-
British Journal of Anaesthesia Jan 2022Development of a widely accepted standardised analgesic pathway for adult spine surgery has been hampered by the lack of quantitative analysis. We conducted a systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy of perioperative pharmacological and regional pain interventions in adult spine surgery: a network meta-analysis and systematic review of randomised controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Development of a widely accepted standardised analgesic pathway for adult spine surgery has been hampered by the lack of quantitative analysis. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare, rank, and grade all pharmacological and regional interventions used in adult spine surgery.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in January 2021. We performed double study screening, selection, and data extraction. The co-primary outcomes were cumulative morphine consumption (mg) and visual analogue pain score (range 0-10) at postoperative 24 h. An NMA was performed using the Bayesian approach (random effects model). We also ranked and graded all analgesic interventions using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach for NMA.
RESULTS
We screened 5908 studies and included 86 randomised controlled studies, which comprised 6284 participants. Of 20 pharmacological and 10 regional interventions, the most effective intervention was triple-drug therapy, consisting of paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and adjunct. The pooled mean reduction in morphine consumption and pain score at postoperative 24 h were -26 (95% credible interval [CrI]: -39 to -12) mg and -2.3 (95% CrI: -3.1 to -1.4), respectively. Double-drug therapy was less effective, but showed moderate morphine reduction in a range of -15 to -17 mg and pain score reduction in a range of -1 to -1.6. Single-agent interventions were largely ineffective.
CONCLUSIONS
Triple-drug therapy is the most effective pain intervention in adult spine surgery with moderate-to-high certainty of evidence. We have also identified a graded analgesic effect, in which analgesic efficacy increased with the number of multimodal drugs used.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42020171326).
Topics: Adult; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Morphine; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spine
PubMed: 34774296
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2021.08.034 -
The Western Journal of Emergency... May 2023Ketamine can be particularly helpful in situations where the clinician is not able to administer opioids and require an alternate analgesic, such as for patients who are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Ketamine can be particularly helpful in situations where the clinician is not able to administer opioids and require an alternate analgesic, such as for patients who are already on high-dose opioids, have a history of addiction, or for opioid-naïve children and adults. In this review, our goal was to obtain a comprehensive estimate of the efficacy and safety of low-dose ketamine (dose less than 0.5 milligrams per kilogram or equivalent) compared to opiates for the control of acute pain in the emergency setting.
METHODS
We conducted systematic searches in PubMed Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar from inception until November 2021. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool to assess the quality of included studies.
RESULTS
We carried out a meta-analysis with a random-effects model and reported pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals depending on the type of the outcome. We analyzed a total of 15 studies with 1,613 participants. Half of them had high risk of bias and were conducted in the United States of America. The pooled SMD for pain score was -0.12 (95% CI -0.50-0.25; I2=68.8%) within 15 minutes, -0.45 (95% CI -0.84--0.07; I2=83.3%) within 30 minutes, -0.05 (95% CI -0.41-0.31; I2=86.9%) within 45 minutes, -0.07 (95% CI -0.41-0.26; I2=82%) within 60 minutes, and after 60 minutes the pooled SMD was 0.17 (95% CI -0.07-0.42; I2=64.8%). The pooled RR for need of rescue analgesics was 1.35 (95% CI 0.73-2.50; I2=82.2%). The pooled RRs were as follows: 1.18 (95% CI 0.76-1.84; I2=28.3%) for gastrointestinal side effects; 1.41 (95% CI 0.96-2.06; I2=29.7%) for neurological side effects; 2.83 (95% CI 0.98-8.18; I2=47%) for psychological side effects; and 0.58 (95% CI 0.23-1.48; I2=36.1%) for cardiopulmonary side effects.
CONCLUSION
Low-dose ketamine might have higher or equivalent efficacy and safety when compared to opioids for managing acute pain among patients presenting to the emergency setting. However, further studies are required to establish conclusive evidence, owing to the heterogeneity and poor quality of existing studies.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Ketamine; Acute Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Analgesics
PubMed: 37278798
DOI: 10.5811/westjem.2023.2.58368 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Jan 2023: As an adjunct to postoperative multimodal analgesic regimens, pregabalin has been reported in reducing postoperative acute pain and opioid consumption. However, there... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
: As an adjunct to postoperative multimodal analgesic regimens, pregabalin has been reported in reducing postoperative acute pain and opioid consumption. However, there is only a small amount of evidence for preemptive pregabalin in patients undergoing cancer-related surgery. This systematic review was conducted to integrate high-quality evidence to evaluate the preemptive analgesic effects of pregabalin in cancer-related surgery. : Seven electronic databases were searched in a combination of subject terms and free words. Efficacy and safety of preemptive pregabalin on postoperative pain for cancer-related surgery were evaluated by assessing resting and dynamic pain scores postoperatively, cumulative morphine equivalent consumption, time to first analgesic request, hemodynamic parameters, and the safety indicators. : Thirteen trials were incorporated for quantitative synthesis. The pooled results showed administration of pregabalin preoperatively is clinically significant for improving resting (weighted mean difference (WMD), -1.53 cm; 95% CI, -2.30 to -0.77) and dynamic (WMD, -1.16 cm; 95% CI, -2.22 to -0.11) pain severity scores at 2 h postoperatively and prolonging time to first analgesic request (WMD, 2.28 h; 95% CI, 0.79 to 3.77) in cancer-related surgery. Preemptive pregabalin was also statistically effective in some other pain indicators but would increase the risk of pregabalin-related side effects after surgery. : Our findings do not support the administration of pregabalin in doses larger than 300 mg when put in cancer-related surgery. Taken together, more high-quality research particularly focused on the optimal dosages and timing of pregabalin in cancer-related surgery is needed in the future to establish stronger evidence for therapeutic effects.
Topics: Humans; Pregabalin; Neoplasms; Analgesics; Morphine; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 36837482
DOI: 10.3390/medicina59020280 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Mechanical ventilation is a potentially painful and discomforting intervention that is widely used in neonatal intensive care. Newborn infants demonstrate increased... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Mechanical ventilation is a potentially painful and discomforting intervention that is widely used in neonatal intensive care. Newborn infants demonstrate increased sensitivity to pain, which may affect clinical and neurodevelopmental outcomes. The use of drugs that reduce pain might be important in improving survival and neurodevelopmental outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the benefits and harms of opioid analgesics for neonates (term or preterm) receiving mechanical ventilation compared to placebo or no drug, other opioids, or other analgesics or sedatives.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 9), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 29 September 2020); Embase (1980 to 29 September 2020); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 29 September 2020). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing opioids to placebo or no drug, to other opioids, or to other analgesics or sedatives in newborn infants on mechanical ventilation. We excluded cross-over trials. We included term (≥ 37 weeks' gestational age) and preterm (< 37 weeks' gestational age) newborn infants on mechanical ventilation. We included any duration of drug treatment and any dosage given continuously or as bolus; we excluded studies that gave opioids to ventilated infants for procedures.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For each of the included trials, we independently extracted data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, types of opioids) using Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) criteria and assessed the risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomisation, blinding, completeness of follow-up). We evaluated treatment effects using a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 studies (enrolling 2023 infants) published between 1992 and 2019. Fifteen studies (1632 infants) compared the use of morphine or fentanyl versus placebo or no intervention. Four studies included both term and preterm infants, and one study only term infants; all other studies included only preterm infants, with five studies including only very preterm infants. We are uncertain whether opioids have an effect on the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) Scale in the first 12 hours after infusion (MD -5.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.88 to -4.59; 50 participants, 2 studies) and between 12 and 48 hours after infusion (MD -0.98, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.61; 963 participants, 3 studies) because of limitations in study design, high heterogeneity (inconsistency), and imprecision of estimates (very low-certainty evidence - GRADE). The use of morphine or fentanyl probably has little or no effect in reducing duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 0.23 days, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.83; 1259 participants, 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence because of unclear risk of bias in most studies) and neonatal mortality (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.55; 1189 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence because of imprecision of estimates). We are uncertain whether opioids have an effect on neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18 to 24 months (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.39 to 10.29; 78 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence because of serious imprecision of the estimates and indirectness). Limited data were available for the other comparisons (i.e. two studies (54 infants) on morphine versus midazolam, three (222 infants) on morphine versus fentanyl, and one each on morphine versus diamorphine (88 infants), morphine versus remifentanil (20 infants), fentanyl versus sufentanil (20 infants), and fentanyl versus remifentanil (24 infants)). For these comparisons, no meta-analysis was conducted because outcomes were reported by one study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain whether opioids have an effect on pain and neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18 to 24 months; the use of morphine or fentanyl probably has little or no effect in reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation and neonatal mortality. Data on the other comparisons planned in this review (opioids versus analgesics; opioids versus other opioids) are extremely limited and do not allow any conclusions. In the absence of firm evidence to support a routine policy, opioids should be used selectively - based on clinical judgement and evaluation of pain indicators - although pain measurement in newborns has limitations.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Bias; Child Development; Fentanyl; Heroin; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant; Infant Mortality; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Midazolam; Morphine; Pain, Procedural; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remifentanil; Respiration, Artificial; Sufentanil
PubMed: 33729556
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013732.pub2 -
Addiction Science & Clinical Practice Nov 2021Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) display an interindividual variability in their response to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). A genetic basis may... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) display an interindividual variability in their response to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). A genetic basis may explain the variability in this response. However, no consensus has been reached regarding which genetic variants significantly contribute to MOUD outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review aims to summarize genome-wide significant findings on MOUD outcomes and critically appraise the quality of the studies involved.
METHODS
Databases searched from inception until August 21st, 2020 include: MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL and Pre-CINAHL, GWAS Catalog and GWAS Central. The included studies had to be GWASs that assessed MOUD in an OUD population. All studies were screened in duplicate. The quality of the included studies was scored and assessed using the Q-Genie tool. Quantitative analysis, as planned in the protocol, was not feasible, so the studies were analyzed qualitatively.
RESULTS
Our search identified 7292 studies. Five studies meeting the eligibility criteria were included. However, only three studies reported results that met our significance threshold of p ≤ 1.0 × 10. In total, 43 genetic variants were identified. Variants corresponding to CNIH3 were reported to be associated with daily heroin injection in Europeans, OPRM1, TRIB2, and ZNF146 with methadone dose in African Americans, EYS with methadone dose in Europeans, and SPON1 and intergenic regions in chromosomes 9 and 3 with plasma concentrations of S-methadone, R-methadone, and R-EDDP, respectively, in Han Chinese.
LIMITATIONS
The limitations of this study include not being able to synthesize the data in a quantitative way and a conservative eligibility and data collection model.
CONCLUSION
The results from this systematic review will aid in highlighting significant genetic variants that can be replicated in future OUD pharmacogenetics research to ascertain their role in patient-specific MOUD outcomes. Systematic review registration number CRD42020169121.
Topics: Buprenorphine; Calcium-Calmodulin-Dependent Protein Kinases; Eye Proteins; Genome-Wide Association Study; Humans; Methadone; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide
PubMed: 34838141
DOI: 10.1186/s13722-021-00278-y -
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes Nov 2020Opioids addiction and misuse are among the major problems in the world today. There have been several preliminary studies examining the effect of methadone on depression... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Opioids addiction and misuse are among the major problems in the world today. There have been several preliminary studies examining the effect of methadone on depression among addicts, however, these studies have reported inconsistent and even contradictory results. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to determine the effect of methadone on depression in addicts in Iran and around the world, using a meta-analysis approach.
METHODS
This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis including articles published in the SID, MagIran, IranMedex, IranDoc, Cochrane, Embase, ScienceDirect, Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched systematically to find articles published from 2006 to March 2019. Heterogeneity index was determined using the Cochran's test (Qc) and I. Considering heterogeneity of studies, the random effects model was used to estimate the standardized difference of mean score for depression. Subsequently, the level of depression reduction in Iran and worldwide in the intervention group before and after the testwas measured.
RESULTS
A total of 19 articles met the inclusion criteria, and were therefore selected for this systematic review and meta-analysis. The sample size of the intervention group in the selected studies was 1948. According to the meta-analysis results, the mean depression score in the intervention group was 26.4 ± 5.6 and 18.4 ± 2.6 before and after intervention respectively, indicating the reducing effect of methadone on depression, and this difference was statistically significant (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSION
The results of the present study show that methadone significantly reduces depression in addicts. Therefore, regular methadone use can be part of a drug treatment plan.
Topics: Depression; Humans; Iran; Methadone; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders
PubMed: 33225933
DOI: 10.1186/s12955-020-01599-3 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Apr 2022Perioperative oxidative stress plays a role in organ injury and pain and could be improved by the antioxidant effects of vitamin C. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Perioperative oxidative stress plays a role in organ injury and pain and could be improved by the antioxidant effects of vitamin C.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing perioperative vitamin C administration vs placebo or no treatment in adults undergoing noncardiac surgery. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS).
RESULTS
Thirty-seven RCTs and 2747 patients were included. Administration of vitamin C was associated with no difference in LOS (mean difference=0.02 day; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.30 to 0.35; P=0.88). Mortality did not differ between groups (relative risk=1.04; 95% CI, 0.52 to 2.08; P=0.5). No trials reported on other major postoperative complications. Vitamin C was associated with a reduction in postoperative pain score and cumulative morphine consumption up to 48 h after surgery. The incidence of complex regional pain syndrome was lower in orthopaedic patients receiving vitamin C. Adverse events were present in three RCTs (n=157), absent in 10 RCTs (n=957), and not reported in 25 RCTs (n=1570). One trial (n=20) in kidney transplantation surgery was stopped early because of safety concerns on vitamin C. The quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low.
CONCLUSIONS
Administration of vitamin C was not associated with a decrease in LOS after noncardiac surgery. The effects on morbidity and mortality are inconclusive and mostly uninvestigated. A small reduction in postoperative pain was found. Adverse events were rare but not systematically assessed. The evidence is uncertain, not supporting the use of vitamin C outside an experimental setting.
STUDY PROTOCOL
PROSPERO database, CRD42021241654.
Topics: Adult; Ascorbic Acid; Humans; Length of Stay; Morphine; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35090721
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2021.11.039 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Postoperative pain is a common consequence of surgery and can have many negative perioperative effects. It has been suggested that the administration of analgesia before... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postoperative pain is a common consequence of surgery and can have many negative perioperative effects. It has been suggested that the administration of analgesia before a painful stimulus may improve pain control. We defined pre-emptive nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) as those given before surgery but not continued afterwards and preventive NSAIDs as those given before surgery and continued afterwards. These were compared to a control group given the NSAIDs after surgery instead of before surgery.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of preventive and pre-emptive NSAIDs for reducing postoperative pain in adults undergoing all types of surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and CINAHL (up to June 2020). In addition, we searched for unpublished studies in three clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, grey literature databases, and reference lists of retrieved articles. We did not apply any restrictions on language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included adult participants undergoing any type of surgery. We defined pre-emptive NSAIDs as those given before surgery but not continued afterwards and preventive NSAIDs as those given before surgery and continued afterwards. These were compared to a control group given the NSAIDs after surgery instead of before surgery. We included studies that gave the medication by any route but not given on the skin.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methods expected by Cochrane, as well as a novel publication bias test developed by our research group. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Outcomes included acute postoperative pain (minimal clinically important difference (MCID): 1.5 on a 0-10 scale), adverse events of NSAIDs, nausea and vomiting, 24-hour morphine consumption (MCID: 10 mg reduction), time to analgesic request (MCID: one hour), pruritus, sedation, patient satisfaction, chronic pain and time to first bowel movement (MCID: 12 hours).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 71 RCTs. Seven studies are awaiting classification. We included 45 studies that evaluated pre-emptive NSAIDs and 26 studies that evaluated preventive NSAIDs. We considered only four studies to be at low risk of bias for most domains. The operations and NSAIDs used varied, although most studies were conducted in abdominal, orthopaedic and dental surgery. Most studies were conducted in secondary care and in low-risk participants. Common exclusions were participants on analgesic medications prior to surgery and those with chronic pain. Pre-emptive NSAIDs compared to post-incision NSAIDs For pre-emptive NSAIDs, there is probably a decrease in early acute postoperative pain (MD -0.69, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.41; studies = 36; participants = 2032; I = 96%; moderate-certainty evidence). None of the included studies that reported on acute postoperative pain reported adverse events as an outcome. There may be little or no difference between the groups in short-term (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.94; studies = 2; participants = 100; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence) or long-term nausea and vomiting (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; studies = 5; participants = 228; I = 29%; low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.00; studies = 28; participants = 1645; I = 97%; low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in 24-hour morphine consumption with pre-emptive NSAIDs (MD -5.62 mg, 95% CI -9.00 mg to -2.24 mg; studies = 16; participants = 854; I = 99%; low-certainty evidence) and an increase in the time to analgesic request (MD 17.04 minutes, 95% CI 3.77 minutes to 30.31 minutes; studies = 18; participants = 975; I = 95%; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in opioid adverse events such as pruritus (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.76; studies = 4; participants = 254; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence) or sedation (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.68; studies = 4; participants = 281; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence), although the number of included studies for these outcomes was small. No study reported patient satisfaction, chronic pain or time to first bowel movement for pre-emptive NSAIDs. Preventive NSAIDs compared to post-incision NSAIDs For preventive NSAIDs, there may be little or no difference in early acute postoperative pain (MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.12; studies = 18; participants = 1140; I = 75%; low-certainty evidence). One study reported adverse events from NSAIDs (reoperation for bleeding) although the events were low which did not allow any meaningful conclusions to be drawn (RR 1.95; 95% CI 0.18 to 20.68). There may be little or no difference in rates of short-term (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.30; studies = 1; participants = 76; low-certainty evidence) or long-term (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; studies = 5; participants = 456; I = 29%; low-certainty evidence) nausea and vomiting. There may be a reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -0.33, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.07; studies = 21; participants = 1441; I = 81%; low-certainty evidence). There is probably a reduction in 24-hour morphine consumption (MD -1.93 mg, 95% CI -3.55 mg to -0.32 mg; studies = 16; participants = 1323; I = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if there is any difference in time to analgesic request (MD 8.51 minutes, 95% CI -31.24 minutes to 48.27 minutes; studies = 8; participants = 410; I = 98%; very low-certainty evidence). As with pre-emptive NSAIDs, there may be little or no difference in other opioid adverse events such as pruritus (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.09 to 3.35; studies = 3; participants = 211; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence) and sedation (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.63; studies = 5; participants = 497; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in patient satisfaction (MD -0.42; 95% CI -1.09 to 0.25; studies = 1; participants = 72; moderate-certainty evidence). No study reported on chronic pain. There is probably little or no difference in time to first bowel movement (MD 0.00; 95% CI -15.99 to 15.99; studies = 1; participants = 76; moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was some evidence that pre-emptive and preventive NSAIDs reduce both pain and morphine consumption, although this was not universal for all pain and morphine consumption outcomes. Any differences found were not clinically significant, although we cannot exclude this in more painful operations. Moreover, without any evidence of reductions in opioid adverse effects, the clinical significance of these results is questionable although few studies reported these outcomes. Only one study reported clinically significant adverse events from NSAIDs administered before surgery and, therefore, we have very few data to assess the safety of either pre-emptive or preventive NSAIDs. Therefore, future research should aim to adhere to the highest methodology and be adequately powered to assess serious adverse events of NSAIDs and reductions in opioid adverse events.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Bias; Confidence Intervals; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Humans; Morphine; Pain, Postoperative; Patient Satisfaction; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Pruritus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reoperation; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 34125958
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012978.pub2 -
JAMA Network Open Aug 2023Concerns that take-home naloxone (THN) training may lead to riskier drug use (as a form of overdose risk compensation) remain a substantial barrier to training...
IMPORTANCE
Concerns that take-home naloxone (THN) training may lead to riskier drug use (as a form of overdose risk compensation) remain a substantial barrier to training implementation. However, there was limited good-quality evidence in a systematic review of the association between THN access and subsequent risk compensation behaviors.
OBJECTIVE
To assess whether THN training is associated with changes in overdose risk behaviors, indexed through injecting frequency, in a cohort of people who inject drugs.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This cohort study used prospectively collected self-reported behavioral data before and after THN training of participants in The Melbourne Injecting Drug User Cohort Study (SuperMIX). Annual interviews were conducted in and around Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, from 2008 to 2021. SuperMIX participants were adults who regularly injected heroin or methamphetamine in the 6 months preceding their baseline interview. The current study included only people who inject drugs who reported THN training and had participated in at least 1 interview before THN training.
EXPOSURE
In 2017, the SuperMIX baseline or follow-up survey began asking participants if and when they had received THN training. The first THN training date that was recorded was included as the exposure variable. Subsequent participant interviews were excluded from analysis.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Injecting frequency was the primary outcome and was used as an indicator of overdose risk. Secondary outcomes were opioid injecting frequency, benzodiazepine use frequency, and the proportion of the time drugs were used alone. Fixed-effects generalized linear (Poisson) multilevel modeling was used to estimate the association between THN training and the primary and secondary outcomes. Time-varying covariates included housing status, income, time in study, recent opioid overdose, recent drug treatment, and needle and syringe coverage. Findings were expressed as incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% CIs.
RESULTS
There were 1328 participants (mean [SD] age, 32.4 [9.0] years; 893 men [67.2%]) who completed a baseline interview in the SuperMIX cohort, and 965 participants completed either a baseline or follow-up interview in or after 2017. Of these 965 participants, 390 (40.4%) reported THN training. A total of 189 people who inject drugs had pretraining participant interviews with data on injecting frequency and were included in the final analysis (mean [SD] number of interviews over the study period, 6.2 [2.2]). In fixed-effects regression analyses adjusted for covariates, there was no change in the frequency of injecting (IRR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.69-1.20; P = .51), opioid injecting (IRR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74-1.23; P = .71), benzodiazepine use (IRR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.69-1.33; P = .80), or the proportion of reported time of using drugs alone (IRR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.86-1.26; P = .67) before and after THN training.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This cohort study of people who inject drugs found no evidence of an increase in injecting frequency, along with other markers of overdose risk, after THN training and supply. The findings suggest that THN training should not be withheld because of concerns about risk compensation and that advocacy for availability and uptake of THN is required to address unprecedented opioid-associated mortality.
Topics: Male; Adult; Humans; Naloxone; Narcotic Antagonists; Analgesics, Opioid; Cohort Studies; Drug Overdose; Victoria
PubMed: 37540514
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.27319 -
Clinical Cardiology Sep 2021While morphine has long been widely used in treating acute heart failure (AHF) due to its vasodilatory properties and anticipated anxiolysis, it remains unclear whether... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
While morphine has long been widely used in treating acute heart failure (AHF) due to its vasodilatory properties and anticipated anxiolysis, it remains unclear whether the application of morphine to those patients is reasonable. We aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety of morphine in patients with AHF. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase electronic databases from inception through March 2020. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to estimate the outcomes. Seven studies with 172, 226 patients were included. The results showed that morphine usage was not associated with increased in-hospital mortality (OR: 1.94; 95% CI 0.93 to 4.03; p = 0.08). However, the use of morphine significantly increased the risk of invasive ventilation (OR: 2.72; 95% CI 1.09 to 6.80; p = 0.03). Furthermore, the subgroup analysis indicated that the application of morphine was not associated with increased 7-day all-cause mortality in patients with AHF (OR: 1.69; 95% CI 0.80 to 3.22; p = 0.11) but significantly increased the risk of 30-day all-cause mortality (OR: 1.59; 95% CI 1.16 to 2.17; p = 0.004). Based on current evidence, our results suggested that although morphine therapy did not significantly increase the risk of short-term death (in the hospital or within 7 days) in patients with AHF, the risk of long-term death and invasive ventilation were significantly increased. This result needs to be further confirmed by an ongoing randomized control trial.
Topics: Heart Failure; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Morphine
PubMed: 34236089
DOI: 10.1002/clc.23691