IMPORTANCE Harms and benefits of opioids for chronic noncancer pain remain unclear. OBJECTIVE To systematically review randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of opioids for chronic noncancer pain. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION The databases of CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to April 2018 for RCTs of opioids for chronic noncancer pain vs any nonopioid control. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Paired reviewers independently extracted data. The analyses used random-effects models and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to rate the quality of the evidence. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcomes were pain intensity (score range, 0-10 cm on a visual analog scale for pain; lower is better and the minimally important difference [MID] is 1 cm), physical functioning (score range, 0-100 points on the 36-item Short Form physical component score [SF-36 PCS]; higher is better and the MID is 5 points), and incidence of vomiting. RESULTS Ninety-six RCTs including 26 169 participants (61% female; median age, 58 years [interquartile range, 51-61 years]) were included. Of the included studies, there were 25 trials of neuropathic pain, 32 trials of nociceptive pain, 33 trials of central sensitization (pain present in the absence of tissue damage), and 6 trials of mixed types of pain. Compared with placebo, opioid use was associated with reduced pain (weighted mean difference [WMD], −0.69 cm [95% CI, −0.82 to −0.56 cm] on a 10-cm visual analog scale for pain; modeled risk difference for achieving the MID, 11.9% [95% CI, 9.7% to 14.1%]), improved physical functioning (WMD, 2.04 points [95% CI, 1.41 to 2.68 points] on the 100-point SF-36 PCS; modeled risk difference for achieving the MID, 8.5% [95% CI, 5.9% to 11.2%]), and increased vomiting (5.9% with opioids vs 2.3% with placebo for trials that excluded patients with adverse events during a run-in period). Low-to moderate-quality evidence suggested similar associations of opioids with improvements in pain and physical functioning compared with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (pain: WMD, −0.60 cm [95% CI, −1.54 to 0.34 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, −0.90 points [95% CI, −2.69 to 0.89 points]), tricyclic antidepressants (pain: WMD, −0.13 cm [95% CI, −0.99 to 0.74 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, −5.31 points [95% CI, −13.77 to 3.14 points]), and anticonvulsants (pain: WMD, −0.90 cm [95% CI, −1.65 to −0.14 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, 0.45 points [95% CI, −5.77 to 6.66 points]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this meta-analysis of RCTs of patients with chronic noncancer pain, evidence from high-quality studies showed that opioid use was associated with statistically significant but small improvements in pain and physical functioning, and increased risk of vomiting compared with placebo. Comparisons of opioids with nonopioid alternatives suggested that the benefit for pain and functioning may be similar, although the evidence was from studies of only low to moderate quality.

Objective To determine the benefits and harms of medical cannabis and cannabinoids for chronic pain. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycInfo, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, Cannabis-Med, Epistemonikos, and trial registries up to January 2021. Study selection Randomised clinical trials of medical cannabis or cannabinoids versus any non-cannabis control for chronic pain at ≥1 month follow-up. Data extraction and synthesis Paired reviewers independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We performed random-effects models meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Results A total of 32 trials with 5174 adult patients were included, 29 of which compared medical cannabis or cannabinoids with placebo. Medical cannabis was administered orally (n=30) or topically (n=2). Clinical populations included chronic non-cancer pain (n=28) and cancer related pain (n=4). Length of follow-up ranged from 1 to 5.5 months. Compared with placebo, non-inhaled medical cannabis probably results in a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing at least the minimally important difference (MID) of 1 cm (on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS)) in pain relief (modelled risk difference (RD) of 10% (95% confidence interval 5% to 15%), based on a weighted mean difference (WMD) of −0.50 cm (95% CI −0.75 to −0.25 cm, moderate certainty)). Medical cannabis taken orally results in a very small improvement in physical functioning (4% modelled RD (0.1% to 8%) for achieving at least the MID of 10 points on the 100-point SF-36 physical functioning scale, WMD of 1.67 points (0.03 to 3.31, high certainty)), and a small improvement in sleep quality (6% modelled RD (2% to 9%) for achieving at least the MID of 1 cm on a 10 cm VAS, WMD of −0.35 cm (−0.55 to −0.14 cm, high certainty)). Medical cannabis taken orally does not improve emotional, role, or social functioning (high certainty). Moderate certainty evidence shows that medical cannabis taken orally probably results in a small increased risk of transient cognitive impairment (RD 2% (0.1% to 6%)), vomiting (RD 3% (0.4% to 6%)), drowsiness (RD 5% (2% to 8%)), impaired attention (RD 3% (1% to 8%)), and nausea (RD 5% (2% to 8%)), but not diarrhoea; while high certainty evidence shows greater increased risk of dizziness (RD 9% (5% to 14%)) for trials with <3 months follow-up versus RD 28% (18% to 43%) for trials with ≥3 months follow-up; interaction test P=0.003; moderate credibility of subgroup effect). Conclusions Moderate to high certainty evidence shows that non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids results in a small to very small improvement in pain relief, physical functioning, and sleep quality among patients with chronic pain, along with several transient adverse side effects, compared with placebo. The accompanying BMJ Rapid Recommendation provides contextualised guidance based on this body of evidence. Systematic review registration https://osf.io/3pwn2

IMPORTANCE Progression-free survival (PFS) has become a commonly used outcome to assess the efficacy of new cancer drugs. However, it is not clear if delay in progression leads to improved quality of life with or without overall survival benefit. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association between PFS and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in oncology through a systematic review and quantitative analysis of published randomized clinical trials. Eligible trials addressed oral, intravenous, intraperitoneal, or intrapleural chemotherapy or biological treatments, and reported PFS or health-related quality of life. DATA SOURCES For this systematic review and quantitative analysis of randomized clinical trials of patients with cancer, we searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 2000, through May 4, 2016. STUDY SELECTION Paired reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS We examined the association of difference in median PFS duration (in months) between treatment groups with difference in global, physical, and emotional HRQoL scores between groups (standardized to a range of 0-100, with higher scores representing better HRQoL) using weighted simple regressions. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE The association between PFS duration and HRQoL. RESULTS Of 35 960 records screened, 52 articles reporting on 38 randomized clinical trials involving 13 979 patients across 12 cancer types using 6 different HRQoL instruments were included. The mean (SD) difference in median PFS between the intervention and the control arms was 1.91 (3.35) months. The mean (SD) differences in change of HRQoL adjusted to per-month values were −0.39 (3.59) for the global domain, 0.26 (5.56) for the physical domain, and 1.08 (3.49) for the emotional domain. The slope of the association between the difference in median PFS and the difference in change for global HRQoL (n = 30 trials) was 0.12 (95% CI, −0.27 to 0.52); for physical HRQoL (n = 20 trials) it was −0.20 (95% CI, −0.62 to 0.23); and for emotional HRQoL (n = 13 trials) it was 0.78 (95% CI, −0.05 to 1.60). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE We failed to find a significant association between PFS and HRQoL in cancer clinical trials. These findings raise questions regarding the assumption that interventions prolonging PFS also improve HRQoL in patients with cancer. Therefore, to ensure that patients are truly obtaining important benefit from cancer therapies, clinical trial investigators should measure HRQoL directly and accurately, ensuring adequate duration and follow-up.

1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:523-544.

Background Clearly structured and comprehensive protocols are an essential component to ensure safety of participants, data validity, successful conduct, and credibility of results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Funding agencies, research ethics committees (RECs), regulatory agencies, medical journals, systematic reviewers, and other stakeholders rely on protocols to appraise the conduct and reporting of RCTs. In response to evidence of poor protocol quality, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline was published in 2013 to improve the accuracy and completeness of clinical trial protocols. The impact of these recommendations on protocol completeness and associations between protocol completeness and successful RCT conduct and publication remain uncertain. Objectives and methods Aims of the Adherence to SPIrit REcommendations (ASPIRE) study are to investigate adherence to SPIRIT checklist items of RCT protocols approved by RECs in the UK, Switzerland, Germany, and Canada before (2012) and after (2016) the publication of the SPIRIT guidelines; determine protocol features associated with non-adherence to SPIRIT checklist items; and assess potential differences in adherence across countries. We assembled an international cohort of RCTs based on 450 protocols approved in 2012 and 402 protocols approved in 2016 by RECs in Switzerland, the UK, Germany, and Canada. We will extract data on RCT characteristics and adherence to SPIRIT for all included protocols. We will use multivariable regression models to investigate temporal changes in SPIRIT adherence, differences across countries, and associations between SPIRIT adherence of protocols with RCT registration, completion, and publication of results. We plan substudies to examine the registration, premature discontinuation, and non-publication of RCTs; the use of patient-reported outcomes in RCT protocols; SPIRIT adherence of RCT protocols with non-regulated interventions; the planning of RCT subgroup analyses; and the use of routinely collected data for RCTs. Discussion The ASPIRE study and associated substudies will provide important information on the impact of measures to improve the reporting of RCT protocols and on multiple aspects of RCT design, trial registration, premature discontinuation, and non-publication of RCTs observing potential changes over time.