-
Efficacy of tramadol for postoperative pain management in dogs: systematic review and meta-analysis.Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia May 2021To evaluate the evidence of analgesic efficacy of tramadol for the management of postoperative pain and the presence of associated adverse events in dogs. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the evidence of analgesic efficacy of tramadol for the management of postoperative pain and the presence of associated adverse events in dogs.
DATABASES USED
A comprehensive search using PubMed/MEDLINE, LILACS, Google Scholar and CAB databases with no restrictions on language and following a prespecified protocol was performed from June 2019 to July 2020. Included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed in dogs that had undergone general anesthesia for any type of surgery. Two authors independently classified the studies, extracted data and assessed their risk of bias using Cochrane's tool. RevMan and GRADE methods were used to rate the certainty of evidence (CoE).
CONCLUSIONS
Overall 26 RCTs involving 848 dogs were included. Tramadol administration probably results in a lower need for rescue analgesia versus no treatment or placebo [moderate CoE; relative risk (RR): 0.47; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.26-0.85; I = 0%], and may result in a lower need for rescue analgesia versus buprenorphine (low CoE; RR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.20-1.24), codeine (low CoE; RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.16-3.41) and nalbuphine (low CoE; RR: 0.05; 95% CI: 0.00-0.72). However, tramadol administration may result in an increased requirement for rescue analgesia versus methadone (low CoE; RR: 3.45; 95% CI: 0.66-18.08; I = 43%) and COX inhibitors (low CoE; RR: 2.27; 95% CI: 0.68-7.60; I = 45%). Compared with multimodal therapy, tramadol administration may make minimal to no difference in the requirement for rescue analgesia (low CoE; RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.48-2.60; I = 0%). Adverse events were inconsistently reported and the CoE was very low. The overall CoE of the analgesic efficacy of tramadol for postoperative pain management in dogs was low or very low, and the main reasons for downgrading the evidence were risk of bias and imprecision.
Topics: Analgesia; Animals; Dog Diseases; Dogs; Nalbuphine; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Tramadol
PubMed: 33745825
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaa.2021.01.003 -
JAMA May 2014Alcohol use disorders cause substantial morbidity and early mortality yet remain greatly undertreated. Medications are considerably underused. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
Alcohol use disorders cause substantial morbidity and early mortality yet remain greatly undertreated. Medications are considerably underused.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the benefits and harms of medications (US FDA-approved and others) for adults with alcohol use disorders.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, FDA website, and clinical trials registries (January 1, 1970, to March 1, 2014).
STUDY SELECTION
Two reviewers selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with at least 12 weeks' duration that reported eligible outcomes and head-to-head prospective cohort studies reporting health outcomes or harms.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models and calculated numbers needed to treat for benefit (NNTs) or harm (NNHs).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Alcohol consumption, motor vehicle crashes, injuries, quality of life, function, mortality, and harms.
RESULTS
We included 122 RCTs and 1 cohort study (total 22,803 participants). Most assessed acamprosate (27 studies, n = 7519), naltrexone (53 studies, n = 9140), or both. The NNT to prevent return to any drinking for acamprosate was 12 (95% CI, 8 to 26; risk difference [RD], -0.09; 95% CI, -0.14 to -0.04) and was 20 (95% CI, 11 to 500; RD, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.10 to -0.002) for oral naltrexone (50 mg/d). The NNT to prevent return to heavy drinking was 12 (95% CI, 8 to 26; RD -0.09; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.04) for oral naltrexone (50 mg/d). Meta-analyses of trials comparing acamprosate to naltrexone found no statistically significant difference between them for return to any drinking (RD, 0.02; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.08) or heavy drinking (RD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.06). For injectable naltrexone, meta-analyses found no association with return to any drinking (RD, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.03) or heavy drinking (RD, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.13) but found an association with reduction in heavy drinking days (weighted mean difference [WMD], -4.6%; 95% CI, -8.5% to -0.56%). Among medications used off-label, moderate evidence supports an association with improvement in some consumption outcomes for nalmefene (heavy drinking days per month: WMD, -2.0; 95% CI, -3.0 to -1.0; drinks per drinking day: WMD, -1.02; 95% CI, -1.77 to -0.28) and topiramate (% heavy drinking days: WMD, -9.0%; 95% CI, -15.3% to -2.7%; drinks per drinking day: WMD, -1.0; 95% CI, -1.6 to -0.48). For naltrexone and nalmefene, NNHs for withdrawal from trials due to adverse events were 48 (95% CI, 30 to 112) and 12 (95% CI, 7 to 50), respectively; risk was not significantly increased for acamprosate or topiramate.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Both acamprosate and oral naltrexone were associated with reduction in return to drinking. When directly compared with one another, no significant differences were found between acamprosate and naltrexone for controlling alcohol consumption. Factors such as dosing frequency, potential adverse events, and availability of treatments may guide medication choice.
Topics: Acamprosate; Alcohol-Related Disorders; Fructose; Harm Reduction; Humans; Naltrexone; Outpatients; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Taurine; Topiramate
PubMed: 24825644
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.3628 -
Journal of Palliative Medicine May 2023The objective of this systematic review is to consolidate the existing evidence on opioid use, including administration, dosing, and efficacy, for the relief of dyspnea... (Review)
Review
The objective of this systematic review is to consolidate the existing evidence on opioid use, including administration, dosing, and efficacy, for the relief of dyspnea at end of life. The overarching goal is to optimize clinical management of dyspnea by identifying patterns in opioid use, improving opioid management of dyspnea, and to prioritize future research. Opioids are commonly used in the management of dyspnea at end of life, yet specific administration guidelines are limited. A greater understanding of the effectiveness of opioids in relieving end-of-life dyspnea with consideration of study design, patients, and opioids, including dyspnea evaluation tools and outcomes, will leverage development of standardized administration and dosing. A PRISMA-guided systematic review using six databases identified quality studies of opioid management for patients with dyspnea at end of life. Twenty-three references met review inclusion criteria, which included terminally ill cancer and noncancer patients with various diagnoses. Studies included two randomized controlled trials, and three nonrandomized experimental, three prospective observational, one cross-sectional, and one case series. Thirteen retrospective chart reviews were also included due to the limited rigorous studies rendered by the search. Thirteen studies evaluated morphine, followed by fentanyl (6), oxycodone (5), general opioid use (4), and hydromorphone (2). Routes of administration were parenteral, oral, combination, and nebulization. Dyspnea was evaluated using self-reporting and non-self-reporting evaluation tools. Sedation was the most reported opioid-related adverse effect. Challenges persist in conducting end-of-life research, preventing consensus on standardization of opioid treatment for dyspnea within this specific palliative time frame. Future robust prospective trials using specific, accurate assessment with reassessment of dyspnea/respiratory distress, and consideration of opioid tolerance, polypharmacy, and comorbidities are required.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Drug Tolerance; Morphine; Dyspnea; Death; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36453988
DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2022.0311 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine-like) drugs are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. The most commonly-used opioid drugs are buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, tramadol, and tapentadol.
OBJECTIVES
To provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy of opioids in cancer pain, and to report on adverse events associated with their use.
METHODS
We identified systematic reviews examining any opioid for cancer pain published to 4 May 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes were no or mild pain within 14 days of starting treatment, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine reviews with 152 included studies and 13,524 participants, but because some studies appeared in more than one review the number of unique studies and participants was smaller than this. Most participants had moderate or severe pain associated with a range of different types of cancer. Studies in the reviews typically compared one type of opioid or formulation with either a different formulation of the same opioid, or a different opioid; few included a placebo control. Typically the reviews titrated dose to effect, a balance between pain relief and adverse events. Various routes of administration of opioids were considered in the reviews; oral with most opioids, but transdermal administration with fentanyl, and buprenorphine. No review included studies of subcutaneous opioid administration. Pain outcomes reported were varied and inconsistent. The average size of included studies varied considerably between reviews: studies of older opioids, such as codeine, morphine, and methadone, had low average study sizes while those involving newer drugs tended to have larger study sizes.Six reviews reported a GRADE assessment (buprenorphine, codeine, hydromorphone, methadone, oxycodone, and tramadol), but not necessarily for all comparisons or outcomes. No comparative analyses were possible because there was no consistent placebo or active control. Cohort outcomes for opioids are therefore reported, as absolute numbers or percentages, or both.Reviews on buprenorphine, codeine with or without paracetamol, hydromorphone, methadone, tramadol with or without paracetamol, tapentadol, and oxycodone did not have information about the primary outcome of mild or no pain at 14 days, although that on oxycodone indicated that average pain scores were within that range. Two reviews, on oral morphine and transdermal fentanyl, reported that 96% of 850 participants achieved that goal.Adverse event withdrawal was reported by five reviews, at rates of between 6% and 19%. Participants with at least one adverse event were reported by three reviews, at rates of between 11% and 77%.Our GRADE assessment of evidence quality was very low for all outcomes, because many studies in the reviews were at high risk of bias from several sources, including small study size.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The amount and quality of evidence around the use of opioids for treating cancer pain is disappointingly low, although the evidence we have indicates that around 19 out of 20 people with moderate or severe pain who are given opioids and can tolerate them should have that pain reduced to mild or no pain within 14 days. This accords with the clinical experience in treating many people with cancer pain, but overstates to some extent the effectiveness found for the WHO pain ladder. Most people will experience adverse events, and help may be needed to manage the more common undesirable adverse effects such as constipation and nausea. Perhaps between 1 in 10 and 2 in 10 people treated with opioids will find these adverse events intolerable, leading to a change in treatment.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Administration, Cutaneous; Administration, Oral; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Cancer Pain; Codeine; Fentanyl; Humans; Hydromorphone; Methadone; Oxycodone; Phenols; Review Literature as Topic; Tapentadol; Tramadol
PubMed: 28683172
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012592.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2014Buprenorphine maintenance treatment has been evaluated in randomised controlled trials against placebo medication, and separately as an alternative to methadone for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Buprenorphine maintenance treatment has been evaluated in randomised controlled trials against placebo medication, and separately as an alternative to methadone for management of opioid dependence.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate buprenorphine maintenance compared to placebo and to methadone maintenance in the management of opioid dependence, including its ability to retain people in treatment, suppress illicit drug use, reduce criminal activity, and mortality.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases to January 2013: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, PsycLIT, CORK, Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia, Australian Drug Foundation, Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol, Library of Congress, reference lists of identified studies and reviews. We sought published/unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of buprenorphine maintenance treatment versus placebo or methadone in management of opioid-dependent persons.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used Cochrane Collaboration methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We include 31 trials (5430 participants), the quality of evidence varied from high to moderate quality.There is high quality of evidence that buprenorphine was superior to placebo medication in retention of participants in treatment at all doses examined. Specifically, buprenorphine retained participants better than placebo: at low doses (2 - 6 mg), 5 studies, 1131 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.88; at medium doses (7 - 15 mg), 4 studies, 887 participants, RR 1.74; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.87; and at high doses (≥ 16 mg), 5 studies, 1001 participants, RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.15 to 2.90. However, there is moderate quality of evidence that only high-dose buprenorphine (≥ 16 mg) was more effective than placebo in suppressing illicit opioid use measured by urinanalysis in the trials, 3 studies, 729 participants, standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.17; 95% CI -1.85 to -0.49, Notably, low-dose, (2 studies, 487 participants, SMD 0.10; 95% CI -0.80 to 1.01), and medium-dose, (2 studies, 463 participants, SMD -0.08; 95% CI -0.78 to 0.62) buprenorphine did not suppress illicit opioid use measured by urinanalysis better than placebo.There is high quality of evidence that buprenorphine in flexible doses adjusted to participant need,was less effective than methadone in retaining participants, 5 studies, 788 participants, RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.95. For those retained in treatment, no difference was observed in suppression of opioid use as measured by urinalysis, 8 studies, 1027 participants, SMD -0.11; 95% CI -0.23 to 0.02 or self report, 4 studies, 501 participants, SMD -0.11; 95% CI -0.28 to 0.07, with moderate quality of evidence.Consistent with the results in the flexible-dose studies, in low fixed-dose studies, methadone (≤ 40 mg) was more likely to retain participants than low-dose buprenorphine (2 - 6 mg), (3 studies, 253 participants, RR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.87). However, we found contrary results at medium dose and high dose: there was no difference between medium-dose buprenorphine (7 - 15 mg) and medium-dose methadone (40 - 85 mg) in retention, (7 studies, 780 participants, RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.10) or in suppression of illicit opioid use as measured by urines, (4 studies, 476 participants, SMD 0.25; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.58) or self report of illicit opioid use, (2 studies, 174 participants, SMD -0.82; 95% CI -1.83 to 0.19). Similarly, there was no difference between high-dose buprenorphine (≥ 16 mg) and high-dose methadone (≥ 85 mg) in retention (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.20 to 3.16) or suppression of self-reported heroin use (SMD -0.73; 95% CI -1.08 to -0.37) (1 study, 134 participants).Few studies reported adverse events ; two studies compared adverse events statistically, finding no difference between methadone and buprenorphine, except for a single result indicating more sedation among those using methadone.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Buprenorphine is an effective medication in the maintenance treatment of heroin dependence, retaining people in treatment at any dose above 2 mg, and suppressing illicit opioid use (at doses 16 mg or greater) based on placebo-controlled trials.However, compared to methadone, buprenorphine retains fewer people when doses are flexibly delivered and at low fixed doses. If fixed medium or high doses are used, buprenorphine and methadone appear no different in effectiveness (retention in treatment and suppression of illicit opioid use); however, fixed doses are rarely used in clinical practice so the flexible dose results are more relevant to patient care. Methadone is superior to buprenorphine in retaining people in treatment, and methadone equally suppresses illicit opioid use.
Topics: Buprenorphine; Humans; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Methadone; Narcotic Antagonists; Narcotics; Opioid-Related Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 24500948
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002207.pub4 -
Addiction (Abingdon, England) Feb 2018Pharmacologically controlled drinking in the treatment of alcohol dependence or alcohol use disorders (AUDs) is an emerging concept. Our objective was to explore the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Pharmacologically controlled drinking in the treatment of alcohol dependence or alcohol use disorders: a systematic review with direct and network meta-analyses on nalmefene, naltrexone, acamprosate, baclofen and topiramate.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Pharmacologically controlled drinking in the treatment of alcohol dependence or alcohol use disorders (AUDs) is an emerging concept. Our objective was to explore the comparative effectiveness of drugs used in this indication.
DESIGN
Systematic review with direct and network meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of nalmefene, naltrexone, acamprosate, baclofen or topiramate in non-abstinent adults diagnosed with alcohol dependence or AUDs. Two independent reviewers selected published and unpublished studies on Medline, the Cochrane Library, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, contacted pharmaceutical companies, the European Medicines Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, and extracted data.
SETTING
Thirty-two RCTs.
PARTICIPANTS
A total of 6036 patients.
MEASUREMENTS
The primary outcome was total alcohol consumption (TAC). Other consumption outcomes and health outcomes were considered as secondary outcomes.
FINDINGS
No study provided direct comparisons between drugs. A risk of incomplete outcome data was identified in 26 studies (81%) and risk of selective outcome reporting in 17 (53%). Nalmefene [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.29, -0.10; I = 0%], baclofen (SMD = -1.00, 95% CI = -1.80, -0.19; one study) and topiramate (SMD = -0.77, 95% CI = -1.12, -0.42; I = 0%) showed superiority over placebo on TAC. No efficacy was observed for naltrexone or acamprosate. Similar results were observed for other consumption outcomes, except for baclofen (the favourable outcome on TAC was not reproduced). The number of withdrawals for safety reasons increased under nalmefene and naltrexone. No treatment demonstrated any harm reduction (no study was powered to explore health outcomes). Indirect comparisons suggested that topiramate was superior to nalmefene, naltrexone and acamprosate on consumption outcomes, but its safety profile is known to be poor.
CONCLUSIONS
There is currently no high-grade evidence for pharmacological treatment to control drinking using nalmefene, naltrexone, acamprosate, baclofen or topiramate in patients with alcohol dependence or alcohol use disorder. Some treatments show low to medium efficacy in reducing drinking across a range of studies with a high risk of bias. None demonstrates any benefit on health outcomes.
Topics: Acamprosate; Alcoholism; Baclofen; Naltrexone; Narcotic Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Topiramate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28940866
DOI: 10.1111/add.13974 -
Expert Opinion on Emerging Drugs Mar 2021The large percentage of adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) insufficiently responding and/or tolerating conventional monoamine-based antidepressants invites the...
INTRODUCTION
The large percentage of adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) insufficiently responding and/or tolerating conventional monoamine-based antidepressants invites the need for mechanistically novel treatments. Convergent evidence implicates glutamatergic signaling as a potential therapeutic target in MDD.
AREAS COVERED
The synthesis herein of preclinical and clinical studies indicates that dextromethorphan (DXM) is well tolerated and exhibits clinically significant antidepressant effects; DXM combined with bupropion has demonstrated replicated and relatively rapid onset efficacy in adults with MDD. DXM efficacy has been preliminarily reported in adults with bipolar depression. The combination of DXM and bupropion represents a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic synergy which may account for the rapidity of action in MDD.
EXPERT OPINION
The combination of DXM and bupropion is a safe, well tolerated and efficacious treatment option in adults with MDD. Priority questions are whether DXM/bupropion is uniquely effective across discrete domains of psychopathology (e.g. anhedonia, reward processing, general cognitive systems) and/or whether it is able to significantly improve patient-reported outcomes (e.g. quality of life, psychosocial functioning). The availability of ketamine/esketamine and DXM/bupropion instantiates the relevance of glutamate as a treatment target in MDD. Studies in bipolar depression with DXM/bupropion are warranted as well as in MDD with suicidality.
Topics: Adult; Animals; Antidepressive Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Bupropion; Depressive Disorder, Major; Dextromethorphan; Drug Therapy, Combination; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Humans; Molecular Targeted Therapy
PubMed: 33682569
DOI: 10.1080/14728214.2021.1898588 -
The Lancet. Psychiatry Jun 2023Opioid dependence is associated with substantial health and social burdens, and opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is highly effective in improving multiple outcomes for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Opioid dependence is associated with substantial health and social burdens, and opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is highly effective in improving multiple outcomes for people who receive this treatment. Methadone and buprenorphine are common medications provided as OAT. We aimed to examine buprenorphine compared with methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence across a wide range of primary and secondary outcomes.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with GATHER and PRISMA guidelines. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO from database inception to Aug 1, 2022; clinical trial registries and previous relevant Cochrane reviews were also reviewed. We included all RCTs and observational studies of adults (aged ≥18 years) with opioid dependence comparing treatment with buprenorphine or methadone. Primary outcomes were retention in treatment at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, treatment adherence (measured through doses taken as prescribed, dosing visits attended, and biological measures), or extra-medical opioid use (measured by urinalysis and self-report). Secondary outcomes were use of benzodiazepines, cannabis, cocaine, amphetamines, and alcohol; withdrawal; craving; criminal activity and engagement with the criminal justice system; overdose; mental and physical health; sleep; pain; global functioning; suicidality and self-harm; and adverse events. Single-arm cohort studies and RCTs that collected data on buprenorphine retention alone were also reviewed. Data on study, participant, and treatment characteristics were extracted. Study authors were contacted to obtain additional data when required. Comparative estimates were pooled with use of random-effects meta-analyses. The proportion of individuals retained in treatment across multiple timepoints was pooled for each drug. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020205109).
FINDINGS
We identified 32 eligible RCTs (N=5808 participants) and 69 observational studies (N=323 340) comparing buprenorphine and methadone, in addition to 51 RCTs (N=11 644) and 124 observational studies (N=700 035) that reported on treatment retention with buprenorphine. Overall, 61 studies were done in western Europe, 162 in North America, 14 in north Africa and the Middle East, 20 in Australasia, five in southeast Asia, seven in south Asia, two in eastern Europe, three in central Europe, one in east Asia, and one in central Asia. 1 040 827 participants were included in these primary studies; however, gender was only reported for 572 111 participants, of whom 377 991 (66·1%) were male and 194 120 (33·9%) were female. Mean age was 37·1 years (SD 6·0). At timepoints beyond 1 month, retention was better for methadone than for buprenorphine: for example, at 6 months, the pooled effect favoured methadone in RCTs (risk ratio 0·76 [95% CI 0·67-0·85]; I·=74·2%; 16 studies, N=3151) and in observational studies (0·77 [0·68-0·86]; I·=98·5%; 21 studies, N=155 111). Retention was generally higher in RCTs than observational studies. There was no evidence suggesting that adherence to treatment differed with buprenorphine compared with methadone. There was some evidence that extra-medical opioid use was lower in those receiving buprenorphine in RCTs that measured this outcome by urinalysis and reported proportion of positive urine samples (over various time frames; standardised mean difference -0·20 [-0·29 to -0·11]; I·=0·0%; three studies, N=841), but no differences were found when using other measures. Some statistically significant differences were found between buprenorphine and methadone among secondary outcomes. There was evidence of reduced cocaine use, cravings, anxiety, and cardiac dysfunction, as well as increased treatment satisfaction among people receiving buprenorphine compared with methadone; and evidence of reduced hospitalisation and alcohol use in people receiving methadone. These differences in secondary outcomes were based on small numbers of studies (maximum five), and were often not consistent across study types or different measures of the same constructs (eg, cocaine use).
INTERPRETATION
Evidence from trials and observational studies suggest that treatment retention is better for methadone than for sublingual buprenorphine. Comparative evidence on other outcomes examined showed few statistically significant differences and was generally based on small numbers of studies. These findings highlight the imperative for interventions to improve retention, consideration of client-centred factors (such as client preference) when selecting between methadone and buprenorphine, and harmonisation of data collection and reporting to strengthen future syntheses.
FUNDING
Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Male; Female; Adolescent; Methadone; Buprenorphine; Analgesics, Opioid; Australia; Opioid-Related Disorders; Cocaine
PubMed: 37167985
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(23)00095-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023This is the second update of the original Cochrane review published in 2013 (issue 6), which was updated in 2016 (issue 11). Pruritus occurs in patients with disparate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is the second update of the original Cochrane review published in 2013 (issue 6), which was updated in 2016 (issue 11). Pruritus occurs in patients with disparate underlying diseases and is caused by different pathologic mechanisms. In palliative care patients, pruritus is not the most prevalent but is a burdening symptom. It can cause considerable discomfort and negatively affect patients' quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different pharmacological treatments compared with active control or placebo for preventing or treating pruritus in adult palliative care patients.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID) and Embase (OVID) up to 6 July 2022. In addition, we searched trial registries and checked the reference lists of all relevant studies, key textbooks, reviews and websites, and we contacted investigators and specialists in pruritus and palliative care regarding unpublished data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of different pharmacological treatments, compared with a placebo, no treatment, or an alternative treatment, for preventing or treating pruritus in palliative care patients.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the identified titles and abstracts, performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias and methodological quality. We summarised the results descriptively and quantitatively (meta-analyses) according to the different pharmacological interventions and the diseases associated with pruritus. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created 13 summary of findings tables.
MAIN RESULTS
In total, we included 91 studies and 4652 participants in the review. We added 42 studies with 2839 participants for this update. Altogether, we included 51 different treatments for pruritus in four different patient groups. The overall risk of bias profile was heterogeneous and ranged from high to low risk. The main reason for giving a high risk of bias rating was a small sample size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm). Seventy-nine of 91 studies (87%) had fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm. Eight (9%) studies had low risk of bias in the specified key domains; the remaining studies had an unclear risk of bias (70 studies, 77%) or a high risk of bias (13 studies, 14%). Using GRADE criteria, we judged that the certainty of evidence for the primary outcome (i.e. pruritus) was high for kappa-opioid agonists compared to placebo and moderate for GABA-analogues compared to placebo. Certainty of evidence was low for naltrexone, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids, topical capsaicin, ondansetron and zinc sulphate compared to placebo and gabapentin compared to pregabalin, and very low for cromolyn sodium, paroxetine, montelukast, flumecinol, and rifampicin compared to placebo. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence mainly due to serious study limitations regarding risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. For participants suffering from uraemic pruritus (UP; also known as chronic kidney disease (CKD)-associated pruritus (CKD-aP)), treatment with GABA-analogues compared to placebo likely resulted in a large reduction of pruritus (visual analogue scale (VAS) 0 to 10 cm): mean difference (MD) -5.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.56 to -4.55; five RCTs, N = 297, certainty of evidence: moderate. Treatment with kappa-opioid receptor agonists (difelikefalin, nalbuphine, nalfurafine) compared to placebo reduced pruritus slightly (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.22 to -0.71; six RCTs, N = 1292, certainty of evidence: high); thus, this treatment was less effective than GABA-analogues. Treatment with montelukast compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (two studies, 87 participants): SMD -1.40, 95% CI -1.87 to -0.92; certainty of evidence: very low. Treatment with fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids compared to placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (four studies, 160 observations): SMD -1.60, 95% CI -1.97 to -1.22; certainty of evidence: low. Treatment with cromolyn sodium compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD -3.27, 95% CI -5.91 to -0.63; two RCTs, N = 100, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with topical capsaicin compared with placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (two studies; 112 participants): SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.55 to -0.57; certainty of evidence: low. Ondansetron, zinc sulphate and several other treatments may not reduce pruritus in participants suffering from UP. In participants with cholestatic pruritus (CP), treatment with rifampicin compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS: 0 to 100, MD -42.00, 95% CI -87.31 to 3.31; two RCTs, N = 42, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with flumecinol compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR > 1 favours treatment group; RR 2.32, 95% CI 0.54 to 10.1; two RCTs, N = 69, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with the opioid antagonist naltrexone compared to placebo may reduce pruritus (VAS: 0 to 10 cm, MD -2.42, 95% CI -3.90 to -0.94; two RCTs, N = 52, certainty of evidence: low). However, effects in participants with UP were inconclusive (percentage of difference -12.30%, 95% CI -25.82% to 1.22%, one RCT, N = 32). In palliative care participants with pruritus of a different nature, the treatment with the drug paroxetine (one study), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, compared to placebo may reduce pruritus slightly by 0.78 (numerical analogue scale from 0 to 10 points; 95% CI -1.19 to -0.37; one RCT, N = 48, certainty of evidence: low). Most adverse events were mild or moderate. Two interventions showed multiple major adverse events (naltrexone and nalfurafine).
AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS
Different interventions (GABA-analogues, kappa-opioid receptor agonists, cromolyn sodium, montelukast, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids and topical capsaicin compared to placebo) were effective for uraemic pruritus. GABA-analogues had the largest effect on pruritus. Rifampin, naltrexone and flumecinol tended to be effective for cholestatic pruritus. However, therapies for patients with malignancies are still lacking. Due to the small sample sizes in most meta-analyses and the heterogeneous methodological quality of the included trials, the results should be interpreted cautiously in terms of generalisability.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Capsaicin; Cromolyn Sodium; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Naltrexone; Ondansetron; Palliative Care; Paroxetine; Receptors, Opioid; Rifampin; Zinc Sulfate
PubMed: 37314034
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008320.pub4 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Sep 2011Dependence on opioids is a multifactorial condition involving genetic and psychosocial factors. There are three stages to treating opioid dependence. Stabilisation is... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Dependence on opioids is a multifactorial condition involving genetic and psychosocial factors. There are three stages to treating opioid dependence. Stabilisation is usually by opioid substitution treatments, and aims to ensure that the drug use becomes independent of mental state (such as craving and mood) and independent of circumstances (such as finance and physical location). The next stage is to withdraw (detox) from opioids. The final stage is relapse prevention. This treatment process contributes to recovery of the individual, which also includes improved overall health and wellbeing, as well as engagement in society.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments for stabilisation (maintenance) in people with opioid dependence? What are the effects of drug treatments for withdrawal in people with opioid dependence? What are the effects of drug treatments for relapse prevention in people with opioid dependence? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to March 2011 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 26 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: buprenorphine; clonidine; lofexidine; methadone; naltrexone; and ultra-rapid withdrawal regimens.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Evidence-Based Medicine; Heroin Dependence; Humans; Incidence; Methadone; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 21929827
DOI: No ID Found