-
BMC Urology Mar 2023Catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) is a common postoperative bladder pain syndrome. Many drugs and interventions for managing CRBD have been studied, but their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) is a common postoperative bladder pain syndrome. Many drugs and interventions for managing CRBD have been studied, but their comparative effectiveness remains controversial. We made a study to assess the comparative effectiveness of interventions included Ketorolac, Lidocaine, Chlorpheniramine, Gabapentin, Magnesium, Nefopam, Oxycodone, Parecoxib, Solifenacin, Tolterodine, Bupivancaine, Dexmedetomidine, Hyoscine N-butyl bromide, Ketamine, Penile nerve block on urological postoperative CRBD.
METHODS
We performed a network meta-analysis via Aggregate Data Drug Inormation System software included 18 studies with 1816 patients and assessed the risk of bias by Cochrane Collaboration tool. The incidence of moderate to severe CRBD at 0, 1, and 6 h after surgery and the incidence severe CRBD at 1 h after surgery were compared.
RESULT
The number of best rank is 0.48(Nefopam) and 0.22(Nefopam) in the incidence of moderate to severe CRBD at 1 h and incidence severe CRBD at 1 h. More than half of studies at unclear or high risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
Nefopam reduced the incidence of CRBD and prevented severe events, but limited by the small number of studies for each intervention and heterogeneous patients.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Nefopam; Urinary Bladder; Urinary Catheters; Cystitis, Interstitial
PubMed: 36869313
DOI: 10.1186/s12894-023-01195-9 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022There are ongoing concerns regarding pharmaceutical opioid-related harms, including overdose and dependence, with an associated increase in treatment demand. People... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There are ongoing concerns regarding pharmaceutical opioid-related harms, including overdose and dependence, with an associated increase in treatment demand. People dependent on pharmaceutical opioids appear to differ in important ways from people who use heroin, yet most opioid agonist treatment research has been conducted in people who use heroin. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of maintenance opioid agonist pharmacotherapy for the treatment of pharmaceutical opioid dependence.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to January 2022: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, four other databases, and two trial registers. We checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs with adults and adolescents examining maintenance opioid agonist treatments that made the following two comparisons. 1. Full opioid agonists (methadone, morphine, oxycodone, levo-alpha-acetylmethadol (LAAM), or codeine) versus different full opioid agonists or partial opioid agonists (buprenorphine) for maintenance treatment. 2. Full or partial opioid agonist maintenance versus non-opioid agonist treatments (detoxification, opioid antagonist, or psychological treatment without opioid agonist treatment).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified eight RCTs that met inclusion criteria (709 participants). We found four studies that compared methadone and buprenorphine maintenance treatment, and four studies that compared buprenorphine maintenance to either buprenorphine taper (in addition to psychological treatment) or a non-opioid maintenance treatment comparison. We found low-certainty evidence from three studies of a difference between methadone and buprenorphine in favour of methadone on self-reported opioid use at end of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.86; 165 participants), and low-certainty evidence from four studies finding a difference in favour of methadone for retention in treatment (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43; 379 participants). We found low-certainty evidence from three studies showing no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on substance use measured with urine drug screens at end of treatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 206 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence from one study of no difference in days of self-reported opioid use (mean difference 1.41 days, 95% CI 3.37 lower to 0.55 days higher; 129 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on adverse events (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.93; 206 participants). We found low-certainty evidence from four studies favouring maintenance buprenorphine treatment over non-opioid treatments in terms of fewer opioid positive urine drug tests at end of treatment (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.84; 270 participants), and very low-certainty evidence from four studies finding no difference on self-reported opioid use in the past 30 days at end of treatment (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.01; 276 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference in the number of days of unsanctioned opioid use (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.09; 205 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence from four studies favouring buprenorphine maintenance over non-opioid treatments on retention in treatment (RR 3.02, 95% CI 1.73 to 5.27; 333 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference in adverse effects between buprenorphine maintenance and non-opioid treatments (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.48; 252 participants). The main weaknesses in the quality of the data was the use of open-label study designs, and difference in follow-up rates between treatment arms.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very low- to moderate-certainty evidence supporting the use of maintenance agonist pharmacotherapy for pharmaceutical opioid dependence. Methadone or buprenorphine did not differ on some outcomes, although on the outcomes of retention and self-reported substance use some results favoured methadone. Maintenance treatment with buprenorphine appears more effective than non-opioid treatments. Due to the overall very low- to moderate-certainty evidence and small sample sizes, there is the possibility that the further research may change these findings.
Topics: Adolescent; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Heroin; Humans; Methadone; Opioid-Related Disorders; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 36063082
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011117.pub3 -
Clinical Therapeutics Jan 2015The objective of this systematic review was to assess the clinical efficacy, safety, tolerability, and health-related quality of life outcomes associated with management... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The objective of this systematic review was to assess the clinical efficacy, safety, tolerability, and health-related quality of life outcomes associated with management of moderate-to-severe chronic pain with oxycodone/naloxone and tapentadol, focusing on the effect of these treatments on patients' daily functioning.
METHODS
Literature from a wide range of sources, including Embase, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, was searched to identify randomized controlled trials investigating tapentadol or oxycodone/naloxone for the treatment of patients with chronic pain. A network meta-analysis was conducted to determine the relative efficacy and safety profiles of these treatments.
FINDINGS
Oxycodone/naloxone was significantly better than tapentadol with respect to the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms total score (risk ratio = -3.60; 95% credible interval, -5.36 to -2.11) and revealed a significantly lower risk of dizziness (risk ratio = 0.72; 95% credible interval, 0.42-0.98). Oxycodone/naloxone was directionally favored, although not significantly superior to tapentadol for headache, fatigue, dry mouth, dyspepsia, and withdrawals due to lack of efficacy. For the AE outcomes of constipation, nausea, and vomiting, as well as pain efficacy and all-cause withdrawals from studies, tapentadol was directionally favored without any statistical difference from oxycodone/naloxone. However, the two treatments were not wholly comparable for the evaluation of pain efficacy because of differences in on-study rescue medication and a higher baseline pain severity in the tapentadol studies.
IMPLICATIONS
Oxycodone/naloxone offers significant improvements in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms total score and dizziness and was directionally favored for fatigue and headache compared with extended-release tapentadol, which may translate to improved patient daily functioning and health-related quality of life.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Constipation; Delayed-Action Preparations; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinations; Headache; Humans; Naloxone; Nausea; Oxycodone; Phenols; Quality of Life; Tapentadol; Vomiting
PubMed: 25592091
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.12.001 -
The Journal of Arthroplasty Feb 2024Pain is challenging after recovery from total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures, and patients often receive prescription opioids....
BACKGROUND
Pain is challenging after recovery from total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures, and patients often receive prescription opioids. However, opioid consumption by patients remains unclear, and unused opioids may lead to risks including misuse and diversion. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare prescription size versus patient-reported consumption of opioids after discharge following TKA and THA.
METHODS
PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for publications published between 2015 and 2022 on patient-reported consumption of opioids after TKA and THA. The primary outcome was opioid use in oxycodone 5-mg equivalents. Team members independently reviewed studies for screening, inclusion, data extraction, and risk of bias.
RESULTS
Among the 17 included studies (15 TKA and 11 THA), discharge opioid prescribing exceeded consumption for both TKA (88.4 versus 65.0 pills at 6 weeks) and THA (64.0 versus 29.8 pills at 12 weeks). For both TKA and THA, the range of opioids prescribed varied significantly, by 1.6-fold for TKA and 2.8-fold for THA. Most studies reported pain outcomes (89%) and the use of nonopioid medications (72%). Of the 4 studies offering prescribing recommendations, the amounts ranged from 50 to 104 pills for TKA and 30 to 45 pills for THA.
CONCLUSIONS
Opioid prescribing exceeds the amount consumed following TKA and THA. These findings serve as a call to action to tailor prescribing guidelines to how much patients actually consume while emphasizing the use of nonopioid medications to better optimize recovery from surgery.
PubMed: 38336301
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2024.01.063 -
Arquivos de Neuro-psiquiatria 2020Central neuropathic pain (CNP) is often refractory to available therapeutic strategies and there are few evidence-based treatment options. Many patients with neuropathic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Central neuropathic pain (CNP) is often refractory to available therapeutic strategies and there are few evidence-based treatment options. Many patients with neuropathic pain are not diagnosed or treated properly. Thus, consensus-based recommendations, adapted to the available drugs in the country, are necessary to guide clinical decisions.
OBJECTIVE
To develop recommendations for the treatment of CNP in Brazil.
METHODS
Systematic review, meta-analysis, and specialists opinions considering efficacy, adverse events profile, cost, and drug availability in public health.
RESULTS
Forty-four studies on CNP treatment were found, 20 were included in the qualitative analysis, and 15 in the quantitative analysis. Medications were classified as first-, second-, and third-line treatment based on systematic review, meta-analysis, and expert opinion. As first-line treatment, gabapentin, duloxetine, and tricyclic antidepressants were included. As second-line, venlafaxine, pregabalin for CND secondary to spinal cord injury, lamotrigine for CNP after stroke, and, in association with first-line drugs, weak opioids, in particular tramadol. For refractory patients, strong opioids (methadone and oxycodone), cannabidiol/delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, were classified as third-line of treatment, in combination with first or second-line drugs and, for central nervous system (CNS) in multiple sclerosis, dronabinol.
CONCLUSIONS
Studies that address the treatment of CNS are scarce and heterogeneous, and a significant part of the recommendations is based on experts opinions. The CNP approach must be individualized, taking into account the availability of medication, the profile of adverse effects, including addiction risk, and patients' comorbidities.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Brazil; Consensus; Humans; Neuralgia; Neurology
PubMed: 33331468
DOI: 10.1590/0004-282X20200166 -
American Journal of Public Health Aug 2014We review evidence of determinants contributing to increased opioid-related mortality in the United States and Canada between 1990 and 2013. We identified 17... (Review)
Review
We review evidence of determinants contributing to increased opioid-related mortality in the United States and Canada between 1990 and 2013. We identified 17 determinants of opioid-related mortality and mortality increases that we classified into 3 categories: prescriber behavior, user behavior and characteristics, and environmental and systemic determinants. These determinants operate independently but interact in complex ways that vary according to geography and population, making generalization from single studies inadvisable. Researchers in this area face significant methodological difficulties; most of the studies in our review were ecological or observational and lacked control groups or adjustment for confounding factors; thus, causal inferences are difficult. Preventing additional opioid-related mortality will likely require interventions that address multiple determinants and are tailored to specific locations and populations.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Canada; Humans; Methadone; Noscapine; Opioid-Related Disorders; Oxycodone; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Risk Factors; Socioeconomic Factors; United States
PubMed: 24922138
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.301966 -
European Review For Medical and... Jul 2021This study's main objective is to carry out a systematic review of the onset of psychotic symptoms after opioid withdrawal. The opiate dependence correlated to...
OBJECTIVE
This study's main objective is to carry out a systematic review of the onset of psychotic symptoms after opioid withdrawal. The opiate dependence correlated to psychiatric symptoms has been well described.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Following the PRISMA methodology. The consecutive search strategy was applied: (morphine OR buprenorphine OR oxycodone OR tramadol OR fentanyl OR remifentanil OR opioids OR heroin OR methadone) AND (Psychosis OR psychotic symptoms OR schizophrenia).
RESULTS
12 case reports, 3 series of cases, 2 clinical studies, and 2 reviews were found. It seems that the time association is present in all of them; symptoms appear days after the interruption of the opioid. Most of the articles reported are case reports that describe symptoms that appear after the suspension of the opioid substance; in most cases, the reintroduction of the opioid had therapeutic effects and provoked a remission of these symptoms. These preliminary findings indicate that opiates could have an antipsychotic effect; however, the literature is scarce. It is critical to consider, if needed, in opioid-dependent patients who start with psychosis after the opioid withdrawal the possible replacement or reintroduction of opioids to prevent further deterioration in the patient's mental status.
CONCLUSIONS
This study encompasses a comprehensive description of the literature concerning the possible not well-studied outcome of opioid withdrawal. There are some reports of temporal association between withdrawal and psychotic symptoms that improved after the reintroduction of the opioid; it could be taken into consideration in the clinical practice.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Heroin; Humans; Methadone; Morphine; Oxycodone; Psychotic Disorders; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Tramadol
PubMed: 34286498
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202107_26248 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2014Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in older people. Opioids may be a viable treatment option... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in older people. Opioids may be a viable treatment option if people have severe pain or if other analgesics are contraindicated. However, the evidence about their effectiveness and safety is contradictory. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects on pain, function, safety, and addiction of oral or transdermal opioids compared with placebo or no intervention in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (up to 28 July 2008, with an update performed on 15 August 2012), checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared oral or transdermal opioids with placebo or no treatment in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis. We excluded studies of tramadol. We applied no language restrictions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data in duplicate. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. We combined trials using an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 12 additional trials and included 22 trials with 8275 participants in this update. Oral oxycodone was studied in 10 trials, transdermal buprenorphine and oral tapentadol in four, oral codeine in three, oral morphine and oral oxymorphone in two, and transdermal fentanyl and oral hydromorphone in one trial each. All trials were described as double-blind, but the risk of bias for other domains was unclear in several trials due to incomplete reporting. Opioids were more beneficial in pain reduction than control interventions (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.20), which corresponds to a difference in pain scores of 0.7 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS) between opioids and placebo. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 12% (95% CI 9% to 15%) between opioids (41% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (29% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into a number needed to treat (NNTB) to cause one additional treatment response on pain of 10 (95% CI 8 to 14). Improvement of function was larger in opioid-treated participants compared with control groups (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.17), which corresponds to a difference in function scores of 0.6 units between opioids and placebo on a standardised Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) disability scale ranging from 0 to 10. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 11% (95% CI 7% to 14%) between opioids (32% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (21% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into an NNTB to cause one additional treatment response on function of 11 (95% CI 7 to 14). We did not find substantial differences in effects according to type of opioid, analgesic potency, route of administration, daily dose, methodological quality of trials, and type of funding. Trials with treatment durations of four weeks or less showed larger pain relief than trials with longer treatment duration (P value for interaction = 0.001) and there was evidence for funnel plot asymmetry (P value = 0.054 for pain and P value = 0.011 for function). Adverse events were more frequent in participants receiving opioids compared with control. The pooled risk ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.35 to 1.63) for any adverse event (9 trials; 22% of participants in opioid and 15% of participants in control treatment experienced side effects), 3.76 (95% CI 2.93 to 4.82) for drop-outs due to adverse events (19 trials; 6.4% of participants in opioid and 1.7% of participants in control treatment dropped out due to adverse events), and 3.35 (95% CI 0.83 to 13.56) for serious adverse events (2 trials; 1.3% of participants in opioid and 0.4% of participants in control treatment experienced serious adverse events). Withdrawal symptoms occurred more often in opioid compared with control treatment (odds ratio (OR) 2.76, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.77; 3 trials; 2.4% of participants in opioid and 0.9% of participants control treatment experienced withdrawal symptoms).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The small mean benefit of non-tramadol opioids are contrasted by significant increases in the risk of adverse events. For the pain outcome in particular, observed effects were of questionable clinical relevance since the 95% CI did not include the minimal clinically important difference of 0.37 SMDs, which corresponds to 0.9 cm on a 10-cm VAS.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Administration, Oral; Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25229835
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003115.pub4 -
The Journal of Pain Oct 2015Data on the tolerability of opioids in patients with cancer-related pain are limited. Here, we report a systematic review that includes all published prospective studies... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
Data on the tolerability of opioids in patients with cancer-related pain are limited. Here, we report a systematic review that includes all published prospective studies reporting adverse events (AEs) of morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, methadone, or hydromorphone for cancer-related pain in patients naive for these opioids. We included 25 studies describing 31 treatment cohorts, made an overview of study characteristics, and reported rates of AEs per type of opioid. The frequency of the most commonly reported AEs varied widely: nausea from 3 to 85%, vomiting from 4 to 50%, constipation from 5 to 97%, drowsiness from 3 to 88%, and dry mouth from 1 to 94%. There was a large heterogeneity among included studies, especially regarding the assessment and reporting of AEs. We describe how differences in assessment and reporting influence outcome rates. Although AEs are an important issue in daily clinical practice, realistic incidence rates of AEs per type of opioid are unknown because of the immense heterogeneity among studies.
PERSPECTIVE
Although opioid-related adverse events are an important issue when treating cancer-related pain, realistic rates of adverse events per type of opioid are unknown because of immense heterogeneity among studies and lack of systematic assessment and reporting. There is an urgent need for studies with standardized outcome measures and reporting.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Neoplasms; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Pain; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 26051219
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2015.05.006 -
Pain Physician 2015Canada has featured the second-highest levels of prescription opioid (PO) use globally behind the United States, and reported extensive PO-related harms (e.g.,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Canada has featured the second-highest levels of prescription opioid (PO) use globally behind the United States, and reported extensive PO-related harms (e.g., non-medical PO use [NMPOU], PO-related morbidity and mortality). A recent comprehensive review synthesized key data on PO use, PO-related harms, and interventions in Canada, yet a substantive extent of new studies and data have emerged.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct and present a comprehensive review update on PO use, PO-related harms, and interventions in Canada since 2010.
STUDY DESIGN
Narrative review
METHODS
We conducted literature searches, employing pertinent keywords, in key databases, focusing on PO-related studies/data in/for Canada since 2010, or pertinent studies/data from earlier periods not included in our previous review. In addition, we identified relevant data from "grey" literature (e.g., government, survey, other data or system reports). Relevant data were screened and extracted, and categorized into 4 main sections of indicators: 1) PO dispensing and use, 2) non-medical PO use, 3) PO-related morbidity/mortality, 4) PO-related interventions and impacts.
RESULTS
PO-dispensing in Canada overall continued to increase and/or remain at high levels in Canada from 2010 to 2013, with the exception of the province of Ontario where marked declines occurred starting in2012; quantitative and qualitative PO dispensing patterns continued to vary considerably between provinces. Several studies identified common "high PO dosing" prescribing practices in different settings. Various data suggested declining NMPOU levels throughout most general (e.g., adult, students), yet not in special risk (e.g., street drug users, First Nations) populations. While treatment demand in Ontario plateaued, rising PO-related driving risks as well as neo-natal morbidity were identified by different studies. PO-related mortality was measured to increase--in total numbers and proportionally--in various Canadian jurisdictions. Select reductions in general PO and/or high-dose PO dispensing were observed following key interventions (e.g., Oxycodone delisting, prescription monitoring program [PMP] introduction in Ontario/British Columbia). While physician education intervention studied indicated mixed outcomes, media reporting was found to be associated with PO prescribing patterns.
LIMITATIONS
The present review did not utilize systematic review standards or meta-analytic techniques given the large heterogeneity of data and outcomes reviewed.
CONCLUSIONS
Recently emerging data help to better characterize PO-related use, harm and intervention indicators in Canada's general context of comparatively high-level PO dispensing and harms, yet major gaps in monitoring and information persist; this continues to be a problematic challenge, especially given the implementation of key PO-related interventions post-2010, the impact of which needs to be properly measured and understood.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Canada; Drug Prescriptions; Drug Utilization; Humans; Opioid-Related Disorders
PubMed: 26218951
DOI: No ID Found