-
Sleep Medicine Sep 2023Narcolepsy type 1 is a primary sleep disorder caused by deficient hypocretin transmission leading to excessive daytime sleepiness and cataplexy. Opioids have been...
OBJECTIVE
Narcolepsy type 1 is a primary sleep disorder caused by deficient hypocretin transmission leading to excessive daytime sleepiness and cataplexy. Opioids have been suggested to increase the number of hypocretin-producing neurons. We aimed to assess opioid use and its self-reported effect on narcolepsy type 1 symptom severity through a literature review and questionnaire study.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed literature on opioid use in narcolepsy. We also recruited 100 people with narcolepsy type 1 who completed an online questionnaire on opioid use in the previous three years. The main questionnaire topics were the indication for use, and the possible effects on narcolepsy symptom severity. Structured follow-up interviews were conducted when opioid use was reported.
RESULTS
The systematic literature review mainly showed improvements in narcolepsy symptom severity. Recent opioid use was reported by 16/100 questionnaire respondents, who had used 20 opioids (codeine: 7/20, tramadol: 6/20, oxycodone: 6/20, fentanyl: 1/20). Narcolepsy symptom changes were reported in 11/20. Positive effects on disturbed nocturnal sleep (9/20), excessive daytime sleepiness (4/20), hypnagogic hallucinations (3/17), cataplexy (2/18), and sleep paralysis (1/13) were most pronounced for oxycodone (4/6) and codeine (4/7).
CONCLUSIONS
Opioids were relatively frequently used compared to a similarly young general Dutch sample. Oxycodone and, to a lesser extent, codeine were associated with self-reported narcolepsy symptom severity improvements. Positive changes in disturbed nocturnal sleep and daytime sleepiness were most frequently reported, while cataplexy effects were less pronounced. Randomised controlled trials are now needed to verify the potential of opioids as therapeutic agents for narcolepsy.
Topics: Humans; Cataplexy; Analgesics, Opioid; Orexins; Oxycodone; Narcolepsy; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 37437491
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2023.06.008 -
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery... Dec 2023To evaluate the effectiveness of combined Tranexamic acid (TXA) and dexamethasone (DEX) in total hip and knee arthroplasty. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate the effectiveness of combined Tranexamic acid (TXA) and dexamethasone (DEX) in total hip and knee arthroplasty.
METHODS
PUBMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL database were systematically searched for randomized studies that utilized TXA and DEX administration of TXA in THA or TKA.
RESULTS
A total of three randomized studies enrolling 288 patients were eligible for qualitative and quantitative analysis. DEX + TXA group demonstrated statistical significantly lesser usage of oxycodone (OR: 0.34, p < 0.0001), metoclopramide (OR: 0.21, p < 0.00001), lesser incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (OR: 0.27, p < 0.0001), better postoperative range of motion (MD: 2.30, p < 0.00001) and shorter length of hospital stay (MD: 0.31, p = 0.03). Comparable results were seen in total blood loss, transfusion rate and postoperative complications.
CONCLUSION
In this meta-analysis, the combination of TXA and DEX has positive impacts on the usage of oxycodone and metoclopramide, postoperative range of motion, postoperative nausea and vomiting and reduces the length of hospital stay.
Topics: Humans; Tranexamic Acid; Antifibrinolytic Agents; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Metoclopramide; Oxycodone; Blood Loss, Surgical; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Dexamethasone; Administration, Intravenous
PubMed: 37329454
DOI: 10.1007/s00590-023-03612-z -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2012Methadone belongs to a class of analgesics known as opioids, that are considered the cornerstone of therapy for moderate-to-severe pain due to life-threatening... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Methadone belongs to a class of analgesics known as opioids, that are considered the cornerstone of therapy for moderate-to-severe pain due to life-threatening illnesses; however, their use in chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is controversial. Methadone has many characteristics that differentiate it from other opioids, which suggests that it may have a different efficacy and safety profile.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic effectiveness and safety of methadone in the treatment of CNCP.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of methadone use in chronic pain by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library 2011, issue 11, MEDLINE (1950 to November 2011), and EMBASE (1980 to November 2011), together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs with pain assessment as either the primary or secondary outcome. Quasi-randomized studies, cohorts and case-control trials were also considered for inclusion because we suspected that the beneficial and harmful effects of methadone in CNCP may not be adequately addressed in RCTs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data and assessed risk of bias.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two RCTs and one non-randomized study, involving a total of 181 participants. Both RCTs were cross-over studies, one involving 19 participants with diverse neuropathic pain syndromes, the other involving 76 participants with postherpetic neuralgia. Study phases were 20 days and approximately eight weeks, respectively. The non-randomized study retrospectively evaluated 86 outpatients over an average of 8.8 ± 6.3 months.One RCT reported average pain intensity and pain relief, and found statistically significant improvements versus placebo for both outcomes, with 10 mg and 20 mg daily doses of methadone. The second RCT reported differences in pain reduction between methadone and morphine and found morphine to be statistically superior. The non-randomized study found that in patients initially prescribed methadone it was effective in fewer participants than in those initially prescribed other long-acting opioids (28% versus 42%, 33% and 50% for morphine, oxycodone and transdermal fentanyl, respectively).One RCT compared incidences for several individual adverse events, but found a difference between methadone and placebo for only one event, dizziness (P = 0.041).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The three studies provide very limited evidence of the efficacy of methadone for CNCP, and there were too few data for pooled analysis of efficacy or harm, or to have confidence in the results of the individual studies. No conclusions can be made regarding differences in efficacy or safety between methadone and placebo, other opioids, or other treatments.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Chronic Pain; Humans; Methadone; Neuralgia; Neuralgia, Postherpetic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23152251
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008025.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Many patients with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong analgesics. Buprenorphine, fentanyl and morphine are examples of strong... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Many patients with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong analgesics. Buprenorphine, fentanyl and morphine are examples of strong opioids used for cancer pain relief. However, strong opioids are ineffective as pain treatment in all patients and are not well-tolerated by all patients. The aim of this Cochrane review is to assess whether buprenorphine is associated with superior, inferior or equal pain relief and tolerability compared to other analgesic options for patients with cancer pain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of buprenorphine for pain in adults and children with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library) issue 12 or 12 2014, MEDLINE (via OVID) 1948 to 20 January 2015, EMBASE (via OVID) 1980 to 20 January 2015, ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED & CPCI-S) to 20 January 2015, ISI BIOSIS 1969 to 20 January 2015. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/; metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (http://www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/) and the Proceedings of the Congress of the European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP; via European Journal of Pain Supplements) on 16 February 2015. We checked the bibliographic references of identified studies as well as relevant studies and systematic reviews to find additional trials not identified by the electronic searches. We contacted authors of included studies for other relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials, with parallel-group or crossover design, comparing buprenorphine (any formulation and any route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including buprenorphine) for cancer background pain in adults and children.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data pertaining to study design, participant details (including age, cancer characteristics, previous analgesic medication and setting), interventions (including details about titration) and outcomes, and independently assessed the quality of the included studies according to standard Cochrane methodology. As it was not feasible to meta-analyse the data, we summarised the results narratively. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
In this Cochrane review we identified 19 relevant studies including a total of 1421 patients that examined 16 different intervention comparisons.Of the studies that compared buprenorphine to another drug, 11 studies performed comparative analyses between the randomised groups, and five studies found that buprenorphine was superior to the comparison treatment. Three studies found no differences between buprenorphine and the comparison drug, while another three studies found treatment with buprenorphine to be inferior to the alternative treatment in terms of the side effects profile or patients preference/acceptability.Of the studies that compared different doses or formulations/routes of administration of buprenorphine, pain intensity ratings did not differ significantly between intramuscular buprenorphine and buprenorphine suppository. However, the average severity of dizziness, nausea, vomiting and adverse events as a total were all significantly higher in the intramuscular group relatively to the suppository group (one study).Sublingual buprenorphine was associated with faster onset of pain relief compared to subdermal buprenorphine, with similar duration analgesia and no significant differences in adverse event rates reported between the treatments (one study).In terms of transdermal buprenorphine, two studies found it superior to placebo, whereas a third study found no difference between placebo and different doses of transdermal buprenorphine.The studies that examined different doses of transdermal buprenorphine did not report a clear dose-response relationship.The quality of this evidence base was limited by under-reporting of most bias assessment items (e.g., the patient selection items), by small sample sizes in several included studies, by attrition (with data missing from 8.2% of the enrolled/randomised patients for efficacy and from 14.6% for safety) and by limited or no reporting of the expected outcomes in a number of cases. The evidence for all the outcomes was very low quality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the available evidence, it is difficult to say where buprenorphine fits in the treatment of cancer pain with strong opioids. However, it might be considered to rank as a fourth-line option compared to the more standard therapies of morphine, oxycodone and fentanyl, and even there it would only be suitable for some patients. However, palliative care patients are often heterogeneous and complex, so having a number of analgesics available that can be given differently increases patient and prescriber choice. In particular, the sublingual and injectable routes seemed to have a more definable analgesic effect, whereas the transdermal route studies left more questions.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Administration, Oral; Administration, Sublingual; Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Child; Humans; Neoplasms; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25826743
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009596.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2016Restless legs syndrome (RLS) is a distressing and common neurological disorder that may have a huge impact in the quality of life of those with frequent and intense... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Restless legs syndrome (RLS) is a distressing and common neurological disorder that may have a huge impact in the quality of life of those with frequent and intense symptoms. Patients complain of unpleasant sensations in the legs, at or before bedtime, and feel an urge to move the legs, which improves with movement, such as walking. Symptoms start with the patient at rest (e.g. sitting or lying down), and follow a circadian pattern, increasing during the evening or at night. Many pharmacological intervention are available for RLS, including drugs used to treat Parkinson's disease (L-Dopa and dopaminergic agonists), epilepsy (anticonvulsants), anxiety (benzodiazepines), and pain (opioids). Dopaminergic drugs are those most frequently used for treatment of RLS, but some patients do not respond effectively and require other medication. Opioids, a class of medications used to treat severe pain, seem to be effective in treating RLS symptoms, and are recommended for patients with severe symptoms, because RLS and pain appear to share the same mechanism in the central nervous system. All available drugs are associated to some degree with side effects, which can impede treatment. Opioids are associated with adverse events such as constipation, tolerance, and dependence. This justifies the conduct of a systematic review to ascertain whether opioids are safe and effective for treatment of RLS.
OBJECTIVES
To asses the effects of opioids compared to placebo treatment for restless legs syndrome in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, CENTRAL 2016, issue 4 and MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS up to April 2016, using a search strategy adapted by Cochraneto identify randomised clinical trials. We checked the references of each study and established personal communication with other authors to identify any additional studies. We considered publications in all languages.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled clinical trials of opioid treatment in adults with idiopathic RLS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened articles, independently extracted data into a standard form, and assessed for risk of bias. If necessary, they discussed discrepancies with a third researcher to resolve any doubts.
MAIN RESULTS
We included one randomised clinical trial (N = 304 randomised; 204 completed; 276 analysed) that evaluated opioids (prolonged release oxycodone/naloxone) versus placebo. After 12 weeks, RSL symptoms had improved more in the drug group than in the placebo group (using the IRLSSS: MD -7.0; 95% CI -9.69 to -4.31 and the CGI: MD -1.11; 95% CI -1.49 to -0.73). More patients in the drug group than in the placebo group were drug responders (using the IRLSSS: RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.42 and the CGI: RR1.92; 95% ICI 1.49 to 2.48). The proportion of remitters was greater in the drug group than in the placebo group (using the IRLSSS: RR 2.14; 95% CI 1.45 to 3.16). Quality of life scores also improved more in the drug group than in the placebo group (MD -0.73; 95% CI -1.1 to -0.36). Quality of sleep was improved more in the drug group measured by sleep adequacy (MD -0.74; 95% CI -1.15 to -0.33), and sleep quantity (MD 0.89; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.26).There was no difference between groups for daytime somnolence, trouble staying awake during the day, or naps during the day. More adverse events were reported in the drug group (RR 1.22; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.39). The major adverse events were gastrointestinal problems, fatigue, and headache.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Opioids seem to be effective for treating RLS symptoms, but there are no definitive data regarding the important problem of safety. This conclusion is based on only one study with a high dropout rate (moderate quality evidence).
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Humans; Naloxone; Oxycodone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Restless Legs Syndrome
PubMed: 27355187
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006941.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015Chronic musculoskeletal pain is a prevalent condition and a major cause of disability and absence from the workplace worldwide. Opioids are frequently used to treat... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic musculoskeletal pain is a prevalent condition and a major cause of disability and absence from the workplace worldwide. Opioids are frequently used to treat chronic pain, although adverse effects often restrict their long-term benefits. Tapentadol is an opioid and norepinephrine re-uptake inhibitor, which may cause a lower incidence (and severity) of adverse effects compared to other strong opioids.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy, safety and tolerability of tapentadol extended release for moderate-to-severe pain for at least three months for any musculoskeletal cause.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science) to March 2014, unrestricted by language, as well as trials registers and reference lists from retrieved studies. We contacted drug manufacturers for further information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of tapentadol in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain, compared to placebo or active control.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. We performed two meta-analyses for the comparisons tapentadol extended release vs. placebo, and tapentadol extended release vs. active-control (oxycodone). We used random-effects and fixed-effect models according to the presence or not of heterogeneity, respectively. Also, we performed subgroup analyses. The primary efficacy outcome was pain control assessed by change in pain intensity scores and responder's rate (at least 50% pain relief). Primary safety outcome was withdrawal rate due to adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
Four parallel-design RCTs of moderate quality including 4094 patients with osteoarthritis or back pain, or both, met the inclusion criteria. Three trials were phase III studies with 12-weeks follow-up and the fourth trial was an open-label safety study of 52-weeks follow-up. All trials were oxycodone-controlled and three were also placebo-controlled. Two trials included patients with knee osteoarthritis, one evaluated patients with low back pain and one enrolled both. All studies reported last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) as imputation method. We requested baseline-observation-carried-forward (BOCF) imputed analyses and any unpublished data from the manufacturer but the manufacturers denied the request. Two out of the four oxycodone-controlled studies and one out of the three placebo-controlled studies did not provided data on responder's rate. Two studies were considered to be of high risk of bias.In comparison to placebo, tapentadol was associated with a mean reduction of 0.56 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 0.20) in the 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS) at 12 weeks and with a 1.36 increase (95% CI 1.13 to 1.64) in the risk of responding to treatment (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 16; 95% CI 9 to 57, for 12-weeks). Moderate-to-high heterogeneity was found for the efficacy outcome estimates. Tapentadol was associated with a 2.7 fold increase (95% CI 2.05 to 3.52) in the risk of discontinuing treatment due to adverse effects number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 10; 95%CI 7 to 12, for 12 weeks).In comparison to oxycodone, pooled data showed a 0.24 points (95%CI 0.43 to 0.05) reduction in pain intensity from baseline in the 11-point NRS. The two studies that evaluated responder's rate showed a non-significant 1.46 increase (95% CI 0.92 to 2.32) in the risk of responding to treatment among tapentadol treated patients. Tapentadol was associated with a 50% risk reduction (95% CI 42% to 60%) of discontinuing treatment due to adverse effects (NNTB 6; 95% CI 5 to 7, for 12 weeks). Tapentadol was also associated with a 9% reduction (95% CI 4 to 15) in the overall risk of adverse effects (NNTH 18; 95% CI 12 to 35, for 12 weeks) and with a non-significant 43% reduction (95% CI 33 to 76) in the risk of serious adverse effects. Moderate to high heterogeneity was found for most efficacy (except for the primary outcome) and safety outcome estimates. Subgroup analysis showed a higher improvement with tapentadol among patients with knee osteoarthritis and among pooled results from studies of higher quality and shorter follow-up period, although there were no statistical significant differences in the effect size between these subgroups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Tapentadol extended release is associated with a reduction in pain intensity in comparison to placebo and oxycodone. However, the clinical significance of the results is uncertain due to the following reasons: modest difference between interventions in efficacy outcomes, high heterogeneity in some comparisons and outcomes, high withdrawals rates, lack of data for the primary outcome in some studies and impossibility to use BOCF as imputation method. Tapentadol is associated with a more favourable safety profile and tolerability than oxycodone.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Chronic Pain; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Humans; Low Back Pain; Musculoskeletal Pain; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Oxycodone; Phenols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tapentadol
PubMed: 26017279
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009923.pub2 -
EFORT Open Reviews Jul 2022Considering the adverse effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids for treating osteoarthritis (OA), development of drugs that are more... (Review)
Review
Does anti-nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody treatment have the potential to replace nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids in treating hip or knee osteoarthritis? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
PURPOSE
Considering the adverse effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids for treating osteoarthritis (OA), development of drugs that are more effective and better tolerated than existing treatments is urgently needed. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-nerve growth factor (NGF) monoclonal antibodies vs active comparator therapy, such as NSAIDs and oxycodone, in treating hip or knee OA.
METHODS
Databases were comprehensively searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before January 2022. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed.
RESULTS
Six RCTs that included 4325 patients were identified. Almost all the RCTs indicated that moderate doses of anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment significantly improved efficacy outcomes based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score, the WOMAC physical function score and the Patient's Global Assessment compared with those of the active comparator. At least half of the RCTs indicated that the incidence of severe adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs) and total joint replacement were not significantly different between anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment and active comparator therapy, but the outcomes of some studies may have been limited by a short duration of follow-up. Most RCTs suggested that anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment had a lower incidence of gastrointestinal and cardiovascular AEs. However, the majority of RCTs reported a higher incidence of abnormal peripheral sensation with anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment. Furthermore, the higher incidence of rapidly progressive osteoarthritis (RPOA) with anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment should also not be overlooked, and the identification of patient characteristics that increase the risk of RPOA is critical in further studies.
CONCLUSION
Based on the current research evidence, anti-NGF monoclonal antibodies are not yet a replacement for analgesic drugs such as NSAIDs but might be a new treatment option for hip or knee OA patients who are intolerant or unresponsive to nonopioid or opioid treatment. Notably, however, considering the inconsistency and inconclusive evidence on the safety outcomes of recent studies, more research is needed, and long-term follow-up is required.
PubMed: 35900204
DOI: 10.1530/EOR-21-0103 -
Pain and Therapy Jun 2021Peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) arises either acutely or in the chronic phase of a lesion or disease of the peripheral nervous system and is associated with a notable... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) arises either acutely or in the chronic phase of a lesion or disease of the peripheral nervous system and is associated with a notable disease burden. The management of PNP is often challenging. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate current evidence, derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have assessed pharmacological interventions for the treatment of PNP due to polyneuropathy (PN).
METHODS
A systematic search of the PubMed database led to the identification of 538 papers, of which 457 were excluded due to not meeting the eligibility criteria, and two articles were identified through screening of the reference lists of the 81 eligible studies. Ultimately, 83 papers were included in this systematic review.
RESULTS
The best available evidence for the management of painful diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) is for amitriptyline, duloxetine, gabapentin, pregabalin and venlafaxine as monotherapies and oxycodone as add-on therapy (level II of evidence). Tramadol appears to be effective when used as a monotherapy and add-on therapy in patients with PN of various etiologies (level II of evidence). Weaker evidence (level III) is available on the effectiveness of several other agents discussed in this review for the management of PNP due to PN.
DISCUSSION
Response to treatment may be affected by the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms that are involved in the pathogenesis of the PN and, therefore, it is very important to thoroughly investigate patients presenting with PNP to determine the causes of this neuropathy. Future RCTs should be conducted to shed more light on the use of pharmacological approaches in patients with other forms of PNP and to design specific treatment algorithms.
PubMed: 33145709
DOI: 10.1007/s40122-020-00210-3 -
Deutsches Arzteblatt International Mar 2018Rotating several different WHO level III opioid drugs is a therapeutic option for patients with chronic cancer-related pain who suffer from inadequate analgesia and/or...
BACKGROUND
Rotating several different WHO level III opioid drugs is a therapeutic option for patients with chronic cancer-related pain who suffer from inadequate analgesia and/or intolerable side effects. The evidence favoring opioid rotation is controversial, and the current guidelines in Germany and other countries contain only weak recommendations for it.
METHODS
This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a systematic review of the literature on opioid rotation for adult patients with chronic cancerrelated pain who are regularly taking WHO level III opioids by the oral or trans - dermal route.
RESULTS
9 individual studies involving a total of 725 patients were included in the analysis, and 3 previous systematic reviews of studies involving a total of 2296 patients were also analyzed. Morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, hydromorphone, and buprenorphine were used as first-line opioid drugs, and hydromorphone, bupre - norphine, tapentadol, fentanyl, morphine, oxymorphone, and methadone were used as second-line opioid drugs. In all of the studies, pain control was achieved for 14 days after each rotation. In most of them, the dose of the new drug introduced in each rotation needed to be increased above the dose initially calculated from a rotation ratio, with the exception of rotations to methadone. The frequency of side effects was only rarely lessened, but patients largely considered the result of opioid rotation to be positive. No particular opioid drug was found to be best.
CONCLUSION
Opioid rotation can improve analgesia and patient satisfaction. The success of opioid rotation appears to depend on the magnitude of the initial dose, among other factors. Tables of equianalgesic doses should be considered no more than a rough guide for determining the dose of the new drug. Rotations to methadone should be carried out under clinical supervision in experienced hands.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Cancer Pain; Chronic Pain; Fentanyl; Germany; Humans; Hydromorphone; Morphine; Neoplasms; Oxycodone; Pain Management
PubMed: 29563006
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2018.0135 -
Drugs & Aging Aug 2012Mild cognitive deficits are experienced by 18% of community-dwelling older adults, many of whom do not progress to dementia. The effect of commonly used medication on... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Mild cognitive deficits are experienced by 18% of community-dwelling older adults, many of whom do not progress to dementia. The effect of commonly used medication on subtle impairments in cognitive function may be under-recognized.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the review was to examine the evidence attributing amnestic or non-amnestic cognitive impairment to the use of medication with anticholinergic, antihistamine, GABAergic or opioid effects.
METHODS
MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of adults without underlying central nervous system disorders who underwent detailed neuropsychological testing prior to and after oral administration of drugs affecting cholinergic, histaminergic, GABAergic or opioid receptor pathways. Seventy-eight studies were identified, reporting 162 trials testing medication from the four targeted drug classes. Two investigators independently appraised study quality and extracted relevant data on the occurrence of amnestic, non-amnestic or combined cognitive deficits induced by each drug class. Only trials using validated neuropsychological tests were included. Quality of the evidence for each drug class was assessed based on consistency of results across trials and the presence of a dose-response gradient.
RESULTS
In studies of short-, intermediate- and long-acting benzodiazepine drugs (n = 68 trials), these drugs consistently induced both amnestic and non-amnestic cognitive impairments, with evidence of a dose-response relationship. H(1)-antihistamine agents (n = 12) and tricyclic antidepressants (n = 15) induced non-amnestic deficits in attention and information processing. Non-benzodiazepine derivatives (n = 29) also produced combined deficits, but less consistently than benzodiazepine drugs. The evidence was inconclusive for the type of cognitive impairment induced by different bladder relaxant antimuscarinics (n = 9) as well as for narcotic agents (n = 5) and antipsychotics (n = 5). Among healthy volunteers >60 years of age, low doses of commonly used medications such as lorazepam 0.5 mg, oxybutynin immediate release 5 mg and oxycodone 10 mg produced combined deficits.
CONCLUSION
Non-amnestic mild cognitive deficits are consistently induced by first-generation antihistamines and tricyclic antidepressants, while benzodiazepines provoke combined amnestic and non-amnestic impairments. Risk-benefit considerations should be discussed with patients in order to enable an informed choice about drug discontinuation or substitution to potentially reverse cognitive adverse effects.
Topics: Amnesia; Analgesics, Opioid; Cholinergic Antagonists; Cognitive Dysfunction; GABA Agents; Histamine Antagonists; Humans
PubMed: 22812538
DOI: 10.1007/BF03262280