-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2022Many people with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, such as oxycodone and morphine. Strong opioids are, however, not... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Many people with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, such as oxycodone and morphine. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all people, neither are they well tolerated by all people. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for adults with cancer pain. This is an updated Cochrane review previously published in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone by any route of administration for pain in adults with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), and PsycINFO (Ovid) to November 2021. We also searched four trial registries, checked the bibliographic references of relevant studies, and contacted the authors of the included studies. We applied no language, date, or publication status restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (parallel-group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults by examining pain intensity/relief, adverse events, quality of life, and participant preference.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently sifted the search, extracted data and assessed the included studies using standard Cochrane methodology. We meta-analysed pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, and pain relief and adverse events using the Mantel-Haenszel method, or summarised these data narratively along with the quality of life and participant preference data. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
For this update, we identified 19 new studies (1836 participants) for inclusion. In total, we included 42 studies which enrolled/randomised 4485 participants, with 3945 of these analysed for efficacy and 4176 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons. Controlled-release (CR; typically taken every 12 hours) oxycodone versus immediate-release (IR; taken every 4-6 hours) oxycodone Pooled analysis of three of the four studies comparing CR oxycodone to IR oxycodone suggest that there is little to no difference between CR and IR oxycodone in pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.1 to 0.34; n = 319; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on adverse events, including constipation (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.54), nausea (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28), and vomiting (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15) (very low-certainty evidence). There were no data available for quality of life or participant preference, however, three studies suggested that treatment acceptability may be similar between groups (low-certainty evidence). CR oxycodone versus CR morphine The majority of the 24 studies comparing CR oxycodone to CR morphine reported either pain intensity (continuous variable), pain relief (dichotomous variable), or both. Pooled analysis indicated that pain intensity may be lower (better) after treatment with CR morphine than CR oxycodone (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.27; n = 882 in 7 studies; low-certainty evidence). This SMD is equivalent to a difference of 0.27 points on the Brief Pain Inventory scale (0-10 numerical rating scale), which is not clinically significant. Pooled analyses also suggested that there may be little to no difference in the proportion of participants achieving complete or significant pain relief (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10; n = 1249 in 13 studies; low-certainty evidence). The RR for constipation (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86) may be lower after treatment with CR oxycodone than after CR morphine. Pooled analyses showed that, for most of the adverse events, the CIs were wide, including no effect as well as potential benefit and harm: drowsiness/somnolence (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05), nausea (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.12), and vomiting (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.04) (low or very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain about the treatment effects on treatment acceptability and participant preference. Other comparisons The remaining studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability. The certainty of this evidence base was limited by the high or unclear risk of bias of the studies and by imprecision due to low or very low event rates or participant numbers for many outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions have not changed since the previous version of this review (in 2017). We found low-certainty evidence that there may be little to no difference in pain intensity, pain relief and adverse events between oxycodone and other strong opioids including morphine, commonly considered the gold standard strong opioid. Although we identified a benefit for pain relief in favour of CR morphine over CR oxycodone, this was not clinically significant and did not persist following sensitivity analysis and so we do not consider this important. However, we found that constipation and hallucinations occurred less often with CR oxycodone than with CR morphine; but the certainty of this evidence was either very low or the finding did not persist following sensitivity analysis, so these findings should be treated with utmost caution. Our conclusions are consistent with other reviews and suggest that, while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis, it seems unlikely that larger head-to-head studies of oxycodone versus morphine are justified, although well-designed trials comparing oxycodone to other strong analgesics may well be useful. For clinical purposes, oxycodone or morphine can be used as first-line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain in adults.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Cancer Pain; Constipation; Humans; Morphine; Nausea; Neoplasms; Oxycodone; Pain; Quality of Life; Reproducibility of Results; Sleepiness; Vomiting
PubMed: 35679121
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003870.pub7 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jul 2022To compare the analgesic efficacy and feasibility of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) with non-block care or other blocks in patients undergoing liver surgery. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia in patients after liver surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis on randomized comparative studies.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the analgesic efficacy and feasibility of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) with non-block care or other blocks in patients undergoing liver surgery.
METHOD
A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ESPB to non-block care or local infiltration analgesia (LIA), intrathecal morphine (ITM) and quadratus lumborum block (QLB) for postoperative analgesia in liver surgery patients.
RESULTS
Six RCTs containing 392 patients were included. This meta-analysis found that ESPB did not significantly reduce postoperative 8 h [mean standard (MD) 0.20; 95% (confidence interval) CI: -1.62, 2.01; P = 0.83; I = 99%] and 24 h [MD 0.10; 95% CI: -0.91, 1.11; P = 0.84; I = 97%] resting pain scores in patients undergoing liver surgery compared to control groups. Furthermore, ESPB had no effect on postoperative 24 h cumulative opioid consumption [MD 1.74; 95% CI: 3.43, 6.91; P = 0.51; I = 95%] or sleep quality [OR 1.00; 95% CI: 0.43, 2.35; P 0.99; I = 0%]. In contrast, ESPB reduced postoperative 48 h resting pain score [MD -0.77; 95% CI -1.56, 0.02; P = 0.05; I = 96%], the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) [OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.18, 0.48; P = 0.001; I = 0%]. Interestingly, in two RCTs, ESPB showed a higher incidence of shoulder pain compared to ITM [OR 2.89; 95%CI 1.03 to 8.09; P = 0.04; I = 0%]. There have been no reports of complications from ESPB or other blocks.
CONCLUSION
Current literature supported that ESPB had no significant difference in analgesic efficacy in liver surgery patients compared to LIA, ITM, and QLB. More evidences, preferably from high quality RCTs are required to confirm these finding.
Topics: Analgesia; Analgesics; Humans; Liver; Morphine; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 35662584
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106689 -
Journal of Addiction MedicineWe aimed to determine medications' comparative efficacy and safety for adults with alcohol use disorders. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
We aimed to determine medications' comparative efficacy and safety for adults with alcohol use disorders.
METHODS
We searched eleven electronic data sources for randomized clinical trials with at least 4 weeks of treatment reporting on alcohol consumption (total abstinence and reduced heavy drinking), dropouts, and dropouts due to adverse events. We conducted network meta-analyses using random-effects, frequentist models, and calculated summary rate ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
We included 156 trials (N = 27,334). Nefazodone (RR = 2.11; 95% CI, 1.42-3.13), aripiprazole (RR = 1.97; 95% CI, 1.36-2.88), carbamazepine (RR = 1.85; 95% CI, 1.03-3.32), and nalmefene (RR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.01-1.35) were associated with the most dropouts. Baclofen (RR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.97) and pregabalin (RR = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43-0.94) caused fewer dropouts than placebo. Nalmefene (RR = 3.26; 95% CI, 2.34-4.55), fluvoxamine (RR = 3.08; 95% CI, 1.59-5.94), and topiramate (RR=2.18; 95% CI, 1.36-3.51) caused more dropouts from adverse events over placebo. Gamma-hydroxy-butyrate (RR = 1.90; 95% CI, 1.03-3.53), baclofen (RR = 1.80; 95% CI, 1.39-2.34), disulfiram (RR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.39-2.10), gabapentin (RR = 1.66; 95% CI, 1.04-2.67), acamprosate (RR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.15-1.54), and oral naltrexone (RR = 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32) improved total abstinence over placebo (Fig. 3C). For reduced heavy drinking, disulfiram (RR = 0.19; 95% CI, 0.10-0.35), baclofen (RR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.91), acamprosate (RR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70-0.86), and oral naltrexone (RR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.90) were efficacious against placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
The current meta-analyses provide evidence that several medications for AUDs are effective and safe and encourage the expanded use of these medications in the clinical setting. Our review found that acamprosate (2-3 g/d), disulfiram (250-500 mg/d), baclofen (30 mg/d), and oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) had the best evidence for improving abstinence and heavy drinking for patients with AUD.
PROSPERO
CRD42020208946.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Acamprosate; Alcoholism; Baclofen; Disulfiram; Naltrexone; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35653782
DOI: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000992 -
Adicciones Jul 2023The crisis caused by prescribed opioids and their related side effects are a public health problem worldwide. Most of these are prescribed for coping with chronic pain....
The crisis caused by prescribed opioids and their related side effects are a public health problem worldwide. Most of these are prescribed for coping with chronic pain. The coexistence of opioid use disorder (OUD) in patients with chronic pain represents a complex challenge due to the need for managing both pain and OUD. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy of feasible treatments for this population with OUD and comorbid chronic pain for both conditions. A systematic database search has been performed using Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and ClinicalTrials.gov in compliance with PRISMA guidelines. Eligible articles addressed the outcomes in chronic pain patients with comorbid opioid use disorder after treatment interventions were applied. Of 593 identified articles, nine were eligible for qualitative review (n = 7 pharmacological interventions; n = 2 psychological interventions). Methadone, buprenorphine, cognitive-behavioral and mindfulness showed promising results, but data were inconclusive (<2 RCT with low risk of bias). It is unclear whether the opioid agonist treatment should be maintained or tapered and which drug should be prescribed for the opioid substitution therapy (methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone). Mindfulness and cognitive behavioral therapy have a discrete effect on improving negative affect but not pain. The therapeutic approach might be individualized under a shared decision-making basis.
Topics: Humans; Chronic Pain; Opioid-Related Disorders; Analgesics, Opioid; Methadone; Buprenorphine; Opiate Substitution Treatment
PubMed: 35472158
DOI: 10.20882/adicciones.1680 -
Neuropsychopharmacology : Official... Jun 2022Cannabinoid co-administration may enable reduced opioid doses for analgesia. This updated systematic review on the opioid-sparing effects of cannabinoids considered... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Cannabinoid co-administration may enable reduced opioid doses for analgesia. This updated systematic review on the opioid-sparing effects of cannabinoids considered preclinical and clinical studies where the outcome was analgesia or opioid dose requirements. We searched Scopus, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Medline, and Embase (2016 onwards). Ninety-two studies met the search criteria including 15 ongoing trials. Meta-analysis of seven preclinical studies found the median effective dose (ED) of morphine administered with delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol was 3.5 times lower (95% CI 2.04, 6.03) than the ED of morphine alone. Six preclinical studies found no evidence of increased opioid abuse liability with cannabinoid administration. Of five healthy-volunteer experimental pain studies, two found increased pain, two found decreased pain and one found reduced pain bothersomeness with cannabinoid administration; three demonstrated that cannabinoid co-administration may increase opioid abuse liability. Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found no evidence of opioid-sparing effects of cannabinoids in acute pain. Meta-analysis of four RCTs in patients with cancer pain found no effect of cannabinoid administration on opioid dose (mean difference -3.8 mg, 95% CI -10.97, 3.37) or percentage change in pain scores (mean difference 1.84, 95% CI -2.05, 5.72); five studies found more adverse events with cannabinoids compared with placebo (risk ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.03, 1.24). Of five controlled chronic non-cancer pain trials; one low-quality study with no control arm, and one single-dose study reported reduced pain scores with cannabinoids. Three RCTs found no treatment effect of dronabinol. Meta-analyses of observational studies found 39% reported opioid cessation (95% CI 0.15, 0.64, I 95.5%, eight studies), and 85% reported reduction (95% CI 0.64, 0.99, I 92.8%, seven studies). In summary, preclinical and observational studies demonstrate the potential opioid-sparing effects of cannabinoids in the context of analgesia, in contrast to higher-quality RCTs that did not provide evidence of opioid-sparing effects.
Topics: Analgesia; Analgesics, Opioid; Cannabinoids; Chronic Pain; Humans; Morphine; Opioid-Related Disorders
PubMed: 35459926
DOI: 10.1038/s41386-022-01322-4 -
International Journal of Environmental... Apr 2022A previous pooled analysis demonstrated significant relief of breathlessness following opioid administration in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.... (Review)
Review
A previous pooled analysis demonstrated significant relief of breathlessness following opioid administration in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. However, in clinical practice, it is important to know the characteristics of patients responding to opioids, the best prescription methods, and the evaluation measures that can sufficiently reflect these effects. Thus, we performed a systematic review of systemic opioids for non-cancer chronic respiratory diseases. Fifteen randomized controlled studies (RCTs), four non-randomized studies, two observational studies, and five retrospective studies were included. Recent RCTs suggested that regular oral opioid use would decrease the worst breathlessness in patients with a modified Medical Research Council score ≥ 3 by a degree of 1.0 or less on a scale of 1-10. Ergometer or treadmill tests indicated mostly consistent significant acute effects of morphine or codeine. In two non-randomized studies, about 60% of patients responded to opioids and showed definite improvement in symptoms and quality of life. Furthermore, titration of opioids in these studies suggested that a major proportion of these responders had benefits after administration of approximately 10 mg/day of morphine. However, more studies are needed to clarify the prescription method to reduce withdrawal due to adverse effects, which would lead to significant improvements in overall well-being.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Dyspnea; Humans; Morphine; Prescriptions; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive
PubMed: 35457773
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19084907 -
Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment Aug 2022This systematic review synthesizes evidence on both the effects and perspectives of the use of novel long-acting injectable buprenorphine (LAIB) as part of...
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review synthesizes evidence on both the effects and perspectives of the use of novel long-acting injectable buprenorphine (LAIB) as part of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) and its impact on social determinants of health (SDH), specifically abstinence, accessibility, employment, forensic matters, and gender and social relationships via a framework approach.
METHODS
The study team searched three databases between January 2010 and June 2020 to identify English-language original research published in peer reviewed journals. This search yielded 9253 papers. A comprehensive search followed by 67 full text publication screenings by two independent reviewers yielded 15 papers meeting inclusion criteria. The study included three randomized control trials, one open label safety study, two case series, and six qualitative papers examining patient perspectives toward the LAIB prior to use. The team assessed the quality of studies via standardized quality assessment tools.
RESULTS
The LAIB was positively associated with improvements in abstinence, accessibility, employment, social relationships, and forensic matters. Limited evidence exists on gender equity within the current literature. The qualitative papers highlighted the importance of patients' preferences and individualization of treatment planning to ensure the success of MAT.
CONCLUSION
The quality of evidence was rated as medium or high risk of bias, which does limit interpretation of the results. Overall, the LAIB was positively associated with SDH and should be offered as part of MAT in alignment with the recovery model. Future research should evaluate the implementation and longitudinal impacts of LAI buprenorphine compared to treatment as usual (TAU).
Topics: Buprenorphine; Humans; Opioid-Related Disorders; Social Determinants of Health
PubMed: 35365366
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2022.108776 -
PloS One 2022Several pharmacotherapeutic interventions are available for maintenance treatment for opioid-related disorders. However, previous meta-analyses have been limited to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Several pharmacotherapeutic interventions are available for maintenance treatment for opioid-related disorders. However, previous meta-analyses have been limited to pairwise comparisons of these interventions, and their efficacy relative to all others remains unclear. Our objective was to unify findings from different healthcare practices and generate evidence to strengthen clinical treatment protocols for the most widely prescribed medications for opioid-use disorders.
METHODS
We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCT) from database inception to February 12, 2022. Primary outcome was treatment retention, and secondary outcome was opioid use measured by urinalysis. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% credible interval (CrI) using Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) for available evidence. We assessed the credibility of the NMA using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis tool.
RESULTS
Seventy-nine RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Due to heterogeneity in measuring opioid use and reporting format between studies, we conducted NMA only for treatment retention. Methadone was the highest ranked intervention (Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking [SUCRA] = 0.901) in the network with control being the lowest (SUCRA = 0.000). Methadone was superior to buprenorphine for treatment retention (RR = 1.22; 95% CrI = 1.06-1.40) and buprenorphine superior to naltrexone (RR = 1.39; 95% CrI = 1.10-1.80). However, due to a limited number of high-quality trials, confidence in the network estimates of other treatment pairs involving naltrexone and slow-release oral morphine (SROM) remains low.
CONCLUSION
All treatments had higher retention than the non-pharmacotherapeutic control group. However, additional high-quality RCTs are needed to estimate more accurately the extent of efficacy of naltrexone and SROM relative to other medications. For pharmacotherapies with established efficacy profiles, assessment of their long-term comparative effectiveness may be warranted.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This systematic review has been registered with PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero) (identifier CRD42021256212).
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Humans; Methadone; Morphine; Naltrexone; Network Meta-Analysis; Opioid-Related Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35358261
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266142 -
Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular... 2022Morphine is commonly used in the management of acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and National Institute for Health and Care... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Morphine is commonly used in the management of acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) do not recommend the routine use of opioids in acute heart failure (AHF) due to dose-dependent side effects. However, the effect of morphine remains unclear. Our study aims to investigate the link between morphine use in acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema and mortality.
METHODS
PubMed and Embase databases were searched from inception to October 2021. All studies were included (randomized, non-randomized, observational, prospective and retrospective). The references for all the articles were reviewed for potential articles of interest with no language restrictions. Studies looking at in-hospital mortality along with other outcomes were chosen. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to appraise the studies. Heterogeneity was assessed using . Meta-analysis was conducted using the Review Manager Software version 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014), by computing odds ratios (ORs) for pooled in-hospital mortality and clinical outcomes.
RESULTS
Six observational studies out of the 73 publications identified were eligible for the meta-analysis giving a total sample size of 152,859 (mean age 75, males 48%). Of these, four were retrospective analyses. The use of morphine in acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema was associated with an increased rate of in-hospital mortality [OR = 2.39, confidence interval (CI) = 1.13 to 5.08, = 0.02], increased need for invasive ventilation (OR = 6.14, CI = 5.84 to 6.46, < 0.00001), increased need for non-invasive ventilation (OR = 1.85, CI = 1.45 to 2.36, < 0.00001) and increased need for vasopressors/inotropes (OR = 2.93, CI = 2.20 to 3.89, < 0.00001).
CONCLUSION
Based on the observational studies, morphine use in acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema is associated with worse outcomes. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm any causative effect of morphine on mortality rates in acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema.
Topics: Acute Disease; Aged; Humans; Male; Morphine Derivatives; Prospective Studies; Pulmonary Edema; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35343809
DOI: 10.1177/17539447221087587 -
Pain Physician Mar 2022Postoperative pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is intense and remains an unsolved problem. Some studies show that perioperative, multimodal analgesia, including... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postoperative pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is intense and remains an unsolved problem. Some studies show that perioperative, multimodal analgesia, including intravenous dexamethasone, can provide a better analgesic effect; however, the validity of studies has raised concerns and questions remain around the efficacy, dosing, and safety of dexamethasone in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the impact of intravenous dexamethasone on postoperative pain among patients undergoing TKA.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. The last search was in August 2021.
METHODS
The risk of bias of the included trials was assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The primary outcome was postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores and secondary outcomes included cumulative equivalent intravenous morphine consumption, number of patients requiring rescue analgesic, length of hospital stay, and adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
Eleven studies with 1,671 patients were included. The pooled results indicated that patients receiving dexamethasone had lower VAS pain scores at rest (24 h, MD = -0.68, [95% CI: -0.87 to -0.49]; 48 h, MD = -0.33, [95% CI: -0.46 to -0.21]) and at movement (24 h, MD = -0.74, [95% CI: -1.10 to -0.37]; 48 h, MD = -0.46, [95% CI: -0.66 to -0.26]), required less morphine (24 h, MD = -2.84 mg, [95% CI: -5.13 to -0.54]; 48 h, MD= -4.16 mg, [95% CI: -5.55 to -2.78]) and rescue analgesics, and had shorter hospitalization. There was no increase in infection, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, wound healing problems, or blood glucose levels with dexamethasone. Subgroup analysis did not observe difference between single dose and repeat dose groups.
LIMITATIONS
The perioperative multimodal analgesia measures were varied throughout the studies. The sample size was small for some outcomes and high heterogeneity was observed.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results supported the addition of perioperative intravenous dexamethasone to multimodal analgesia in total knee arthroplasty to reduce postoperative pain, opioids consumption, and length of hospital stay. Current evidence did not support the superiority of repeated-dose dexamethasone over single-dose dexamethasone; thus, we recommended perioperative 8-10 mg intravenous dexamethasone to be used based on adequate basic analgesia; however, the results may have been affected by small sample sizes and heterogeneity.
Topics: Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Dexamethasone; Humans; Morphine; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 35322969
DOI: No ID Found