-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2017Needle syringe programmes and opioid substitution therapy for preventing hepatitis C transmission in people who inject drugsNeedle syringe programmes (NSP) and opioid... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Needle syringe programmes and opioid substitution therapy for preventing hepatitis C transmission in people who inject drugsNeedle syringe programmes (NSP) and opioid substitution therapy (OST) are the primary interventions to reduce hepatitis C (HCV) transmission in people who inject drugs. There is good evidence for the effectiveness of NSP and OST in reducing injecting risk behaviour and increasing evidence for the effectiveness of OST and NSP in reducing HIV acquisition risk, but the evidence on the effectiveness of NSP and OST for preventing HCV acquisition is weak.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of needle syringe programmes and opioid substitution therapy, alone or in combination, for preventing acquisition of HCV in people who inject drugs.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Drug and Alcohol Register, CENTRAL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA), the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHSEED), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Global Health, CINAHL, and the Web of Science up to 16 November 2015. We updated this search in March 2017, but we have not incorporated these results into the review yet. Where observational studies did not report any outcome measure, we asked authors to provide unpublished data. We searched publications of key international agencies and conference abstracts. We reviewed reference lists of all included articles and topic-related systematic reviews for eligible papers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included prospective and retrospective cohort studies, cross-sectional surveys, case-control studies and randomised controlled trials that measured exposure to NSP and/or OST against no intervention or a reduced exposure and reported HCV incidence as an outcome in people who inject drugs. We defined interventions as current OST (within previous 6 months), lifetime use of OST and high NSP coverage (regular attendance at an NSP or all injections covered by a new needle/syringe) or low NSP coverage (irregular attendance at an NSP or less than 100% of injections covered by a new needle/syringe) compared with no intervention or reduced exposure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed the standard Cochrane methodological procedures incorporating new methods for classifying risk of bias for observational studies. We described study methods against the following 'Risk of bias' domains: confounding, selection bias, measurement of interventions, departures from intervention, missing data, measurement of outcomes, selection of reported results; and we assigned a judgment (low, moderate, serious, critical, unclear) for each criterion.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 28 studies (21 published, 7 unpublished): 13 from North America, 5 from the UK, 4 from continental Europe, 5 from Australia and 1 from China, comprising 1817 incident HCV infections and 8806.95 person-years of follow-up. HCV incidence ranged from 0.09 cases to 42 cases per 100 person-years across the studies. We judged only two studies to be at moderate overall risk of bias, while 17 were at serious risk and 7 were at critical risk; for two unpublished datasets there was insufficient information to assess bias. As none of the intervention effects were generated from RCT evidence, we typically categorised quality as low. We found evidence that current OST reduces the risk of HCV acquisition by 50% (risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.63, I = 0%, 12 studies across all regions, N = 6361), but the quality of the evidence was low. The intervention effect remained significant in sensitivity analyses that excluded unpublished datasets and papers judged to be at critical risk of bias. We found evidence of differential impact by proportion of female participants in the sample, but not geographical region of study, the main drug used, or history of homelessness or imprisonment among study samples.Overall, we found very low-quality evidence that high NSP coverage did not reduce risk of HCV acquisition (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.61) with high heterogeneity (I = 77%) based on five studies from North America and Europe involving 3530 participants. After stratification by region, high NSP coverage in Europe was associated with a 76% reduction in HCV acquisition risk (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.62) with less heterogeneity (I =0%). We found low-quality evidence of the impact of combined high coverage of NSP and OST, from three studies involving 3241 participants, resulting in a 74% reduction in the risk of HCV acquisition (RR 0.26 95% CI 0.07 to 0.89).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
OST is associated with a reduction in the risk of HCV acquisition, which is strengthened in studies that assess the combination of OST and NSP. There was greater heterogeneity between studies and weaker evidence for the impact of NSP on HCV acquisition. High NSP coverage was associated with a reduction in the risk of HCV acquisition in studies in Europe.
Topics: Female; Hepatitis C; Humans; Male; Needle-Exchange Programs; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Program Evaluation; Substance Abuse, Intravenous
PubMed: 28922449
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012021.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Nov 2022Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), unlike laparotomy, is an invasive surgical procedure, and some patients report mild to moderate pain after surgery. Transversus... (Review)
Review
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), unlike laparotomy, is an invasive surgical procedure, and some patients report mild to moderate pain after surgery. Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block has been shown to be an appropriate method for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. However, there have been few studies on the efficacy of TAP block after LC surgery, with unclear information on the optimal dose, long-term effects, and clinical significance, and the analgesic efficacy of various procedures, hence the need for this review. Five electronic databases (PubMed, Academic Search Premier, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library) were searched for eligible studies published from inception to the present. Post-mean and standard deviation values for pain assessed were extracted, and mean changes per group were calculated. Clinical significance was determined using the distribution-based approach. Four different local anesthetics (Bupivacaine, Ropivacaine, Lidocaine, and Levobupivacaine) were used at varying concentrations from 0.2% to 0.375%. Ten different drug solutions (i.e., esmolol, Dexamethasone, Magnesium Sulfate, Ketorolac, Oxycodone, Epinephrine, Sufentanil, Tropisetron, normal saline, and Dexmedetomidine) were used as adjuvants. The optimal dose of local anesthetics for LC could be 20 mL with 0.4 mL/kg for port infiltration. Various TAP procedures such as ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (US-TAP) block and other strategies have been shown to be used for pain management in LC; however, TAP blockade procedures were reported to be the most effective method for analgesia compared with general anesthesia and port infiltration. Instead of 0.25% Bupivacaine, 1% Pethidine could be used for the TAP block procedures. Multimodal analgesia could be another strategy for pain management. Analgesia with TAP blockade decreases opioid consumption significantly and provides effective analgesia. Further studies should identify the long-term effects of different TAP block procedures.
PubMed: 36498471
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11236896 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023To systematically assess and rank the efficacy of opioid medications for traumatic pain in the emergency department in terms of pain relief, adverse events and rescue...
To systematically assess and rank the efficacy of opioid medications for traumatic pain in the emergency department in terms of pain relief, adverse events and rescue analgesia. Four databases were systematically searched until 26 September 2022: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Outcomes were pain relief, adverse events (dizziness, hypotension, pruritus, sedation), and rescue analgesia. For each outcome, network plots were drawn to exhibit direct and indirect comparisons, and rank probabilities were utilized to rank the efficacy of different opioids. Twenty studies of 3,040 patients were eligible for this network meta-analysis. According to the rank probabilities, the top three analgesic medications for pain relief may be sufentanil (78.29% probability of ranking first), buprenorphine (48.54% probability of ranking second) and fentanyl (53.25% probability of ranking third); buprenorphine (31.20%), fentanyl (20.14%) and sufentanil (21.55%) were least likely to cause dizziness; the top three analgesic medications which were least likely to cause hypotension were buprenorphine (81.64%), morphine (45.02%) and sufentanil (17.27%); butorphanol (40.56%), morphine (41.11%) and fentanyl (14.63%) were least likely to cause pruritus; the top three medications which were least likely to cause sedation were hydrocodone + acetaminophen (97.92%), morphine (61.85%) and butorphanol (55.24%); patients who received oxycodone (83.64%), butorphanol (38.31%) and fentanyl (25.91%) were least likely to need rescue analgesia in sequence. Sufentanil, buprenorphine and fentanyl may be superior to other opioid medications in terms of pain relief and the incidence of dizziness, hypotension and pruritus, which might be selected as opioid analgesics for traumatic pain in the emergency setting.
PubMed: 37576822
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1209131 -
The Pharmacogenomics Journal Dec 2021Variable responses to medications complicates perioperative care. As a potential solution, we evaluated and synthesized pharmacogenomic evidence that may inform...
Variable responses to medications complicates perioperative care. As a potential solution, we evaluated and synthesized pharmacogenomic evidence that may inform anesthesia and pain prescribing to identify clinically actionable drug/gene pairs. Clinical decision-support (CDS) summaries were developed and were evaluated using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. We found that 93/180 (51%) of commonly-used perioperative medications had some published pharmacogenomic information, with 18 having actionable evidence: celecoxib/diclofenac/flurbiprofen/ibuprofen/piroxicam/CYP2C9, codeine/oxycodone/tramadol CYP2D6, desflurane/enflurane/halothane/isoflurane/sevoflurane/succinylcholine/RYR1/CACNA1S, diazepam/CYP2C19, phenytoin/CYP2C9, succinylcholine/mivacurium/BCHE, and morphine/OPRM1. Novel CDS summaries were developed for these 18 medications. AGREE II mean ± standard deviation scores were high for Scope and Purpose (95.0 ± 2.8), Rigor of Development (93.2 ± 2.8), Clarity of Presentation (87.3 ± 3.0), and Applicability (86.5 ± 3.7) (maximum score = 100). Overall mean guideline quality score was 6.7 ± 0.2 (maximum score = 7). All summaries were recommended for clinical implementation. A critical mass of pharmacogenomic evidence exists for select medications commonly used in the perioperative setting, warranting prospective examination for clinical utility.
Topics: Analgesics; Anesthetics; Clinical Decision-Making; Decision Support Techniques; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Perioperative Care; Pharmacogenetics; Pharmacogenomic Testing; Pharmacogenomic Variants; Predictive Value of Tests; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34376788
DOI: 10.1038/s41397-021-00248-2 -
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Nov 2021Treating acute pain among persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) on opioid agonist therapy (OAT) is complex, and the therapeutic benefits of opioids remain unclear when... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Treating acute pain among persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) on opioid agonist therapy (OAT) is complex, and the therapeutic benefits of opioids remain unclear when weighted against their abuse potential and respiratory depressant effects.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of experimental pain studies examining opioid-induced analgesia among persons with OUD on OAT. We searched multiple databases from inception to July 30, 2021. Study quality was assessed by previously established validity measures.
RESULTS
Nine studies were identified, with a total of 225 participants, of whom 63% were male, and 37% were female. Six studies included methadone-maintained persons with OUD; four studies included buprenorphine-maintained persons with OUD; and three studies included healthy persons as comparison groups. Either additional doses of OAT or other opioids - morphine, oxycodone, hydromorphone, or remifentanil - were administered. In seven studies, persons with OUD on OAT did not experience analgesia, despite receiving opioid doses up to 20 times greater than those clinically used to treat severe pain among the opioid naïve. Conversely, in two studies, high-potency opioids did produce analgesia, albeit with greater abuse potential. Notably, persons with OUD on OAT remained vulnerable to respiratory depression.
CONCLUSIONS
Although persons with OUD on OAT can derive analgesic effects from opioids, high-potency compounds may be required to achieve clinically significant pain relief. Further, persons with OUD on OAT may remain vulnerable to opioid-induced abuse potential and respiratory depression. Together, these finding have clinical, methodological, and mechanistic implications for the treatment of acute pain in the context of OAT.
Topics: Acute Pain; Analgesia; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Female; Humans; Male; Methadone; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders
PubMed: 34601272
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.109097 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) is characterised by constipation, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and gastric reflux. It is one of the major adverse events of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) is characterised by constipation, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and gastric reflux. It is one of the major adverse events of treatment for pain in cancer and in palliative care, resulting in increased morbidity and reduced quality of life.This is an update of two Cochrane reviews. One was published in 2011, Issue 1 on laxatives and methylnaltrexone for the management of constipation in people receiving palliative care; this was updated in 2015 and excluded methylnaltrexone. The other was published in 2008, Issue 4 on mu-opioid antagonists (MOA) for OIBD. In this updated review, we only included trials on MOA (including methylnaltrexone) for OIBD in people with cancer and people receiving palliative care.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of MOA for OIBD in people with cancer and people receiving palliative care.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science to August 2017. We also searched clinical trial registries and regulatory websites. We contacted manufacturers of MOA to identify further data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effectiveness and safety of MOA for OIBD in people with cancer and people at a palliative stage irrespective of the type of terminal disease they experienced.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The appropriateness of combining data from the trials depended upon sufficient homogeneity across the trials. Our primary outcomes were laxation, impact on pain relief, and adverse events. Impact on pain relief was a primary outcome because a possible adverse effect of MOAs is a reduction in pain relief from opioids. We assessed the evidence on these outcomes using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified four new trials for this update, bringing the total number included in this review to eight. In total, 1022 men and women with cancer irrespective of stage or at a palliative care stage of any disease were randomised across the trials. The MOAs evaluated were oral naldemedine and naloxone (alone or in combination with oxycodone), and subcutaneous methylnaltrexone. The trials compared with MOA with a placebo or with the active intervention administered at different doses or in combination with other drugs. The trial of naldemedine and the two of naloxone in combination with oxycodone were in people with cancer irrespective of disease stage. The trial on naloxone alone was in people with advanced cancer. The four trials on methylnaltrexone were undertaken in palliative care where most participants had cancer. All trials were vulnerable to biases; four were at a high risk as they involved a sample of fewer than 50 participants per arm.In the trial of naldemedine compared to placebo in 225 participants, there were more spontaneous laxations over the two-week treatment for the intervention group (risk ratio (RR) 1.93, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.36 to 2.74; moderate-quality evidence). In comparison with higher doses, lower doses resulted in fewer spontaneous laxations (0.1 mg versus 0.2 mg: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.95; 0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.89; moderate-quality evidence). There was moderate-quality evidence that naldemedine had no effect on opiate withdrawal. There were five serious adverse events. All were in people taking naldemedine (low-quality evidence). There was an increase in the occurrence of other (non-serious) adverse events in the naldemedine groups (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.79, moderate-quality evidence). The most common adverse event was diarrhoea.The trials on naloxone taken either on its own, or in combination with oxycodone (an opioid) compared to oxycodone only did not evaluate laxation response over the first two weeks of administration. There was very low-quality evidence that naloxone alone, and moderate-quality evidence that oxycodone/naloxone, had no effect on analgesia. There was low-quality evidence that oxycodone/naloxone did not increase the risk of serious adverse events and moderate-quality evidence that it did not increase risk of adverse events.In combined analysis of two trials of 287 participants, we found methylnaltrexone compared to placebo induced more laxations within 24 hours (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.91 to 4.04. I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). In combined analysis, we found methylnaltrexone induced more laxation responses over two weeks (RR 9.98, 95% CI 4.96 to 20.09. I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). The proportion of participants who had a rescue-free laxation response within 24 hours of the first dose was 59.1% in the methylnaltrexone arms and 19.1% in the placebo arm. There was moderate-quality evidence that the rate of opioid withdrawal was not affected. Methylnaltrexone did not increase the likelihood of a serious adverse event; there were fewer in the intervention arm (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). There was no difference in the proportion of participants experiencing an adverse event (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.45; I² = 74%; low-quality evidence). Methylnaltrexone increased the likelihood of abdominal pain and flatulence.Two trials compared differing methylnaltrexone schedules of higher doses with lower doses. For early laxation, there was low-quality evidence of no clear difference between doses on analgesia and adverse events. Both trials measured laxation response within 24 hours of first dose (trial one: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.66; trial two: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.42).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this update, the conclusions for naldemedine are new. There is moderate-quality evidence to suggest that, taken orally, naldemedine improves bowel function over two weeks in people with cancer and OIBD but increases the risk of adverse events. The conclusions on naloxone and methylnaltrexone have not changed. The trials on naloxone did not assess laxation at 24 hours or over two weeks. There is moderate-quality evidence that methylnaltrexone improves bowel function in people receiving palliative care in the short term and over two weeks, and low-quality evidence that it does not increase adverse events. There is a need for more trials including more evaluation of adverse events. None of the current trials evaluated effects in children.
Topics: Constipation; Defecation; Female; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Intestinal Diseases; Male; Nalbuphine; Naloxone; Naltrexone; Narcotic Antagonists; Neoplasms; Opioid-Related Disorders; Oxycodone; Palliative Care; Piperidines; Quaternary Ammonium Compounds; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Opioid, mu
PubMed: 29869799
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006332.pub3 -
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management Jun 2024Strong opioids are the cornerstone in the treatment of cancer-related pain.
CONTEXT
Strong opioids are the cornerstone in the treatment of cancer-related pain.
OBJECTIVES
This study aims to compare analgesic effectiveness of different strong opioids for the treatment of cancer-related pain.
METHODS
PubMed and Embase were searched for RCTs that compared strong opioids for treatment of cancer-related pain against one another. A network meta-analysis was conducted and the related Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking (SUCRA)-based treatment ranks were calculated. Primary outcome was pain intensity (numerical rating scale (NRS)) and/or the percentage of patients with ≥50% pain reduction, after 1 and 2-4 weeks.
RESULTS
Sixteen RCTs (1813 patients) were included. Methadone showed, with a high certainty of evidence, increased ORs for treatment success at 1 week, compared with morphine, buprenorphine, fentanyl, and oxycodone, range 3.230-36.833. Methadone had the highest likelihood to be the treatment of preference (ToP) (SUCRA 0.9720). For fentanyl, ORs were lower, however significant and with high certainty. After 2-4 weeks, methadone again showed the highest likelihood for ToP, however, with moderate certainty and nonsignificant ORs. The combination of morphine/methadone, compared with morphine, buprenorphine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, and oxycodone achieved a treatment effect of mean NRS difference after 2-4 weeks between -1.100 and -1.528 and had the highest likelihood for ToP.
CONCLUSION
The results suggest that methadone possibly deserves further promotion as first-line treatment for the treatment of cancer-related pain.
PubMed: 38838946
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2024.05.022 -
BMC Cancer May 2018Inter-patient variability in response to opioids is well known but a comprehensive definition of its pathophysiological mechanism is still lacking and, more importantly,...
BACKGROUND
Inter-patient variability in response to opioids is well known but a comprehensive definition of its pathophysiological mechanism is still lacking and, more importantly, no studies have focused on children. The STOP Pain project aimed to evaluate the risk factors that contribute to clinical response and adverse drug reactions to opioids by means of a systematic review and a clinical investigation on paediatric oncological patients.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature search in EMBASE and PubMed up to the 24th of November 2016 following Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA guidelines. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts along with full-text papers; disagreements were resolved by discussion with two other independent reviewers. We used a data extraction form to provide details of the included studies, and conducted quality assessment using the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies.
RESULTS
Young age, lung or gastrointestinal cancer, neuropathic or breakthrough pain and anxiety or sleep disturbance were associated to a worse response to opioid analgesia. No clear association was identified in literature regarding gender, ethnicity, weight, presence of metastases, biochemical or hematological factors. Studies in children were lacking. Between June 2011 and April 2014, the Italian STOP Pain project enrolled 87 paediatric cancer patients under treatment with opioids (morphine, codeine, oxycodone, fentanyl and tramadol).
CONCLUSIONS
Future studies on cancer pain should be designed with consideration for the highlighted factors to enhance our understanding of opioid non-response and safety. Studies in children are mandatory.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
CRD42017057740 .
Topics: Age Factors; Analgesics, Opioid; Biological Variation, Population; Cancer Pain; Child; Humans; Longitudinal Studies; Neoplasms; Pain Measurement; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29776346
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4478-3 -
Scientific Reports Nov 2019Chemotherapy induced painful peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common dose-limiting side effect of several chemotherapeutic agents. Despite large amounts of human and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Chemotherapy induced painful peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common dose-limiting side effect of several chemotherapeutic agents. Despite large amounts of human and animal studies, there is no sufficiently effective pharmacological treatment for CIPN. Although reducing pain is often a focus of CIPN treatment, remarkably few analgesics have been tested for this indication in clinical trials. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses regarding the effects of analgesics on stimulus evoked pain-like behaviour during CIPN in animal models. This will form a scientific basis for the development of prospective human clinical trials. A comprehensive search identified forty-six studies. Risk of bias (RoB) analyses revealed that the design and conduct of the included experiments were poorly reported, and therefore RoB was unclear in most studies. Meta-analyses showed that administration of analgesics significantly increases pain threshold for mechanical (SMD: 1.68 [1.41; 1.82]) and cold (SMD: 1. 41 [0.99; 1.83]) evoked pain. Subgroup analyses revealed that dexmedetomidine, celecoxib, fentanyl, morphine, oxycodone and tramadol increased the pain threshold for mechanically evoked pain, and lidocaine and morphine for cold evoked pain. Altogether, this meta-analysis shows that there is ground to investigate the use of morphine in clinical trials. Lidocaine, dexmedetomidine, celecoxib, fentanyl, oxycodone and tramadol might be good alternatives, but more animal-based research is necessary.
Topics: Analgesics; Animals; Disease Models, Animal; Pain; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases
PubMed: 31772391
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-54152-8 -
Pain Physician Nov 2019Opioid medications are frequently used effectively for analgesia in acute settings, however, they are associated with dependence and addiction, and were implicated in...
BACKGROUND
Opioid medications are frequently used effectively for analgesia in acute settings, however, they are associated with dependence and addiction, and were implicated in 47,600 American fatalities in 2017. Evidence suggests that despite guidelines and professional body recommendations, acute prescribing remains highly variable. Educational interventions targeting prescribers have potential to optimize prescribing in-line with evidence-based best practice.
OBJECTIVES
To identify the objective impacts of education interventions on opioid prescribing in the acute care setting.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic literature review.
SETTING
The electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane for works published until December 31, 2018. Bibliographies of relevant studies and the gray literature were also searched.
METHODS
Databases were searched for interventional studies (clinical trials and pre- and poststudies). Studies describing an educational intervention delivered to clinicians and reporting at least one objective measure of opioid use in the acute care setting were included. Studies reporting only subjective outcomes and those focused on chronic pain or set in primary care were excluded. Two reviewers (RB, TB) extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies using the Downs and Black Tool.
RESULTS
Nine studies met inclusion criteria; all used pre- and postdesigns. Three studies described stand-alone education, and the others described multifaceted interventions. All 9 interventions significantly reduced at least one of the following: high-risk agent use including meperidine use by up to 71%; total or daily dosage of opioids at discharge, including median morphine milligram equivalence (MME) from 90 mg to 45 mg per patient; and quantity of medications such as oxycodone supplied to patients, halved in one study from 6,170 expected to 2,932 supplied tablets. No increase in pain complaints or prescription refill requests were reported in those studies assessing these outcomes. The longest study examined prescribing 15 months after education delivery, reporting sustained practice changes.
LIMITATIONS
Overall study quality was fair to poor. Significant heterogeneity in settings, patient groups, methodologies, and outcomes prevented pooled quantitative analysis. No studies examined all available opioid agents or formulations.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings support prescriber education as an effective strategy to reduce opioid use and optimize prescribing in acute settings. Further research, particularly high quality randomized studies, describing the impact of education on all available opioid formulations and total MME is required. Reviewing the existing literature has offered useful models that can be implemented to improve care with opioid prescribing in acute settings.
KEY WORDS
Opioids, education, physician education, prescriber education, opioid education, opioid prescribing, systematic review, prescriptions, prevention.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Drug Prescriptions; Humans; Opioid-Related Disorders; Oxycodone; Pain; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Primary Health Care
PubMed: 31775401
DOI: No ID Found