-
Journal of Clinical Medicine Nov 2022Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), unlike laparotomy, is an invasive surgical procedure, and some patients report mild to moderate pain after surgery. Transversus... (Review)
Review
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), unlike laparotomy, is an invasive surgical procedure, and some patients report mild to moderate pain after surgery. Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block has been shown to be an appropriate method for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. However, there have been few studies on the efficacy of TAP block after LC surgery, with unclear information on the optimal dose, long-term effects, and clinical significance, and the analgesic efficacy of various procedures, hence the need for this review. Five electronic databases (PubMed, Academic Search Premier, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library) were searched for eligible studies published from inception to the present. Post-mean and standard deviation values for pain assessed were extracted, and mean changes per group were calculated. Clinical significance was determined using the distribution-based approach. Four different local anesthetics (Bupivacaine, Ropivacaine, Lidocaine, and Levobupivacaine) were used at varying concentrations from 0.2% to 0.375%. Ten different drug solutions (i.e., esmolol, Dexamethasone, Magnesium Sulfate, Ketorolac, Oxycodone, Epinephrine, Sufentanil, Tropisetron, normal saline, and Dexmedetomidine) were used as adjuvants. The optimal dose of local anesthetics for LC could be 20 mL with 0.4 mL/kg for port infiltration. Various TAP procedures such as ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (US-TAP) block and other strategies have been shown to be used for pain management in LC; however, TAP blockade procedures were reported to be the most effective method for analgesia compared with general anesthesia and port infiltration. Instead of 0.25% Bupivacaine, 1% Pethidine could be used for the TAP block procedures. Multimodal analgesia could be another strategy for pain management. Analgesia with TAP blockade decreases opioid consumption significantly and provides effective analgesia. Further studies should identify the long-term effects of different TAP block procedures.
PubMed: 36498471
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11236896 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) is characterised by constipation, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and gastric reflux. It is one of the major adverse events... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) is characterised by constipation, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and gastric reflux. It is one of the major adverse events (AEs) of treatment for pain in cancer and palliative care, resulting in increased morbidity and reduced quality of life. This review is a partial update of a 2008 review, and critiques as previous update (2018) trials only for people with cancer and people receiving palliative care.
OBJECTIVES
To assess for OIBD in people with cancer and people receiving palliative care the effectiveness and safety of mu-opioid antagonists (MOAs) versus different doses of MOAs, alternative pharmacological/non-pharmacological interventions, placebo, or no treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science (December 2021), clinical trial registries and regulatory websites. We sought contact with MOA manufacturers for further data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness and safety of MOAs for OIBD in people with cancer and people at a palliative stage irrespective of the type of terminal disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The appropriateness of combining data from the trials depended upon sufficient homogeneity across trials. Our primary outcomes were laxation response, effect on analgesia, and AEs. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE and created summary of findings tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 studies (two new trials) randomising in-total 1343 adults with cancer irrespective of stage, or at palliative care stage of any disease. The MOAs were oral naldemedine and naloxone (alone or in combination with oxycodone), and subcutaneous methylnaltrexone. The trials compared MOAs with placebo, MOAs at different doses, or in combination with other drugs. Two trials of naldemedine and three of naloxone with oxycodone were in people with cancer irrespective of disease stage. The trial on naloxone alone was in people with advanced cancer. Four trials on methylnaltrexone were in palliative care where most participants had advanced cancer. All trials were vulnerable to biases; most commonly, blinding of the outcome assessor was not reported. Oral naldemedine versus placebo Risk (i.e. chance) of spontaneous laxations in the medium term (over two weeks) for naldemedine was over threefold greater risk ratio (RR) 2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.52, 2 trials, 418 participants, I² = 0%. Number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 3 to 4; moderate-certainty evidence). Earlier risk of spontaneous laxations and patient assessment of bowel change was not reported. Very low-certainty evidence showed naldemedine had little to no effect on opioid withdrawal symptoms. There was little to no difference in the risk of serious (non-fatal) AEs (RR 3.34, 95% CI 0.85 to 13.15: low-certainty evidence). Over double the risk of AEs (non-serious) reported with naldemedine (moderate-certainty evidence). Low-dose oral naldemedine versus higher dose Risk of spontaneous laxations was lower for the lower dose (medium term, 0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.89, 1 trial, 111 participants (low-certainty evidence)). Earlier risk of spontaneous laxations and patient assessment of bowel change not reported. Low-certainty evidence showed little to no difference on opioid withdrawal symptoms (0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg mean difference (MD) -0.30, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.25), and occurrences of serious AEs (0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.17). Low-certainty evidence showed little to no difference on non-serious AEs. Oral naloxone versus placebo Risk of spontaneous laxations and AEs not reported. Little to no difference in pain intensity (very low-certainty evidence). Full data not given. The trial reported that no serious AEs occurred. Oral naloxone + oxycodone versus oxycodone Risk of spontaneous laxations within 24 hours and in the medium term not reported. Low-certainty evidence showed naloxone with oxycodone reduced the risk of opioid withdrawal symptoms. There was little to no difference in the risk of serious (non-fatal) AEs (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.06), 3 trials, 362 participants, I² = 55%: very low-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in risk of AEs (low-certainty evidence). Subcutaneous methylnaltrexone versus placebo Risk of spontaneous laxations within 24 hours with methylnaltrexone was fourfold greater than placebo (RR 2.97, 95% CI 2.13 to 4.13. 2 trials, 287 participants, I² = 31%. NNTB 3, 95% CI 2 to 3; low-certainty evidence). Risk of spontaneous laxations in the medium term was over tenfold greater with methylnaltrexone (RR 8.15, 95% CI 4.76 to 13.95, 2 trials, 305 participants, I² = 47%. NNTB 2, 95% CI 2 to 2; moderate-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence showed methylnaltrexone reduced the risk of opioid withdrawal symptoms, and did not increase risk of a serious AE (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93. I² = 0%; 2 trials, 364 participants). The risk of AEs was higher for methylnaltrexone (low-certainty evidence). Lower-dose subcutaneous methylnaltrexone versus higher dose There was little to no difference in risk of spontaneous laxations in the medium-term (1 mg versus 5 mg or greater: RR 2.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 10.39; 1 trial, 26 participants very low-certainty evidence), or in patient assessment of improvement in bowel status (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.35, 1 trial, 102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Medium-term assessment of spontaneous laxations and serious AEs not reported. There was little to no difference in symptoms of opioid withdrawal (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.34, 1 trial, 102 participants) or occurrence of AEs (low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This update's findings for naldemedine and naloxone with oxycodone have been strengthened with two new trials, but conclusions have not changed. Moderate-certainty evidence for oral naldemedine on risk of spontaneous laxations and non-serious AEs suggests in people with cancer that naldemedine may improve bowel function over two weeks and increase the risk of AEs. There was low-certainty evidence on serious AEs. Moderate-certainty evidence for methylnaltrexone on spontaneous laxations over two weeks suggests subcutaneous methylnaltrexone may improve bowel function in people receiving palliative care, but certainty of evidence for AEs was low. More trials are needed, more evaluation of AEs, outcomes patients rate as important, and in children.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Child; Humans; Naloxone; Naltrexone; Narcotic Antagonists; Neoplasms; Opioid-Induced Constipation; Oxycodone; Palliative Care; Quaternary Ammonium Compounds; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 36106667
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006332.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022There are ongoing concerns regarding pharmaceutical opioid-related harms, including overdose and dependence, with an associated increase in treatment demand. People... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There are ongoing concerns regarding pharmaceutical opioid-related 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 opioid agonist pharmacotherapy for the treatment of pharmaceutical opioid dependence.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to January 2022: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, four other databases, and two trial registers. We checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs with adults and adolescents 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. 2. Full or partial opioid agonist maintenance versus non-opioid agonist treatments (detoxification, opioid antagonist, or psychological treatment without opioid agonist treatment).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified eight RCTs that met inclusion criteria (709 participants). We found four studies that compared methadone and buprenorphine maintenance treatment, and four studies that compared buprenorphine maintenance to either buprenorphine taper (in addition to psychological treatment) or a non-opioid maintenance treatment comparison. We found low-certainty evidence from three studies of a difference between methadone and buprenorphine in favour of methadone on self-reported opioid use at end of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.86; 165 participants), and low-certainty evidence from four studies finding a difference in favour of methadone for retention in treatment (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43; 379 participants). We found low-certainty evidence from three studies showing no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on substance use measured with urine drug screens at end of treatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 206 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence from one study of no difference in days of self-reported opioid use (mean difference 1.41 days, 95% CI 3.37 lower to 0.55 days higher; 129 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on adverse events (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.93; 206 participants). We found low-certainty evidence from four studies favouring maintenance buprenorphine treatment over non-opioid treatments in terms of fewer opioid positive urine drug tests at end of treatment (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.84; 270 participants), and very low-certainty evidence from four studies finding no difference on self-reported opioid use in the past 30 days at end of treatment (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.01; 276 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference in the number of days of unsanctioned opioid use (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.09; 205 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence from four studies favouring buprenorphine maintenance over non-opioid treatments on retention in treatment (RR 3.02, 95% CI 1.73 to 5.27; 333 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference in adverse effects between buprenorphine maintenance and non-opioid treatments (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.48; 252 participants). The main weaknesses in the quality of the data was the use of open-label study designs, and difference in follow-up rates between treatment arms.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very low- to moderate-certainty evidence supporting the use of maintenance agonist pharmacotherapy for pharmaceutical opioid dependence. Methadone or buprenorphine did not differ on some outcomes, although on the outcomes of retention and self-reported substance use some results favoured methadone. Maintenance treatment with buprenorphine appears more effective than non-opioid treatments. Due to the overall very low- to moderate-certainty evidence and small sample sizes, there is the possibility that the further research may change these findings.
Topics: Adolescent; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Heroin; Humans; Methadone; Opioid-Related Disorders; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 36063082
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011117.pub3 -
EFORT Open Reviews Jul 2022Considering the adverse effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids for treating osteoarthritis (OA), development of drugs that are more... (Review)
Review
Does anti-nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody treatment have the potential to replace nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids in treating hip or knee osteoarthritis? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
PURPOSE
Considering the adverse effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids for treating osteoarthritis (OA), development of drugs that are more effective and better tolerated than existing treatments is urgently needed. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-nerve growth factor (NGF) monoclonal antibodies vs active comparator therapy, such as NSAIDs and oxycodone, in treating hip or knee OA.
METHODS
Databases were comprehensively searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before January 2022. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed.
RESULTS
Six RCTs that included 4325 patients were identified. Almost all the RCTs indicated that moderate doses of anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment significantly improved efficacy outcomes based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score, the WOMAC physical function score and the Patient's Global Assessment compared with those of the active comparator. At least half of the RCTs indicated that the incidence of severe adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs) and total joint replacement were not significantly different between anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment and active comparator therapy, but the outcomes of some studies may have been limited by a short duration of follow-up. Most RCTs suggested that anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment had a lower incidence of gastrointestinal and cardiovascular AEs. However, the majority of RCTs reported a higher incidence of abnormal peripheral sensation with anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment. Furthermore, the higher incidence of rapidly progressive osteoarthritis (RPOA) with anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment should also not be overlooked, and the identification of patient characteristics that increase the risk of RPOA is critical in further studies.
CONCLUSION
Based on the current research evidence, anti-NGF monoclonal antibodies are not yet a replacement for analgesic drugs such as NSAIDs but might be a new treatment option for hip or knee OA patients who are intolerant or unresponsive to nonopioid or opioid treatment. Notably, however, considering the inconsistency and inconclusive evidence on the safety outcomes of recent studies, more research is needed, and long-term follow-up is required.
PubMed: 35900204
DOI: 10.1530/EOR-21-0103 -
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 -
Frontiers in Neuroscience 2021Although various drugs are currently used for restless legs syndrome (RLS) in clinic, selecting appropriate drugs for patients is difficult. This network meta-analysis...
Although various drugs are currently used for restless legs syndrome (RLS) in clinic, selecting appropriate drugs for patients is difficult. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of different drugs. After literature searching and screening, 46 trials, including 10,674 participants are included in this NMA. The pooled results showed that, compared with placebo, only levodopa is inefficient to relieve symptoms of RLS. Cabergoline decreases IRLS scores to the greatest extent among all drugs (MD -11.98, 95% CI -16.19 to -7.78). Additionally, pramipexole is superior to ropinirole in alleviating symptoms of RLS (MD -2.52, 95% CI -4.69 to -0.35). Moreover, iron supplement alleviates RLS symptoms significantly compared with placebo in patient with iron deficiency (MD -5.15, 95% CI -8.99 to -1.31), but not for RLS patients with normal serum ferritin level (MD -2.22, 95% CI -6.99 to 2.56). For primary RLS, these drugs are also effective, while there is insufficient data to analyze drug efficacy in secondary RLS. We analyzed risk of common adverse effects of drugs including nausea, somnolence, fatigue, headache and nasopharyngitis. Alpha-2-delta ligands and DAs are favorable choices for both primary and secondary RLS because of their significant efficacy and good tolerability. Iron supplement can significantly alleviate symptoms of RLS patients with iron deficiency than placebo. We recommend gabapentin, gabapentin enacarbil, and pregabalin for clinicians for first consideration mainly because that they rarely cause augmentation. Oxycodone-naloxone could be considered in patients with severe or very severe RLS who failed in treatment with above drugs.
PubMed: 34764852
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2021.751643 -
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Nov 2021Treating acute pain among persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) on opioid agonist therapy (OAT) is complex, and the therapeutic benefits of opioids remain unclear when... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Treating acute pain among persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) on opioid agonist therapy (OAT) is complex, and the therapeutic benefits of opioids remain unclear when weighted against their abuse potential and respiratory depressant effects.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of experimental pain studies examining opioid-induced analgesia among persons with OUD on OAT. We searched multiple databases from inception to July 30, 2021. Study quality was assessed by previously established validity measures.
RESULTS
Nine studies were identified, with a total of 225 participants, of whom 63% were male, and 37% were female. Six studies included methadone-maintained persons with OUD; four studies included buprenorphine-maintained persons with OUD; and three studies included healthy persons as comparison groups. Either additional doses of OAT or other opioids - morphine, oxycodone, hydromorphone, or remifentanil - were administered. In seven studies, persons with OUD on OAT did not experience analgesia, despite receiving opioid doses up to 20 times greater than those clinically used to treat severe pain among the opioid naïve. Conversely, in two studies, high-potency opioids did produce analgesia, albeit with greater abuse potential. Notably, persons with OUD on OAT remained vulnerable to respiratory depression.
CONCLUSIONS
Although persons with OUD on OAT can derive analgesic effects from opioids, high-potency compounds may be required to achieve clinically significant pain relief. Further, persons with OUD on OAT may remain vulnerable to opioid-induced abuse potential and respiratory depression. Together, these finding have clinical, methodological, and mechanistic implications for the treatment of acute pain in the context of OAT.
Topics: Acute Pain; Analgesia; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Female; Humans; Male; Methadone; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders
PubMed: 34601272
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.109097 -
The Pharmacogenomics Journal Dec 2021Variable responses to medications complicates perioperative care. As a potential solution, we evaluated and synthesized pharmacogenomic evidence that may inform...
Variable responses to medications complicates perioperative care. As a potential solution, we evaluated and synthesized pharmacogenomic evidence that may inform anesthesia and pain prescribing to identify clinically actionable drug/gene pairs. Clinical decision-support (CDS) summaries were developed and were evaluated using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. We found that 93/180 (51%) of commonly-used perioperative medications had some published pharmacogenomic information, with 18 having actionable evidence: celecoxib/diclofenac/flurbiprofen/ibuprofen/piroxicam/CYP2C9, codeine/oxycodone/tramadol CYP2D6, desflurane/enflurane/halothane/isoflurane/sevoflurane/succinylcholine/RYR1/CACNA1S, diazepam/CYP2C19, phenytoin/CYP2C9, succinylcholine/mivacurium/BCHE, and morphine/OPRM1. Novel CDS summaries were developed for these 18 medications. AGREE II mean ± standard deviation scores were high for Scope and Purpose (95.0 ± 2.8), Rigor of Development (93.2 ± 2.8), Clarity of Presentation (87.3 ± 3.0), and Applicability (86.5 ± 3.7) (maximum score = 100). Overall mean guideline quality score was 6.7 ± 0.2 (maximum score = 7). All summaries were recommended for clinical implementation. A critical mass of pharmacogenomic evidence exists for select medications commonly used in the perioperative setting, warranting prospective examination for clinical utility.
Topics: Analgesics; Anesthetics; Clinical Decision-Making; Decision Support Techniques; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Perioperative Care; Pharmacogenetics; Pharmacogenomic Testing; Pharmacogenomic Variants; Predictive Value of Tests; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34376788
DOI: 10.1038/s41397-021-00248-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021This is an update of the original Cochrane Review first published in Issue 10, 2016. For people with advanced cancer, the prevalence of pain can be as high as 90%.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of the original Cochrane Review first published in Issue 10, 2016. For people with advanced cancer, the prevalence of pain can be as high as 90%. Cancer pain is a distressing symptom that tends to worsen as the disease progresses. Evidence suggests that opioid pharmacotherapy is the most effective of these therapies. Hydromorphone appears to be an alternative opioid analgesic which may help relieve these symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the analgesic efficacy of hydromorphone in relieving cancer pain, as well as the incidence and severity of any adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers in November 2020. We applied no language, document type or publication status limitations to the search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared hydromorphone with placebo, an alternative opioid or another active control, for cancer pain in adults and children. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain intensity and pain relief; secondary outcomes were specific adverse events, serious adverse events, quality of life, leaving the study early and death.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. We estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model and assessed risk of bias for all included studies. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created three summary of findings tables.
MAIN RESULTS
With four new identified studies, the review includes a total of eight studies (1283 participants, with data for 1181 participants available for analysis), which compared hydromorphone with oxycodone (four studies), morphine (three studies) or fentanyl (one study). All studies included adults with cancer pain, mean age ranged around 53 to 59 years and the proportion of men ranged from 42% to 67.4%. We judged all the studies at high risk of bias overall because they had at least one domain with high risk of bias. We found no studies including children. We did not complete a meta-analysis for the primary outcome of pain intensity due to skewed data and different comparators investigated across the studies (oxycodone, morphine and fentanyl). Comparison 1: hydromorphone compared with placebo We identified no studies comparing hydromorphone with placebo. Comparison 2: hydromorphone compared with oxycodone Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS)) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with oxycodone, but the evidence is very uncertain (3 RCTs, 381 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no studies reporting participant-reported pain relief. Specific adverse events We found no clear evidence of a difference in nausea (RR 1.13 95% CI 0.74 to 1.73; 3 RCTs, 622 participants), vomiting (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.94; 3 RCTs, 622 participants), dizziness (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.44; 2 RCTs, 441 participants) and constipation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.19; 622 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with oxycodone, but the evidence is very uncertain. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life. Comparison 3: hydromorphone compared with morphine Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) or VAS)) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with morphine, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 433 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no clear evidence of a difference in the number of clinically improved participants, defined by 50% or greater pain relief rate, in the hydromorphone group compared with the morphine group, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.18; 1 RCT, 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Specific adverse events At 24 days of treatment, morphine may reduce constipation compared with hydromorphone, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.17; 1 RCT, 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found no clear evidence of a difference in nausea (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.30; 1 RCT, 200 participants), vomiting (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.31; 1 RCT, 200 participants) and dizziness (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.88; 1 RCT, 200 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with morphine, but the evidence is very uncertain. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life. Comparison 4: hydromorphone compared with fentanyl Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured by numerical rating scale (NRS)) at 60 minutes in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with fentanyl, but the evidence is very uncertain (1 RCT, 82 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no studies reporting participant-reported pain relief. Specific adverse events We found no studies reporting specific adverse events. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence of the benefits and harms of hydromorphone compared with other analgesics is very uncertain. The studies reported some adverse events, such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness and constipation, but generally there was no clear evidence of a difference between hydromorphone and morphine, oxycodone or fentanyl for this outcome. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of hydromorphone for cancer pain in comparison with other analgesics on the reported outcomes. Further research with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive outcome data collection is required.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Cancer Pain; Child; Humans; Hydromorphone; Male; Middle Aged; Morphine; Neoplasms; Oxycodone
PubMed: 34350974
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011108.pub3 -
European Review For Medical and... Jul 2021This study's main objective is to carry out a systematic review of the onset of psychotic symptoms after opioid withdrawal. The opiate dependence correlated to...
OBJECTIVE
This study's main objective is to carry out a systematic review of the onset of psychotic symptoms after opioid withdrawal. The opiate dependence correlated to psychiatric symptoms has been well described.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Following the PRISMA methodology. The consecutive search strategy was applied: (morphine OR buprenorphine OR oxycodone OR tramadol OR fentanyl OR remifentanil OR opioids OR heroin OR methadone) AND (Psychosis OR psychotic symptoms OR schizophrenia).
RESULTS
12 case reports, 3 series of cases, 2 clinical studies, and 2 reviews were found. It seems that the time association is present in all of them; symptoms appear days after the interruption of the opioid. Most of the articles reported are case reports that describe symptoms that appear after the suspension of the opioid substance; in most cases, the reintroduction of the opioid had therapeutic effects and provoked a remission of these symptoms. These preliminary findings indicate that opiates could have an antipsychotic effect; however, the literature is scarce. It is critical to consider, if needed, in opioid-dependent patients who start with psychosis after the opioid withdrawal the possible replacement or reintroduction of opioids to prevent further deterioration in the patient's mental status.
CONCLUSIONS
This study encompasses a comprehensive description of the literature concerning the possible not well-studied outcome of opioid withdrawal. There are some reports of temporal association between withdrawal and psychotic symptoms that improved after the reintroduction of the opioid; it could be taken into consideration in the clinical practice.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Heroin; Humans; Methadone; Morphine; Oxycodone; Psychotic Disorders; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Tramadol
PubMed: 34286498
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202107_26248