-
Deutsches Arzteblatt International Jul 2022Acute pancreatitis (AP) is among the commonest non-malignant admission diagnoses in gastroenterology. Its incidence in Germany lies between 13 and 43 per 100 000...
BACKGROUND
Acute pancreatitis (AP) is among the commonest non-malignant admission diagnoses in gastroenterology. Its incidence in Germany lies between 13 and 43 per 100 000 inhabitants and is increasing. In 2017, 24 per 100 000 inhabitants were hospitalized for chronic pancreatitis.
METHODS
From October 2018 to January 2019, we systematically searched the literature for original articles, meta-analyses, and evidence-based guidelines that were published in German or English between 1960 and 2018.
RESULTS
30-50% of cases of acute pancreatitis are caused by gallstone disease, and another 30-50% are due to alcohol abuse. The diagnosis is made when at least two of the following three criteria are met: typical abdominal pain, elevation of serum lipase, and characteristic imaging findings. If those criteria are ambiguous, transabdominal sonography is indicated. The early initiation of food intake lowers the rate of infected pancreatic necrosis, organ failure, or death (odds ratio 0.44; 95% confidence interval [0.2; 0.96]). In AP, Ringer's lactate solution should be preferred for fluid resuscitation, at 200-250 mL/hr for 24 hours. Severe pain should be treated with opiates.
CONCLUSION
The current German clinical practice guideline reflects the developments in the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatitis that have taken place over the past few years. The long-term care and monitoring of patients with complication-free pancreatitis is the responsibility of primary care physicians and gastroenterologists.
Topics: Humans; Acute Disease; Fluid Therapy; Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing; Pancreatitis, Chronic; Meta-Analysis as Topic
PubMed: 35945698
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0223 -
Current Pain and Headache Reports Aug 2020The purpose of this review is to evaluate and explain our current understanding of the clinical use of low-dose naltrexone in the treatment of chronic pain.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
The purpose of this review is to evaluate and explain our current understanding of the clinical use of low-dose naltrexone in the treatment of chronic pain.
RECENT FINDINGS
Recent pre-clinical uses and clinical studies further elucidate the use of low-dose naltrexone in the treatment of chronic pain. Low-dose naltrexone (LDN) has shown promise to reduce symptoms related to chronic pain conditions such as fibromyalgia, inflammatory bowel conditions, and multiple sclerosis. The mechanism of LDN appears to be modulation of neuro-inflammation, specifically, the modulation of the glial cells and release of inflammatory chemicals in the central nervous system. These effects appear to unique at low dosage compared to dosage for food and drug administration approved use for alcohol and opioid dependence. We review the evidence that LDN has shown more than promise and should be further investigated in clinical practice.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Multiple Sclerosis; Naltrexone; Narcotic Antagonists; Opioid-Related Disorders
PubMed: 32845365
DOI: 10.1007/s11916-020-00898-0 -
JAMA Nov 2023Alcohol use disorder affects more than 28.3 million people in the United States and is associated with increased rates of morbidity and mortality. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Alcohol use disorder affects more than 28.3 million people in the United States and is associated with increased rates of morbidity and mortality.
OBJECTIVE
To compare efficacy and comparative efficacy of therapies for alcohol use disorder.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Trials Registry, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched from November 2012 to September 9, 2022 Literature was subsequently systematically monitored to identify relevant articles up to August 14, 2023, and the PubMed search was updated on August 14, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
For efficacy outcomes, randomized clinical trials of at least 12 weeks' duration were included. For adverse effects, randomized clinical trials and prospective cohort studies that compared drug therapies and reported health outcomes or harms were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers evaluated each study, assessed risk of bias, and graded strength of evidence. Meta-analyses used random-effects models. Numbers needed to treat were calculated for medications with at least moderate strength of evidence for benefit.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was alcohol consumption. Secondary outcomes were motor vehicle crashes, injuries, quality of life, function, mortality, and harms.
RESULTS
Data from 118 clinical trials and 20 976 participants were included. The numbers needed to treat to prevent 1 person from returning to any drinking were 11 (95% CI, 1-32) for acamprosate and 18 (95% CI, 4-32) for oral naltrexone at a dose of 50 mg/d. Compared with placebo, oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) was associated with lower rates of return to heavy drinking, with a number needed to treat of 11 (95% CI, 5-41). Injectable naltrexone was associated with fewer drinking days over the 30-day treatment period (weighted mean difference, -4.99 days; 95% CI, -9.49 to -0.49 days) Adverse effects included higher gastrointestinal distress for acamprosate (diarrhea: risk ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.27-1.97) and naltrexone (nausea: risk ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.51-1.98; vomiting: risk ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.23-1.91) compared with placebo.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In conjunction with psychosocial interventions, these findings support the use of oral naltrexone at 50 mg/d and acamprosate as first-line pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorder.
Topics: Humans; Acamprosate; Alcohol Drinking; Alcoholism; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Naltrexone; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; United States; Alcohol Deterrents; Psychosocial Intervention
PubMed: 37934220
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.19761 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological interventions for LBP published in the Cochrane Library, is limited by lack of a comprehensive overview.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP.
METHODS
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched from inception to 3 June 2021, to identify reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools. The review focused on placebo comparisons and the main outcomes were pain intensity, function, and safety.
MAIN RESULTS
Seven Cochrane Reviews that included 103 studies (22,238 participants) were included. There is high confidence in the findings of five reviews, moderate confidence in one, and low confidence in the findings of another. The reviews reported data on six medicines or medicine classes: paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), muscle relaxants, benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants. Three reviews included participants with acute or sub-acute LBP and five reviews included participants with chronic LBP. Acute LBP Paracetamol There was high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD 0.49 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.99 to 2.97), reducing disability (MD 0.05 on a 0 to 24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -0.50 to 0.60), and increasing the risk of adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33). NSAIDs There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -7.29 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.98 to -3.61), high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for reducing disability (MD -2.02 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15), and very low-certainty evidence for no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0. 63 to 1.18). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring muscle relaxants compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76), and higher chance of improving physical function (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77), and increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1. 14 to 1.98). Opioids None of the included Cochrane Reviews aimed to identify evidence for acute LBP. Antidepressants No evidence was identified by the included reviews for acute LBP. Chronic LBP Paracetamol No evidence was identified by the included reviews for chronic LBP. NSAIDs There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD -6.97 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.74 to -3.19), reducing disability (MD -0.85 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -1.30 to -0.40), and no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.17), all at intermediate-term follow-up (> 3 months and ≤ 12 months postintervention). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring benzodiazepines compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93), and low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between muscle relaxants and placebo in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.57). Opioids There was high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tapentadol compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -8.00 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.22 to -0.38), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.33), low-certainty evidence for a medium between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.44) and very low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.26). There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids compared to placebo for reducing disability (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.15), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing disability (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07), and low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing disability (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.25). There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for an increased risk of adverse events for opioids (all types) compared to placebo; nausea (RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14), headaches (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05), constipation (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), and dizziness (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11). Antidepressants There was low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference for antidepressants (all types) compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.17) and reducing disability (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.29).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no high- or moderate-certainty evidence that any investigated pharmacological intervention provided a large or medium effect on pain intensity for acute or chronic LBP compared to placebo. For acute LBP, we found moderate-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and muscle relaxants may provide a small effect on pain, and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo. For safety, we found very low- and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference with NSAIDs and paracetamol compared to placebo for the risk of adverse events, and moderate-certainty evidence that muscle relaxants may increase the risk of adverse events. For chronic LBP, we found low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and very low- to high-certainty evidence that opioids may provide a small effect on pain. For safety, we found low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between NSAIDs and placebo for the risk of adverse events, and low-certainty evidence that opioids may increase the risk of adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Acetaminophen; Low Back Pain; Tramadol; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Acute Pain; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine
PubMed: 37014979
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013815.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Pain is a common symptom in people with cancer; 30% to 50% of people with cancer will experience moderate-to-severe pain. This can have a major negative impact on their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pain is a common symptom in people with cancer; 30% to 50% of people with cancer will experience moderate-to-severe pain. This can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine-like) medications are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. Pain is not sufficiently relieved by opioid medications in 10% to 15% of people with cancer. In people with insufficient relief of cancer pain, new analgesics are needed to effectively and safely supplement or replace opioids.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines, including medical cannabis, for treating pain and other symptoms in adults with cancer compared to placebo or any other established analgesic for cancer pain.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 January 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected double-blind randomised, controlled trials (RCT) of medical cannabis, plant-derived and synthetic cannabis-based medicines against placebo or any other active treatment for cancer pain in adults, with any treatment duration and at least 10 participants per treatment arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. The primary outcomes were 1. proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain; 2. Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved and 3. withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were 4. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater and overall opioid use reduced or stable; 5. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater, or 50% or greater; 6. pain intensity; 7. sleep problems; 8. depression and anxiety; 9. daily maintenance and breakthrough opioid dosage; 10. dropouts due to lack of efficacy; 11. all central nervous system adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 14 studies involving 1823 participants. No study assessed the proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain on treatment by 14 days after start of treatment. We found five RCTs assessing oromucosal nabiximols (tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD)) or THC alone involving 1539 participants with moderate or severe pain despite opioid therapy. The double-blind periods of the RCTs ranged between two and five weeks. Four studies with a parallel design and 1333 participants were available for meta-analysis. There was moderate-certainty evidence that there was no clinically relevant benefit for proportions of PGIC much or very much improved (risk difference (RD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.12; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 16, 95% CI 8 to 100). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of withdrawals due to adverse events (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0 to 0.08; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 25, 95% CI 16 to endless). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no difference between nabiximols or THC and placebo in the frequency of serious adverse events (RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07). There was moderate-certainty evidence that nabiximols and THC used as add-on treatment for opioid-refractory cancer pain did not differ from placebo in reducing mean pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.02). There was low-certainty evidence that a synthetic THC analogue (nabilone) delivered over eight weeks was not superior to placebo in reducing pain associated with chemotherapy or radiochemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer (2 studies, 89 participants, qualitative analysis). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies. There was low-certainty evidence that synthetic THC analogues were superior to placebo (SMD -0.98, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.60), but not superior to low-dose codeine (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.32; 5 single-dose trials; 126 participants) in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain after cessation of previous analgesic treatment for three to four and a half hours (2 single-dose trials; 66 participants). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies. There was low-certainty evidence that CBD oil did not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain intensity in people with advanced cancer. There was no difference in the number of dropouts due to adverse events and serious adverse events (1 study, 144 participants, qualitative analysis). We found no studies using herbal cannabis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-certainty evidence that oromucosal nabiximols and THC are ineffective in relieving moderate-to-severe opioid-refractory cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that nabilone is ineffective in reducing pain associated with (radio-) chemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. There is low-certainty evidence that a single dose of synthetic THC analogues is not superior to a single low-dose morphine equivalent in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that CBD does not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain in people with advanced cancer.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Cancer Pain; Cannabis; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Codeine; Lung Neoplasms; Medical Marijuana; Morphine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37283486
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014915.pub2 -
BMC Oral Health Feb 2020The aim of our study was to perform a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis in order to investigate relationship between drug use and oral health. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The aim of our study was to perform a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis in order to investigate relationship between drug use and oral health.
METHODS
We searched for studies in English published before July 1, 2019 on PsycINFO, PubMed, SciELO, Scopus, and Web of Science. We assessed the relationship between drug use (methamphetamines, heroin; opiates; crack, cocaine and cannabis as dependent variables) and reported tooth loss, periodontal disease, or decayed, missing, and filled teeth index as an independent variable. The data were analyzed using Stata 12.0 software.
RESULTS
We initially identified 1836 potential articles (with 1100 duplicates) and screened the remaining 736 titles and abstracts, comprising 54 studies. In the next step, we evaluated the full-texts; 44 studies were excluded, accordingly. In total, we included 10 publications in the meta-analysis. Drug type was associated with periodontal disease (OR 1.44; 95% CI 0.8-2.6) and pooled estimates showed that type of drug used increased the odds of the number of decayed, missed and filled teeth (DMFT) (OR 4.11; 95% CI 2.07-8.15) respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The analytical challenges of segregating the impact of individual drug types on oral health diseases mean that investigations on the direct relationship between oral health status and drug use are limited. Developing programs to improve potential confounding with various substances and addressing the dental health needs of people who use drugs is vital if we are to improve their overall quality of life.
Topics: Dental Caries; Drug Users; Humans; Oral Health; Periodontal Diseases; Quality of Life; Substance-Related Disorders; Tooth Loss
PubMed: 32041585
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-1010-3 -
World Journal of Surgery Apr 2022The optimal analgesic strategy for patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) remains unknown. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The optimal analgesic strategy for patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) remains unknown.
OBJECTIVE
The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of different analgesic modalities trialled in AP.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, SCOPUS and Web of Science conducted up until June 2021, identified all randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing analgesic modalities in AP. A pooled analysis was undertaken of the improvement in pain scores as reported on visual analogue scale (VAS) on day 0, day 1 and day 2.
RESULTS
Twelve RCTs were identified including 542 patients. Seven trial drugs were compared: opiates, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs), metamizole, local anaesthetic, epidural, paracetamol, and placebo. Across all modalities, the pooled VAS scores showed global improvement from baseline to day 2. Epidural analgesia appears to provide the greatest improvement in VAS within the first 24 h but is equivalent to opiates by 48 h. Within 24 h, NSAIDs offered similar pain-relief to opiates, while placebo also showed equivalence to other modalities but then plateaued. Local anaesthetics demonstrated least overall efficacy. VAS scores for opiate and non-opiate analgesics were comparable at baseline and day 1. The identified RCTs demonstrated significant statistical and methodological heterogeneity in pain-relief reporting.
CONCLUSIONS
There is remarkable paucity of level 1 evidence to guide pain management in AP with small datasets per study. Epidural administration appears effective within the first 24 h of AP although infrequently used and featured in only a single RCT. NSAIDs are an effective opiate sparing alternative during the first 24 h.
Topics: Analgesia; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Opiate Alkaloids; Pain; Pain Management; Pancreatitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34994837
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-021-06420-w -
Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy Jan 2021Treating chronic low back pain (LBP) can be challenging, and the most effective pharmacological therapy is controversial. The present systematic review investigated the...
INTRODUCTION
Treating chronic low back pain (LBP) can be challenging, and the most effective pharmacological therapy is controversial. The present systematic review investigated the efficacy of various pharmacological compounds to achieve pain relief and improve disability in chronic LBP patients. The present study focused on acetaminophen, amoxicillin, flupirtine, baclofen, tryciclic antidepressants (TCAs), duloxetine, topiramate, gabapentinoids, non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids.
AREAS COVERED
All randomized clinical trials comparing two or more drug treatments for chronic low back pain were accessed. Studies reporting outcomes concerning patients with neurologic or mechanic, specific or aspecific low back pain with or without radiculopathy were included. LBP was considered chronic if pain had lasted more than 6 weeks. Data from 47 articles (9007 patients: mean age: 52.62 ± 7.0 years; mean BMI: 28.26 ± 2.8; mean follow-up: 3.23 ± 3.2 months) were obtained.
EXPERT OPINION
According to published level I evidence, only baclofen, duloxetine, NSAIDs, and opiates showed to improve pain and disability levels in patients with LBP. However, the patients' demographics are heterogeneous, and the results must be interpreted with caution and in the light of possible adverse events connected to the use of these drugs.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antidepressive Agents; Chronic Pain; Humans; Low Back Pain; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32885995
DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2020.1817384 -
JAMA Psychiatry Sep 2021Mortality among people with opioid dependence is higher than that of the general population. Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is an effective treatment for opioid... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Mortality among people with opioid dependence is higher than that of the general population. Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is an effective treatment for opioid dependence; however, there has not yet been a systematic review on the relationship between OAT and specific causes of mortality.
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the association of time receiving OAT with mortality.
DATA SOURCES
The Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases were searched through February 18, 2020, including clinical trial registries and previous Cochrane reviews.
STUDY SELECTION
All observational studies that collected data on all-cause or cause-specific mortality among people with opioid dependence while receiving and not receiving OAT were included. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were also included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data on study, participant, and treatment characteristics were extracted; person-years, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific mortality were calculated. Crude mortality rates and rate ratios (RRs) were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Overall all-cause and cause-specific mortality both by setting and by participant characteristics. Methadone and buprenorphine OAT were evaluated specifically.
RESULTS
Fifteen RCTs including 3852 participants and 36 primary cohort studies including 749 634 participants were analyzed. Among the cohort studies, the rate of all-cause mortality during OAT was more than half of the rate seen during time out of OAT (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.42-0.53). This association was consistent regardless of patient sex, age, geographic location, HIV status, and hepatitis C virus status and whether drugs were taken through injection. Associations were not different for methadone (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41-0.54) vs buprenorphine (RR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.26-0.45). There was lower risk of suicide (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.61), cancer (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-0.98), drug-related (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.33-0.52), alcohol-related (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.49-0.72), and cardiovascular-related (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.79) mortality during OAT. In the first 4 weeks of methadone treatment, rates of all-cause mortality and drug-related poisoning were almost double the rates during the remainder of OAT (RR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.55-5.09) but not for buprenorphine (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.18-1.85). All-cause mortality was 6 times higher in the 4 weeks after OAT cessation (RR, 6.01; 95% CI, 4.32-8.36), remaining double the rate for the remainder of time not receiving OAT (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.50-2.18). Opioid agonist treatment was associated with a lower risk of mortality during incarceration (RR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.01-0.46) and after release from incarceration (RR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.02-0.56).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This systematic review and meta-analysis found that OAT was associated with lower rates of mortality. However, access to OAT remains limited, and coverage of OAT remains low. Work to improve access globally may have important population-level benefits.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Cause of Death; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders
PubMed: 34076676
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.0976 -
Journal of Palliative Medicine May 2023The objective of this systematic review is to consolidate the existing evidence on opioid use, including administration, dosing, and efficacy, for the relief of dyspnea... (Review)
Review
The objective of this systematic review is to consolidate the existing evidence on opioid use, including administration, dosing, and efficacy, for the relief of dyspnea at end of life. The overarching goal is to optimize clinical management of dyspnea by identifying patterns in opioid use, improving opioid management of dyspnea, and to prioritize future research. Opioids are commonly used in the management of dyspnea at end of life, yet specific administration guidelines are limited. A greater understanding of the effectiveness of opioids in relieving end-of-life dyspnea with consideration of study design, patients, and opioids, including dyspnea evaluation tools and outcomes, will leverage development of standardized administration and dosing. A PRISMA-guided systematic review using six databases identified quality studies of opioid management for patients with dyspnea at end of life. Twenty-three references met review inclusion criteria, which included terminally ill cancer and noncancer patients with various diagnoses. Studies included two randomized controlled trials, and three nonrandomized experimental, three prospective observational, one cross-sectional, and one case series. Thirteen retrospective chart reviews were also included due to the limited rigorous studies rendered by the search. Thirteen studies evaluated morphine, followed by fentanyl (6), oxycodone (5), general opioid use (4), and hydromorphone (2). Routes of administration were parenteral, oral, combination, and nebulization. Dyspnea was evaluated using self-reporting and non-self-reporting evaluation tools. Sedation was the most reported opioid-related adverse effect. Challenges persist in conducting end-of-life research, preventing consensus on standardization of opioid treatment for dyspnea within this specific palliative time frame. Future robust prospective trials using specific, accurate assessment with reassessment of dyspnea/respiratory distress, and consideration of opioid tolerance, polypharmacy, and comorbidities are required.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Drug Tolerance; Morphine; Dyspnea; Death; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36453988
DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2022.0311