-
Andrologia Dec 2020To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of drug treatments for premature ejaculation. A systemic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were executed on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of drug treatments for premature ejaculation. A systemic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were executed on randomised controlled trials of drug interventions for premature ejaculation. Intravaginal ejaculation latency time and related adverse effects were outcome measures. A total of 44 RCTs with 11,008 patients were included in our NMA. In therapy <8 weeks, the ranking of drug efficacy was topical creams >selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)+ phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) > PDE5i > sertraline > clomipramine > paroxetine > dapoxetine 60 milligram (mg) > dapoxetine 30 mg > fluoxetine>citalopram > duloxetine>placebo. In therapy ≥ 8 weeks, the ranking of drug efficacy was SSRI + PDE5i > topical creams > paroxetine > tramadol > PDE5i > fluoxetine > dapoxetine 60 mg > dapoxetine 30 mg > clomipramine>citalopram > placebo. For total adverse events, clomipramine, dapoxetine 30 mg, dapoxetine 60 mg, paroxetine, PDE5i, SSRI + PDE5i and tramadol had a higher risk than placebo. In conclusion, in ≥8 weeks of therapy, the drug combination of SSRI + PDE5i was the most effective PE therapy. In <8 weeks of therapy, the efficacy of local anaesthetics was best. All drug treatments were ranked better than placebo. In general, drugs with better effects had more obvious side effects.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Ejaculation; Humans; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Premature Ejaculation; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32892379
DOI: 10.1111/and.13806 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Nov 2020Opioids are frequently prescribed for acute musculoskeletal injuries and may result in long-term use and consequent harms. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Predictors of Prolonged Opioid Use After Initial Prescription for Acute Musculoskeletal Injuries in Adults : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies.
BACKGROUND
Opioids are frequently prescribed for acute musculoskeletal injuries and may result in long-term use and consequent harms.
PURPOSE
To explore factors associated with persistent opioid use after its prescription for acute musculoskeletal injury.
DATA SOURCES
Searches of multiple electronic databases, without language restrictions, from inception to 6 January 2020, and reference lists of selected articles.
STUDY SELECTION
Observational studies of adults with opioid prescriptions for outpatient acute musculoskeletal injuries, in an adjusted model, that explored risk factors for prolonged use.
DATA EXTRACTION
6 reviewers, working in pairs, independently extracted data, rated the quality of studies, and evaluated the certainty of evidence.
DATA SYNTHESIS
14 cohorts with 13 263 393 participants were included. The overall prevalence of prolonged opioid use after musculoskeletal injury for high-risk populations (that is, patients receiving workers' compensation benefits, Veterans Affairs claimants, or patients with high rates of concurrent substance use disorder) was 27% (95% CI, 18% to 37%). The prevalence among low-risk populations was 6% (CI, 4% to 8%; for interaction < 0.001). Moderate-certainty evidence showed increased odds of persistent opioid use with older age (absolute risk increase [ARI] for every 10-year increase, 1.1% [CI, 0.7% to 1.5%]) and physical comorbidity (ARI, 0.9% [CI, 0.1% to 1.7%]). Low-certainty evidence suggested increased risk for persistent opioid use with past or current substance use disorder (ARI, 10.5% [CI, 4.2% to 19.8%]), prescriptions lasting more than 7 days (median ARI, 4.5%), and higher morphine milligram equivalents per day.
LIMITATION
Sparse, heterogeneous data with suboptimal adjustment for potential confounders.
CONCLUSION
Avoiding prescribing opioids for acute musculoskeletal injuries to patients with past or current substance use disorder, and restricting duration to 7 days or less and using lower doses when they are prescribed, are potentially important targets to reduce rates of persistent opioid use.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
National Safety Council. (PROSPERO: CRD42018104968).
Topics: Adult; Age Distribution; Analgesics, Opioid; Comorbidity; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Musculoskeletal System; Observational Studies as Topic; Opioid-Related Disorders; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 32805130
DOI: 10.7326/M19-3600 -
Drugs Oct 2020Deprescribing, the process of reducing or discontinuing unnecessary or harmful medicines is an essential part of clinical practice.
BACKGROUND
Deprescribing, the process of reducing or discontinuing unnecessary or harmful medicines is an essential part of clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy of interventions designed to deprescribe opioid analgesics for pain relief in patients with chronic non-cancer pain.
METHODS
We searched electronic databases, including clinical trial registries, from database inception to 13th January 2020 without restrictions, and conducted citation tracking. Our systematic review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions reducing the prescription, or use of opioid analgesics in patients with chronic pain versus control. Inventions could be aimed at the patient, clinician, or both. We excluded trials enrolling patients with cancer or illicit drug use. Two authors independently screened and extracted data. Outcome follow-up timepoints were short (≤ 3 months), intermediate (> 3 but < 12 months) or long (≥ 12 months) term. Primary outcome was the reduction in opioid dose [morphine milligram equivalent (MME) mg/day]. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
RESULTS
We included ten patient-focused RCT interventions (n = 835; median 37 participants) and 2 testing clinician-focused interventions (n = 291 clinicians); none at low risk of bias. Patient-focused interventions did not reduce opioid dose in the intermediate term [e.g. dose reduction protocol, mean difference (MD) - 19.9 MME, 95% CI - 107.5 to 67.7], nor did they increase the number of participants who ceased their dose, or increase the risk of serious adverse events or adverse events. One clinician intervention of education plus decision tools versus decision tools alone reduced the number of opioid prescriptions (risk difference (RD) - 0.1, 95% CI - 0.2 to - 0.1), dose (MD - 5.3 MME, 95% CI - 6.2 to - 4.5) and use (RD - 0.1, 95% CI - 0.1 to - 0.0) in the long term.
LIMITATIONS
Study heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
The small number of studies and heterogeneity prevented firm conclusions to recommend any one opioid-analgesic-deprescribing strategy in patients with chronic pain.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER
PROSPERO CRD42017068422.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Chronic Pain; Clinical Decision-Making; Deprescriptions; Drug Prescriptions; Humans; Mindfulness; Narcotic Antagonists; Opioid Epidemic; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32737739
DOI: 10.1007/s40265-020-01368-y -
The Western Journal of Emergency... May 2020In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the spread of SARS-CoV-2 a global pandemic. To date, coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has spread to over 200...
In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the spread of SARS-CoV-2 a global pandemic. To date, coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has spread to over 200 countries, leading to over 1.6 million cases and over 99,000 deaths. Given that there is neither a vaccine nor proven treatment for COVID-19, there is currently an urgent need for effective pharmacotherapy. To address the need for an effective treatment of SARS-CoV-2 during the worldwide pandemic, this systematic review of intravenous (IV) remdesivir was performed. Remdesivir, an anti-viral prodrug originally developed to treat Ebola virus disease, has shown broad spectrum activity against the Coronavirus family. A recent case report reported improvement of clinical symptoms with remdesivir in a patient with COVID-19. After conducting a systematic search of 18 clinical trial registries and three large scientific databases, we identified 86 potentially eligible items. Following removal of duplicates (n = 21), eligible studies were reviewed independently by two authors. After the first round of screening, inter-rater agreement was 98.5% (κ = 0.925). After the second round of full-text screening, inter-rater agreement was 100%. A total of seven ongoing and recruiting clinical trials of remdesivir (100-200 milligrams, intravenous [IV]) were included. We identified the following primary outcomes: patients discharged (n = 2); time to clinical status improvement (n = 2); improved O2 saturation (n = 2); body temperature normalization (n = 2); and clinical status (n = 1). Secondary outcomes in all identified studies included documentation of adverse events. Phase 3 trials are expected to be completed between April 2020-2023. Therefore, despite supportive data from in vitro and in vivo studies, the clinical effectiveness of IV remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19 and potential side effects remain incompletely defined in the human population.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Administration, Intravenous; Alanine; Antiviral Agents; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Clinical Trials as Topic; Coronavirus Infections; Humans; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 32726230
DOI: 10.5811/westjem.2020.5.47658 -
Sports Health 2020The prescription of opioids after elective surgical procedures has been a contributing factor to the current opioid epidemic in North America.
CONTEXT
The prescription of opioids after elective surgical procedures has been a contributing factor to the current opioid epidemic in North America.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the opioid prescribing practices and rates of opioid consumption among patients undergoing common sports medicine procedures.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review of the electronic databases EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed was performed from database inception to December 2018.
STUDY SELECTION
Two investigators independently identified all studies reporting on postoperative opioid prescribing practices and consumption after arthroscopic shoulder, knee, or hip surgery. A total of 119 studies were reviewed, with 8 meeting eligibility criteria.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level 4.
DATA EXTRACTION
The quantity of opioids prescribed and used were converted to milligram morphine equivalents (MMEs) for standardized reporting. The quality of each eligible study was evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies.
RESULTS
A total of 8 studies including 816 patients with a mean age of 43.8 years were eligible for inclusion. A mean of 610, 197, and 613 MMEs were prescribed to patients after arthroscopic procedures of the shoulder, knee, and hip, respectively. At final follow-up, 31%, 34%, and 64% of the prescribed opioids provided after shoulder, knee, and hip arthroscopy, respectively, still remained. The majority of patients (64%) were unaware of the appropriate disposal methods for surplus medication. Patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair had the highest opioid consumption (471 MMEs), with 1 in 4 patients receiving a refill.
CONCLUSION
Opioids are being overprescribed for arthroscopic procedures of the shoulder, knee, and hip, with more than one-third of prescribed opioids remaining postoperatively. The majority of patients are unaware of the appropriate disposal techniques for surplus opioids. Appropriate risk stratification tools and evidence-based recommendations regarding pain management strategies after arthroscopic procedures are needed to help curb the growing opioid crisis.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Arthroscopy; Athletic Injuries; Hip Injuries; Humans; Knee Injuries; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Prescription Drug Overuse; Shoulder Injuries
PubMed: 32271136
DOI: 10.1177/1941738120913293 -
Pain Physician Nov 2019Opioid medications are frequently used effectively for analgesia in acute settings, however, they are associated with dependence and addiction, and were implicated in...
BACKGROUND
Opioid medications are frequently used effectively for analgesia in acute settings, however, they are associated with dependence and addiction, and were implicated in 47,600 American fatalities in 2017. Evidence suggests that despite guidelines and professional body recommendations, acute prescribing remains highly variable. Educational interventions targeting prescribers have potential to optimize prescribing in-line with evidence-based best practice.
OBJECTIVES
To identify the objective impacts of education interventions on opioid prescribing in the acute care setting.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic literature review.
SETTING
The electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane for works published until December 31, 2018. Bibliographies of relevant studies and the gray literature were also searched.
METHODS
Databases were searched for interventional studies (clinical trials and pre- and poststudies). Studies describing an educational intervention delivered to clinicians and reporting at least one objective measure of opioid use in the acute care setting were included. Studies reporting only subjective outcomes and those focused on chronic pain or set in primary care were excluded. Two reviewers (RB, TB) extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies using the Downs and Black Tool.
RESULTS
Nine studies met inclusion criteria; all used pre- and postdesigns. Three studies described stand-alone education, and the others described multifaceted interventions. All 9 interventions significantly reduced at least one of the following: high-risk agent use including meperidine use by up to 71%; total or daily dosage of opioids at discharge, including median morphine milligram equivalence (MME) from 90 mg to 45 mg per patient; and quantity of medications such as oxycodone supplied to patients, halved in one study from 6,170 expected to 2,932 supplied tablets. No increase in pain complaints or prescription refill requests were reported in those studies assessing these outcomes. The longest study examined prescribing 15 months after education delivery, reporting sustained practice changes.
LIMITATIONS
Overall study quality was fair to poor. Significant heterogeneity in settings, patient groups, methodologies, and outcomes prevented pooled quantitative analysis. No studies examined all available opioid agents or formulations.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings support prescriber education as an effective strategy to reduce opioid use and optimize prescribing in acute settings. Further research, particularly high quality randomized studies, describing the impact of education on all available opioid formulations and total MME is required. Reviewing the existing literature has offered useful models that can be implemented to improve care with opioid prescribing in acute settings.
KEY WORDS
Opioids, education, physician education, prescriber education, opioid education, opioid prescribing, systematic review, prescriptions, prevention.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Drug Prescriptions; Humans; Opioid-Related Disorders; Oxycodone; Pain; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Primary Health Care
PubMed: 31775401
DOI: No ID Found -
BMC Geriatrics Oct 2019Older surgical patients are at high risk of developing postoperative delirium. Non-pharmacological strategies are recommended for delirium prevention, but no... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Older surgical patients are at high risk of developing postoperative delirium. Non-pharmacological strategies are recommended for delirium prevention, but no pharmacological agents have compelling evidence to decrease the incidence of delirium. The purpose of this study was to assess whether perioperative melatonin decreases the incidence of delirium in older adults undergoing surgical procedures.
METHODS
A systematic search using PubMed/Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and references of identified articles published in English between January 1990 and October 2017 was performed. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, and then extracted data following a full-text review of included articles with consensus generation and bias assessment. Studies reporting outcomes for melatonin or ramelteon use to prevent delirium in postoperative hospitalized patients (mean age ≥ 50 years) were eligible for inclusion. Data were pooled using a fixed-effects model to generate a forest plot and obtain a summary odds ratio for the outcome of interest (delirium incidence). Cochran's Q and I values were used to investigate heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Of 335 records screened, 6 studies were selected for the qualitative analysis and 6 were included in the meta-analysis (n = 1155). The mean age of patients in included studies ranged from 59 to 84 years. Patients in intervention groups typically received melatonin or ramelteon at daily doses of two to eight milligrams around cardiothoracic, orthopedic, or hepatic surgeries for one to nine days, starting on the evening before or the day of surgery. The incidence of delirium ranged from 0 to 30% in the intervention groups versus 4-33% in the comparator groups, and was significantly reduced in the melatonin group, with a summary effect of the meta-analysis yielding an odds ratio of 0.63 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.87; 0.006; I = 72.1%). A one study removed analysis reduced overall odds ratio to 0.310 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.50), while reducing heterogeneity (Cochran's Q = 0.798, I = 0.000).
CONCLUSION
Perioperative melatonin reduced the incidence of delirium in older adults in the included studies. While optimal dosing remains an unanswered question, the potential benefit of melatonin and melatonin receptor agonists may make them a reasonable option to use for delirium prevention in older adults undergoing surgical procedures.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Central Nervous System Depressants; Delirium; Humans; Incidence; Melatonin; Middle Aged; Postoperative Cognitive Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31619178
DOI: 10.1186/s12877-019-1297-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2018Endometrial carcinoma is the most common gynaecologic malignancy in the world and develops through preliminary stages of endometrial hyperplasia....
BACKGROUND
Endometrial carcinoma is the most common gynaecologic malignancy in the world and develops through preliminary stages of endometrial hyperplasia. Atypical endometrial hyperplasia suggests a significant pre-malignant state with frank progression to endometrial carcinoma, and tends to occur at a young age. Oral progestins have been used as conservative treatment in young women with atypical endometrial hyperplasia, but they are associated with poor tolerability and side effects that may limit their overall efficacy. So it has become increasingly important and necessary to find a safe and effective fertility-sparing treatment with better tolerability and fewer side effects than the options currently available. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) has been used to provide endometrial protection in women with breast cancer who are on adjuvant tamoxifen. The antiproliferative function of levonorgestrel is thought to reduce the risk of endometrial hyperplasia.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of oral and intrauterine progestogens in treating atypical endometrial hyperplasia.
SEARCH METHODS
In July 2018 we searched CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL, PsycINFO and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure for relevant trials. Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Specialised Register and Embase were searched in November 2018. We attempted to identify trials from references in published studies. We also searched for ongoing trials in five major clinical trials registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of oral and intrauterine progestogens (LNG-IUS) versus each other or placebo in women with a confirmed histological diagnosis of simple or complex endometrial hyperplasia with atypia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted the data. The primary outcomes of the review were rate of regression and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes included rate of recurrence and proportion of women undergoing hysterectomy. We have used GRADE methodology to judge the quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included one RCT (153 women) comparing the LNG-IUS administering 20 micrograms (μu) levonorgestrel per day versus 10 milligrams of continuous or cyclical oral medroxyprogesterone (MPA) for treating any type of endometrial hyperplasia. Only 19 women in this study were histologically confirmed with atypical complex hyperplasia before treatment. The evidence was of low or very low quality. The included study was at low risk of bias, but the quality of the evidence was very seriously limited by imprecision and indirectness. We did not find any RCTS comparing the LNG-IUS or oral progestogens versus placebo in women with atypical endometrial hyperplasia.Among the 19 women with atypical complex hyperplasia, after six months of treatment there was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in regression rates between the LNG-IUS group and the progesterone group (odds ratio (OR) 2.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 29.73; 1 RCT subgroup, 19 women, very low-quality evidence). The rate of regression was 100% in the LNG-IUS group (n = 6/6) and 77% in the progesterone group (n = 10/13).Among the total study population (N = 153), over the six months' treatment the main adverse effects were nausea and vaginal bleeding. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of nausea (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.18; 1 RCT, 153 women, very low-quality evidence). Vaginal bleeding was more common in the LNG-IUS group (OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.11 to 7.52; 1 RCT, 153 women, low-quality evidence). Except for nausea and vaginal bleeding, no other adverse effects were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We did not find any RCTS of women with atypical endometrial hyperplasia, and our findings derive from a subgroup of 19 women in a larger RCT. All six women who used the LNG-IUS system achieved regression of atypical hyperplasia, but there was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions regarding the relative efficacy of LNG-IUS versus oral progesterone (MPA) in this group of women. When assessed in a population of women with any type of endometrial hyperplasia, there was no clear evidence of a difference between LNG-IUS and oral progesterone (MPA) in risk of nausea, but vaginal bleeding was more likely to occur in women using the LNG-IUS. Larger studies are necessary to assess the efficacy and safety of oral and intrauterine progestogens in treating atypical endometrial hyperplasia.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Endometrial Hyperplasia; Female; Humans; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Levonorgestrel; Medroxyprogesterone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30521671
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009458.pub3 -
Preventive Veterinary Medicine Nov 2018Overuse of antimicrobials in both humans and animals is recognized as one of the main drivers of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR); and the optimisation of their use has... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Overuse of antimicrobials in both humans and animals is recognized as one of the main drivers of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR); and the optimisation of their use has been advocated as a key strategy for dealing with AMR. The measurement of antimicrobial use is vital for the design, monitoring and evaluation of such strategies. This systematic review describes and compares methods and measurements used to quantify antimicrobial use in pigs in order to inform efforts to standardize measurement.
METHODS
The peer-reviewed literature was systematically searched using four online databases: MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Scopus and Web of Science. Eligibility criteria for inclusion in the review included: articles published in English, involving pigs of any age and types of production, providing quantitative data on antimicrobial use, containing a clear description of the methodology, and having moderate to high rank in the quality assessment.
RESULTS
Of 2,362 abstracts reviewed, a total of 25 studies were included based on the eligibility criteria. All studies were published between 2001 and 2017. Twenty of the studies were conducted in eight European countries. Twelve studies estimated antimicrobial use and eight studies were primarily methodological papers comparing different methods or variables, or developing new methods. The two main sources of antimicrobial use data were farm surveys and national sales data. A large variety of units of measurement was found. In this review, the ten measurements identified were categorized into four groups: 1) antimicrobials use measured by milligrams of active substance per animal weight; 2) antimicrobials use measured by daily dose per weight at treatment; 3) antimicrobial use measured by daily dose per treatment period; and 4) antimicrobials use measured by daily dose per period at risk of treatment.
CONCLUSION
There is no global standardized measurement of antimicrobial use in pigs. Given the importance of monitoring the use antimicrobials, we recommend that at a minimum, all countries should develop macro-level monitoring using national sales data and report use by milligram of active ingredients per Population Correcting Unit. Monitoring in specific animal species requires the development of systems to capture prescription at national or farm level. Findings from monitoring antimicrobial use may help to guide effective interventions for optimising use of antimicrobials, as recommended by the WHO Global Action Plan on AMR.
Topics: Animal Husbandry; Animals; Anti-Infective Agents; Swine
PubMed: 30389002
DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2018.09.016 -
Journal of Drug Assessment 2018The objective of the study was to systematically investigate the outcomes of Liposomal Bupivacaine following major colorectal resections. We conducted a comprehensive...
The objective of the study was to systematically investigate the outcomes of Liposomal Bupivacaine following major colorectal resections. We conducted a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Medline, Google scholar, Cochrane Central Registry and clinical trials.gov databases through May 2017 for studies published regarding liposomal bupivacaine. Studies were filtered based on relevance to perioperative analgesia in colorectal resections. Data comparing type of study, techniques of resection, mode of administration of liposomal bupivacaine, details of control group, outcomes were collected. A total of 1008 patients from seven studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The studies were mostly retrospective or prospective cohort studies with one randomized controlled trial (RCT). Meta-analysis showed that liposomal bupivacaine was associated with decreased length of stay, standard mean difference in days (SMD) - 0.34, (95% confidence intervals [CI] - 0.56, -0.13, = .001) and decreased IV opioid use (expressed as intravenous morphine equivalent in milligrams) in the first 48-72 h, SMD -0.49 (95% CI -0.69, -0.28, < .00001). Pain scores were also significantly low in patients who received liposomal bupivacaine, SMD -0.56 (95% CI -1.07, -0.06, = .03]. There was no significant difference in hospitalization costs between the two groups. Use of liposomal bupivacaine is associated with decreased IV opioid use, length of stay and lower pain scores. However, our data needs to be interpreted cautiously given the relative paucity of randomized controlled trials.
PubMed: 29988796
DOI: 10.1080/21556660.2018.1487445