-
Journal of Addiction MedicineThis systematic review summarizes the development, accuracy, quality, and clinical utility of predictive models to assess the risk of opioid use disorder (OUD),...
BACKGROUND
This systematic review summarizes the development, accuracy, quality, and clinical utility of predictive models to assess the risk of opioid use disorder (OUD), persistent opioid use, and opioid overdose.
METHODS
In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines, 8 electronic databases were searched for studies on predictive models and OUD, overdose, or persistent use in adults until June 25, 2023. Study selection and data extraction were completed independently by 2 reviewers. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed independently by 2 reviewers using the Prediction model Risk of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST).
RESULTS
The literature search yielded 3130 reports; after removing 199 duplicates, excluding 2685 studies after abstract review, and excluding 204 studies after full-text review, the final sample consisted of 41 studies that developed more than 160 predictive models. Primary outcomes included opioid overdose (31.6% of studies), OUD (41.4%), and persistent opioid use (17%). The most common modeling approach was regression modeling, and the most common predictors included age, sex, mental health diagnosis history, and substance use disorder history. Most studies reported model performance via the c statistic, ranging from 0.507 to 0.959; gradient boosting tree models and neural network models performed well in the context of their own study. One study deployed a model in real time. Risk of bias was predominantly high; concerns regarding applicability were predominantly low.
CONCLUSIONS
Models to predict opioid-related risks are developed using diverse data sources and predictors, with a wide and heterogenous range of accuracy metrics. There is a need for further research to improve their accuracy and implementation.
Topics: Humans; Opioid-Related Disorders; Opiate Overdose; Risk Assessment; Models, Statistical; Analgesics, Opioid
PubMed: 38591783
DOI: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000001276 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Jun 2024Dopamine antagonists, 5-HT antagonists, and dexamethasone are frequently used in obstetrics to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). However, the superiority... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dopamine antagonists, 5-HT antagonists, and dexamethasone are frequently used in obstetrics to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). However, the superiority of any drug class is yet to be established. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of these antiemetics for PONV prophylaxis in women receiving neuraxial morphine for Caesarean delivery.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Wanfang Data for eligible randomised controlled trials. Primary outcomes were the incidences of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) within 24 h after surgery. We used a Bayesian random-effects model and calculated odds ratios with 95% credible intervals for dichotomous data. We performed sensitivity and subgroup analyses for primary outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of 33 studies with 4238 women were included. In the primary analyses of all women, 5-HT antagonists, dopamine antagonists, dexamethasone, and 5-HT antagonists plus dexamethasone significantly reduced PON and POV compared with placebo, and 5-HT antagonists plus dexamethasone were more effective than monotherapy. In the subgroup analyses, similar results were seen in women receiving epidural morphine or intrathecal morphine alone but not in women receiving intrathecal morphine with fentanyl or sufentanil. However, most included studies had some concerns or a high risk of bias, and the overall certainty of the evidence was low or very low.
CONCLUSIONS
Combined 5-HT antagonists plus dexamethasone are more effective than monotherapy in preventing PONV associated with neuraxial morphine after Caesarean delivery. Future studies are needed to determine the role of prophylactic antiemetics in women receiving intrathecal morphine and lipophilic opioids.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL
PROSPERO CRD42023454602.
Topics: Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Morphine; Female; Antiemetics; Cesarean Section; Pregnancy; Dexamethasone; Network Meta-Analysis; Analgesics, Opioid; Dopamine Antagonists; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38627136
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2024.03.010 -
Value in Health : the Journal of the... May 2024Overdose prevention centers (OPCs) provide a safe place where people can consume preobtained drugs under supervision so that a life-saving medical response can be... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Overdose prevention centers (OPCs) provide a safe place where people can consume preobtained drugs under supervision so that a life-saving medical response can be provided quickly in the event of an overdose. OPCs are programs that are established in Canada and have recently become legally sanctioned in only a few United States jurisdictions.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review that summarizes and identifies gaps of economic evidence on establishing OPCs in North America to guide future expansion of OPCs.
RESULTS
We included 16 final studies that were evaluated with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and Drummond checklists. Eight studies reported cost-effectiveness results (eg, cost per overdose avoided or cost per quality-adjusted life-year), with 6 also including cost-benefit; 5 reported only cost-benefit results, and 3 cost offsets. Health outcomes primarily included overdose mortality outcomes or HIV/hepatitis C virus infections averted. Most studies used mathematical modeling and projected OPC outcomes using the experience of a single facility in Vancouver, BC.
CONCLUSIONS
OPCs were found to be cost-saving or to have favorable cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit ratios across all studies. Future studies should incorporate the experience of OPCs established in various settings and use a greater diversity of modeling designs.
Topics: Humans; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Opiate Overdose; North America; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Canada
PubMed: 38401795
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2024.02.004 -
The Australian and New Zealand Journal... Feb 2024Alcohol use disorders confer a significant burden of disease and economic cost worldwide. However, the utilisation of pharmacotherapies to manage alcohol use disorder is... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Alcohol use disorders confer a significant burden of disease and economic cost worldwide. However, the utilisation of pharmacotherapies to manage alcohol use disorder is poor. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of economic evaluation studies of alcohol use disorder pharmacotherapies.
METHODS
A search was conducted in Embase, Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO and EconLit (August 2019, updated September 2022). Full economic evaluations using pharmacotherapy to treat alcohol use disorders were included. Included studies were stratified by medication and summarised descriptively. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list was used to assess the methodological quality.
RESULTS
A total of 1139 studies were retrieved, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. All studies were conducted in high-income countries. Four studies analysed nalmefene, four studies assessed acamprosate, three for naltrexone and four for stand-alone and/or combinations of naltrexone and acamprosate. There were 21 interventions synthesised from 15 studies as some studies evaluated multiple interventions and comparators. More than half of the included studies (73%) reported pharmacotherapy as dominant (less costly and more effective than comparators). From healthcare payer perspectives, five studies found that pharmacotherapy added to psychosocial support was dominant or cost-effective, accruing additional benefits at a higher cost but under accepted willingness to pay thresholds. Three analyses from a societal perspective found pharmacotherapy added to psychosocial support was a dominant or cost-effective strategy. Quality scores ranged from 63% to 95%.
CONCLUSION
Pharmacotherapy added to psychosocial support was cost-effective from both healthcare and societal perspectives, emphasising an increased role for pharmacotherapy to reduce the burden of alcohol use disorders.
Topics: Humans; Alcoholism; Acamprosate; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Naltrexone; Alcohol Drinking; Ethanol
PubMed: 37822267
DOI: 10.1177/00048674231201541 -
Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia Jan 2024Cardiac surgeries often result in significant postoperative pain, leading to considerable use of opioids for pain management. However, excessive opioid use can lead to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Cardiac surgeries often result in significant postoperative pain, leading to considerable use of opioids for pain management. However, excessive opioid use can lead to undesirable side effects and chronic opioid use. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether preoperative intrathecal morphine could reduce postoperative opioid consumption in patients undergoing cardiac surgery requiring sternotomy. We conducted a systematic search of Cochrane, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases from inception to May 2022 for randomized controlled trials that evaluated the use of intrathecal morphine in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Studies that evaluated intrathecal administration of other opioids or combinations of medications were excluded. The primary outcome was postoperative morphine consumption at 24 h. Secondary outcomes included time to extubation and hospital length of stay. The final analysis included ten randomized controlled trials, with a total of 402 patients. The results showed that postoperative morphine consumption at 24 h was significantly lower in the intervention group (standardized mean difference -1.43 [-2.12, -0.74], 95% CI, P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in time to extubation and hospital length of stay. Our meta-analysis concluded that preoperative intrathecal morphine is associated with lower postoperative morphine consumption at 24 h following cardiac surgeries, without prolonging the time to extubation. The use of preoperative intrathecal morphine can be considered part of a multimodal analgesic and opioid-sparing strategy in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.
Topics: Humans; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Morphine; Injections, Spinal; Analgesics, Opioid; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pain, Postoperative; Length of Stay
PubMed: 38722114
DOI: 10.4103/aca.aca_48_23 -
The American Journal of Drug and... Jan 2024The relationship between cannabis use and the risk of returning to using opioids non-medically during treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) remains unclear. We sought... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The impact of cannabis on non-medical opioid use among individuals receiving pharmacotherapies for opioid use disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.
The relationship between cannabis use and the risk of returning to using opioids non-medically during treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) remains unclear. We sought to quantify the impact of cannabis use on the risk of non-medical opioid use among people receiving pharmacotherapies for OUD. A comprehensive search was performed using multiple databases from March 1 to April 5 of 2023. Eligible studies longitudinally assessed the association between cannabis use and non-medical opioid use among people with OUD receiving treatment with buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone. We utilized a random-effects model employing the restricted maximum likelihood method. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to understand potential differences between each OUD treatment modality. A total of 10 studies were included in the final meta-analysis. There were 8,367 participants (38% female). The average follow-up time across these studies was 9.7 months (SD = 3.77), ranging from 4 to 15 months. The pharmacotherapies involved were methadone (76.3%) buprenorphine (21.3%), and naltrexone (2.4%). The pooled odds ratio did not indicate that cannabis use significantly influenced non-medical opioid use (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.97-1.04, = .98). There is evidence of moderate heterogeneity and publication bias. There was no significant association between cannabis use and non-medical opioid use among patients receiving pharmacotherapies for OUD. These findings neither confirm concerns about cannabis increasing non-medical opioid use during MOUD, nor do they endorse its efficacy in decreasing non-medical opioid use with MOUD. This indicates a need for individualized approaches for cannabis use and challenges the requirement of cannabis abstinence to maintain OUD pharmacotherapies.
Topics: Humans; Female; Male; Analgesics, Opioid; Naltrexone; Cannabis; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Buprenorphine; Methadone; Longitudinal Studies; Hallucinogens
PubMed: 38225727
DOI: 10.1080/00952990.2023.2287406 -
Surgical Endoscopy Mar 2024The transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) is effective for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. However, evidence regarding the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) is effective for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. However, evidence regarding the optimal delivery method, either laparoscopic (L-TAPB) or ultrasound-guided (U-TAPB) is lacking. Our study aimed to compare the effectiveness of these delivery methods.
METHODS
We carried out a literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases to include randomized studies comparing patients receiving either L-TAPB or U-TAPB during minimally invasive colorectal surgery. The primary endpoint was opioid consumption in the first 24 h after surgery. Risk of bias was assessed with the RoB-2 tool. Effect size was estimated for each study with 95% confidence interval and overall effect measure was estimated with a random effect model.
RESULTS
The literature search revealed 294 articles, of which four randomized trials were eligible. A total of 359 patients were included, 176 received a L-TAPB and 183 received a U-TAPB. We established the non-inferiority of L-TAPB, as the absolute difference of - 2.6 morphine-mg (95%CI - 8.3 to 3.0) was below the pooled non-inferiority threshold of 8.1 morphine-mg (low certainty level). No difference in opioid consumption was noted at 2, 6, 12, and 48 h (low to very low certainty level). Postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting were similar between groups at different timepoints (low to very low certainty level). No TAPB-related complications were recorded. Finally, the length of hospital stay was similar between groups.
CONCLUSION
For postoperative multimodal analgesia both L-TAPB and U-TAPB may result in little to no difference in outcome in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Registration Prospero CRD42023421141.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Colorectal Surgery; Abdominal Muscles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Laparoscopy; Pain, Postoperative; Morphine; Ultrasonography, Interventional; Benzamidines
PubMed: 38253697
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10658-x -
The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care... Dec 2023Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) has potential as a form of analgesia for trauma patients in the emergency department (ED). The objective of this review was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) has potential as a form of analgesia for trauma patients in the emergency department (ED). The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PCA for the management of adults with acute traumatic pain in the ED. The hypothesis was that PCA can effectively treat acute trauma pain in adults in the ED, with minimal adverse outcomes and better patient satisfaction compared with non-PCA modalities.
METHODS
MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.gov , and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched from inception date to December 13, 2022. Randomized controlled trials involving adults presenting to the ED with acute traumatic pain who received intravenous (IV) analgesia via PCA compared with other modalities were included. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach were used to assess the quality of included studies.
RESULTS
A total of 1,368 publications were screened, with 3 studies involving 382 patients meeting the eligibility criteria. All three studies compared PCA IV morphine with clinician-titrated IV morphine boluses. For the primary outcome of pain relief, the pooled estimate was in favor of PCA with a standard mean difference of -0.36 (95% confidence interval, -0.87 to 0.16). There were mixed results concerning patient satisfaction. Adverse event rates were low overall. The evidence from all three studies was graded as low-quality because of a high risk of bias from lack of blinding.
CONCLUSION
This study did not demonstrate a significant improvement in pain relief or patient satisfaction using PCA for trauma in the ED. Clinicians wishing to use PCA to treat acute trauma pain in adult patients in the ED are advised to consider the available resources in their own practice settings and to implement protocols for monitoring and responding to potential adverse events.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Systematic Review/Meta-Analyses; Level III.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Pain Management; Acute Pain; Emergency Service, Hospital; Morphine
PubMed: 37335181
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000004004 -
The Clinical Journal of Pain Feb 2024Our study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of serratus anterior plane block (SAB) with the paravertebral block (PVB) and intercostal block (ICB) for patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Our study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of serratus anterior plane block (SAB) with the paravertebral block (PVB) and intercostal block (ICB) for patients undergoing surgical procedures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A literature search was performed on the databases of ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, PubMed, and Embase from inception to October 24, 2021. Only randomized controlled trials comparing SAB with either PVB or ICB and reporting pain outcomes were included.
RESULTS
A total of 16 randomized controlled trials were included. Thirteen compared SAB with PVB and 3 with ICB. Comparing SAB with PVB, we noted no difference in 24-hour morphine consumption between the groups (mean difference: 1.37; 95% CI: -0.33, 3.08; I2 = 96%; P = 0.11). However, the exclusion of 1 study indicated significantly increased analgesic consumption with the SAB. No difference was found in pain scores between SAB and PVB at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 hours. Meta-analysis failed to demonstrate any statistically significant difference in time to the first analgesic request between the two groups (mean difference: -0.79; 95% CI: -0.17, 1.75; I2 = 94%; P = 0.11). We also noted no statistically significant difference in the incidence of nausea/vomiting with SAB or PVB (odds ratio: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.41, 1.51; I2 = 0%; P = 0.47).
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence on the analgesic efficacy of the SAB versus the PVB is conflicting. Twenty-four-hour total analgesic consumption may be higher with the SAB as compared with PVB but with no difference in pain scores and time to the first analgesic request. Data on the comparison of the SAB with the ICB is insufficient to draw strong conclusions.
Topics: Humans; Pain Management; Nerve Block; Analgesics; Morphine; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37982705
DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000001175 -
Clinical Toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.) May 2024Pulmonary edema is a rare complication occurring after naloxone administration, but the causal relationship remains insufficiently investigated. We aimed to determine... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Pulmonary edema is a rare complication occurring after naloxone administration, but the causal relationship remains insufficiently investigated. We aimed to determine the likelihood of naloxone as the causative agent in published cases of pulmonary edema.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted across multiple databases, utilizing database-specific search terms such as "pulmonary edema/chemically induced" and "naloxone/adverse effects." Each case report was evaluated using the Naranjo scale, a standardized causality assessment algorithm.
RESULTS
We identified 49 published case reports of pulmonary edema following naloxone administration. The median total dose of naloxone was 0.2 mg for patients presenting following a surgical procedure and 4 mg for out-of-hospital opioid overdoses. Based on the Naranjo scale, the majority of cases were classified as "possible" ( = 38) or "probable" ( = 11) adverse reactions, while no "definite" cases of naloxone-induced pulmonary edema were identified. Many patients were classified as "possible" due to limited patient information or other potential risks, such as fluid administration or airway obstruction. Forty-six of 49 patients survived (94 percent).
DISCUSSION
Pulmonary edema may occur after both low and high doses of naloxone; however, low doses were primarily reported in the surgical population. Despite this complication, the majority of patients survived. Furthermore, no case report in our analysis was classified as a "definite" case of naloxone-induced pulmonary edema which limits the establishment of causality. Future studies should explore patient risk factors, including surgical versus outpatient setting and opioid-naïve versus opioid-tolerant for developing pulmonary edema and employ a causality assessment algorithm.
CONCLUSIONS
These case reports suggest pulmonary edema can occur following naloxone administration, irrespective of dose. According to the Naranjo scale, there were no definite cases of naloxone-induced pulmonary edema. Overall, we suggest the benefits of naloxone administration outweigh the risks. Naloxone should be administered to treat opioid overdoses while monitoring for the development of pulmonary edema.
Topics: Naloxone; Pulmonary Edema; Humans; Narcotic Antagonists; Analgesics, Opioid; Opiate Overdose; Drug Overdose
PubMed: 38865087
DOI: 10.1080/15563650.2024.2348108