Abstract
Prescription of modified-release opioids for acute postoperative pain is widespread despite evidence to show their use may be associated with an increased risk of adverse effects. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the available evidence on the safety and efficacy of modified-release, compared with immediate-release, oral opioids for postoperative pain in adults. We searched five electronic databases from 1 January 2003 to 1 January 2023. Published randomised clinical trials and observational studies on adults who underwent surgery which compared those who received oral modified-release opioids postoperatively with those receiving oral immediate-release opioids were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data on the primary outcomes of safety (incidence of adverse events) and efficacy (pain intensity, analgesic and opioid use, and physical function) and secondary outcomes (length of hospital stay, hospital readmission, psychological function, costs, and quality of life) up to 12 months postoperatively. Of the eight articles included, five were randomised clinical trials and three were observational studies. The overall quality of evidence was low. Modified-release opioid use was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events (n = 645, odds ratio (95%CI) 2.76 (1.52-5.04)) and worse pain (n = 550, standardised mean difference (95%CI) 0.2 (0.04-0.37)) compared with immediate-release opioid use following surgery. Our narrative synthesis concluded that modified-release opioids showed no superiority over immediate-release opioids for analgesic consumption, length of hospital stay, hospital readmissions or physical function after surgery. One study showed that modified-release opioid use is associated with higher rates of persistent postoperative opioid use compared with immediate-release opioid use. None of the included studies reported on psychological function, costs or quality of life.