-
Pain Practice : the Official Journal of... Jan 2022Various adjuvants for prolongation of intra-operative and postoperative analgesia have been clinically studied, but the safety and efficiency of nalbuphine as an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Various adjuvants for prolongation of intra-operative and postoperative analgesia have been clinically studied, but the safety and efficiency of nalbuphine as an adjuvant to local anesthetics in spinal anesthesia remains unconfirmed. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis about the effect of nalbuphine as an adjuvant to local anesthetics in spinal anesthesia in regard to time of onset of sensory blockade and motor blockade, duration of motor blockade, 2-segment sensory regression time, the duration of analgesia, and incidence of side effects to provide a reliable basis for clinical application.
METHODS
Databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI, CBM, WanFang, and Viper, were searched for eligible studies. Data were extracted according to the proposed inclusion and exclusion criteria, RevMan version 5.3 and Stata 16 were selected to perform meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Eighteen published studies including 1633 patients met the inclusion criteria. The results showed that adding nalbuphine to local anesthetics for spinal anesthesia can prolong two-segment sensory regression time (mean difference [MD] = 24.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 19.61-29.00, p < 0.001) and the duration of analgesia (MD = 118.11; 95% CI = 71.34-164.89, p < 0.001) without significantly increasing the incidence of adverse reactions in comparison to normal saline group. In addition, the analgesic effect of nalbuphine group was not statistically different from that of control group when compared with the potent opioid group, but the occurrence of hypotension (risk ratio [RR] = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.18-0.68, p < 0.01), the occurrence of shivering (RR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.08-0.43, p < 0.01), and the occurrence of pruritus (RR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.10-0.53, p < 0.01) was lower than the potent opioid group.
CONCLUSIONS
Nalbuphine as additives to local anesthetics can significantly prolong the two segments of sensory block and the average duration of analgesia without increasing the incidence of adverse reactions when compared with normal saline group. In addition, the analgesic efficacy of nalbuphine served as an adjunct to local anesthetics was clinically not different from that of the potent opioids, but the occurrence of hypotension, shivering, and pruritus was lower than the potent opioids.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthesia, Spinal; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Nalbuphine
PubMed: 33887111
DOI: 10.1111/papr.13021 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2022Many people with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, such as oxycodone and morphine. Strong opioids are, however, not... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Many people with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, such as oxycodone and morphine. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all people, neither are they well tolerated by all people. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for adults with cancer pain. This is an updated Cochrane review previously published in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone by any route of administration for pain in adults with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), and PsycINFO (Ovid) to November 2021. We also searched four trial registries, checked the bibliographic references of relevant studies, and contacted the authors of the included studies. We applied no language, date, or publication status restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (parallel-group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults by examining pain intensity/relief, adverse events, quality of life, and participant preference.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently sifted the search, extracted data and assessed the included studies using standard Cochrane methodology. We meta-analysed pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, and pain relief and adverse events using the Mantel-Haenszel method, or summarised these data narratively along with the quality of life and participant preference data. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
For this update, we identified 19 new studies (1836 participants) for inclusion. In total, we included 42 studies which enrolled/randomised 4485 participants, with 3945 of these analysed for efficacy and 4176 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons. Controlled-release (CR; typically taken every 12 hours) oxycodone versus immediate-release (IR; taken every 4-6 hours) oxycodone Pooled analysis of three of the four studies comparing CR oxycodone to IR oxycodone suggest that there is little to no difference between CR and IR oxycodone in pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.1 to 0.34; n = 319; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on adverse events, including constipation (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.54), nausea (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28), and vomiting (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15) (very low-certainty evidence). There were no data available for quality of life or participant preference, however, three studies suggested that treatment acceptability may be similar between groups (low-certainty evidence). CR oxycodone versus CR morphine The majority of the 24 studies comparing CR oxycodone to CR morphine reported either pain intensity (continuous variable), pain relief (dichotomous variable), or both. Pooled analysis indicated that pain intensity may be lower (better) after treatment with CR morphine than CR oxycodone (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.27; n = 882 in 7 studies; low-certainty evidence). This SMD is equivalent to a difference of 0.27 points on the Brief Pain Inventory scale (0-10 numerical rating scale), which is not clinically significant. Pooled analyses also suggested that there may be little to no difference in the proportion of participants achieving complete or significant pain relief (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10; n = 1249 in 13 studies; low-certainty evidence). The RR for constipation (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86) may be lower after treatment with CR oxycodone than after CR morphine. Pooled analyses showed that, for most of the adverse events, the CIs were wide, including no effect as well as potential benefit and harm: drowsiness/somnolence (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05), nausea (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.12), and vomiting (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.04) (low or very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain about the treatment effects on treatment acceptability and participant preference. Other comparisons The remaining studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability. The certainty of this evidence base was limited by the high or unclear risk of bias of the studies and by imprecision due to low or very low event rates or participant numbers for many outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions have not changed since the previous version of this review (in 2017). We found low-certainty evidence that there may be little to no difference in pain intensity, pain relief and adverse events between oxycodone and other strong opioids including morphine, commonly considered the gold standard strong opioid. Although we identified a benefit for pain relief in favour of CR morphine over CR oxycodone, this was not clinically significant and did not persist following sensitivity analysis and so we do not consider this important. However, we found that constipation and hallucinations occurred less often with CR oxycodone than with CR morphine; but the certainty of this evidence was either very low or the finding did not persist following sensitivity analysis, so these findings should be treated with utmost caution. Our conclusions are consistent with other reviews and suggest that, while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis, it seems unlikely that larger head-to-head studies of oxycodone versus morphine are justified, although well-designed trials comparing oxycodone to other strong analgesics may well be useful. For clinical purposes, oxycodone or morphine can be used as first-line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain in adults.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Cancer Pain; Constipation; Humans; Morphine; Nausea; Neoplasms; Oxycodone; Pain; Quality of Life; Reproducibility of Results; Sleepiness; Vomiting
PubMed: 35679121
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003870.pub7 -
The International Journal on Drug Policy Mar 2022Opioid agonist therapy (OAT) has been severely disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The risks of opioid withdrawal, overdose, and diversion have increased, so there is an... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Opioid agonist therapy (OAT) has been severely disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The risks of opioid withdrawal, overdose, and diversion have increased, so there is an urgent need to adapt OAT to best support people who use drugs (PWUD). This review examines the views and experiences of PWUD, health care providers, and health system administrators on OAT during major disruptions to medical care to inform appropriate health system responses during the current pandemic and beyond.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis. We searched three comprehensive datasets for qualitative and mixed-methods studies that examined OAT in the context of major disruptions such as natural disasters, and analyzed included studies using thematic analysis and the constant comparative method. We used conceptual frameworks of health systems resilience and adaptive systems to interpret our findings.
RESULTS
We included 10 studies published between 2002 and 2020 that examined OAT in the context of hurricanes, earthquakes, and terrorist attacks. We organized our results into three themes: uncertainty, inconsistency, and vulnerability; regulatory inflexibility; and lack of coordination. The highly regulated but poorly coordinated systems of OAT provision lacked flexibility to adapt to major disruptions, thereby manufacturing vulnerability for both PWUD and health workers.
CONCLUSIONS
OAT programs must be resilient and adaptable to face major disruptions while maintaining quality care. Our findings provide guidance to develop and implement innovative strategies that increase the adaptive potential of OAT programs while focusing on the needs of PWUD.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; COVID-19; Humans; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34902805
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103556 -
Pharmacogenomics Apr 2023To analyze roles of single nucleotide variants (SNVs) on weight loss with US FDA-approved medications. We searched the literature up until November 2022. Preferred... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To analyze roles of single nucleotide variants (SNVs) on weight loss with US FDA-approved medications. We searched the literature up until November 2022. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. 14 studies were included in qualitative analysis and seven in meta-analysis. SNVs in , , , , , , and were evaluated relative to weight loss with glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (13 studies) or naltrexone-bupropion (one study). gene (rs1049353), gene (rs6923761, rs10305420), gene (rs7903146) were associated with weight loss in at least one study involving glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist(s). The meta-analysis did not identify any consistent effect of SNVs. Pharmacogenetic interactions for exenatide, liraglutide, naltrexone-bupropion and weight loss were identified, but the directionality was inconsistent.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Pharmacogenetics; Naltrexone; Bupropion; Peptides; Venoms; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1; Weight Loss; Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Protein Serine-Threonine Kinases
PubMed: 36999540
DOI: 10.2217/pgs-2022-0192 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Neonates might be exposed to numerous painful procedures due to diagnostic reasons, therapeutic interventions, or surgical procedures. Options for pain management... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Neonates might be exposed to numerous painful procedures due to diagnostic reasons, therapeutic interventions, or surgical procedures. Options for pain management include opioids, non-pharmacological interventions, and other drugs. Morphine, fentanyl, and remifentanil are the opioids most often used in neonates. However, negative impact of opioids on the structure and function of the developing brain has been reported.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of opioids in term or preterm neonates exposed to procedural pain, compared to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics or sedatives, other opioids, or the same opioid administered by a different route.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was December 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials conducted in preterm and term infants of a postmenstrual age (PMA) up to 46 weeks and 0 days exposed to procedural pain where opioids were compared to 1) placebo or no drug; 2) non-pharmacological intervention; 3) other analgesics or sedatives; 4) other opioids; or 5) the same opioid administered by a different route.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were pain assessed with validated methods and any harms. We used a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, and their confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 independent studies (enrolling 823 newborn infants): seven studies compared opioids to no treatment or placebo (the main comparison in this review), two studies to oral sweet solution or non-pharmacological intervention, and five studies (of which two were part of the same study) to other analgesics and sedatives. All studies were performed in a hospital setting. Opioids compared to placebo or no drug Compared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP)/PIPP-Revised (PIPP-R) scale during the procedure (MD -2.58, 95% CI -3.12 to -2.03; 199 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) during the procedure (MD -1.97, 95% CI -2.46 to -1.48; 102 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence); and may result in little to no difference in pain score assessed with the Douleur Aiguë du Nouveau-né (DAN) scale one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.20, 95% CI -2.21 to 1.81; 42 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R scale up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.45; 123 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) or one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.83, 95% CI -2.42 to 0.75; 54 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia (RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.14 to 72.69; 172 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea compared to placebo (RR 3.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 9.16; 199 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence): with one study reporting a concerning increase in severe apnea (RR 7.44, 95% CI 0.42 to 132.95; 31 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of hypotension (RR not estimable, risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; 88 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Opioids compared to non-pharmacological intervention The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the Crying Requires oxygen Increased vital signs Expression Sleep (CRIES) scale during the procedure when compared to facilitated tucking (MD -4.62, 95% CI -6.38 to -2.86; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) or sensorial stimulation (MD 0.32, 95% CI -1.13 to 1.77; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported. Opioids compared to other analgesics or sedatives The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R during the procedure (MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.58 to 1.01; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence); up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD -1.10, 95% CI -2.82 to 0.62; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); and one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.17, 95% CI -2.22 to 1.88; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported any harms. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of apnea during (RR 3.27, 95% CI 0.85 to 12.58; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and after the procedure (RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.11 to 64.96; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and on hypotension (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.32 to 5.59; 204 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported. We identified no studies comparing different opioids (e.g. morphine versus fentanyl) or different routes for administration of the same opioid (e.g. morphine enterally versus morphine intravenously).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with PIPP/PIPP-R scale during the procedure; may reduce NIPS during the procedure; and may result in little to no difference in DAN one to two hours after the procedure. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain assessed with other pain scores or at different time points. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia, hypotension or severe apnea. Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea. No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the NICU. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on any outcome when compared to non-pharmacological interventions or to other analgesics. We identified no studies comparing opioids to other opioids or comparing different routes of administration of the same opioid.
Topics: Humans; Infant, Newborn; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Apnea; Bradycardia; Fentanyl; Hypotension; Morphine; Pain; Pain, Procedural
PubMed: 37350685
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015056.pub3 -
Cancer Treatment Reviews Apr 2024Cancer-related pain often requires opioid treatment with opioid-induced constipation (OIC) as its most frequent gastrointestinal side-effect. Both for prevention and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cancer-related pain often requires opioid treatment with opioid-induced constipation (OIC) as its most frequent gastrointestinal side-effect. Both for prevention and treatment of OIC osmotic (e.g. polyethylene glycol) and stimulant (e.g. bisacodyl) laxatives are widely used. Newer drugs such as the peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) and naloxone in a fixed combination with oxycodone have become available for the management of OIC. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to give an overview of the scientific evidence on pharmacological strategies for the prevention and treatment of OIC in cancer patients.
METHODS
A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library was completed from inception up to 22 October 2022. Randomized and non-randomized studies were systematically selected. Bowel function and adverse drug events were assessed.
RESULTS
Twenty trials (prevention: five RCTs and three cohort studies; treatment: ten RCTs and two comparative cohort studies) were included in the review. Regarding the prevention of OIC, three RCTs compared laxatives with other laxatives, finding no clear differences in effectivity of the laxatives used. One cohort study showed a significant benefit of magnesium oxide compared with no laxative. One RCT found a significant benefit for the PAMORA naldemedine compared with magnesium oxide. Preventive use of oxycodone/naloxone did not show a significant difference in two out of three other studies compared to oxycodone or fentanyl. A meta-analysis was not possible. Regarding the treatment of OIC, two RCTs compared laxatives, of which one RCT found that polyethylene glycol was significantly more effective than sennosides. Seven studies compared an opioid antagonist (naloxone, methylnaltrexone or naldemedine) with placebo and three studies compared different dosages of opioid antagonists. These studies with opioid antagonists were used for the meta-analysis. Oxycodone/naloxone showed a significant improvement in Bowel Function Index compared to oxycodone with laxatives (MD -13.68; 95 % CI -18.38 to -8.98; I = 58 %). Adverse drug event rates were similar amongst both groups, except for nausea in favour of oxycodone/naloxone (RR 0.51; 95 % CI 0.31-0.83; I = 0 %). Naldemedine (NAL) and methylnaltrexone (MNTX) demonstrated significantly higher response rates compared to placebo (NAL: RR 2.07, 95 % CI 1.64-2.61, I = 0 %; MNTX: RR 3.83, 95 % CI 2.81-5.22, I = 0 %). With regard to adverse events, abdominal pain was more present in treatment with methylnaltrexone and diarrhea was significantly more present in treatment with naldemedine. Different dosages of methylnaltrexone were not significantly different with regard to both efficacy and adverse drug event rates.
CONCLUSIONS
Magnesium oxide and naldemedine are most likely effective for prevention of OIC in cancer patients. Naloxone in a fixed combination with oxycodone, naldemedine and methylnaltrexone effectively treat OIC in cancer patients with acceptable adverse events. However, their effect has not been compared to standard (osmotic and stimulant) laxatives. More studies comparing standard laxatives with each other and with opioid antagonists are necessary before recommendations for clinical practice can be made.
Topics: Humans; Laxatives; Analgesics, Opioid; Narcotic Antagonists; Constipation; Oxycodone; Opioid-Induced Constipation; Magnesium Oxide; Cohort Studies; Naloxone; Polyethylene Glycols; Neoplasms; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Quaternary Ammonium Compounds; Naltrexone
PubMed: 38452708
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102704 -
AANA Journal Jun 2022With the current opiate epidemic in the United States, there is renewed interest in evaluating non-opiate adjuvant medications as effective alternatives for the...
With the current opiate epidemic in the United States, there is renewed interest in evaluating non-opiate adjuvant medications as effective alternatives for the prevention and treatment of postoperative pain. A systematic review of randomized, controlled trials on Pub Med, Medline, and Embase was conducted looking on postoperative pain management from 2008 to 2018. Studies were included if they used a gabapentenoid with or without acetaminophen and evaluated supplemental opiate use. All adult (18 years or older) surgical populations were considered for inclusion, and fourteen clinical trials met inclusion criteria. Gabapentenoid dosing varied among studies. In nine of fourteen studies, there was a finding of superiority as compared to placebo in managing postoperative pain and decreasing supplemental opiate use. Pregabalin was used in twelve of the fourteen studies and gabapentin was used in two of the fourteen studies. Of the nine studies that found a benefit from using a gabapentoid, all included pregabalin. While the rate of adverse effects was low in all studies, it was found to increase as dosages increased. Results support that pregabalin has a role in decreasing postoperative pain intensity and supplemental opiate use; however, the optimal dose or dosing regimen is not yet well understood.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Adult; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Humans; Opiate Alkaloids; Pain, Postoperative; Pregabalin; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 35604860
DOI: No ID Found -
Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2023Despite current advances in acute postoperative pain management, prevalence remains high. Inadequate treatment could lead to poor outcomes and even progression to... (Review)
Review
Despite current advances in acute postoperative pain management, prevalence remains high. Inadequate treatment could lead to poor outcomes and even progression to chronic pain. Opioids have traditionally been the mainstay for treatment of moderate to severe acute pain. However, their use has been associated with opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs), such as respiratory depression, sedation, nausea, vomiting, pruritus, and decreased bowel motility. In addition, their liberal use has been implicated in the current opioid epidemic. As a result, there has been renewed interest in multimodal analgesia to target different mechanisms of action in order to achieve a synergistic effect and minimize opioid usage. Oliceridine is a novel mu-opioid receptor agonist that is part of a new class of biased ligands that selectively activate G-protein signaling and downregulate β-arrestin recruitment. Since G-protein signaling has been associated with analgesia while β-arrestin recruitment has been associated with ORAEs, there is potential for a wider therapeutic window. In this review, we will discuss the clinical evidence behind oliceridine and its potential role in acute postoperative pain management. We have systematically searched the PubMed database using the keywords , and . All articles identified were reviewed and evaluated, and all clinical trials were included.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Morphine; Pain, Postoperative; GTP-Binding Proteins
PubMed: 36987403
DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S372612 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... May 2023To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of publications to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of percutaneous splanchnic nerve neurolysis (SNN) for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of publications to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of percutaneous splanchnic nerve neurolysis (SNN) for cancer-related pain.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web for English or Japanese articles published up to July 2022 and reporting patients who underwent percutaneous SNN for cancer-related pain. The outcome measures assessed in the systematic review and meta-analysis were the pain measurement scales and morphine equivalents daily dose (MEDD) before and after the intervention and the rate of complications.
RESULTS
Pooled pain measurement scores at pre-intervention, 1-2 weeks, and at 1, 2, 3, and 6 months post-intervention were 6.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.77-7.67, I = 97%), 2.79 (95% CI, 2.00-3.88, I = 88%), 2.82 (95% CI, 2.49-3.20, I = 55%), 2.86 (95% CI, 2.64-3.10, I = 0%), 2.99 (95% CI, 2.56-3.46, I = 82%), and 3.09 (95% CI, 1.44-6.65, I = 70%), respectively. Mean MEDD was described in 8 of the 11 included articles. In all 8 articles, MEDD decreased up to 3 months post-intervention. The pooled minor complication rates for diarrhea and hypotension were 28% (95% CI, 13-49%, I = 85%) and 31% (95% CI, 16-51%, I = 80%), respectively. The pooled major complication rate was 2% (95% CI, 1-2%, I = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
Analysis indicates that percutaneous SNN for cancer-related pain can be performed safely with sustained reduction of pain measurement scales while reducing the administration of opioids.
Topics: Humans; Cancer Pain; Splanchnic Nerves; Analgesics; Pain; Analgesics, Opioid; Morphine; Neoplasms
PubMed: 37148332
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-07746-y -
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Dec 2022Evidence maps are emerging data visualization of a systematic review. There are no published evidence maps summarizing opioid use disorder (OUD) interventions.
BACKGROUND
Evidence maps are emerging data visualization of a systematic review. There are no published evidence maps summarizing opioid use disorder (OUD) interventions.
AIM
Our aim was to publish an interactive summary of all peer-reviewed interventional and observational trials assessing the treatment of OUD and common clinical outcomes.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and Web of Science were queried using multiple OUD-related MESH terms, without date limitations, for English-language publications. Inclusions were human subjects, treatment of OUD, OUD patient or community-level outcomes, and systematic reviews of OUD interventions. Exclusions were laboratory studies, reviews, and case reports. Two reviewers independently scanned abstracts for inclusion before coding eligible full-text articles by pre-specified filters: research design, study population, study setting, intervention, outcomes, sample size, study duration, geographical region, and funding sources.
RESULTS
The OUD Evidence Map (https://med.nyu.edu/research/lee-lab/research/opioid-use-disorder-treatment-evidence-map) identified and assessed 12,933 relevant abstracts through 2020. We excluded 9455 abstracts and full text reviewed 2839 manuscripts; 888 were excluded, 1591 were included in the final evidence map. The most studied OUD interventions were methadone (n = 754 studies), buprenorphine (n = 499), and naltrexone (n = 134). The most common outcomes were heroin/opioid use (n = 708), treatment retention (n = 557), and non-opioid drug use (n = 368). Clear gaps included a wider array of opioid agonists for treatment, digital behavioral interventions, studies of OUD treatments in criminal justice settings, and overdose as a clinical outcome.
CONCLUSION
This OUD Evidence Map highlights the importance of pharmacologic interventions for OUD and reductions in opioid use. Future iterations will update results annually and scan policy-level interventions.
Topics: Humans; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Analgesics, Opioid; Opioid-Related Disorders; Buprenorphine; Methadone; Naltrexone
PubMed: 36332588
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109657