Treatment for Acute Pain: an Evidence Map Technical Brief Number 33
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Technical Brief Number 33 R Treatment for Acute Pain: An Evidence Map Technical Brief Number 33 Treatment for Acute Pain: An Evidence Map Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20857 www.ahrq.gov Contract No. 290-2015-0000-81 Prepared by: Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center Minneapolis, MN Investigators: Michelle Brasure, Ph.D., M.S.P.H., M.L.I.S. Victoria A. Nelson, M.Sc. Shellina Scheiner, PharmD, B.C.G.P. Mary L. Forte, Ph.D., D.C. Mary Butler, Ph.D., M.B.A. Sanket Nagarkar, D.D.S., M.P.H. Jayati Saha, Ph.D. Timothy J. Wilt, M.D., M.P.H. AHRQ Publication No. 19(20)-EHC022-EF October 2019 Key Messages Purpose of review The purpose of this evidence map is to provide a high-level overview of the current guidelines and systematic reviews on pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for acute pain. We map the evidence for several acute pain conditions including postoperative pain, dental pain, neck pain, back pain, renal colic, acute migraine, and sickle cell crisis. Improved understanding of the interventions studied for each of these acute pain conditions will provide insight on which topics are ready for comprehensive comparative effectiveness review. Key messages • Few systematic reviews provide a comprehensive rigorous assessment of all potential interventions, including nondrug interventions, to treat pain attributable to each acute pain condition. Acute pain conditions that may need a comprehensive systematic review or overview of systematic reviews include postoperative postdischarge pain, acute back pain, acute neck pain, renal colic, and acute migraine. • Certain acute pain conditions have many published systematic reviews: postoperative pain, pain associated with dental procedures and oral surgery, low back pain, acute migraine. Several acute pain conditions have sufficient new data to warrant a new systematic review: pain associated with dental procedures and oral surgery, low back pain, renal colic, acute migraine. • Few systematic reviews of acute pain treatments examine outcomes other than very short- term outcomes. Pain during the week or month following the inciting event and persistent opioid use were rarely reported. • Most systematic reviews report pain outcomes using scales that measure only pain intensity, while few assess function or other pain characteristics. • Few reviews focused on specific settings or populations other than general adults or children and adolescents. • Future research using ACTTION-APS-AAPM Pain Taxonomy dimensions to characterize acute pain would be valuable. • Additional original research and up-do-date comprehensive systematic reviews would help inform treatment decisions for a wide variety of acute pain conditions. ii This report is based on research conducted by the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2015-00008-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report. The information in this report is intended to help health care decision-makers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients. This report is made available to the public under the terms of a licensing agreement between the author and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. This report may be used and reprinted without permission except those copyrighted materials that are clearly noted in the report. Further reproduction of those copyrighted materials is prohibited without the express permission of copyright holders. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of any derivative products that may be developed from this report, such as clinical practice guidelines, other quality enhancement tools, or reimbursement or coverage policies, may not be stated or implied. This report may periodically be assessed for the currency of conclusions. If an assessment is done, the resulting surveillance report describing the methodology and findings will be found on the Effective Health Care Program website at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov. Search on the title of the report. Persons using assistive technology may not be able to fully access information in this report. For assistance contact [email protected]. Suggested citation: Brasure M, Nelson VA, Scheiner S, Forte ML, Butler M, Nagarkar S, Saha J, Wilt TJ. Treatment for Acute Pain: An Evidence Map. (Prepared by the Minnesota Evidence- based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2015-0000-81) AHRQ Publication No.19(20)- EHC022-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; October 2019. Posted final reports are located on the Effective Healthcare Program search page. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23970/AHRQEPCTB33. iii Preface The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), through its Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs), sponsors the development of evidence reports and technology assessments to assist public- and private-sector organizations in their efforts to improve the quality of health care in the United States. The reports and assessments provide organizations with comprehensive, science-based information on common, costly medical conditions and new health care technologies and strategies. The EPCs systematically review the relevant scientific literature on topics assigned to them by AHRQ and conduct additional analyses when appropriate prior to developing their reports and assessments. This EPC evidence report is a Technical Brief. A Technical Brief is a rapid report, typically on an emerging medical technology, strategy or intervention. It provides an overview of key issues related to the intervention—for example, current indications, relevant patient populations and subgroups of interest, outcomes measured, and contextual factors that may affect decisions regarding the intervention. Although Technical Briefs generally focus on interventions for which there are limited published data and too few completed protocol-driven studies to support definitive conclusions, the decision to request a Technical Brief is not solely based on the availability of clinical studies. The goals of the Technical Brief are to provide an early objective description of the state of the science, a potential framework for assessing the applications and implications of the intervention, a summary of ongoing research, and information on future research needs. In particular, through the Technical Brief, AHRQ hopes to gain insight on the appropriate conceptual framework and critical issues that will inform future research. AHRQ expects that the EPC evidence reports and technology assessments will inform individual health plans, providers, and purchasers as well as the health care system as a whole by providing important information to help improve health care quality. If you have comments on this Technical Brief, they may be sent by mail to the Task Order Officer named below at: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, or by email to [email protected]. Gopal Khanna, M.B.A. Arlene Bierman, M.D., M.S. Director Director Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Center for Evidence and Practice Improvement Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Stephanie Chang, M.D., M.P.H. Suchitra Iyer, Ph.D. Director Task Order Officer Evidence-based Practice Center Program Center for Evidence and Practice Center for Evidence and Practice Improvement Improvement Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality iv Acknowledgments We thank Cheryl Cole-Hill, Shivani Rao, and Jeannine Ouellette for their research, administrative, and editorial help bringing the report to completion. Key Informants In designing the study questions, the EPC consulted several Key Informants who represent the end-users of research. The EPC sought the Key Informant input on the priority areas for research and synthesis. Key Informants are not involved in the analysis of the evidence or the writing of the report. Therefore, in the end, study questions, design, methodological approaches, and/or conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of individual Key Informants. Key Informants must disclose any financial conflicts of interest greater than $10,000 and any other relevant business or professional conflicts of interest. Because of their role as end-users, individuals with potential conflicts may be retained. The TOO and the EPC work to balance, manage, or mitigate any conflicts of interest. The list of Key Informants who provided input to this report follows: Roger Chou, M.D. Christina