-
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Jan 2024Intranasal diamorphine is a potential treatment for breakthrough pain but few paediatric data are available to assist dose estimation.
BACKGROUND
Intranasal diamorphine is a potential treatment for breakthrough pain but few paediatric data are available to assist dose estimation.
AIM
To determine an intranasal diamorphine dose in children through an understanding of pharmacokinetics.
DESIGN
A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to seek diamorphine pharmacokinetic parameters in neonates, children and adults. Parenteral and enteral diamorphine bioavailability were reviewed with respect to formation of the major metabolite, morphine. Clinical data quantifying equianalgesic effects of diamorphine and morphine were reviewed.
REVIEW SOURCES
PubMed (1960-2020); EMBASE (1980-2020); IPA (1973-2020) and original human research studies that reported diacetylmorphine and metabolite after any dose or route of administration.
RESULTS
The systematic review identified 19 studies: 16 in adults and 1 in children and 2 neonatal reports. Details of study participants were extracted. Age ranged from premature neonates to 67 years and weight 1.4-88 kg. Intranasal diamorphine bioavailability was predicted as 50%. The equianalgesic intravenous conversion ratio of morphine:diamorphine was 2:1. There was heterogeneity between pharmacokinetic parameter estimates attributed to routes of administration, lack of size standardisation, methodology and pharmacokinetic analysis. Estimates of the pharmacokinetic parameters clearance and volume of distribution were reduced in neonates. There were insufficient paediatric data to characterise clearance or volume maturation of either diamorphine or its metabolites.
CONCLUSIONS
We estimate equianalgesic ratios of intravenous morphine:diamorphine 2:1, intravenous morphine:intranasal diamorphine 1:1 and oral morphine:intranasal diamorphine of 1:3. These ratios are based on adult literature, but are reasonable for deciding on an initial dose of 0.1 mg/kg in children 4-13 years.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Child; Aged; Heroin; Analgesics, Opioid; Breakthrough Pain; Morphine; Administration, Intravenous; Administration, Intranasal
PubMed: 35184039
DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2021-003461 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.... Jun 2024Although the transversus abdominal plane (TAP) block is commonly used in abdominal surgery as part of enhanced recovery after surgery pathways, the quadratus lumborum...
BACKGROUND
Although the transversus abdominal plane (TAP) block is commonly used in abdominal surgery as part of enhanced recovery after surgery pathways, the quadratus lumborum (QL) block has been hypothesized as an effective alternative to the TAP block in some areas. This review evaluates the current literature, as it relates to the QL block in plastic and reconstructive surgery.
METHODS
A systematic review using PubMed searched for all original, peer-reviewed articles, including the term "quadratus lumborum block." In total, 509 articles were identified for review by two independent reviewers. Original articles evaluating the use of a QL block in any plastic surgery operation were included. Articles evaluating pediatric patients, animal trials, and the use of a QL block in any nonplastic surgery operation were excluded.
RESULTS
Three articles met inclusion criteria. One trial demonstrated decreased subjective pain scores and total opioid use, whereas the second found no statistically significant difference. A case study described the use of a QL block for unilateral breast reconstruction with minimal opiate use and reduced pain scores postoperatively. Limitations include the limited number of studies and the heterogeneity in study type and design, making analysis difficult.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite its demonstrated efficacy in other surgical subspecialties, there are limited data evaluating the use of the QL block in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Additional research is needed to evaluate the role of the QL block in plastic surgery and how it compares to the more widely utilized TAP block.
PubMed: 38841521
DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000005863 -
International Journal of Orthopaedic... Feb 2024Many studies have reported conflicting results for the use of tramadol with the risk of fractures, especially hip fractures. This systematic review and meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Many studies have reported conflicting results for the use of tramadol with the risk of fractures, especially hip fractures. This systematic review and meta-analysis study aimed to evaluate the association of tramadol use versus codeine use with the risk of hip fracture for the first time.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases were searched with specific keywords to find studies that examined the association of tramadol use with hip fracture risk in patients with osteoarthritis up to May 2023. The risk of hip fracture secondary to tramadol versus codeine use was estimated based on age and sex. This systematic review was conducted based on the PRISMA checklist. Heterogeneity between studies was evaluated using Cochran's Q and I2 tests. Egger's test was used to check publication bias. The Newcastle-Ottawa Checklist (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the studies.
FINDINGS
Ten studies with 1,939,293 participants were reviewed. The majority of participants were female. Based on the study evaluation checklist, most studies were of good quality. Tramadol use significantly increases the overall risk of hip fracture. (HR: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.51, P: 0.001, I:19.3%) Tramadol use significantly increases the risk of hip fracture in men (HR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.24, 1.73, P: 0.001 I:35%) and age ≤65 years (HR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.45, 1.80, P: 0.001, I:0%).
CONCLUSION
The use of tramadol significantly increases the risk of hip fracture. This increased risk of hip fracture was greater in males younger than 65 years.
Topics: Humans; Codeine; Hip Fractures; Osteoarthritis; Tramadol; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 38103456
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijotn.2023.101078 -
Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of... Jun 2024One-third of cancer pain patients do not experience adequate pain relief using analgesic ladder by the World Health Organization. Interventional procedures, such as...
One-third of cancer pain patients do not experience adequate pain relief using analgesic ladder by the World Health Organization. Interventional procedures, such as epidural morphine, have been considered. This study aimed to review the literature comparing the effects of epidural administration of morphine with the oral route. This systematic review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted with patients with gastrointestinal neoplasm. A search was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases to identify studies published up to May 2023. The retrieved study was evaluated using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool and qualitatively synthesized. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach (Prospero: CRD42021264728). Only one RCT, a crossover trial, was included in this systematic review. The study was conducted with ten participants (one withdrawal) and reported a statistically significant difference between both subcutaneous and epidural morphine solutions and oral morphine. The adverse events were not described. The included study presents some concerns of bias and low certainty of evidence on the effectiveness and security of epidural morphine administration. The available literature does not suffice to elucidate whether morphine administration via the epidural route is more effective than other routes. Further RCTs are necessary to improve the level of evidence on the effectiveness and risk-benefit of epidural morphine in the management of cancer pain in gastrointestinal neoplasm patients.
Topics: Humans; Administration, Oral; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics, Opioid; Cancer Pain; Gastrointestinal Neoplasms; Morphine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38180558
DOI: 10.1007/s00210-023-02925-4 -
Substance Use & Addiction Journal Apr 2024Buprenorphine is among the most effective treatments for opioid use disorder. Even though the federal government recently eliminated the waiver requirement and patient...
BACKGROUND
Buprenorphine is among the most effective treatments for opioid use disorder. Even though the federal government recently eliminated the waiver requirement and patient limits applicable to office-based buprenorphine treatment (OBBT), among other settings, some states may still have policies imposing requirements on OBBT providers not required by federal law.
METHODS
We collected statutes and regulations from 50 US states and the District of Columbia (ie, 51 jurisdictions) between August 11 and November 30, 2022 using the Nexis Uni legal database and search terms related to OBBT counseling, dosage, and/or frequency of visits. We then used template analysis, a mixed deductive-inductive qualitative method, to analyze legal content.
RESULTS
Ten jurisdictions (20%) in 2022 had an OBBT counseling, dosage, and/or visit frequency requirement. Four jurisdictions had at least one law in each OBBT policy category examined. One-fifth of jurisdictions have OBBT policies not required under federal law. Five of these jurisdictions are among those with the highest overdose death rates per capita, according to publicly available data from 2021. Some OBBT requirements could potentially limit clinician interest in offering buprenorphine treatment or result in inadequate care (eg, if dosage limitations are too low.).
CONCLUSIONS
Even though a federal waiver is no longer required for OBBT, our results suggests that at least some jurisdictions have other OBBT requirements, such as counseling, dosage, and/or frequency requirements. Given the severity of the ongoing opioid overdose crisis, policymakers should carefully consider the extent to which OBBT requirements are evidence based.
Topics: Humans; Buprenorphine; Opioid-Related Disorders; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Counseling; Drug Overdose
PubMed: 38288697
DOI: 10.1177/29767342231223721 -
Neurosurgical Review Apr 2024In recent years, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAIDs), which are considered to affect the prognosis of spinal surgery, have been widely used in perioperative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
In recent years, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAIDs), which are considered to affect the prognosis of spinal surgery, have been widely used in perioperative analgesia in spinal surgery, but the relationship between these two factors remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to explore the effect of perioperative use of NSAIDs on the prognosis of patients treated with spinal surgery. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for relevant articles published on or before July 14, 2023. We used a random-effect model for the meta-analysis to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to analyze stability. A total of 23 randomized clinical trials including 1457 participants met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis showed that NSAIDs were significantly associated with postoperative morphine use (mg) (SMD = -0.90, 95% CI -1.12 to -0.68) and postoperative pain (SMD = -0.71, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.58). These results were further confirmed by the trim-and-fill procedure and leave-one-out sensitivity analyses. The current study shows that perioperative use of NSAIDs appears to be an important factor in reducing postoperative pain and morphine use in patients undergoing spinal surgery. However, well-designed, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are still required.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Morphine Derivatives; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spine
PubMed: 38578529
DOI: 10.1007/s10143-024-02371-7