-
Pain Practice : the Official Journal of... Nov 2023Epidural analgesia is a common technique for managing perioperative and obstetric pain. Patients with cancer who cannot tolerate opioids or not responding to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Epidural analgesia is a common technique for managing perioperative and obstetric pain. Patients with cancer who cannot tolerate opioids or not responding to conventional treatment may benefit from epidural analgesia. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of epidural analgesia in patients with intractable cancer pain.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify studies on patients with cancer who received epidural analgesia. We assessed the quality of all included studies using the risk-of-bias tool or Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The primary outcome was pain relief after epidural analgesia, and the secondary outcome was quality of life, analgesic consumption, and adverse events. The studies were grouped based on the medications used for epidural analgesia. A descriptive synthesis was performed following the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis reporting guideline.
RESULTS
Our systematic review included nine randomized controlled trials (n = 340) and 15 observational studies (n = 926). Two randomized controlled trials suggested that epidural opioids were not superior to systemic opioids in relieving pain. Epidural opioids combined with local anesthetics or adjuvants, including calcitonin, clonidine, ketamine, neostigmine, methadone, and dexamethasone, offered better analgesic effects. No significant difference in pain relief between an intermittent bolus and a continuous infusion of epidural morphine was observed. Epidural opioids had more analgesic effects on nociceptive pain than neuropathic pain. The methods used to evaluate the quality of life and the corresponding results were heterogeneous among studies. Six observational studies demonstrated that some patients could have decreased opioid consumption after epidural analgesia. Adverse events, including complications and drug-related side effects, were reported in 23 studies. Five serious complications, such as epidural abscess and hematoma, required surgical management. The heterogeneity and methodological limitations of the studies hindered meta-analysis and evidence-level determination.
CONCLUSION
Coadministration of epidural opioids, local anesthetics, and adjuvants may provide better pain relief for intractable cancer pain. However, we must assess the patients to ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks before epidural analgesia. Therefore, further high-quality studies are required.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Cancer Pain; Neoplasms; Pain, Postoperative; Quality of Life
PubMed: 37455298
DOI: 10.1111/papr.13273 -
Drugs Feb 2024Pain associated with cancer is a common feature among children and adolescents. Among opioids, methadone is a unique drug for its multiple mechanisms of action.... (Review)
Review
Pain associated with cancer is a common feature among children and adolescents. Among opioids, methadone is a unique drug for its multiple mechanisms of action. Methadone is currently underutilized in children. The use of methadone for cancer pain management in children was assessed in a systematic review. Altogether, 141 children receiving methadone were examined, and another 126 children were assessed for QT prolongation. In the clinical studies, modalities of use, dosing, and duration of assessment were highly variable. In general, methadone was effective and well tolerated with a limited tendency for dose increases. QT prolongation was reported in a percentage of patients independently of the dosages or other variables. The majority of studies considered the use of methadone to be safe and effective in children. Despite methadone possessing interesting properties that make this drug unique in a pediatric context, data is limited, and the literature available is based on retrospective studies. Methadone could be an effective, inexpensive, and versatile medication in children with cancer who have pain. This drug deserves more interest and should prompt studies of better quality with a larger number of patients.
Topics: Adolescent; Humans; Child; Methadone; Pain Management; Retrospective Studies; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain; Neoplasms; Long QT Syndrome
PubMed: 38324240
DOI: 10.1007/s40265-024-02001-y -
The American Journal on Addictions May 2024Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have evidence for their potential in the treatment of substance use disorders... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Systematic review and meta-analysis: Combining transcranial magnetic stimulation or direct current stimulation with pharmacotherapy for treatment of substance use disorders.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have evidence for their potential in the treatment of substance use disorders (SUD). Medication for addiction treatment (MAT) is underutilized and not always effective. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case studies that evaluated the effectiveness of TMS or tDCS used concurrently with MAT in SUD treatment.
METHODS
A systematic review of published literature following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted on 6/1/2023 by a medical librarian. Craving-related scales were extracted for an effect size calculation. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale assessed study quality.
RESULTS
Eight studies (7 RCT, 1 case) including 253 individuals were published from 2015 to 2022, 5 of which had available data for meta-analysis. TMS or tDCS combined with MAT significantly reduced craving-related measures relative to sham stimulation (Hedges' g = -0.42, confidence interval: -0.73 to -0.11, p < .01). Opioid use disorder, methadone, and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex were the most commonly studied SUD, MAT, and target region.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Our results show a significant effect; however, is limited by a small number of studies with heterogeneous methodology across intervention methods and SUDs. Additional trials are needed to fully assess the clinical impact and mechanisms of combined brain stimulation and pharmacotherapy. We discuss a possible mechanism for synergism from these treatment combinations.
SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE
Adds the first systematic review of combination treatment with TMS or tDCS and MAT in SUD patients to the literature and estimates its overall effect size.
Topics: Humans; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation; Substance-Related Disorders; Craving; Behavior, Addictive
PubMed: 38273429
DOI: 10.1111/ajad.13517 -
Cureus Sep 2023Patients with diminished renal function necessitate special care. In patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), opioid analgesics should be prescribed based on the... (Review)
Review
Patients with diminished renal function necessitate special care. In patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), opioid analgesics should be prescribed based on the severity of renal insufficiency; this will determine treatment options at the beginning and throughout the management of pain in CKD patients. The dosage of hydrophilic drugs and drugs with active metabolites should be adjusted according to the severity of CKD, and the process of treatment should be monitored by modifying drug dosages as necessary for background and breakthrough pain. Patients with CKD may benefit from opioid analgesics that are lipophilic, such as methadone, fentanyl, and buprenorphine, as the first line; however, fentanyl is inappropriate for patients undergoing hemodialysis. Opioid prescription in CKD patients is the subject of this systematic review, which aims to compare their safety and efficacy. This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 recommendations. Using three databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar), we collected and reviewed articles, including literature reviews, randomized control trials (RCTs), and systematic reviews published between 1980 and 2022, to enable us to gather enough valuable data on this rare topic. After applying appropriate filters, a total of 109 results were obtained. They were further screened and subjected to quality assessment tools, which finally yielded 11 studies included in this systematic review. This consisted of two RCTs, two systematic reviews, and seven narrative reviews. This review focused on the safety and appropriate use of opioids in patients with CKD. The accumulation of morphine and codeine metabolites may result in neurotoxic side effects. Hydromorphone and oxycodone are considered safe to administer but require careful adjustments in dosage. Common comorbidities among patients with CKD may amplify opioid-related adverse effects.
PubMed: 37727840
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.45485 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2024Stimulant use disorder is a continuously growing medical and social burden without approved medications available for its treatment. Psychosocial interventions could be... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Stimulant use disorder is a continuously growing medical and social burden without approved medications available for its treatment. Psychosocial interventions could be a valid approach to help people reduce or cease stimulant consumption. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of psychosocial interventions for stimulant use disorder in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trials registers in September 2023. All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched the references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any psychosocial intervention with no intervention, treatment as usual (TAU), or a different intervention in adults with stimulant use disorder.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 64 RCTs (8241 participants). Seventy-three percent of studies included participants with cocaine or crack cocaine use disorder; 3.1% included participants with amphetamine use disorder; 10.9% included participants with methamphetamine use disorder; and 12.5% included participants with any stimulant use disorder. In 18 studies, all participants were in methadone maintenance treatment. In our primary comparison of any psychosocial treatment to no intervention, we included studies which compared a psychosocial intervention plus TAU to TAU alone. In this comparison, 12 studies evaluated cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), 27 contingency management, three motivational interviewing, one study looked at psychodynamic therapy, and one study evaluated CBT plus contingency management. We also compared any psychosocial intervention to TAU. In this comparison, seven studies evaluated CBT, two contingency management, two motivational interviewing, and one evaluated a combination of CBT plus motivational interviewing. Seven studies compared contingency management reinforcement related to abstinence versus contingency management not related to abstinence. Finally, seven studies compared two different psychosocial approaches. We judged 65.6% of the studies to be at low risk of bias for random sequence generation and 19% at low risk for allocation concealment. Blinding of personnel and participants was not possible for the type of intervention, so we judged all the studies to be at high risk of performance bias for subjective outcomes but at low risk for objective outcomes. We judged 22% of the studies to be at low risk of detection bias for subjective outcomes. We judged most of the studies (69%) to be at low risk of attrition bias. When compared to no intervention, we found that psychosocial treatments: reduce the dropout rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.91; 30 studies, 4078 participants; high-certainty evidence); make little to no difference to point abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.41; 12 studies, 1293 participants; high-certainty evidence); make little to no difference to point abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.62; 9 studies, 1187 participants; high-certainty evidence); probably increase continuous abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.97; 12 studies, 1770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may make little to no difference in continuous abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.46; 4 studies, 295 participants; low-certainty evidence); reduce the frequency of drug intake at the end of treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.19; 10 studies, 1215 participants; high-certainty evidence); and increase the longest period of abstinence (SMD 0.54, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.68; 17 studies, 2118 participants; high-certainty evidence). When compared to TAU, we found that psychosocial treatments reduce the dropout rate (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97; 9 studies, 735 participants; high-certainty evidence) and may make little to no difference in point abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.64 to 4.31; 1 study, 128 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether they make any difference in point abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.99; 2 studies, 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to TAU, psychosocial treatments may make little to no difference in continuous abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.53; 1 study, 128 participants; low-certainty evidence); probably make little to no difference in the frequency of drug intake at the end of treatment (SMD -1.17, 95% CI -2.81 to 0.47, 4 studies, 479 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); and may make little to no difference in the longest period of abstinence (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.21; 1 study, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies for this comparison assessed continuous abstinence at the longest follow-up. Only five studies reported harms related to psychosocial interventions; four of them stated that no adverse events occurred.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review's findings indicate that psychosocial treatments can help people with stimulant use disorder by reducing dropout rates. This conclusion is based on high-certainty evidence from comparisons of psychosocial interventions with both no treatment and TAU. This is an important finding because many people with stimulant use disorders leave treatment prematurely. Stimulant use disorders are chronic, lifelong, relapsing mental disorders, which require substantial therapeutic efforts to achieve abstinence. For those who are not yet able to achieve complete abstinence, retention in treatment may help to reduce the risks associated with stimulant use. In addition, psychosocial interventions reduce stimulant use compared to no treatment, but they may make little to no difference to stimulant use when compared to TAU. The most studied and promising psychosocial approach is contingency management. Relatively few studies explored the other approaches, so we cannot rule out the possibility that the results were imprecise due to small sample sizes.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Psychosocial Intervention; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Substance-Related Disorders; Counseling; Motivational Interviewing
PubMed: 38357958
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011866.pub3 -
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine 2024Considering the importance of delirium disorder in burn patients and its complications, the present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the prevalence... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Considering the importance of delirium disorder in burn patients and its complications, the present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the prevalence of delirium and its related factors in burn patients.
METHODS
A comprehensive, systematic search was performed in different international electronic databases, such as Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science, as well as Persian electronic databases such as Iranmedex, and Scientific Information Database (SID) using keywords extracted from Medical Subject Headings such as "Prevalence", "Delirium", and "Burns" from the earliest to the 17th of July, 2023.
RESULTS
In total, 2,710 burn patients participated in ten original studies. Among the participants, 64.6% were male. In the ten studies, the reported pooled prevalence of delirium among burn patients was 20.5% (95% CI: 10.9% to 35.0%; I=96.889%; P<0.001). Also, factors such as total body surface area, duration of hospitalization, mortality, days on ventilator, alcoholism, benzodiazepine dose, methadone dose, age, male gender, ICU days, operation days, wound care under anesthesia, and opioid dose had a significant correlation with the prevalence of delirium in burn patients.
CONCLUSION
Health managers and policymakers can reduce the prevalence of delirium in burn patients by eliminating or reducing factors associated with it.
PubMed: 38162381
DOI: 10.22037/aaem.v12i1.2136 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology Mar 2024Although naltrexone is an evidence-based medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), few data are available with use in pregnancy. Our objective was to assess outcomes of...
OBJECTIVE
Although naltrexone is an evidence-based medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), few data are available with use in pregnancy. Our objective was to assess outcomes of pregnant individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) taking naltrexone compared with those taking methadone or buprenorphine.
DATA SOURCES
We undertook a systematic review using electronic database search (PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo), conference proceedings, and trial registries including ClinicalTrials.gov .
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
We conducted an electronic search of research articles through May 2023 for randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort, and retrospective cohort studies of naltrexone (oral, implant, or extended release) compared with methadone or buprenorphine (sublingual or extended release) among pregnant individuals with OUD. After double review of all articles, we abstracted obstetric (primary outcome: gestational age at delivery), neonatal (primary outcome: neonatal abstinence syndrome [NAS]), and substance use outcomes.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
Five studies met eligibility criteria; four were retrospective cohort studies, and one was a prospective cohort study. Four studies included data on gestational age at delivery (weeks) with no difference detected between the two groups in any study (mean difference ranging -0.20, 95% CI, -1.49-1.09 to 0.8, 95% CI, -0.15 to 1.75). Three studies included data on NAS with all studies detecting a lower risk in the naltrexone group compared with methadone or buprenorphine (relative risk ranging from 0.08, 95% CI, 0.01-1.16 to 0.15, 95% CI, 0.06-0.36). Most studies (four of five) had a moderate or high potential for selection bias primarily driven by small sample size and lack of controlling for confounders.
CONCLUSION
Although the evidence base is limited, available data suggest that naltrexone use in pregnancy is a reasonable MOUD option with reassuring perinatal outcomes. To enhance confidence in this conclusion and to assess substance use outcomes, further comparative studies of pregnant people with OUD taking naltrexone and other MOUD types are needed.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO, 42017074249.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Buprenorphine; Methadone; Naltrexone; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 38227945
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005510 -
World Journal of Pediatrics : WJP May 2024Comprehensive quantitative evidence on the risk and protective factors for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) effects is lacking. We investigated the risk and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Comprehensive quantitative evidence on the risk and protective factors for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) effects is lacking. We investigated the risk and protective factors related to SIDS.
METHODS
We conducted an umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational and interventional studies assessing SIDS-related factors. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, EBSCO, and Google Scholar were searched from inception until January 18, 2023. Data extraction, quality assessment, and certainty of evidence were assessed by using A Measurement Tool Assessment Systematic Reviews 2 following PRISMA guidelines. According to observational evidence, credibility was graded and classified by class and quality of evidence (CE; convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or not significant). Our study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023458696). The risk and protective factors related to SIDS are presented as equivalent odds ratios (eORs).
RESULTS
We identified eight original meta-analyses, including 152 original articles, covering 12 unique risk and protective factors for SIDS across 21 countries/regions and five continents. Several risk factors, including prenatal drug exposure [eOR = 7.84 (95% CI = 4.81-12.79), CE = highly suggestive], prenatal opioid exposure [9.55 (95% CI = 4.87-18.72), CE = suggestive], prenatal methadone exposure [9.52 (95% CI = 3.34-27.10), CE = weak], prenatal cocaine exposure [4.38 (95% CI = 1.95-9.86), CE = weak], prenatal maternal smoking [2.25 (95% CI = 1.95-2.60), CE = highly suggestive], postnatal maternal smoking [1.97 (95% CI = 1.75-2.22), CE = weak], bed sharing [2.89 (95% CI = 1.81-4.60), CE = weak], and infants found with heads covered by bedclothes after last sleep [11.01 (95% CI = 5.40-22.45), CE = suggestive], were identified. On the other hand, three protective factors, namely, breastfeeding [0.57 (95% CI = 0.39-0.83), CE = non-significant], supine sleeping position [0.48 (95% CI = 0.37-0.63), CE = suggestive], and pacifier use [0.44 (95% CI = 0.30-0.65), CE = weak], were also identified.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the evidence, we propose several risk and protective factors for SIDS. This study suggests the need for further studies on SIDS-related factors supported by weak credibility, no association, or a lack of adequate research.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Protective Factors; Risk Factors; Sudden Infant Death
PubMed: 38684567
DOI: 10.1007/s12519-024-00806-1 -
Experimental Biology and Medicine... Nov 2023The opioid epidemic has become a serious national crisis in the United States. An indepth systematic analysis of opioid-related adverse events (AEs) can clarify the...
The opioid epidemic has become a serious national crisis in the United States. An indepth systematic analysis of opioid-related adverse events (AEs) can clarify the risks presented by opioid exposure, as well as the individual risk profiles of specific opioid drugs and the potential relationships among the opioids. In this study, 92 opioids were identified from the list of all Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs, annotated by RxNorm and were classified into 13 opioid groups: buprenorphine, codeine, dihydrocodeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, meperidine, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, tapentadol, and tramadol. A total of 14,970,399 AE reports were retrieved and downloaded from the FDA Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) from 2004, Quarter 1 to 2020, Quarter 3. After data processing, Empirical Bayes Geometric Mean (EBGM) was then applied which identified 3317 pairs of potential risk signals within the 13 opioid groups. Based on these potential safety signals, a comparative analysis was pursued to provide a global overview of opioid-related AEs for all 13 groups of FDA-approved prescription opioids. The top 10 most reported AEs for each opioid class were then presented. Both network analysis and hierarchical clustering analysis were conducted to further explore the relationship between opioids. Results from the network analysis revealed a close association among fentanyl, oxycodone, hydrocodone, and hydromorphone, which shared more than 22 AEs. In addition, much less commonly reported AEs were shared among dihydrocodeine, meperidine, oxymorphone, and tapentadol. On the contrary, the hierarchical clustering analysis further categorized the 13 opioid classes into two groups by comparing the full profiles of presence/absence of AEs. The results of network analysis and hierarchical clustering analysis were not only consistent and cross-validated each other but also provided a better and deeper understanding of the associations and relationships between the 13 opioid groups with respect to their adverse effect profiles.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Bayes Theorem; Data Mining; Fentanyl; Hydrocodone; Hydromorphone; Meperidine; Oxycodone; Oxymorphone; Tapentadol; United States
PubMed: 38158803
DOI: 10.1177/15353702231211860 -
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