-
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Revue... Nov 2020Addiction comorbidity is an important clinical challenge in mood disorders, but the best way of pharmacologically treating people with mood disorders and addictions... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Pharmacological Treatment of Mood Disorders and Comorbid Addictions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Traitement Pharmacologique des Troubles de L'humeur et des Dépendances Comorbides: Une Revue Systématique et une Méta-Analyse.
OBJECTIVE
Addiction comorbidity is an important clinical challenge in mood disorders, but the best way of pharmacologically treating people with mood disorders and addictions remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of pharmacological treatments for mood and addiction symptoms in people with mood disorders and addiction comorbidity.
METHODS
A systematic search of placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of pharmacological treatments in people with bipolar disorder (BD) or major depressive disorder (MDD), and comorbid addictions was performed. Treatment-related effects on mood and addiction measures were assessed in a meta-analysis, which also estimated risks of participant dropout and adverse effects.
RESULTS
A total of 32 studies met systematic review inclusion criteria. Pharmacological therapy was more effective than placebo for improving manic symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.15; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], -0.29 to -0.02; = 0.03) but not BD depressive symptoms (SMD = -0.09; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0.03; = 0.15). Quetiapine significantly improved manic symptoms (SMD = -0.23; 95% CI, -0.39 to -0.06; = 0.008) but not BD depressive symptoms (SMD = -0.07; 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.10; = 0.42). Pharmacological therapy was more effective than placebo for improving depressive symptoms in MDD (SMD = -0.16; 95% CI, -0.30 to -0.03; = 0.02). Imipramine improved MDD depressive symptoms (SMD = -0.58; 95% CI, -1.03 to -0.13; = 0.01) but Selective serotonin reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI)-based treatments had no effect (SMD = -0.06; 95% CI, -0.30 to 0.17; = 0.60). Pharmacological treatment improved the odds of alcohol abstinence in MDD but had no effects on opiate abstinence.
CONCLUSIONS
Pharmacological treatments were significantly better than placebo in improving manic symptoms, MDD depressive symptoms, and alcohol abstinence but were not better for bipolar depression symptoms. Importantly, quetiapine was not more effective than placebo in improving bipolar depression symptoms nor were SSRI's for the treatment of MDD depression. Our findings highlight the need for further high-quality clinical trials of treatments for mood disorders and comorbid addictions.
Topics: Bipolar Disorder; Comorbidity; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Mood Disorders; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 32302221
DOI: 10.1177/0706743720915420 -
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Jun 2023Randomised controlled trials in Europe and Canada have shown that supervised heroin assisted treatment (HAT) is an effective treatment option for people with long-term... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Randomised controlled trials in Europe and Canada have shown that supervised heroin assisted treatment (HAT) is an effective treatment option for people with long-term heroin addictions for whom the standard opioid substitution treatments (OST) have not been effective. This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of supervised HAT and analyse the significance of context and implementation in the design of successful HAT programmes.
METHODS
PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, and Web of Science were searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCT) and systematic reviews evaluating supervised HAT compared to any other OST. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were published in English, evaluated a supervised form of HAT, and included illegal drug use and/or health as a primary outcome measure. There were no restrictions on publication date. The following outcomes of the included studies were analysed using narrative synthesis and meta-analysis where possible: retention, street drug use, health, and social functioning.
RESULTS
Nine randomised controlled trials spanning eight studies (n = 2331) and three systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Seven of the eight studies compared HAT to methadone maintenance treatment (MMT). One study compared HAT to injectable hydromorphone in a double-blind non-inferiority trial. Meta-analysis was performed on pooled results of retention across all included studies and found that HAT has a statistically significant effect on retention [Z = 7.65 (P > 0.0001)]. Five of the eight included studies found that supervised HAT reduces participants' use of illegal drugs more significantly than MMT. Evidence of improved health in participants receiving supervised HAT compared to other OSTs was inconsistent; positive effects were observed in three of the included studies (n = 1626).
CONCLUSION
When compared to methadone maintenance treatment (MMT), heroin assisted treatment (HAT) more consistently retains people with heroin addictions in treatment and reduces their consumption of illicit drugs.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration: CRD42022341306.
Topics: Humans; Heroin; Heroin Dependence; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Treatment Outcome; Illicit Drugs; Methadone; Narcotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37086659
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2023.109869 -
Developmental Medicine and Child... Jan 2021To identify and evaluate the evidence documenting the association between neonatal morphine and later childhood neuropsychological development.
AIM
To identify and evaluate the evidence documenting the association between neonatal morphine and later childhood neuropsychological development.
METHOD
We conducted a systematic literature search of eight electronic databases from inception until June 2019. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies recruiting neonates who received morphine treatment, and measuring neuropsychological development outcomes with a minimum follow-up of 6 months.
RESULTS
Twelve separate reports from three RCTs and five cohort studies met our inclusion criteria. Owing to the small number of the included trials and the variable study designs, a meta-analysis was not performed. The findings from this review indicated that neonatal morphine use had no adverse effects on behaviour, cognition, motor, and executive function development at 8 to 9 years and earlier; except for the inconsistent conclusions on internalizing behavioural problems at 5 to 7 years and cognitive and motor developments at 18 months.
INTERPRETATION
Why a child needs morphine may have a more profound impact on later neuropsychological development than morphine itself. The small number, high heterogeneity, and limitations of the included studies limit confidence in the result of this systematic review.
Topics: Behavioral Symptoms; Child; Child Behavior; Child Development; Child, Preschool; Cognition; Executive Function; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Morphine; Narcotics; Psychomotor Performance
PubMed: 33078421
DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.14703 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2020Medical treatment and detoxification from opiate disorders includes oral administration of opioid agonists. Dihydrocodeine (DHC) substitution treatment is typically low... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Medical treatment and detoxification from opiate disorders includes oral administration of opioid agonists. Dihydrocodeine (DHC) substitution treatment is typically low threshold and therefore has the capacity to reach wider groups of opiate users. Decisions to prescribe DHC to patients with less severe opiate disorders centre on its perceived safety, reduced toxicity, shorter half-life and more rapid onset of action, and potential retention of patients. This review set out to investigate the effects of DHC in comparison to other pharmaceutical opioids and placebos in the detoxification and substitution of individuals with opiate use disorders.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the effectiveness of DHC in reducing illicit opiate use and other health-related outcomes among adults compared to other drugs or placebos used for detoxification or substitution therapy.
SEARCH METHODS
In February 2019 we searched Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and Trialsjournal.com. All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effect of DHC for detoxification and maintenance substitution therapy for adolescent (aged 15 years and older) and adult illicit opiate users. The primary outcomes were abstinence from illicit opiate use following detoxification or maintenance therapy measured by self-report or urinalysis. The secondary outcomes were treatment retention and other health and behaviour outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed the standard methodological procedures that are outlined by Cochrane. This includes the GRADE approach to appraise the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three trials (in five articles) with 385 opiate-using participants that measured outcomes at different follow-up periods in this review. Two studies with 150 individuals compared DHC with buprenorphine for detoxification, and one study with 235 participants compared DHC to methadone for maintenance substitution therapy. We downgraded the quality of evidence mainly due to risk of bias and imprecision. For the two studies that compared DHC to buprenorphine, we found low-quality evidence of no significant difference between DHC and buprenorphine for detoxification at six-month follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 1.39; P = 0.23) in the meta-analysis for the primary outcome of abstinence from illicit opiates. Similarly, low-quality evidence indicated no difference for treatment retention (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.68; P = 0.06). In the single trial that compared DHC to methadone for maintenance substitution therapy, the evidence was also of low quality, and there may be no difference in effects between DHC and methadone for reported abstinence from illicit opiates (mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.29). For treatment retention at six months' follow-up in this single trial, the RR calculated with an intention-to-treat analysis also indicated that there may be no difference between DHC and methadone (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.16). The studies that compared DHC to buprenorphine reported no serious adverse events, while the DHC versus methadone study reported one death due to methadone overdose.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found low-quality evidence that DHC may be no more effective than other commonly used pharmacological interventions in reducing illicit opiate use. It is therefore premature to make any conclusive statements about the effectiveness of DHC, and it is suggested that further high-quality studies are conducted, especially in low- to middle-income countries.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Codeine; Humans; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32068247
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012254.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020The prevalence of opiate use among pregnant women can range from 1% to 2% to as high as 21%. Just in the United States alone, among pregnant women with hospital... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The prevalence of opiate use among pregnant women can range from 1% to 2% to as high as 21%. Just in the United States alone, among pregnant women with hospital delivery, a fourfold increase in opioid use is reported from 1999 to 2014 (Haight 2018). Heroin crosses the placenta, and pregnant, opiate-dependent women experience a six-fold increase in maternal obstetric complications such as low birth weight, toxaemia, third trimester bleeding, malpresentation, puerperal morbidity, fetal distress and meconium aspiration. Neonatal complications include narcotic withdrawal, postnatal growth deficiency, microcephaly, neuro-behavioural problems, increased neonatal mortality and a 74-fold increase in sudden infant death syndrome. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review first published in 2008 and last updated in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of any maintenance treatment alone or in combination with a psychosocial intervention compared to no intervention, other pharmacological intervention or psychosocial interventions alone for child health status, neonatal mortality, retaining pregnant women in treatment, and reducing the use of substances.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to February 2020: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science. We also searched two trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials which assessed the efficacy of any pharmacological maintenance treatment for opiate-dependent pregnant women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We found four trials with 271 pregnant women. Three compared methadone with buprenorphine and one methadone with oral slow-release morphine. Three out of four studies had adequate allocation concealment and were double-blind. The major flaw in the included studies was attrition bias: three out of four had a high dropout rate (30% to 40%), and this was unbalanced between groups. Methadone versus buprenorphine: There was probably no evidence of a difference in the dropout rate from treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 1.20, three studies, 223 participants, moderate-quality evidence). There may be no evidence of a difference in the use of primary substances between methadone and buprenorphine (RR 1.81, 95% CI 0.70 to 4.68, two studies, 151 participants, low-quality evidence). Birth weight may be higher in the buprenorphine group in the two trials that reported data MD;-530.00 g, 95%CI -662.78 to -397.22 (one study, 19 particpants) and MD: -215.00 g, 95%CI -238.93 to -191.07 (one study, 131 participants) although the results could not be pooled due to very high heterogeneity (very low-quality of evidence). The third study reported that there was no evidence of a difference. We found there may be no evidence of a difference in the APGAR score (MD: 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03, two studies,163 participants, low-quality evidence). Many measures were used in the studies to assess neonatal abstinence syndrome. The number of newborns treated for neonatal abstinence syndrome, which is the most critical outcome, may not differ between groups (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to1.63, three studies, 166 participants, low-quality evidence). Only one study which compared methadone with buprenorphine reported side effects. We found there may be no evidence of a difference in the number of mothers with serious adverse events (AEs) (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.83, 175 participants, low-quality evidence) and we found there may be no difference in the numbers of newborns with serious AEs (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.59, 38.49,131 participants, low-quality evidence). Methadone versus slow-release morphine: There were no dropouts in either treatment group. Oral slow-release morphine may be superior to methadone for abstinence from heroin use during pregnancy (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.77, one study, 48 participants, low-quality evidence). In the comparison between methadone and slow-release morphine, no side effects were reported for the mother. In contrast, one child in the methadone group had central apnoea, and one child in the morphine group had obstructive apnoea (low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Methadone and buprenorphine may be similar in efficacy and safety for the treatment of opioid-dependent pregnant women and their babies. There is not enough evidence to make conclusions for the comparison between methadone and slow-release morphine. Overall, the body of evidence is too small to make firm conclusions about the equivalence of the treatments compared. There is still a need for randomised controlled trials of adequate sample size comparing different maintenance treatments.
Topics: Birth Weight; Buprenorphine; Delayed-Action Preparations; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Methadone; Morphine; Narcotics; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Patient Dropouts; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33165953
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006318.pub4 -
Cureus Aug 2023Myofascial pain is a common problem resulting in musculoskeletal pain characterized by myofascial trigger points. These trigger points can cause substantial discomfort... (Review)
Review
Myofascial pain is a common problem resulting in musculoskeletal pain characterized by myofascial trigger points. These trigger points can cause substantial discomfort and functional limitations. This meta-analysis aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of trigger point injections versus medical management alone in treating acute onset myofascial pain. A thorough search was conducted across four databases, namely, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science (WOS), and Cochrane Library, to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the effectiveness of trigger point injections versus medical management for the treatment of acute myofascial pain. The search encompassed articles published from the databases' inception until June 2023. The relevant data were extracted and analyzed using the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Of the 1151 records identified, four met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review, and all were included in the meta-analysis. The analysis of four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that trigger point injections were effective in reducing pain scores compared to medical treatment (SMD = -2.09 (95% CI: -3.34 to -0.85, = 0.001)). The data revealed a negative standardized mean difference, which was significant and consistent in favor of trigger point injections. Overall, these findings highlight the beneficial impact of trigger point injections in reducing acute myofascial pain when compared to isolated medical management.
PubMed: 37706133
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.43424 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) is characterised by constipation, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and gastric reflux. It is one of the major adverse events... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) is characterised by constipation, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and gastric reflux. It is one of the major adverse events (AEs) of treatment for pain in cancer and palliative care, resulting in increased morbidity and reduced quality of life. This review is a partial update of a 2008 review, and critiques as previous update (2018) trials only for people with cancer and people receiving palliative care.
OBJECTIVES
To assess for OIBD in people with cancer and people receiving palliative care the effectiveness and safety of mu-opioid antagonists (MOAs) versus different doses of MOAs, alternative pharmacological/non-pharmacological interventions, placebo, or no treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science (December 2021), clinical trial registries and regulatory websites. We sought contact with MOA manufacturers for further data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness and safety of MOAs for OIBD in people with cancer and people at a palliative stage irrespective of the type of terminal disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The appropriateness of combining data from the trials depended upon sufficient homogeneity across trials. Our primary outcomes were laxation response, effect on analgesia, and AEs. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE and created summary of findings tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 studies (two new trials) randomising in-total 1343 adults with cancer irrespective of stage, or at palliative care stage of any disease. The MOAs were oral naldemedine and naloxone (alone or in combination with oxycodone), and subcutaneous methylnaltrexone. The trials compared MOAs with placebo, MOAs at different doses, or in combination with other drugs. Two trials of naldemedine and three of naloxone with oxycodone were in people with cancer irrespective of disease stage. The trial on naloxone alone was in people with advanced cancer. Four trials on methylnaltrexone were in palliative care where most participants had advanced cancer. All trials were vulnerable to biases; most commonly, blinding of the outcome assessor was not reported. Oral naldemedine versus placebo Risk (i.e. chance) of spontaneous laxations in the medium term (over two weeks) for naldemedine was over threefold greater risk ratio (RR) 2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.52, 2 trials, 418 participants, I² = 0%. Number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 3 to 4; moderate-certainty evidence). Earlier risk of spontaneous laxations and patient assessment of bowel change was not reported. Very low-certainty evidence showed naldemedine had little to no effect on opioid withdrawal symptoms. There was little to no difference in the risk of serious (non-fatal) AEs (RR 3.34, 95% CI 0.85 to 13.15: low-certainty evidence). Over double the risk of AEs (non-serious) reported with naldemedine (moderate-certainty evidence). Low-dose oral naldemedine versus higher dose Risk of spontaneous laxations was lower for the lower dose (medium term, 0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.89, 1 trial, 111 participants (low-certainty evidence)). Earlier risk of spontaneous laxations and patient assessment of bowel change not reported. Low-certainty evidence showed little to no difference on opioid withdrawal symptoms (0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg mean difference (MD) -0.30, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.25), and occurrences of serious AEs (0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.17). Low-certainty evidence showed little to no difference on non-serious AEs. Oral naloxone versus placebo Risk of spontaneous laxations and AEs not reported. Little to no difference in pain intensity (very low-certainty evidence). Full data not given. The trial reported that no serious AEs occurred. Oral naloxone + oxycodone versus oxycodone Risk of spontaneous laxations within 24 hours and in the medium term not reported. Low-certainty evidence showed naloxone with oxycodone reduced the risk of opioid withdrawal symptoms. There was little to no difference in the risk of serious (non-fatal) AEs (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.06), 3 trials, 362 participants, I² = 55%: very low-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in risk of AEs (low-certainty evidence). Subcutaneous methylnaltrexone versus placebo Risk of spontaneous laxations within 24 hours with methylnaltrexone was fourfold greater than placebo (RR 2.97, 95% CI 2.13 to 4.13. 2 trials, 287 participants, I² = 31%. NNTB 3, 95% CI 2 to 3; low-certainty evidence). Risk of spontaneous laxations in the medium term was over tenfold greater with methylnaltrexone (RR 8.15, 95% CI 4.76 to 13.95, 2 trials, 305 participants, I² = 47%. NNTB 2, 95% CI 2 to 2; moderate-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence showed methylnaltrexone reduced the risk of opioid withdrawal symptoms, and did not increase risk of a serious AE (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93. I² = 0%; 2 trials, 364 participants). The risk of AEs was higher for methylnaltrexone (low-certainty evidence). Lower-dose subcutaneous methylnaltrexone versus higher dose There was little to no difference in risk of spontaneous laxations in the medium-term (1 mg versus 5 mg or greater: RR 2.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 10.39; 1 trial, 26 participants very low-certainty evidence), or in patient assessment of improvement in bowel status (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.35, 1 trial, 102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Medium-term assessment of spontaneous laxations and serious AEs not reported. There was little to no difference in symptoms of opioid withdrawal (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.34, 1 trial, 102 participants) or occurrence of AEs (low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This update's findings for naldemedine and naloxone with oxycodone have been strengthened with two new trials, but conclusions have not changed. Moderate-certainty evidence for oral naldemedine on risk of spontaneous laxations and non-serious AEs suggests in people with cancer that naldemedine may improve bowel function over two weeks and increase the risk of AEs. There was low-certainty evidence on serious AEs. Moderate-certainty evidence for methylnaltrexone on spontaneous laxations over two weeks suggests subcutaneous methylnaltrexone may improve bowel function in people receiving palliative care, but certainty of evidence for AEs was low. More trials are needed, more evaluation of AEs, outcomes patients rate as important, and in children.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Child; Humans; Naloxone; Naltrexone; Narcotic Antagonists; Neoplasms; Opioid-Induced Constipation; Oxycodone; Palliative Care; Quaternary Ammonium Compounds; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 36106667
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006332.pub4 -
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association... Jun 2021Analgesics that contain codeine are commonly prescribed for postoperative pain, but it is unclear how they compare with nonopioid alternatives. We sought to compare the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Analgesics that contain codeine are commonly prescribed for postoperative pain, but it is unclear how they compare with nonopioid alternatives. We sought to compare the effectiveness of codeine and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for adults who underwent outpatient surgery.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing codeine and NSAIDs for postoperative pain in outpatient surgery. We searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception to October 2019 for eligible studies. Our primary outcome was the patient pain score, converted to a standard 10-point intensity scale. Our secondary outcomes were patient-reported global assessments and adverse effects. We used random-effects models and grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) to assess the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
Forty studies, including 102 trial arms and 5116 patients, met inclusion criteria. The studies had low risk of bias and low-to-moderate heterogeneity. Compared with codeine, NSAIDs were associated with better pain scores at 6 hours (weighted mean difference [WMD] 0.93 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71 to 1.15) and at 12 hours (WMD 0.79, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.19). Stronger NSAID superiority at 6 hours was observed among trials where acetaminophen was coadministered at equivalent doses between groups (WMD 1.18, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.48). NSAIDs were associated with better global assessments at 6 hours (WMD -0.88, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.72) and at 24 hours (WMD -0.67, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.40), and were associated with fewer adverse effects, including bleeding events.
INTERPRETATION
We found that adult outpatients report better pain scores, better global assessments and fewer adverse effects when their postoperative pain is treated with NSAIDs than with codeine. Clinicians across all specialties can use this information to improve both pain management and opioid stewardship.
Topics: Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Codeine; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34860688
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.201915 -
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Jul 2021The opioid-related overdose epidemic remains a persistent public health problem in the United States and has been accelerated by the 2019 coronavirus disease pandemic....
BACKGROUND
The opioid-related overdose epidemic remains a persistent public health problem in the United States and has been accelerated by the 2019 coronavirus disease pandemic. Existing, evidence-based treatment options for opioid use disorder (OUD) are broadly underutilized, particularly by people experiencing homelessness (PEH). PEH are also more likely to misuse and overdose on opioids. To better understand current gaps and disparities in OUD treatment experienced by PEH and efforts to address them, we synthesized the literature reporting on the intersection of housing status and OUD treatment.
METHODS
We conducted a scoping review of the literature from the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science Core Collection. We included studies describing treatment-related outcomes specific to PEH and articles assessing OUD treatment interventions tailored to this population. Relevant findings were compiled via thematic analysis and narratively synthesized.
RESULTS
60 articles met our inclusion criteria, including 43 descriptive and 17 intervention-focused studies. These studies demonstrated that PEH experience more barriers to OUD treatment than their housed counterparts and access inpatient and detoxification treatment more commonly than pharmacotherapy. However, the reviewed literature indicated that PEH have similar outcomes once engaged in pharmacotherapy. Efficacious interventions for PEH were low-barrier and targeted, with housing interventions also demonstrating benefit.
CONCLUSIONS
PEH have diminished access to evidence-based OUD treatment, particularly medications, and require targeted approaches to improve engagement and retention. To mitigate the disproportionate opioid-related morbidity and mortality PEH experience, innovative, flexible, and interdisciplinary OUD treatment models are necessary, with housing support playing an important role.
Topics: Buprenorphine; Health Services Accessibility; Health Services Misuse; Ill-Housed Persons; Humans; Methadone; Naltrexone; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; United States
PubMed: 33985863
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108717 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Aug 2021Pharmacists have been contributing to the management of chronic pain, ensuring the quality use of medicine. However, there is diversity in the interventions provided by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
Pharmacists have been contributing to the management of chronic pain, ensuring the quality use of medicine. However, there is diversity in the interventions provided by pharmacists and their impact.
METHODS
Six electronic databases were searched from inception until June 2020 for articles published in English examining the intervention provided by the pharmacist in chronic pain management. Studies investigating the impact of pharmacist intervention individually or multidisciplinary teams including pharmacists for chronic pain management were included.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies (2365 participants) were included in the current review. Six studies were randomized controlled trials while the remainder were observational studies in which pharmacists provided intervention individually or in collaboration with other healthcare professionals. Medication review was the most common intervention provided by the pharmacist. The pooled analysis found that pharmacist-led interventions reduced the pain intensity (-0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.35 to -0.09; moderate certainty) among participants with chronic pain. Opiate stewardship provided by pharmacists was effective; however, mixed results were noted on the impact of the intervention on physical functioning, anxiety, depression and quality of life. Pharmacist intervention was more expensive than treatment as usual.
CONCLUSIONS
Pharmacists contribute substantially to chronic pain management, ensuring the quality use of medicine, resulting in reduced pain intensity. Further studies with rigorous design are needed to measure the impact of pharmacist-provided intervention individually or in a multidisciplinary team on the economic benefit and other health outcomes.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Humans; Pharmacists; Quality of Life
PubMed: 33486825
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14745