-
American Journal of Preventive Medicine Nov 2021Supervised injection facilities are harm reduction interventions that allow people who inject drugs to use previously obtained substances under the supervision of health... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Supervised injection facilities are harm reduction interventions that allow people who inject drugs to use previously obtained substances under the supervision of health professionals. Although currently considered illegal under U.S. federal law, several U.S. cities are considering implementing supervised injection facilities anyway as a response to the escalating overdose crisis. The objective of this review is to determine the effectiveness of supervised injection facilities, compared with that of control conditions, for harm reduction and community outcomes.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Studies were identified from 2 sources: a high-quality, broader review examining supervised injection facility-induced benefits and harms (from database inception to January 2014) and an updated search using the same search strategy (January 2014‒September 2019). Systematic review methods developed by the Guide to Community Preventive Services were used (screening and analysis, September 2019‒December 2020).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of 22 studies were included in this review: 16 focused on 1 supervised injection facility in Vancouver, Canada. Quantitative synthesis was not conducted given inconsistent outcome measurement across the studies. Supervised injection facilities in the included studies (n=number of studies per outcome category) were mostly associated with significant reductions in opioid overdose morbidity and mortality (n=5), significant improvements in injection behaviors and harm reduction (n=7), significant improvements in access to addiction treatment programs (n=7), and no increase or reductions in crime and public nuisance (n=7).
CONCLUSIONS
For people who inject drugs, supervised injection facilities may reduce the risk of overdose morbidity and mortality and improve access to care while not increasing crime or public nuisance to the surrounding community.
Topics: Canada; Drug Overdose; Harm Reduction; Humans; Needle-Exchange Programs; Substance Abuse, Intravenous
PubMed: 34218964
DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2021.04.017 -
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Jul 2019Benzodiazepine misuse is a growing public health problem, with increases in benzodiazepine-related overdose deaths and emergency room visits in recent years. However,...
BACKGROUND
Benzodiazepine misuse is a growing public health problem, with increases in benzodiazepine-related overdose deaths and emergency room visits in recent years. However, relatively little attention has been paid to this emergent problem. We systematically reviewed epidemiological studies on benzodiazepine misuse to identify key findings, limitations, and future directions for research.
METHODS
PubMed and PsychINFO databases were searched through February 2019 for peer-reviewed publications on benzodiazepine misuse (e.g., use without a prescription; at a higher frequency or dose than prescribed). Eligibility criteria included human studies that focused on the prevalence, trends, correlates, motives, patterns, sources, and consequences of benzodiazepine misuse.
RESULTS
The search identified 1970 publications, and 351 articles were eligible for data extraction and inclusion. In 2017, benzodiazepines and other tranquilizers were the third most commonly misused illicit or prescription drug in the U.S. (approximately 2.2% of the population). Worldwide rates of misuse appear to be similar to those reported in the U.S. Factors associated with misuse include other substance use, receipt of a benzodiazepine prescription, and psychiatric symptoms and disorders. Benzodiazepine misuse encompasses heterogeneous presentations of motives, patterns, and sources. Moreover, misuse is associated with myriad poor outcomes, including mortality, HIV/HCV risk behaviors, poor self-reported quality of life, criminality, and continued substance use during treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
Benzodiazepine misuse is a worldwide public health concern that is associated with a number of concerning consequences. Findings from the present review have implications for identifying subgroups who could benefit from prevention and treatment efforts, critical points for intervention, and treatment targets.
Topics: Benzodiazepines; Drug Overdose; Humans; Prescription Drug Misuse; Prescription Drugs; Prevalence; Public Health; Quality of Life; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 31121495
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.02.033 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023The pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied. However, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco: nicotine... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied. However, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco: nicotine withdrawal can produce short-term low mood that antidepressants may relieve; and some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence for the efficacy, harms, and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, most recently on 29 April 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people who smoked, comparing antidepressant medications with placebo or no pharmacological treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used differently. We excluded trials with fewer than six months of follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length for our analyses of harms.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months' follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Our secondary outcomes were harms and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropouts due to treatment. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 124 studies (48,832 participants) in this review, with 10 new studies added to this update version. Most studies recruited adults from the community or from smoking cessation clinics; four studies focused on adolescents (with participants between 12 and 21 years old). We judged 34 studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not change clinical interpretation of the results. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased smoking cessation rates when compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.49 to 1.72; I = 16%; 50 studies, 18,577 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that a combination of bupropion and varenicline may have resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence to establish whether a combination of bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; I = 43%; 15 studies, 4117 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was moderate-certainty evidence that participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs than those taking placebo or no pharmacological treatment. However, results were imprecise and the CI also encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I = 0%; 23 studies, 10,958 participants). Results were also imprecise when comparing SAEs between people randomised to a combination of bupropion and NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.26 to 8.89; I = 0%; 4 studies, 657 participants) and randomised to bupropion plus varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.42; I = 0%; 5 studies, 1268 participants). In both cases, we judged evidence to be of low certainty. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to AEs than placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.65; I = 2%; 25 studies, 12,346 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence that bupropion combined with NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.92; I = 0%; 3 studies, 737 participants) or bupropion combined with varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.45; I = 0%; 4 studies, 1230 participants) had an impact on the number of dropouts due to treatment. In both cases, imprecision was substantial (we judged the evidence to be of low certainty for both comparisons). Bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.80; I = 0%; 9 studies, 7564 participants), and to combination NRT (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; I = 0%; 2 studies; 720 participants). However, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and single-form NRT (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I = 0%; 10 studies, 7613 participants). We also found evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), and some evidence that bupropion resulted in superior quit rates to nortriptyline (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants), although this result was subject to imprecision. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion may increase SAEs (moderate-certainty evidence when compared to placebo/no pharmacological treatment). There is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with people receiving placebo or no pharmacological treatment. Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo, although bupropion may be more effective. Evidence also suggests that bupropion may be as successful as single-form NRT in helping people to quit smoking, but less effective than combination NRT and varenicline. In most cases, a paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions regarding harms and tolerability. Further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over other licensed smoking cessation treatments; namely, NRT and varenicline. However, it is important that future studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation measure and report on harms and tolerability.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Humans; Young Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Bupropion; Nicotinic Agonists; Nortriptyline; Smoking Cessation; Varenicline
PubMed: 37230961
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000031.pub6 -
Cureus Mar 2023The opioid overdose epidemic is exacerbated by the emergence of Xylazine as an illicit drug adulterant. Xylazine, a veterinary sedative, can potentiate opioid effects... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
The opioid overdose epidemic is exacerbated by the emergence of Xylazine as an illicit drug adulterant. Xylazine, a veterinary sedative, can potentiate opioid effects while also causing toxic and potentially fatal side effects. This systematic review aims to assess the impact of Xylazine use and overdoses within the opioid epidemic context.
METHOD
A systematic search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines to identify relevant case reports, and case series related to Xylazine use. A comprehensive literature search included databases like Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar, utilizing keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms related to Xylazine. Thirty-four articles met the inclusion criteria for this review.
RESULTS
Intravenous (IV) administration was a common route for Xylazine use among various methods, including subcutaneous (SC), intramuscular (IM), and inhalation, with overall doses ranging from 40 mg to 4300 mg. The average dose in fatal cases was 1,200 mg, compared to 525 mg in non-fatal cases. Concurrent administration of other drugs, primarily opioids, occurred in 28 cases (47.5%). Intoxication was identified as a notable concern in 32 out of 34 studies, and treatments varied, with the majority experiencing positive outcomes. Withdrawal symptoms were documented in one case study, but the low number of cases with withdrawal symptoms may be attributed to factors such as a limited number of cases or individual variation. Naloxone was administered in eight cases (13.6%), and all patients recovered, although it should not be misconstrued as an antidote for Xylazine intoxication. Of the 59 cases, 21 (35.6%) resulted in fatal outcomes, with 17 involving Xylazine use in conjunction with other drugs. The IV route was a common factor in six out of the 21 fatal cases (28.6%).
CONCLUSION
This review highlights the clinical challenges associated with Xylazine use and its co-administration with other substances, particularly opioids. Intoxication was identified as a major concern, and treatments varied across the studies, including supportive care, naloxone, and other medications. Further research is needed to explore the epidemiology and clinical implications of Xylazine use. Understanding the motivations and circumstances leading to Xylazine use, as well as its effects on users, is essential for developing effective psychosocial support and treatment interventions to address this public health crisis.
PubMed: 37009344
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.36864 -
Cancer Science Jul 2021Chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in the hemodialysis (HD) patient is a challenging situation. Because many drugs are predominantly eliminated by the kidneys,...
Chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in the hemodialysis (HD) patient is a challenging situation. Because many drugs are predominantly eliminated by the kidneys, chemotherapy in the HD patient requires special considerations concerning dose adjustments to avoid overdose and toxicities. Conversely, some drugs are removed by HD and may expose the patient to undertreatment, therefore the timing of drug administration in relation to HD sessions must be carefully planned. Also, the metabolites of some drugs show different toxicities and dialysability as compared with the parent drug, therefore this must also be catered for. However, the pharmacokinetics of many chemotherapeutics and their metabolites in HD patients are unknown, and the fact that NHL patients are often treated with distinct multiagent chemotherapy regimens makes the situation more complicated. In a realm where uncertainty prevails, case reports and case series reporting on actual treatment and outcomes are extremely valuable and can aid physicians in decision making from drug selection to dosing. We carried out an exhaustive review of the literature and adopted 48 manuscripts consisting of 66 HD patients undergoing 71 chemotherapy regimens for NHL, summarized the data, and provide recommendations concerning dose adjustments and timing of administration for individual chemotherapeutics where possible. The chemotherapy regimens studied in this review include, but are not limited to, rituximab, cyclophosphamide + vincristine + prednisolone (CVP) and cyclophosphamide + doxorubicin + vincristine + prednisolone (CHOP)-like regimens, chlorambucil, ibrutinib, bendamustine, methotrexate, platinum compounds, cytarabine, gemcitabine, etoposide, ifosfamide, melphalan, busulfan, fludarabine, mogamulizumab, brentuximab vedotin, and Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Child; Cyclophosphamide; Doxorubicin; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Kidney; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Male; Middle Aged; Prednisone; Renal Dialysis; Rituximab; Vincristine; Young Adult
PubMed: 33938097
DOI: 10.1111/cas.14933 -
Lancet (London, England) Oct 2019We summarise the evidence for medicinal uses of opioids, harms related to the extramedical use of, and dependence on, these drugs, and a wide range of interventions used...
We summarise the evidence for medicinal uses of opioids, harms related to the extramedical use of, and dependence on, these drugs, and a wide range of interventions used to address these harms. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study estimated that in 2017, 40·5 million people were dependent on opioids (95% uncertainty interval 34·3-47·9 million) and 109 500 people (105 800-113 600) died from opioid overdose. Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) can be highly effective in reducing illicit opioid use and improving multiple health and social outcomes-eg, by reducing overall mortality and key causes of death, including overdose, suicide, HIV, hepatitis C virus, and other injuries. Mathematical modelling suggests that scaling up the use of OAT and retaining people in treatment, including in prison, could avert a median of 7·7% of deaths in Kentucky, 10·7% in Kiev, and 25·9% in Tehran over 20 years (compared with no OAT), with the greater effects in Tehran and Kiev being due to reductions in HIV mortality, given the higher prevalence of HIV among people who inject drugs in those settings. Other interventions have varied evidence for effectiveness and patient acceptability, and typically affect a narrower set of outcomes than OAT does. Other effective interventions focus on preventing harm related to opioids. Despite strong evidence for the effectiveness of a range of interventions to improve the health and wellbeing of people who are dependent on opioids, coverage is low, even in high-income countries. Treatment quality might be less than desirable, and considerable harm might be caused to individuals, society, and the economy by the criminalisation of extramedical opioid use and dependence. Alternative policy frameworks are recommended that adopt an approach based on human rights and public health, do not make drug use a criminal behaviour, and seek to reduce drug-related harm at the population level.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Drug Overdose; Global Health; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Opioid-Related Disorders; Prevalence; Risk Factors
PubMed: 31657732
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32229-9 -
Heart (British Cardiac Society) Jan 2023There has been limited systematic evaluation of outcomes and drivers of inappropriate non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) dosing among patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Outcomes and drivers of inappropriate dosing of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
There has been limited systematic evaluation of outcomes and drivers of inappropriate non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) dosing among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This review identified and systematically evaluated literature on clinical and economic outcomes of inappropriate NOAC dosing and associated patient characteristics.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Econlit, PubMed and NHS EEDs databases were searched for English language observational studies from all geographies published between 2008 and 2020, examining outcomes of, or factors associated with, inappropriate NOAC dosing in adult patients with AF.
RESULTS
One hundred and six studies were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis showed that compared with recommended NOAC dosing, off-label underdosing was associated with a null effect on stroke outcomes (ischaemic stroke and stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA), stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and stroke/SE/TIA). Meta-analysis of 15 studies examining clinical outcomes of inappropriate NOAC dosing found a null effect of underdosing on bleeding outcomes (major bleeding HR=1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.19; p=0.625) but an increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR=1.28, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.49; p=0.006). Overdosing was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (HR=1.41, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.85; p=0.013). No studies were found examining economic outcomes of inappropriate NOAC dosing. Narrative synthesis of 12 studies examining drivers of inappropriate NOAC dosing found that increased age, history of minor bleeds, hypertension, congestive heart failure and low creatine clearance (CrCl) were associated with an increased risk of underdosing. There was insufficient evidence to assess drivers of overdosing.
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis suggests that off-label underdosing of NOACs does not reduce bleeding outcomes. Patients prescribed off-label NOAC doses are at an increased risk of all-cause mortality. These data underscore the importance of prescriber adherence to NOAC dosing guidelines to achieve optimal clinical outcomes for patients with AF.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020219844.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Stroke; Administration, Oral; Brain Ischemia; Ischemic Attack, Transient; Hemorrhage; Embolism
PubMed: 36316100
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2022-321114 -
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric... Apr 2022This systematic review summarizes and presents the current state of research quantifying the relationship between mental disorder and overdose for people who use opioids. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
This systematic review summarizes and presents the current state of research quantifying the relationship between mental disorder and overdose for people who use opioids.
METHODS
The protocol was published in Open Science Framework. We used the PECOS framework to frame the review question. Studies published between January 1, 2000, and January 4, 2021, from North America, Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand were systematically identified and screened through searching electronic databases, citations, and by contacting experts. Risk of bias assessments were performed. Data were synthesized using the lumping technique.
RESULTS
Overall, 6512 records were screened and 38 were selected for inclusion. 37 of the 38 studies included in this review show a connection between at least one aspect of mental disorder and opioid overdose. The largest body of evidence exists for internalizing disorders generally and mood disorders specifically, followed by anxiety disorders, although there is also moderate evidence to support the relationship between thought disorders (e.g., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) and opioid overdose. Moderate evidence also was found for the association between any disorder and overdose.
CONCLUSION
Nearly all reviewed studies found a connection between mental disorder and overdose, and the evidence suggests that having mental disorder is associated with experiencing fatal and non-fatal opioid overdose, but causal direction remains unclear.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Drug Overdose; Europe; Humans; Opiate Overdose; Psychotic Disorders
PubMed: 34796369
DOI: 10.1007/s00127-021-02199-2 -
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association... Oct 2023Higher doses of opioids, mental health comorbidities, co-prescription of sedatives, lower socioeconomic status and a history of opioid overdose have been reported as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Higher doses of opioids, mental health comorbidities, co-prescription of sedatives, lower socioeconomic status and a history of opioid overdose have been reported as risk factors for opioid overdose; however, the magnitude of these associations and their credibility are unclear. We sought to identify predictors of fatal and nonfatal overdose from prescription opioids.
METHODS
We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science up to Oct. 30, 2022, for observational studies that explored predictors of opioid overdose after their prescription for chronic pain. We performed random-effects meta-analyses for all predictors reported by 2 or more studies using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies (23 963 716 patients) reported the association of 103 predictors with fatal or nonfatal opioid overdose. Moderate- to high-certainty evidence supported large relative associations with history of overdose (OR 5.85, 95% CI 3.78-9.04), higher opioid dose (OR 2.57, 95% CI 2.08-3.18 per 90-mg increment), 3 or more prescribers (OR 4.68, 95% CI 3.57-6.12), 4 or more dispensing pharmacies (OR 4.92, 95% CI 4.35-5.57), prescription of fentanyl (OR 2.80, 95% CI 2.30-3.41), current substance use disorder (OR 2.62, 95% CI 2.09-3.27), any mental health diagnosis (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.73-2.61), depression (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.57-3.14), bipolar disorder (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.77-2.41) or pancreatitis (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.52-2.64), with absolute risks among patients with the predictor ranging from 2-6 per 1000 for fatal overdose and 4-12 per 1000 for nonfatal overdose.
INTERPRETATION
We identified 10 predictors that were strongly associated with opioid overdose. Awareness of these predictors may facilitate shared decision-making regarding prescribing opioids for chronic pain and inform harm-reduction strategies SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/vznxj/).
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Chronic Pain; Drug Overdose; Opiate Overdose; Prescriptions; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37871953
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.230459