-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016There are increasing concerns regarding pharmaceutical opioid harms including overdose and dependence, with an associated increase in treatment demand. People dependent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There are increasing concerns regarding pharmaceutical opioid harms including overdose and dependence, with an associated increase in treatment demand. People dependent on pharmaceutical opioids appear to differ in important ways from people who use heroin, yet most opioid agonist treatment research has been conducted in people who use heroin.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of maintenance agonist pharmacotherapy for the treatment of pharmaceutical opioid dependence.
SEARCH METHODS
The search included the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group's Specialised Register of Trials; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 5); PubMed (January 1966 to May 2015); EMBASE (Ovid) (January 1974 to May 2015); CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (1982 to May 2015); ISI Web of Science (to May 2014); and PsycINFO (Ovid) (1806 to May 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials examining maintenance opioid agonist treatments that made the following two comparisons:1. full opioid agonists (methadone, morphine, oxycodone, levo-alpha-acetylmethadol (LAAM), or codeine) versus different full opioid agonists or partial opioid agonists (buprenorphine) for maintenance treatment and2. full or partial opioid agonist maintenance versus placebo, detoxification only, or psychological treatment (without opioid agonist treatment).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified six randomised controlled trials that met inclusion criteria (607 participants).We found moderate quality evidence from two studies of no difference between methadone and buprenorphine in self reported opioid use (risk ratio (RR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 1.63) or opioid positive urine drug tests (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.18). There was low quality evidence from three studies of no difference in retention between buprenorphine and methadone maintenance treatment (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.22). There was moderate quality evidence from two studies of no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on adverse events (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.91).We found low quality evidence from three studies favouring maintenance buprenorphine treatment over detoxification or psychological treatment in terms of fewer opioid positive urine drug tests (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.91) and self reported opioid use in the past 30 days (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.93). There was no difference on days of unsanctioned opioid use (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.66 to 0.04). There was moderate quality evidence favouring buprenorphine maintenance over detoxification or psychological treatment on retention in treatment (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.47). There was moderate quality evidence favouring buprenorphine maintenance over detoxification or psychological treatment on adverse events (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.57).The main weaknesses in the quality of the data was the use of open-label study designs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was low to moderate quality evidence supporting the use of maintenance agonist pharmacotherapy for pharmaceutical opioid dependence. Methadone or buprenorphine appeared equally effective. Maintenance treatment with buprenorphine appeared more effective than detoxification or psychological treatments.Due to the overall low to moderate quality of the evidence and small sample sizes, there is the possibility that the further research may change these findings.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Humans; Methadone; Narcotics; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Prescription Drug Misuse; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27157143
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011117.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2009Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in the elderly. Opioids may be a viable treatment option if... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in the elderly. Opioids may be a viable treatment option if patients suffer from severe pain or if other analgesics are contraindicated. However, the evidence about their effectiveness and safety is contradictory.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects on pain and function and the safety of oral or transdermal opioids as compared with placebo or no intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (up to 28 July 2008), checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were included if they were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared oral or transdermal opioids with placebo or no treatment in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. Studies of tramadol were excluded. No language restrictions were applied.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data in duplicate. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. Trials were combined using inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Ten trials with 2268 participants were included. Oral codeine was studied in three trials, transdermal fentanyl and oral morphine in one trial each, oral oxycodone in four, and oral oxymorphone in two trials. Overall, opioids were more effective than control interventions in terms of pain relief (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.26) and improvement of function (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.21). We did not find substantial differences in effects according to type of opioid, analgesic potency (strong or weak), daily dose, duration of treatment or follow up, methodological quality of trials, and type of funding. Adverse events were more frequent in patients receiving opioids compared to control. The pooled risk ratio was 1.55 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.70) for any adverse event (4 trials), 4.05 (95% CI 3.06 to 5.38) for dropouts due to adverse events (10 trials), and 3.35 (95% CI 0.83 to 13.56) for serious adverse events (2 trials). Withdrawal symptoms were more severe after fentanyl treatment compared to placebo (SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.79; 1 trial).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The small to moderate beneficial effects of non-tramadol opioids are outweighed by large increases in the risk of adverse events. Non-tramadol opioids should therefore not be routinely used, even if osteoarthritic pain is severe.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Administration, Oral; Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 19821302
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003115.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2002While morphine is the gold standard for the management of severe cancer pain, some patients either do not achieve adequate analgesia, or suffer intolerable... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
While morphine is the gold standard for the management of severe cancer pain, some patients either do not achieve adequate analgesia, or suffer intolerable morphine-related toxicity. For these patients alternatives such as hydromorphone are recommended. However, there appear to be gaps in our understanding of the efficacy and potency of hydromorphone.
OBJECTIVES
This review explores and assesses the evidence for the efficacy of hydromorphone in the management of pain.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Randomised trials which included hydromorphone were sought using electronic databases and by handsearching relevant journals. Date of the most recent search: February 2000.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs which involved the administration of hydromorphone, for both acute and chronic pain conditions, in adults and children, were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
A data extraction form was designed for the purpose of the review. The validity of each trial for inclusion was assessed using criteria described in the Cochrane Handbook. A grade was allocated to each study on the basis of allocation concealment. A checklist was used to assess blinding.
MAIN RESULTS
Forty three studies (2725 subjects) were included in the review. Approximately half of these studies received a low quality score. In addition, the heterogeneity of the studies precluded combination of data and results. A meta-analysis was therefore not possible. Of the 43 included studies, 11 (645 subjects) involved chronic pain conditions (all cancer) and 32 (2080 subjects) acute pain. Three studies were placebo-controlled. Of the remainder, hydromorphone was compared with other opioids (morphine, fentanyl, sufentanyl, meperidine, oxycodone, diamorphine), bupivicaine and with itself, using different formulations. The routes of administration included intravenous, oral, spinal, intramuscular and subcutaneous. Overall, hydromorphone appears to be a potent analgesic. The limited number of studies available suggest that there is little difference between morphine and hydromorphone in terms of analgesic efficacy, adverse effect profile and patient preference. However, as most studies involved small numbers of patients, it is difficult to determine real differences between both drugs. In the context of both acute and chronic pain, the issue of equi-analgesic ratios between morphine and hydromorphone was not resolved.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
The studies included in this review were varied in terms of quality and methodology. However, the majority demonstrated that hydromorphone is a potent analgesic, that the clinical effects of hydromorphone appear to be dose-related, and that the adverse effect profile of hydromorphone is similar to that of other mu opioid receptor agonists.
Topics: Acute Disease; Analgesics, Opioid; Chronic Disease; Humans; Hydromorphone; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 11869661
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003447 -
The Clinical Journal of Pain May 2020Tapentadol (TAP) immediate release (IR) is a newer opioid option for acute pain. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the efficacy and safety of TAP IR... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Tapentadol (TAP) immediate release (IR) is a newer opioid option for acute pain. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the efficacy and safety of TAP IR compared with other opioids for acute pain.
METHODS
A systematic literature search as conducted using the Cochrane Library, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Web of Science. The search included all randomized controlled trials and observational studies examining TAP IR versus other orally administered IR opioids for acute pain. The protocol for this study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018110267).
RESULTS
Thirteen studies and 1 abstract were included in the systematic review (n=12,814 patients). Of these, 5 studies and 1 abstract were included in the qualitative review (n=9108 patients). Eight randomized controlled trials (n=3706 patients) comparing 50 to 100 mg TAP IR versus 5 to 15 mg oxycodone IR were included in the meta-analysis. The lowest dose of TAP IR (ie, 50 mg) was associated with less pain control compared with oxycodone IR (standardized mean difference=0.25, 95% confidence interval: 0.06-0.44, P<0.01). However, there were no significant differences at higher doses (ie, 75, 100 mg, or when a titration strategy was used). In the qualitative analysis, pain control with TAP IR was also similar to morphine IR and tramadol IR. TAP IR was less likely to have gastrointestinal adverse effects such as nausea and constipation compared with other opioids.
DISCUSSION
TAP IR is as effective as other opioids at higher doses for acute pain and is associated with fewer gastrointestinal adverse effects. On the basis of these findings, TAP IR can be considered as a first-line opioid for acute pain.
Topics: Acute Pain; Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Oxycodone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tapentadol
PubMed: 31990693
DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000809 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. Views on children's pain have changed over time and relief of pain is now seen as important. In the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, and it was assumed that children quickly forgot about painful experiences.We designed a suite of seven reviews in chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) to review the evidence for children's pain using pharmacological interventions.As one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity for children and adolescents in the world today, childhood cancer (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Cancer pain in infants, children, and adolescents is primarily nociceptive pain with negative long term effects. Cancer-related pain is generally caused directly by the tumour itself such as compressing on the nerve or inflammation of the organs. Cancer-related pain generally occurs as a result of perioperative procedures, nerve damage caused by radiation or chemotherapy treatments, or mucositis. However, this review focused on pain caused directly by the tumour itself such as nerve infiltration, external nerve compression, and other inflammatory events.Opioids are used worldwide for the treatment of pain. Currently available opioids include: buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, and tramadol. Opioids are generally available in healthcare settings across most developed countries but access may be restricted in developing countries. To achieve adequate pain relief in children using opioids, with an acceptable grade of adverse effects, the recommended method is to start with a low dose gradually titrated to effect or unacceptable adverse effect in the child.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy, and adverse events, of opioids used to treat cancer-related pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid and Embase via Ovid from inception to 22 February 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with or without blinding, of any dose, and any route, treating cancer-related pain in children and adolescents, comparing opioids with placebo or an active comparator.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and planned to create a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
No studies were identified that were eligible for inclusion in this review (very low quality evidence). Several studies tested opioids on adults with cancer-related pain, but none in participants aged from birth to 17 years.We rated the quality of evidence as very low, downgraded due to a lack of available data; no analyses could be undertaken.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No conclusions can be drawn about efficacy or harm in the use of opioids to treat cancer-related pain in children and adolescents. As a result, there is no RCT evidence to support or refute the use of opioids to treat cancer-related pain in children and adolescents.
Topics: Adolescent; Analgesics, Opioid; Cancer Pain; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn
PubMed: 28722116
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012564.pub2 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Jul 2020When opioid-induced constipation is treated with centrally acting opioid antagonists, there may be opioid withdrawal or aggravation of pain due to inhibition of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
When opioid-induced constipation is treated with centrally acting opioid antagonists, there may be opioid withdrawal or aggravation of pain due to inhibition of μ-opioid analgesia. This led to the development of peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs).
AIM
To evaluate the efficacy of available PAMORAs and other approved or experimental treatments for relieving constipation in patients with opioid-induced constipation, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies.
METHODS
A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and EBM Reviews Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was completed in July 2019 for randomised trials compared to placebo. FDA approved doses or highest studied dose was evaluated. Efficacy was based on diverse endpoints, including continuous variables (the bowel function index, number of spontaneous bowel movements and stool consistency based on Bristol Stool Form Scale), or responder analysis (combination of >3 spontaneous bowel movements or complete spontaneous bowel movements plus 1 spontaneous bowel movement or complete spontaneous bowel movements, respectively, over baseline [so-called FDA endpoints]). Adverse effects evaluated included central opioid withdrawal, serious adverse events, abdominal pain and diarrhoea.
RESULTS
We included 35 trials at low risk of bias enrolling 13 566 patients. All PAMORAs demonstrated efficacy on diverse patient response endpoints. There was greater efficacy with approved doses of the PAMORAs (methylnaltrexone, naloxegol and naldemidine), with lower efficacy or lower efficacy and greater adverse effects with combination oxycodone with naloxone, lubiprostone and linaclotide.
CONCLUSIONS
Therapeutic response in opioid-induced constipation is best achieved with the PAMORAs, methylnaltrexone, naloxegol and naldemidine, which are associated with low risk of serious adverse events.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Constipation; Humans; Laxatives; Narcotic Antagonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Opioid, mu; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32462777
DOI: 10.1111/apt.15791 -
BMC Urology Mar 2023Catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) is a common postoperative bladder pain syndrome. Many drugs and interventions for managing CRBD have been studied, but their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) is a common postoperative bladder pain syndrome. Many drugs and interventions for managing CRBD have been studied, but their comparative effectiveness remains controversial. We made a study to assess the comparative effectiveness of interventions included Ketorolac, Lidocaine, Chlorpheniramine, Gabapentin, Magnesium, Nefopam, Oxycodone, Parecoxib, Solifenacin, Tolterodine, Bupivancaine, Dexmedetomidine, Hyoscine N-butyl bromide, Ketamine, Penile nerve block on urological postoperative CRBD.
METHODS
We performed a network meta-analysis via Aggregate Data Drug Inormation System software included 18 studies with 1816 patients and assessed the risk of bias by Cochrane Collaboration tool. The incidence of moderate to severe CRBD at 0, 1, and 6 h after surgery and the incidence severe CRBD at 1 h after surgery were compared.
RESULT
The number of best rank is 0.48(Nefopam) and 0.22(Nefopam) in the incidence of moderate to severe CRBD at 1 h and incidence severe CRBD at 1 h. More than half of studies at unclear or high risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
Nefopam reduced the incidence of CRBD and prevented severe events, but limited by the small number of studies for each intervention and heterogeneous patients.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Nefopam; Urinary Bladder; Urinary Catheters; Cystitis, Interstitial
PubMed: 36869313
DOI: 10.1186/s12894-023-01195-9 -
BioMed Research International 2019Oxycodone is a widely used opioid analgesic, which is involved in cancer pain and non-cancer pain. This study is intended to understand the publication characteristics...
BACKGROUND
Oxycodone is a widely used opioid analgesic, which is involved in cancer pain and non-cancer pain. This study is intended to understand the publication characteristics of oxycodone research field and assess the quality of pertinent articles from 1998 to 2017.
METHODS
Oxycodone-related publications from 1998 to 2017 were retrieved from the Web of Science (WOS) and PubMed database. These papers were coded across several categories, such as total number, journals, countries, institutions, authors and citations reports. And the analysis of co-occurrence keywords was handled by VOSviewer software.
RESULTS
According to search strategies, a total of 2659 articles on oxycodone were published in world from 1998 to 2017 in WOS. Among the top 10 most productive organizations, six of them were American institutes, two of them were pharmaceutical enterprises and the other three were Finnish, Australian and Canadian institutes, which is similar with the distribution by country/region. Drewes AM from Denmark published most articles and PAIN MEDICINE is the most productive journal in oxycodone area. Meanwhile, clinical studies occupy a dominant position during the past 20 years. The 10 most cited papers were listed. Among these articles, 8 of them are reviews and 2 of those are meta-analysis. And the last decade (2008-2017) displayed that the newest keywords focus on "double-blind", "randomized controlled trial" and "neuropathic pain".
CONCLUSIONS
The findings provided a comprehensive overview of oxycodone research. In view of the adverse effects of oxycodone, high-quality oxycodone studies both in basic studies and clinical trials need to be completed.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Bibliometrics; Cancer Pain; Humans; Neuralgia; Oxycodone; Publications
PubMed: 31781650
DOI: 10.1155/2019/9096201 -
Continuum (Minneapolis, Minn.) Jun 2014Diabetes mellitus has become a modern global epidemic, with steadily increasing prevalence rates related to lifestyle such that 27% of individuals aged 65 years or older... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Diabetes mellitus has become a modern global epidemic, with steadily increasing prevalence rates related to lifestyle such that 27% of individuals aged 65 years or older have diabetes mellitus, 95% of whom have type 2. This article reviews the effects of diabetes mellitus on the neuromuscular system.
RECENT FINDINGS
Diabetes mellitus leads to diverse forms of peripheral neuropathy as the major neuromuscular complication. Both focal and diffuse types of neuropathy can develop, with the most common form being diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy. Small fibers are damaged early in the development of diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy and are not assessed by nerve conduction studies. Small fiber damage occurs even in the prediabetes stage. No disease-modifying therapy for diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy is available at this time, but this complication can be limited in patients who have type 1 diabetes mellitus with strict glycemic control; the same outcome is not clearly observed in patients who have type 2 diabetes mellitus. Recently, the evidence base for symptomatic treatments of painful diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy underwent systematic review. Effective evidence-based treatments include some anticonvulsants (eg, pregabalin, gabapentin), antidepressants (eg, amitriptyline, duloxetine), opioids (eg, morphine sulfate, oxycodone), capsaicin cream, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation.
SUMMARY
This article reviews the increasing prevalence of diabetes mellitus and diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy and discusses recent consensus opinion on the objective confirmation needed for the diagnosis in the clinical research setting. The evidence from clinical trials shows that intensive glycemic control reduces prevalence of diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus, but variable outcomes are observed in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Finally, despite the lack of disease-modifying treatment, effective evidence-based therapy can control painful symptoms of diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy.
Topics: Aged; Diabetic Neuropathies; Humans; Male; Middle Aged
PubMed: 24893232
DOI: 10.1212/01.CON.0000450964.30710.a0 -
Clinical Therapeutics Jan 2015The objective of this systematic review was to assess the clinical efficacy, safety, tolerability, and health-related quality of life outcomes associated with management... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The objective of this systematic review was to assess the clinical efficacy, safety, tolerability, and health-related quality of life outcomes associated with management of moderate-to-severe chronic pain with oxycodone/naloxone and tapentadol, focusing on the effect of these treatments on patients' daily functioning.
METHODS
Literature from a wide range of sources, including Embase, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, was searched to identify randomized controlled trials investigating tapentadol or oxycodone/naloxone for the treatment of patients with chronic pain. A network meta-analysis was conducted to determine the relative efficacy and safety profiles of these treatments.
FINDINGS
Oxycodone/naloxone was significantly better than tapentadol with respect to the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms total score (risk ratio = -3.60; 95% credible interval, -5.36 to -2.11) and revealed a significantly lower risk of dizziness (risk ratio = 0.72; 95% credible interval, 0.42-0.98). Oxycodone/naloxone was directionally favored, although not significantly superior to tapentadol for headache, fatigue, dry mouth, dyspepsia, and withdrawals due to lack of efficacy. For the AE outcomes of constipation, nausea, and vomiting, as well as pain efficacy and all-cause withdrawals from studies, tapentadol was directionally favored without any statistical difference from oxycodone/naloxone. However, the two treatments were not wholly comparable for the evaluation of pain efficacy because of differences in on-study rescue medication and a higher baseline pain severity in the tapentadol studies.
IMPLICATIONS
Oxycodone/naloxone offers significant improvements in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms total score and dizziness and was directionally favored for fatigue and headache compared with extended-release tapentadol, which may translate to improved patient daily functioning and health-related quality of life.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Constipation; Delayed-Action Preparations; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinations; Headache; Humans; Naloxone; Nausea; Oxycodone; Phenols; Quality of Life; Tapentadol; Vomiting
PubMed: 25592091
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.12.001