-
Clinical Journal of the American... Feb 2011Chronic pain and psychiatric disorders are common in dialysis patients, but the extent to which opioids and benzodiazepines are used is unclear. We conducted a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Chronic pain and psychiatric disorders are common in dialysis patients, but the extent to which opioids and benzodiazepines are used is unclear. We conducted a systematic review to determine the: (1) prevalence of opioid and benzodiazepine use among dialysis patients; (2) reasons for use; (3) effectiveness of symptom control; and (4) incidence of adverse events.
DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS
Two authors reviewed all relevant citations in MEDLINE/EMBASE/CINAHL/BIOSIS Previews/Cochrane and hand-searched bibliographies. Studies after 1990 reporting prevalence estimates for opioid and/or benzodiazepine use in ≥50 dialysis patients were included.
RESULTS
We identified 15 studies from 12 countries over 1995 to 2006. Sample size ranged from 75 to 12,782. Prevalence of opioid and benzodiazepine use was variable, ranging from 5 to 36% (95% CI, 4.1 to 45.5%; n=10) and 8 to 26% (95% CI, 7.1 to 27.3%; n=9), respectively. Prevalence was positively correlated with years on dialysis. Five studies reported on the same cohorts but gave different prevalence estimates. One study verified medication use through patient interviews. Reasons for use were reported in one study. Effectiveness of pain control varied from 17 to 38%, and 72 to 84% of patients with significant pain had no analgesia (n=2). No study rigorously examined for adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
The prevalence of opioid and benzodiazepine use in dialysis patients is highly variable between centers. Further information is needed regarding the appropriateness of these prescriptions, adequacy of symptom control, and incidence of adverse effects in this population.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Benzodiazepines; Central Nervous System Depressants; Drug Utilization; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Mental Disorders; Pain; Pain Measurement; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 21071517
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.04770610 -
Pain Physician Oct 2023Opioid-based general anesthesia was previously used to alleviate perioperative pain; however, several complications associated with using anesthesia have raised several... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Opioid-based general anesthesia was previously used to alleviate perioperative pain; however, several complications associated with using anesthesia have raised several concerns. Various studies have investigated the application prospect of using opioid-free general anesthesia, such as dexmedetomidine, as an opioid substitute.
OBJECTIVES
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore and highlight the safety and effectiveness of dexmedetomidine as an opioid substitute for opioid-free anesthesia.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
We screened for suitable clinical trials from electronic databases, including "PubMed," "Cochrane Library," "EMBASE," and "Web of Science." Eligible trials were included in this meta-analysis.
METHODS
The quality of the screened randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was determined using the risk of bias assessment criteria by the Cochrane Collaboration tool. We used the "Review Manager 5.3" and "Stata 10.0" software to perform the meta-analysis. We evaluated the quality of evidence using the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation" approach.
RESULTS
For the analysis, we included 32 RCTs encompassing 2,509 patients. In the opioid-free group, the 2-hour postoperative pain score of patients (mean difference = -0.53, 95% CI: -1.00, -0.07; P = 0.02, I2=78%) was significantly lower compared to those in the opioid-based group. In addition, several patients required rescue analgesia (risk ratio = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.58, 0.84, P < 0.05, I2 = 71%) and opioids postsurgery. However, the duration of extubation and postanesthesia care unit, as well as the incidences of bradycardia, were high in patients receiving dexmedetomidine as opioid-free general anesthesia.
LIMITATIONS
Subgroup analysis for different anesthesia-maintaining drugs had not been conducted. The heterogeneity did not reduce after subgroup analysis. Different doses of dexmedetomidine had not been evaluated.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings indicate that opioid-free general anesthesia based on dexmedetomidine could be effective; however, prolonged extubation time and cardiovascular complications are a few risks associated with dexmedetomidine.
Topics: Humans; Dexmedetomidine; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain, Postoperative; Anesthesia, General; Analgesia
PubMed: 37847917
DOI: No ID Found -
Clinical Gastroenterology and... May 2021Despite reported adverse effects of opioids in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), the burden of opioid use in this population appears to be high. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Despite reported adverse effects of opioids in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), the burden of opioid use in this population appears to be high. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prior studies to determine the prevalence of opioid use among patients with IBD as well as risk factors and outcomes associated with opioid use in this population.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library through November of 2019. Primary outcomes included the prevalence of opioid use and demographic and clinical variables associated with opioid use in patients with IBD. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. We used random-effect meta-analysis to estimate pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs.
RESULTS
Of 780 citations identified, 31 were included in our study. The prevalence of opioid use was 21% (95% CI, 13%-30%) in the outpatient setting. Likewise, 62% (95% CI, 25%-92%) of patients received opioids while hospitalized for IBD. Opioid use was associated with female sex (RR 1.20; 95% CI 1.03-1.40), depression (1.99; 95% CI 1.80-2.19), substance abuse (4.67; 95% CI 2.87-7.60), prior gastrointestinal surgery (2.33; 95% CI 1.66-3.26), biologic use (1.36; 95% CI 1.06-1.74), and steroid use (1.41; 95% CI 1.04-1.91). Based on the systematic review, opioid use also appeared to be associated with increased IBD activity, healthcare use, infection, and mortality.
CONCLUSION
In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that 21% of outpatients with IBD (and 62% of hospitalized patients) are opioid users; use is associated with more severe IBD and increased healthcare use. Further studies are required to determine whether opioids are the cause or an effect of these associations. Nonetheless, urgent interventions are needed to reduce opioid use, improve disease-related outcomes and reduce healthcare costs.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Colitis; Female; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Prevalence; Risk Factors
PubMed: 32835841
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.08.041 -
The Surgeon : Journal of the Royal... Aug 2023Despite advances in opioid-sparing analgesia, opioid prescribing in breast surgery remains suboptimal. Besides delayed rehabilitation, excess post-operative opioids may... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite advances in opioid-sparing analgesia, opioid prescribing in breast surgery remains suboptimal. Besides delayed rehabilitation, excess post-operative opioids may contribute significantly to opioid dependence. This systematic review of guidelines evaluates current opioid-prescribing recommendations after breast surgery to identify trends in prescribing. Additionally, it compares recommendations on different non-opioid and non-pharmacological adjuncts.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched systematically using terms "breast surgery", "analgesia", "opioid" and "guidelines". The grey literature was used to supplement the search. All articles that provided guidance on opioid prescribing in breast surgery were included. Quality of the guidelines were assessed using the AGREE II tool. Recommendations pertaining to opioid prescribing, analgesic adjuncts and non-pharmacological interventions were summarised and reported with descriptive statistics.
RESULT
Eight guidelines pertaining to mastectomies, breast conserving surgery and breast reconstructions were included in this review. Although an opioid-sparing approach was unanimous, there were conflicting recommendations on opioid doses. Opioid requirements were stratified by procedure in 3 guidelines, and by patient risk factors in 2 guidelines. There was significant variability in the recommended multimodal adjuncts. Notably, non-pharmacological interventions such as patient education were infrequently included in guidelines.
CONCLUSION
There is a lack of high-quality guidance on opioid prescribing after breast surgery. The optimum approach for personalised opioid prescribing remains unknown. Significant variability between guidelines provide little actionable interventions for prescribers. This could be driven by the paucity in evidence supporting a single efficacious analgesic regimen for patients undergoing breast surgery. Future guidelines should also regularly incorporate non-pharmacological adjuncts to reduce opioid prescribing.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Pain Management; Mastectomy; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 36593160
DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2022.12.004 -
Neurosurgery Jun 2020Prescription opioid use and opioid-related deaths have become an epidemic in the United States, leading to devastating economic and health ramifications. Opioids are the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Prescription opioid use and opioid-related deaths have become an epidemic in the United States, leading to devastating economic and health ramifications. Opioids are the most commonly prescribed drug class to treat low back pain, despite the limited body of evidence supporting their efficacy. Furthermore, preoperative opioid use prior to spine surgery has been reported to range from 20% to over 70%, with nearly 20% of this population being opioid dependent.
OBJECTIVE
To review the medical literature on the effect of preoperative opioid use in outcomes in spine surgery.
METHODS
We reviewed manuscripts published prior to February 1, 2019, exploring the effect of preoperative opioid use on outcomes in spine surgery. We identified 45 articles that analyzed independently the effect of preoperative opioid use on outcomes (n = 32 lumbar surgery, n = 19 cervical surgery, n = 7 spinal deformity, n = 5 "other").
RESULTS
Preoperative opioid use is overwhelmingly associated with negative surgical and functional outcomes, including postoperative opioid use, hospitalization duration, healthcare costs, risk of surgical revision, and several other negative outcomes.
CONCLUSION
There is an urgent and unmet need to find and apply extensive perioperative solutions to combat opioid use, particularly in patients undergoing spine surgery. Further investigations are necessary to determine the optimal method to treat such patients and to develop opioid-combative strategies in patients undergoing spine surgery.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Opioid-Related Disorders; Pain, Postoperative; Preoperative Care; Reoperation; Spinal Diseases; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32271911
DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyaa050 -
BMJ Open Jan 2024The objective of this study is to evaluate the comparative benefits and harms of opioids and cannabis for medical use for chronic non-cancer pain. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to evaluate the comparative benefits and harms of opioids and cannabis for medical use for chronic non-cancer pain.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, Cannabis-Med, Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) from inception to March 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomised trials comparing any type of cannabis for medical use or opioids, against each other or placebo, with patient follow-up ≥4 weeks.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Paired reviewers independently extracted data. We used Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence and communicate our findings.
RESULTS
Ninety trials involving 22 028 patients were eligible for review, among which the length of follow-up ranged from 28 to 180 days. Moderate certainty evidence showed that opioids provide small improvements in pain, physical functioning and sleep quality versus placebo; low to moderate certainty evidence supported similar effects for cannabis versus placebo. Neither was more effective than placebo for role, social or emotional functioning (all high to moderate certainty evidence). Moderate certainty evidence showed there is probably little to no difference between cannabis for medical use and opioids for physical functioning (weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.47 on the 100-point 36-item Short Form Survey physical component summary score, 95% credible interval (CrI) -1.97 to 2.99), and cannabis resulted in fewer discontinuations due to adverse events versus opioids (OR 0.55, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.83). Low certainty evidence suggested little to no difference between cannabis and opioids for pain relief (WMD 0.23 cm on a 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), 95% CrI -0.06 to 0.53) or sleep quality (WMD 0.49 mm on a 100 mm VAS, 95% CrI -4.72 to 5.59).
CONCLUSIONS
Cannabis for medical use may be similarly effective and result in fewer discontinuations than opioids for chronic non-cancer pain.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020185184.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Bayes Theorem; Cannabinoid Receptor Agonists; Cannabis; Chronic Pain; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38171632
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068182 -
Pharmacotherapy May 2021Opioids are one of the most prescribed classes of analgesic medications. Their narrow therapeutic index and metabolism through cytochrome p450 (CYP) enzymes can result...
Opioids are one of the most prescribed classes of analgesic medications. Their narrow therapeutic index and metabolism through cytochrome p450 (CYP) enzymes can result in a drug interaction when used concomitantly with rifamycins. In clinical scenarios where concurrent therapy with an opioid and a rifamycin occurs, there is no standardized guidance for managing the interaction. The objective of this review was to examine literature which evaluates the concomitant use of opioids and rifamycins with clinically relevant CYP-inducing properties. A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria was performed. PubMed, Scopus, and OVID Embase were queried for studies from database inception to January 2020 related to rifamycin and opioid medications. Only full-text, peer-reviewed, English language articles addressing clinical outcomes from concomitant rifamycin and opioid therapy were included. The review isolated 12 articles for data extraction from an original 2260 citations identified. Rifampin (11; 92%) and rifabutin (2; 17%) were the rifamycins studied along with seven different opioids. Decreased effect of opioids with concomitant rifampin therapy manifested as withdrawal in numerous patients on methadone and a decreased analgesic effect from tramadol, morphine, and, most notably, oxycodone. Only the combinations of rifampin with buccal fentanyl and rifabutin with buprenorphine and methadone were found to have no clinically measurable interaction. Available literature suggests that a decrease in opioid clinical effects is appreciated with concomitant rifamycin therapy. Further research is needed to focus on specific mitigation strategies beyond opioid agent selection, such as dosing adjustment recommendations.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Rifamycins; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33748959
DOI: 10.1002/phar.2520 -
International Journal of Palliative... Jul 2021Rising rates of opioid abuse worldwide have led to the implementation of policies to curb opioid prescribing. It is unknown what impact these policies have on...
BACKGROUND
Rising rates of opioid abuse worldwide have led to the implementation of policies to curb opioid prescribing. It is unknown what impact these policies have on prescribing within the setting of hospice and palliative care.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the current state of the science of opioid prescribing in hospice and palliative care in relation to the opioid epidemic and associated policies.
METHODS
A systematic integrative literature review was conducted using the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PubMed, ProQuest Central and SCOPUS.
RESULTS
Most of the existing literature examines physician perspectives related to opioid prescribing in primary care settings. Ample evidence exists that policies can and do affect rates of opioid prescribing in specialties outside of hospice and palliative care. There is limited evidence to suggest how these policies affect opioid prescribing in hospice and palliative care. However, the available evidence suggests that opioids are necessary in hospice and palliative care in order to manage pain.
CONCLUSION
Further research is necessary to examine the possible negative impact of the opioid epidemic on opioid prescribing in hospice and palliative care.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Hospice Care; Humans; Opioid Epidemic; Palliative Care; Practice Patterns, Physicians'
PubMed: 34292770
DOI: 10.12968/ijpn.2021.27.5.255 -
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 -
Australasian Journal on Ageing Dec 2022To systematically review the prevalence of opioid prescribing, dispensing and administration in Australian residential aged care facilities (RACFs). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the prevalence of opioid prescribing, dispensing and administration in Australian residential aged care facilities (RACFs).
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AgeLine, Web of Science Core Collection, InformIT and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (inception to September 2021) were searched for studies reporting opioid prevalence in Australian RACFs. Regular and as-required (i.e. pro re nata, PRN) opioid uses were considered. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two review authors.
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies (n = 286,141 residents) reported opioid prevalence, of which 16 provided overall regular or PRN prescribing, dispensing or administration data. Five studies reported 28%-34% of residents were prescribed regular opioids over assessment periods ranging from one week to one month. Five studies reported 11%-42% of residents were prescribed PRN opioids over assessment periods ranging from one week to 30 months. Three studies reported 27%-50% of residents were dispensed an opioid over 12 months. Five studies reported 21%-29% were administered both regular and PRN opioids over 24 hours. Two studies reported 22%-42% of residents were administered PRN opioids over 1 week to 12 months. Two studies reported 6%-13% of residents were using doses >100 mg oral morphine equivalents/day.
CONCLUSIONS
Up to half of the residents were dispensed opioids over 12 months. The prevalence of opioid prescribing, dispensing and administration was highly variable, suggesting the potential value of opioid quality indicators and analgesic stewardship interventions to ensure opioid appropriateness.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Analgesics, Opioid; Prevalence; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Australia; Analgesics
PubMed: 35394708
DOI: 10.1111/ajag.13071