-
JAMA Apr 2016Primary care clinicians find managing chronic pain challenging. Evidence of long-term efficacy of opioids for chronic pain is limited. Opioid use is associated with... (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
Primary care clinicians find managing chronic pain challenging. Evidence of long-term efficacy of opioids for chronic pain is limited. Opioid use is associated with serious risks, including opioid use disorder and overdose.
OBJECTIVE
To provide recommendations about opioid prescribing for primary care clinicians treating adult patients with chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care.
PROCESS
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated a 2014 systematic review on effectiveness and risks of opioids and conducted a supplemental review on benefits and harms, values and preferences, and costs. CDC used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess evidence type and determine the recommendation category.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Evidence consisted of observational studies or randomized clinical trials with notable limitations, characterized as low quality using GRADE methodology. Meta-analysis was not attempted due to the limited number of studies, variability in study designs and clinical heterogeneity, and methodological shortcomings of studies. No study evaluated long-term (≥1 year) benefit of opioids for chronic pain. Opioids were associated with increased risks, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death, with dose-dependent effects.
RECOMMENDATIONS
There are 12 recommendations. Of primary importance, nonopioid therapy is preferred for treatment of chronic pain. Opioids should be used only when benefits for pain and function are expected to outweigh risks. Before starting opioids, clinicians should establish treatment goals with patients and consider how opioids will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks. When opioids are used, clinicians should prescribe the lowest effective dosage, carefully reassess benefits and risks when considering increasing dosage to 50 morphine milligram equivalents or more per day, and avoid concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines whenever possible. Clinicians should evaluate benefits and harms of continued opioid therapy with patients every 3 months or more frequently and review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, for high-risk combinations or dosages. For patients with opioid use disorder, clinicians should offer or arrange evidence-based treatment, such as medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine or methadone.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The guideline is intended to improve communication about benefits and risks of opioids for chronic pain, improve safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce risks associated with long-term opioid therapy.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Benzodiazepines; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.; Chronic Pain; Communication; Contraindications; Drug Prescriptions; Drug Therapy, Combination; Goals; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Prescription Drug Misuse; Primary Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; United States; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 26977696
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.1464 -
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 -
Clinical Journal of the American... May 2015The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning Workgroup was created to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments in poisoning. Here,... (Review)
Review
The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning Workgroup was created to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments in poisoning. Here, the EXTRIP workgroup presents its recommendations for lithium poisoning. After a systematic literature search, clinical and toxicokinetic data were extracted and summarized following a predetermined format. The entire workgroup voted through a two-round modified Delphi method to reach a consensus on voting statements. A RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement, and anonymous votes were compiled and discussed in person. A second vote was conducted to determine the final workgroup recommendations. In total, 166 articles met inclusion criteria, which were mostly case reports, yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. A total of 418 patients were reviewed, 228 of which allowed extraction of patient-level data. The workgroup concluded that lithium is dialyzable (Level of evidence=A) and made the following recommendations: Extracorporeal treatment is recommended in severe lithium poisoning (1D). Extracorporeal treatment is recommended if kidney function is impaired and the [Li(+)] is >4.0 mEq/L, or in the presence of a decreased level of consciousness, seizures, or life-threatening dysrhythmias irrespective of the [Li(+)] (1D). Extracorporeal treatment is suggested if the [Li(+)] is >5.0 mEq/L, significant confusion is present, or the expected time to reduce the [Li(+)] to <1.0 mEq/L is >36 hours (2D). Extracorporeal treatment should be continued until clinical improvement is apparent or [Li(+)] is <1.0 mEq/L (1D). Extracorporeal treatments should be continued for a minimum of 6 hours if the [Li(+)] is not readily measurable (1D). Hemodialysis is the preferred extracorporeal treatment (1D), but continuous RRT is an acceptable alternative (1D). The workgroup supported the use of extracorporeal treatment in severe lithium poisoning. Clinical decisions on when to use extracorporeal treatment should take into account the [Li(+)], kidney function, pattern of lithium toxicity, patient's clinical status, and availability of extracorporeal treatments.
Topics: Antimanic Agents; Consensus; Delphi Technique; Drug Overdose; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Lithium; Lithium Compounds; Renal Dialysis
PubMed: 25583292
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.10021014 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2018Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is the most widely used non-prescription analgesic in the world. Paracetamol is commonly taken in overdose either deliberately or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is the most widely used non-prescription analgesic in the world. Paracetamol is commonly taken in overdose either deliberately or unintentionally. In high-income countries, paracetamol toxicity is a common cause of acute liver injury. There are various interventions to treat paracetamol poisoning, depending on the clinical status of the person. These interventions include inhibiting the absorption of paracetamol from the gastrointestinal tract (decontamination), removal of paracetamol from the vascular system, and antidotes to prevent the formation of, or to detoxify, metabolites.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of interventions for paracetamol overdosage irrespective of the cause of the overdose.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (January 2017), CENTRAL (2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to January 2017), Embase (1974 to January 2017), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to January 2017). We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov database (US National Institute of Health) for any ongoing or completed trials (January 2017). We examined the reference lists of relevant papers identified by the search and other published reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials assessing benefits and harms of interventions in people who have ingested a paracetamol overdose. The interventions could have been gastric lavage, ipecacuanha, or activated charcoal, or various extracorporeal treatments, or antidotes. The interventions could have been compared with placebo, no intervention, or to each other in differing regimens.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. We used fixed-effect and random-effects Peto odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for analysis of the review outcomes. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess the risks of bias (i.e. systematic errors leading to overestimation of benefits and underestimation of harms). We used Trial Sequential Analysis to control risks of random errors (i.e. play of chance) and GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence and constructed 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE software.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 11 randomised clinical trials (of which one acetylcysteine trial was abandoned due to low numbers recruited), assessing several different interventions in 700 participants. The variety of interventions studied included decontamination, extracorporeal measures, and antidotes to detoxify paracetamol's toxic metabolite; which included methionine, cysteamine, dimercaprol, or acetylcysteine. There were no randomised clinical trials of agents that inhibit cytochrome P-450 to decrease the activation of the toxic metabolite N-acetyl-p-benzoquinone imine.Of the 11 trials, only two had two common outcomes, and hence, we could only meta-analyse two comparisons. Each of the remaining comparisons included outcome data from one trial only and hence their results are presented as described in the trials. All trial analyses lack power to access efficacy. Furthermore, all the trials were at high risk of bias. Accordingly, the quality of evidence was low or very low for all comparisons. Interventions that prevent absorption, such as gastric lavage, ipecacuanha, or activated charcoal were compared with placebo or no intervention and with each other in one four-armed randomised clinical trial involving 60 participants with an uncertain randomisation procedure and hence very low quality. The trial presented results on lowering plasma paracetamol levels. Activated charcoal seemed to reduce the absorption of paracetamol, but the clinical benefits were unclear. Activated charcoal seemed to have the best risk:benefit ratio among gastric lavage, ipecacuanha, or supportive treatment if given within four hours of ingestion. There seemed to be no difference between gastric lavage and ipecacuanha, but gastric lavage and ipecacuanha seemed more effective than no treatment (very low quality of evidence). Extracorporeal interventions included charcoal haemoperfusion compared with conventional treatment (supportive care including gastric lavage, intravenous fluids, and fresh frozen plasma) in one trial with 16 participants. The mean cumulative amount of paracetamol removed was 1.4 g. One participant from the haemoperfusion group who had ingested 135 g of paracetamol, died. There were no deaths in the conventional treatment group. Accordingly, we found no benefit of charcoal haemoperfusion (very low quality of evidence). Acetylcysteine appeared superior to placebo and had fewer adverse effects when compared with dimercaprol or cysteamine. Acetylcysteine superiority to methionine was unproven. One small trial (low quality evidence) found that acetylcysteine may reduce mortality in people with fulminant hepatic failure (Peto OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.94). The most recent randomised clinical trials studied different acetylcysteine regimens, with the primary outcome being adverse events. It was unclear which acetylcysteine treatment protocol offered the best efficacy, as most trials were underpowered to look at this outcome. One trial showed that a modified 12-hour acetylcysteine regimen with a two-hour acetylcysteine 100 mg/kg bodyweight loading dose was associated with significantly fewer adverse reactions compared with the traditional three-bag 20.25-hour regimen (low quality of evidence). All Trial Sequential Analyses showed lack of sufficient power. Children were not included in the majority of trials. Hence, the evidence pertains only to adults.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
These results highlight the paucity of randomised clinical trials comparing different interventions for paracetamol overdose and their routes of administration and the low or very low level quality of the evidence that is available. Evidence from a single trial found activated charcoal seemed the best choice to reduce absorption of paracetamol. Acetylcysteine should be given to people at risk of toxicity including people presenting with liver failure. Further randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias and adequate number of participants are required to determine which regimen results in the fewest adverse effects with the best efficacy. Current management of paracetamol poisoning worldwide involves the administration of intravenous or oral acetylcysteine which is based mainly on observational studies. Results from these observational studies indicate that treatment with acetylcysteine seems to result in a decrease in morbidity and mortality, However, further evidence from randomised clinical trials comparing different treatments are needed.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Acetylcysteine; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Antidotes; Charcoal; Cysteamine; Dimercaprol; Drug Overdose; Gastric Lavage; Humans; Intestinal Absorption; Liver Failure, Acute; Liver Transplantation; Methionine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29473717
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003328.pub3 -
Pharmacotherapy Sep 2019Hyperlactatemia and lactic acidosis are two syndromes that are associated with morbidity and mortality. Medication-induced hyperlactatemia and lactic acidosis are...
Hyperlactatemia and lactic acidosis are two syndromes that are associated with morbidity and mortality. Medication-induced hyperlactatemia and lactic acidosis are diagnoses of exclusion and have the potential to be overlooked. The purposes of this systematic review are to identify published reports of medication-induced lactate level elevations to aid clinicians in diagnosing and comprehending the underlying mechanism of this rare adverse drug effect and to provide management strategies. The PubMed database was searched for case reports, case series, retrospective studies, and prospective studies describing cases of medication-induced lactate level elevation, including lactic acidosis and hyperlactatemia, published between January 1950 and June 2017. A standardized search strategy was used, and the articles identified underwent two rounds of independent evaluation by two reviewers to assess for inclusion. Articles were included if they described at least one patient older than 12 years with hyperlactatemia or lactic acidosis caused by a medication with United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and if alternative etiologies for an elevated lactate level were ruled out. Metformin and nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors were excluded since the pathophysiology and incidence of lactic acidosis have been well established for these agents. Overall, 1918 articles were identified, and 101 met inclusion criteria. A total of 286 patients experienced medication-induced lactate level elevations, from which 59 unique medications were identified. The most commonly identified agents were epinephrine and albuterol. Medication-induced lactate level elevation was classified as lactic acidosis (64.0%), hyperlactatemia (31.1%), or not specified (4.9%). The doses ingested included FDA-labeled doses (86%), intentional overdoses (10.8%), or prescribed doses exceeding the FDA-labeled dose (3.1%). Medications were continued without a change (40.8%), were permanently discontinued (34.4%), were continued with a dosage reduction (11.6%), or were initially withheld then resumed after lactate level normalized (2.9%); medication management for the remaining 10.0% was not reported. Forty-six patients died (16%). Six deaths were attributed by treating clinicians to be secondary to medication-induced lactic acidosis. Management strategies were heterogeneous, and treatment included supportive care, exogenous bicarbonate therapy, medication specific antidotes, and decontamination strategies. Unexplained lactate level elevations should prompt clinicians to assess for medication-induced lactate level elevations. Pharmacists are members of the health care team that are well positioned to serve as experts in the diagnosis and management of medication-induced lactate level elevations.
Topics: Acidosis, Lactic; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Overdose; Humans; Hyperlactatemia; Prescription Drug Misuse; Prescription Drugs; United States
PubMed: 31361914
DOI: 10.1002/phar.2316 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Feb 2015Increases in prescriptions of opioid medications for chronic pain have been accompanied by increases in opioid overdoses, abuse, and other harms and uncertainty about... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Increases in prescriptions of opioid medications for chronic pain have been accompanied by increases in opioid overdoses, abuse, and other harms and uncertainty about long-term effectiveness.
PURPOSE
To evaluate evidence on the effectiveness and harms of long-term (>3 months) opioid therapy for chronic pain in adults.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, and CINAHL (January 2008 through August 2014); relevant studies from a prior review; reference lists; and ClinicalTrials.gov.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized trials and observational studies that involved adults with chronic pain who were prescribed long-term opioid therapy and that evaluated opioid therapy versus placebo, no opioid, or nonopioid therapy; different opioid dosing strategies; or risk mitigation strategies.
DATA EXTRACTION
Dual extraction and quality assessment.
DATA SYNTHESIS
No study of opioid therapy versus no opioid therapy evaluated long-term (>1 year) outcomes related to pain, function, quality of life, opioid abuse, or addiction. Good- and fair-quality observational studies suggest that opioid therapy for chronic pain is associated with increased risk for overdose, opioid abuse, fractures, myocardial infarction, and markers of sexual dysfunction, although there are few studies for each of these outcomes; for some harms, higher doses are associated with increased risk. Evidence on the effectiveness and harms of different opioid dosing and risk mitigation strategies is limited.
LIMITATIONS
Non-English-language articles were excluded, meta-analysis could not be done, and publication bias could not be assessed. No placebo-controlled trials met inclusion criteria, evidence was lacking for many comparisons and outcomes, and observational studies were limited in their ability to address potential confounding.
CONCLUSION
Evidence is insufficient to determine the effectiveness of long-term opioid therapy for improving chronic pain and function. Evidence supports a dose-dependent risk for serious harms.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Chronic Pain; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Overdose; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Opioid-Related Disorders; Quality of Life; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological
PubMed: 25581257
DOI: 10.7326/M14-2559 -
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 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 -
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 -
The Journal of Antimicrobial... Oct 2022Cefepime-induced neurotoxicity (CIN) has been well acknowledged among clinicians, although there are no clear diagnostic criteria or specific laboratory testing to help...
BACKGROUND
Cefepime-induced neurotoxicity (CIN) has been well acknowledged among clinicians, although there are no clear diagnostic criteria or specific laboratory testing to help with its diagnosis. We aimed to summarize the existing evidence regarding CIN and provide future agendas for research.
METHODS
Following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for all peer-reviewed articles using keywords including 'cefepime', 'neurotoxicity', 'encephalopathy' and 'seizure', from their inception to 20 January 2022.
RESULTS
We included 92 articles, including 23 observational studies and 69 cases from case reports and case series, in the systematic review. Among 119 patients with CIN, 23.5% were in the ICU at the time of diagnosis and nearly 90% of the cases showed renal dysfunction.Cefepime overdoses were described in 41%. The median latency period of developing CIN from cefepime initiation was 4 days, and about 12% developed CIN during empirical treatment. CIN patients commonly manifested altered mental status (93%), myoclonus (37%) and non-convulsive seizure epilepticus (28%). A serum cefepime trough level of >20 mg/L would put patients at risk for CIN. CIN-related symptoms were ameliorated in 97.5% by dose reduction or discontinuation of cefepime, with median time to improvement of 3 days. No CIN-associated deaths were reported.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review summarizes the current evidence and characteristics of CIN. In the current situation where there are no CIN diagnostic criteria and the drug monitoring platform is not routinely available, candidates for cefepime should be carefully selected. Also, based on these findings, it needs to be appropriately dosed to avoid the development of CIN.
Topics: Humans; Cefepime; Cephalosporins; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Neurotoxicity Syndromes; Brain Diseases
PubMed: 35971666
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkac271