results in a NNT over 15.

    Nevertheless, this meta-analysis is valuable for clinical decisions, because it defines an "at best available upper limit of effect", whereby the effect of individual studies on clinical decisions is limited. Whether a pain reduction by opioids of ES = 0.60 in a period of a few weeks is clinically relevant, can only be decided by comparisons with the activity spectra (analgesic and adverse effects) of other analgesics. Chronic pain is a multifactorial, only subjectively describable event associated with a measurement error of nearly 60% which limits the magnitude of the effects that can be expected. Therefore, systematic estimates of the "at best available upper limits of effect" for all analgesics that are frequently used in chronic pain over a period of several weeks have to be compared with the reported ones of this review. An average pain reduction of ES = 0.60 could then be more significant for the subjective success of therapy than the numerical expression would lead one to believe. co authors: Henriette Reinecke, Daniel Ullrich; Affilation for both: LONTS Guideline Office, c/o Inst. of Psychology, Technical University of Darmstadt

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (12 June 2006)
    Page navigation anchor for The Fundamental Problem With Opioid Trials for Chronic Pain
    The Fundamental Problem With Opioid Trials for Chronic Pain
    • Tushar mehta

    June 8, 2006 Respected authors (with a special hello to Angela Mailis!)

    Thanks for your work on a very difficult topic. I appreciate and agree with your comments that the studies you cite are problematic; they are too short to detect tolerance, addiction is not evaluated, etc. Furthermore, the studies are funded by the pharmaceutical companies, which may cause large biases as studies can be designed to show a favo...

    Show More

    June 8, 2006 Respected authors (with a special hello to Angela Mailis!)

    Thanks for your work on a very difficult topic. I appreciate and agree with your comments that the studies you cite are problematic; they are too short to detect tolerance, addiction is not evaluated, etc. Furthermore, the studies are funded by the pharmaceutical companies, which may cause large biases as studies can be designed to show a favorable result – not difficult to do in the case of opioid research.

    I believe there is another fundamental problem with opioid research for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Opioids have a definite cognitive effect that is difficult to compare with either placebo or active placebo such as NSAIDs. They improve mood due to a euphoric effect, and even a nominal dose, such as of 5mg of oxycodone, is capable of producing this. After some time tolerance develops, and even a person using Q8h continuous release opioids will experience intermittent withdrawal, as well as smaller euphoric effects, during the peak and trough drug levels of their daily dosing. This has been my impression.

    Under such conditions, patients will generally endorse benefit of opioids for the complex phenomena of CNCP, which may include psychogenic factors. Euphoria is equated with pain relief and greater wellbeing, and the dysphoria and pain of withdrawal is equated worse CNCP. Hence, patients are likely to say “I feel better when I take the opioids and worse when they wear off; hence they are helping my pain.”

    Furthermore, it is often difficult to recall how bad their pain was while opioid free, and people on opioids for CNCP feel are likely to endorse and overall improvement even if they are worse off with the peaks and trough effects of their opioids. This may be because they cannot imagine a life without the opioids, since they now think that being without opioids would feel like their trough level of opioids – a state of withdrawal.

    How else could the research be done? Firstly, I think that studies done with fentanyl patches, or a continuous infusion of opioids via pump would overcome some of these problems. The dose would have to be titrated so gradually that the patient would barely notice the nociceptive or psychogenic effects of the opioid. A suitable placebo would be necessary.

    Secondly, in a trial comparing opioid in pill form to active placebo, perhaps the active placebo should contain one ingredient that gives nociceptive relief (i.e. an NSAID) and a second ingredient that has a calming but euphoric effect (i.e. a benzodiazepine such as a lorazepam, because it has a faster and more noticeable effect).

    In traditional trials comparing oral opioids to placebo or NSAIDs, an objective and detailed assessment of “level of functioning” and overall “quality of life” are better primary outcomes than pain itself. Pain as a primary outcome measure is too skewed by the mechanisms I proposed above, and may have very little role in determining opioid effectiveness. For all of these measures of effectiveness, care must be taken to measure a study participant’s functioning/life-quality/pain at a single point in time. There should be nothing in the questioning method to that leads participants to compare how they were to their baseline levels. Psychologically, this could also lead patients to biased reporting.

    Many thanks and all the best!

    Dr. Tushar Mehta MD, CCFP

    Substance Use Medical Service

    St. Joseph’s Health Center

    Toronto, Ontario

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 174 (11)
CMAJ
Vol. 174, Issue 11
23 May 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Opioids for chronic noncancer pain: a meta-analysis of effectiveness and side effects
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Opioids for chronic noncancer pain: a meta-analysis of effectiveness and side effects
Andrea D. Furlan, Juan A. Sandoval, Angela Mailis-Gagnon, Eldon Tunks
CMAJ May 2006, 174 (11) 1589-1594; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.051528

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Opioids for chronic noncancer pain: a meta-analysis of effectiveness and side effects
Andrea D. Furlan, Juan A. Sandoval, Angela Mailis-Gagnon, Eldon Tunks
CMAJ May 2006, 174 (11) 1589-1594; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.051528
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Interpretation
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights of this issue
  • Dans ce numéro
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Patients use fewer analgesics following supervised exercise therapy and patient education: an observational study of 16 499 patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis
  • Examining opioid prescribing trends for non-cancer pain using an estimated oral morphine equivalence measure: a retrospective cohort study between 2005 and 2015
  • Experiences of people taking opioid medication for chronic non-malignant pain: a qualitative evidence synthesis using meta-ethnography
  • Testing a support programme for opioid reduction for people with chronic non-malignant pain: the I-WOTCH randomised controlled trial protocol
  • A protocol for a discrete choice experiment: understanding patient medicine preferences for managing chronic non-cancer pain
  • Boundary effects of expectation in human pain perception
  • Combating escalating harms associated with pharmaceutical opioid use in Australia: the POPPY II study protocol
  • Where now for opioids in chronic pain?
  • Opioid prescribing for chronic musculoskeletal pain in UK primary care: results from a cohort analysis of the COPERS trial
  • Person-level changes in oxycodone use after the introduction of a tamper-resistant formulation in Australia
  • Changes in the dispensing of opioid medications in Canada following the introduction of a tamper-deterrent formulation of long-acting oxycodone: a time series analysis
  • Pain and Psychology--A Reciprocal Relationship
  • Medical professionals' perspectives on prescribed and over-the-counter medicines containing codeine: a cross-sectional study
  • Optimal Strategies for Reporting Pain in Clinical Trials and Systematic Reviews: Recommendations from an OMERACT 12 Workshop
  • Characteristics of patients receiving long-term opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain: a cross-sectional survey of patients attending the Pain Management Centre at Hamilton General Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario
  • Opioids for chronic noncancer pain: A position paper of the American Academy of Neurology
  • Questionable content of an industry-supported medical school lecture series: a case study
  • Rates of Prescription Opiate Use Before and After Injury in Patients with Orthopaedic Trauma and the Risk Factors for Prolonged Opiate Use
  • Opioids for osteoarthritis pain: benefits and risks
  • An unusual effect of interferential therapy
  • Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: Should a Chaperone Accompany Our Therapeutic Approach?
  • The Efficacy and Safety of Opioids in Inflammatory Arthritis: A Cochrane Systematic Review
  • Lignes directrices canadiennes sur l'utilisation securitaire et efficace des opioides pour la douleur chronique non cancereuse: Resume clinique pour les medecins de famille. Partie 1: population en general
  • Canadian guideline for safe and effective use of opioids for chronic noncancer pain: Clinical summary for family physicians. Part 1: general population
  • Devrions-nous prescrire des opioides pour la douleur chronique non cancereuse?
  • Should we prescribe opioids for chronic noncancer pain?
  • Pharmacotherapy of fibromyalgia
  • Clustering of opioid prescribing--what is really going on?
  • Chronic noncancer pain: Characteristics of patients prescribed opioids by community physicians and referred to a tertiary pain clinic
  • Opioids for chronic noncancer pain: a new Canadian practice guideline
  • What we still don't know about treating chronic noncancer pain with opioids
  • Chronic Opioid Therapy and Preventive Services in Rural Primary Care: An Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network Study
  • A sailor's pain: Veterans' musculoskeletal disorders, chronic pain, and disability
  • La douleur d'un marina: Troubles musculosquelettiques, douleur chronique et invalidite chez les veterans militaires
  • Fundamental problem with opioid trials for chronic pain
  • Fundamental problem with opioid trials for chronic pain
  • ADDITIONAL ARTICLES ABSTRACTED IN ACP JOURNAL CLUB
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Diagnosis and management of toxicity associated with the recreational use of nitrous oxide
  • A practical approach to the diagnosis and management of chlamydia and gonorrhea
  • Nonsurgical management of major hemorrhage
Show more Review

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Drugs: central nervous system (not psychiatric)
    • Pain

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected]

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire