-
Pain and Therapy Dec 2022The IASP ICD-11 chronic primary pain (CPP) definition includes 19 different painful conditions. In recent years, interest in the potential role of cannabinoids in the...
INTRODUCTION
The IASP ICD-11 chronic primary pain (CPP) definition includes 19 different painful conditions. In recent years, interest in the potential role of cannabinoids in the management of CPP has increased, since they demonstrated a possible efficacy in treating pain, especially in secondary pain conditions. However, limited evidence is available for patients with CPP. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cannabinoid administration in CPP.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched form the beginning up to 31 October 2021 to retrieve published articles of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational, retrospective or prospective, studies, investigating cannabinoids in CPP. The study screening process was completed during November 2021. The primary outcome was pain reduction by means of the visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes were quality of life by means of the fibromyalgia impact questionnaire (FIQ) or other available scales, appetite, anxiety, depression, and sleep by means of any available scales. Safety was assessed with the reporting of serious adverse events (SAE) and discontinuation due to adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed. The weighted generic inverse variance method and Mantel-Haenszel method were used to estimate the mean difference (MD) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. For outcome measures reported with different scales (pain, anxiety, depression), we used the standardized MD (SMD) as the effect measure and then converted it into units of the VAS scale for pain, the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) for anxiety, and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) for depression. Summary of findings was produced using GRADEproGDT.
RESULTS
From 3007 identified records, we included eight articles reporting the results of eight different RCTs (four parallel and four crossover studies; seven compared to placebo and one to amitriptyline), with a total population of 240 patients. VAS pain reduction was non-significant for cannabinoids against placebo (MD = - 0.64; 95% CI - 1.30 to 0.02) or amitriptyline (MD = - 0.19; 95% CI - 0.58 to 0.19). More than 4 weeks cannabinoid treatment significantly reduced pain compared to placebo in parallel studies with more than 4 weeks of treatment duration (MD = - 1.28; 95% CI - 2.33 to - 0.22). Differences for the FIQ (MD = - 21.69; 95% CI - 46.20 to 2.82), BAI (MD = - 2.32; 95% CI - 7.99 to 3.08), and BDI (MD = 2.32; 95% CI - 1.71 to 6.35) were non-significant, likewise for discontinuation due to adverse events (OR = 2.15; 95% CI 0.44-10.65), when comparing cannabinoids to placebo. The quality of the evidence was generally low mainly as a result of imprecision and risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
Cannabinoid treatment in patients with CPP had limited benefit on pain relief; however, it might improve pain with long-term administration.
PubMed: 36129666
DOI: 10.1007/s40122-022-00434-5 -
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia E... Sep 2022To evaluate the effect of neuromodulatory drugs on the intensity of chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in women.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effect of neuromodulatory drugs on the intensity of chronic pelvic pain (CPP) in women.
DATA SOURCES
Searches were carried out in the PubMed, Cochrane Central, Embase, Lilacs, OpenGrey, and Clinical Trials databases.
SELECTION OF STUDIES
The searches were carried out by two of the authors, not delimiting publication date or original language. The following descriptors were used: OR , associated with MESH/ENTREE/DeCS: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and , with the Boolean operator . Case reports and systematic reviews were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION
The following data were extracted: author, year of publication, setting, type of study, sample size, intervention details, follow-up time, and results.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A total of 218 articles were found, with 79 being excluded because they were repeated, leaving 139 articles for analysis: 90 were excluded in the analysis of the titles, 37 after reading the abstract, and 4 after reading the articles in full, and 1 could not be found, therefore, leaving 7 articles that were included in the review.
CONCLUSION
Most of the studies analyzed have shown pain improvement with the help of neuromodulators for chronic pain. However, no improvement was found in the study with the highest statistical power. There is still not enough evidence that neuromodulatory drugs reduce the intensity of pain in women with CPP.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Chronic Pain; Citalopram; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Female; Gabapentin; Humans; Imipramine; Norepinephrine; Nortriptyline; Pelvic Pain; Pregabalin; Serotonin; Sertraline; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 36044916
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1755459 -
Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and... Aug 2022Intraoperative shivering is quite common after regional anaesthesia, which not only increases the total body oxygen requirement but also causes discomfort to the...
Pharmacological Interventions for the Treatment and Control of Shivering in Adult Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery Under Regional Anaesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Intraoperative shivering is quite common after regional anaesthesia, which not only increases the total body oxygen requirement but also causes discomfort to the patients. The aim of this systematic review is to determine the effectiveness of pharmacological agents administered intra-operatively for treating shivering in adult patients who are undergoing elective surgery under regional (i.e., central neuraxial) anaesthesia so that an optimal choice of an agent can be recommended for clinical application. A literature search was carried out using PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL databases, and hand searches to identify relevant studies. After literature screening and information extraction, a systematic review was performed. Meta-analysis was performed for the primary outcome. The primary outcome was to evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacological agents used for the treatment and control of intraoperative shivering and the time taken to control shivering. The secondary outcome includes recurrence of shivering after pharmacological intervention and identification of common adverse effects related to them. In total, 10 studies (791 patients) were included. Common interventions were opioids, central α2 receptor agonist, and few other medications like magnesium sulfate, ondansetron, nefopam, and amitriptyline. Tramadol and dexmedetomidine were the most frequently documented drugs compared with other drugs to resolve shivering. The most effective drug with approximately 100% response rate was dexmedetomidine with the dose of 0.5 μg kg-1 intravenously given just after the appearance of shivering. Studies showed that tramadol is also an effective drug used to control shivering in most patients, and its effect is comparable with the pethidine.
PubMed: 35979970
DOI: 10.5152/TJAR.2021.20008 -
Neuropsychopharmacology Reports Dec 2022Depression is a common disorder that affects patients' quality of life and incurs health system costs. Due to the resistance to treat depression, better understanding of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Depression is a common disorder that affects patients' quality of life and incurs health system costs. Due to the resistance to treat depression, better understanding of neurophysiology was considered; one of the implications is the glutamatergic system. This study aims to systematically review clinical trials investigating the antidepressant effects of kainate receptor antagonists.
METHODS
The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021213912). Scopus, ISI, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and two trial registries were searched for randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of topiramate, phenobarbital, and other ten barbiturates in depression. The difference with control groups in terms of changing depressive symptoms was the primary outcome.
RESULTS
Nine trials were identified, in which 784 patients were studied. The efficacy of thiopental was comparable to that of imipramine, with fewer side effects. When administered with electroconvulsive therapy, it had fewer to similar effects and fewer side effects than ketamine. Both monotherapy and adjunctive therapy with topiramate were effective and tolerable in treating depressed patients. Phenobarbital had therapeutic effects compared to imipramine and amitriptyline with fewer side effects.
CONCLUSION
Regarding the glutamatergic hypothesis of depression and obtained promising results, further studies of kainate receptor antagonists in high-quality trials are recommended. Given the high prevalence of depression in epileptic patients, more problems with its treatment, and the fact that the studied agents were anticonvulsants, it is recommended that future studies prioritize depressed-epileptic patients.
Topics: Humans; Depression; Imipramine; Phenobarbital; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Kainic Acid; Topiramate
PubMed: 35912516
DOI: 10.1002/npr2.12284 -
Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs Jul 2022This article reviews research on post-acute alcohol withdrawal syndrome (PAWS) management.
OBJECTIVE
This article reviews research on post-acute alcohol withdrawal syndrome (PAWS) management.
METHOD
We conducted a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Revision and Meta-Analyses)-guided scoping review of the published PAWS literature, searching six electronic databases (from their inception through December 2020) for English-language randomized and nonrandomized studies.
RESULTS
A total of 16 treatment studies met the inclusion criteria. The strength of evidence overall for pharmacologic treatments is low, with often only short-term results being reported, small treatment samples used, or inconsistent results found. However, for negative affect and sleep symptoms, more evidence supports using gabapentinoids (gabapentin and pregabalin) and anticonvulsants (carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine). Although preliminary data support acamprosate, there were no controlled trials. Despite an older treatment trial showing some positive data for amitriptyline for mood, the clinical measures used were problematic, and side effects and safety profile limit its utility. Finally, there is no evidence that melatonin and other agents (homatropine, Proproten-100) show PAWS symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS
Although there is some evidence for targeted pharmacotherapy for treating specific PAWS symptoms, there are few recent, robust, placebo-controlled trials, and the level of evidence for treatment efficacy is low.
Topics: Alcoholism; Anticonvulsants; Benzodiazepines; Gabapentin; Humans; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 35838423
DOI: 10.15288/jsad.2022.83.470 -
Spinal Cord Series and Cases Jul 2022Systematic review.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review evaluates all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted on assessing the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic therapies for the treatment of Spinal Cord Injury (SCI)-associated pain.
METHODS
The PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane library online databases were searched from 1946 to May 2019 using specific search terms for SCI, pain, and RCTs meeting predetermined inclusion criteria. The efficacy outcome of interest was pain reduction, discontinuations, and adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
Of 2746 records identified through database searching, 703 duplicates were deleted. 1814 were excluded, the full text of the remaining 230 articles was reviewed, and finally, 28 papers were selected for drafting. The most studied medications were pregabalin, gabapentin, amitriptyline, and ketamine. Pregabalin, gabapentin, and amitriptyline reduced VAS by more than 30%, and ketamine reduced VAS by 40%. Oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, alfentanil, tramadol, and morphine added to clonidine, baclofen, and botulinum toxin type A (BTA) significantly reduced pain compared with placebo. On the other hand, valproate, levetiracetam, trazodone, and duloxetine did not significantly alleviate SCI-associated pain compared to placebo. The risks of AEs and discontinuations in anticonvulsants were the least, while it was highest in analgesics.
CONCLUSIONS
Studies of SCI-associated pain were few, small, heterogenic in measures and values, and did not allow quantitative comparisons of efficacy. However, available data suggested pregabalin and gabapentin led to a more marked reduction in SCI-associated pain with fewer AEs. Additional clinical studies are needed to assess the effect of established and novel management options.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Anticonvulsants; Gabapentin; Humans; Ketamine; Pain; Pregabalin; Spinal Cord Injuries
PubMed: 35788127
DOI: 10.1038/s41394-022-00529-3 -
Pharmaceutics Jun 2022This systematic review summarizes the impact of pharmacogenetics on the effect and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antidepressants when used... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review summarizes the impact of pharmacogenetics on the effect and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antidepressants when used for pain treatment.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines regarding the human in vivo efficacy and safety of NSAIDs and antidepressants in pain treatment that take pharmacogenetic parameters into consideration. Studies were collected from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to the cutoff date 18 October 2021.
RESULTS
Twenty-five articles out of the 6547 initially detected publications were identified. Relevant medication-gene interactions were noted for drug safety. Interactions important for pain management were detected for (1) ibuprofen/; (2) celecoxib/; (3) piroxicam/, ; (4) diclofenac/, , , ; (5) meloxicam/; (6) aspirin/, , and ; (7) amitriptyline/ and ; (8) imipramine/; (9) nortriptyline/, , ; and (10) escitalopram/, , and .
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, a lack of well powered human in vivo studies assessing the pharmacogenetics in pain patients treated with NSAIDs or antidepressants is noted. Studies indicate a higher risk for partly severe side effects for the poor metabolizers and NSAIDs. Further in vivo studies are needed to consolidate the relevant polymorphisms in NSAID safety as well as in the efficacy of NSAIDs and antidepressants in pain management.
PubMed: 35745763
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14061190 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2022Medical cannabis (MC) has been hypothesized as an alternative therapy for migraines, given the undesirable side effects of current migraine medications. The objective of...
BACKGROUND
Medical cannabis (MC) has been hypothesized as an alternative therapy for migraines, given the undesirable side effects of current migraine medications. The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of MC in the treatment of migraine in adults.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science for eligible studies in adults aged 18 years and older. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility. A narrative synthesis of the included studies was conducted.
RESULTS
A total of 12 publications involving 1,980 participants in Italy and the United States of America were included.Medical cannabis significantly reduced nausea and vomiting associated with migraine attacks after 6 months of use. Also, MC reduced the number of days of migraine after 30 days, and the frequency of migraine headaches per month. MC was 51% more effective in reducing migraines than non-cannabis products. Compared to amitriptyline, MC aborted migraine headaches in some (11.6%) users and reduced migraine frequency. While the use of MC for migraines was associated with the occurrence of medication overuse headaches (MOH), and the adverse events were mostly mild and occurred in 43.75% of patients who used oral cannabinoid preparations.
CONCLUSIONS
There is promising evidence that MC may have a beneficial effect on the onset and duration of migraine headaches in adults. However, well-designed experimental studies that assess MC's effectiveness and safety for treating migraine in adults are needed to support this hypothesis.
PubMed: 35711271
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.871187 -
JAMA Network Open May 2022Amitriptyline is an established medication used off-label for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran are the only pharmacological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Amitriptyline is an established medication used off-label for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran are the only pharmacological agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat fibromyalgia.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the comparative effectiveness and acceptability associated with pharmacological treatment options for fibromyalgia.
DATA SOURCES
Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov were conducted on November 20, 2018, and updated on July 29, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing amitriptyline or any FDA-approved doses of investigated drugs.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
This study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline. Four independent reviewers extracted data using a standardized data extraction sheet and assessed quality of RCTs. A random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to January 2021.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Comparative effectiveness and acceptability (defined as discontinuation of treatment owing to adverse drug reactions) associated with amitriptyline (off-label), pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran (on-label) in reducing fibromyalgia symptoms. The following doses were compared: 60-mg and 120-mg duloxetine; 150-mg, 300-mg, 450-mg, and 600-mg pregabalin; 100-mg and 200-mg milnacipran; and amitriptyline. Effect sizes are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs). Findings were considered statistically significant when the 95% CrI did not include the null value (0 for SMD and 1 for OR). Relative treatment ranking using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was also evaluated.
RESULTS
A total of 36 studies (11 930 patients) were included. The mean (SD) age of patients was 48.4 (10.4) years, and 11 261 patients (94.4%) were women. Compared with placebo, amitriptyline was associated with reduced sleep disturbances (SMD, -0.97; 95% CrI, -1.10 to -0.83), fatigue (SMD, -0.64; 95% CrI, -0.75 to -0.53), and improved quality of life (SMD, -0.80; 95% CrI, -0.94 to -0.65). Duloxetine 120 mg was associated with the highest improvement in pain (SMD, -0.33; 95% CrI, -0.36 to -0.30) and depression (SMD, -0.25; 95% CrI, -0.32 to -0.17) vs placebo. All treatments were associated with inferior acceptability (higher dropout rate) than placebo, except amitriptyline (OR, 0.78; 95% CrI, 0.31 to 1.66). According to the SUCRA-based relative ranking of treatments, duloxetine 120 mg was associated with higher efficacy for treating pain and depression, while amitriptyline was associated with higher efficacy for improving sleep, fatigue, and overall quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These findings suggest that clinicians should consider how treatments could be tailored to individual symptoms, weighing the benefits and acceptability, when prescribing medications to patients with fibromyalgia.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Fatigue; Female; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Milnacipran; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain; Pregabalin; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 35587348
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.12939 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2022To provide an updated analysis of the efficacy and safety of drugs for the management of neuropathic pain (NP) after spinal cord injury (SCI) based on Bayesian network...
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of 11 Drugs as Therapies for Adults With Neuropathic Pain After Spinal Cord Injury: A Bayesian Network Analysis Based on 20 Randomized Controlled Trials.
OBJECTIVE
To provide an updated analysis of the efficacy and safety of drugs for the management of neuropathic pain (NP) after spinal cord injury (SCI) based on Bayesian network analysis.
METHODS
A Bayesian network meta-analysis of literature searches within PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases from their inception to February 21 2021 was conducted without language restrictions. Paired and network meta-analyses of random effects were used to estimate the total standardized mean deviations (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs).
RESULTS
A total of 1,133 citations were identified and 20 RCTs (including 1,198 patients) involving 11 drugs and placebos for post-SCI NP selected. The 5 outcomes from all 11 drugs and placebos had no inconsistencies after Bayesian network analysis. BTX-A gave the most effective pain relief for the 4 weeks, following a primary outcome. No significant differences were found among drugs with regard to adverse events of the primary outcome. Gabapentin, BTX-A, and pregabalin were found to be the most helpful in relieving secondary outcomes of mental or sleep-related symptoms with differences in SMDs, ranging from -0.63 to -0.86. Tramadol triggered more serious adverse events than any of the other drugs with differences in ORs ranging from 0.09 to 0.11.
CONCLUSION
BTX-A, gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline, ketamine, lamotrigine, and duloxetine were all effective for NP management following SCI. Lamotrigine and gabapentin caused fewer side effects and had better efficacy in relieving mental or sleep-related symptoms caused by SCI-related NP. Tramadol, levetiracetam, carbamazepine, and cannabinoids could not be recommended due to inferior safety or efficacy.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
[https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2020-7-0061/], identifier [INPLASY202070061].
PubMed: 35386408
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.818522