-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2024Despite the known harms, alcohol consumption is common in pregnancy. Rates vary between countries, and are estimated to be 10% globally, with up to 25% in Europe.
BACKGROUND
Despite the known harms, alcohol consumption is common in pregnancy. Rates vary between countries, and are estimated to be 10% globally, with up to 25% in Europe.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of psychosocial interventions and medications to reduce or stop alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register (via CRSLive), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO, from inception to 8 January 2024. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that compared medications or psychosocial interventions, or both, to placebo, no intervention, usual care, or other medications or psychosocial interventions used to reduce or stop alcohol use during pregnancy. Our primary outcomes of interest were abstinence from alcohol, reduction in alcohol consumption, retention in treatment, and women with any adverse event.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight studies (1369 participants) in which pregnant women received an intervention to stop or reduce alcohol use during pregnancy. In one study, almost half of participants had a current diagnosis of alcohol use disorder (AUD); in another study, 40% of participants had a lifetime diagnosis of AUD. Six studies took place in the USA, one in Spain, and one in the Netherlands. All included studies evaluated the efficacy of psychosocial interventions; we did not find any study that evaluated the efficacy of medications for the treatment of AUD during pregnancy. Psychosocial interventions were mainly brief interventions ranging from a single session of 10 to 60 minutes to five sessions of 10 minutes each. Pregnant women received the psychosocial intervention approximately at the end of the first trimester of pregnancy, and the outcome of alcohol use was reassessed 8 to 24 weeks after the psychosocial intervention. Women in the control group received treatment as usual (TAU) or similar treatments such as comprehensive assessment of alcohol use and advice to stop drinking during pregnancy. Globally, we found that, compared to TAU, psychosocial interventions may increase the rate of continuously abstinent participants (risk ratio (RR) 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 1.57; I =0%; 3 studies; 378 women; low certainty evidence). Psychosocial interventions may have little to no effect on the number of drinks per day, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference -0.42, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.28; I = 86%; 2 studies; 157 women; very low certainty evidence). Psychosocial interventions probably have little to no effect on the number of women who completed treatment (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.02; I = 0%; 7 studies; 1283 women; moderate certainty evidence). None of the included studies assessed adverse events of treatments. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to risk of bias and imprecision of the estimates.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Brief psychosocial interventions may increase the rate of continuous abstinence among pregnant women who report alcohol use during pregnancy. Further studies should be conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of psychosocial interventions and other treatments (e.g. medications) for women with AUD. These studies should provide detailed information on alcohol use before and during pregnancy using consistent measures such as the number of drinks per drinking day. When heterogeneous populations are recruited, more detailed information on alcohol use during pregnancy should be provided to allow future systematic reviews to be conducted. Other important information that would enhance the usefulness of these studies would be the presence of other comorbid conditions such as anxiety, mood disorders, and the use of other psychoactive substances.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Acamprosate; Alcohol Abstinence; Alcohol Deterrents; Alcohol Drinking; Bias; Pregnancy Complications; Psychosocial Intervention; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Taurine
PubMed: 38682758
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015042.pub2 -
Cancer Treatment Reviews Apr 2024Cancer-related pain often requires opioid treatment with opioid-induced constipation (OIC) as its most frequent gastrointestinal side-effect. Both for prevention and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cancer-related pain often requires opioid treatment with opioid-induced constipation (OIC) as its most frequent gastrointestinal side-effect. Both for prevention and treatment of OIC osmotic (e.g. polyethylene glycol) and stimulant (e.g. bisacodyl) laxatives are widely used. Newer drugs such as the peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) and naloxone in a fixed combination with oxycodone have become available for the management of OIC. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to give an overview of the scientific evidence on pharmacological strategies for the prevention and treatment of OIC in cancer patients.
METHODS
A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library was completed from inception up to 22 October 2022. Randomized and non-randomized studies were systematically selected. Bowel function and adverse drug events were assessed.
RESULTS
Twenty trials (prevention: five RCTs and three cohort studies; treatment: ten RCTs and two comparative cohort studies) were included in the review. Regarding the prevention of OIC, three RCTs compared laxatives with other laxatives, finding no clear differences in effectivity of the laxatives used. One cohort study showed a significant benefit of magnesium oxide compared with no laxative. One RCT found a significant benefit for the PAMORA naldemedine compared with magnesium oxide. Preventive use of oxycodone/naloxone did not show a significant difference in two out of three other studies compared to oxycodone or fentanyl. A meta-analysis was not possible. Regarding the treatment of OIC, two RCTs compared laxatives, of which one RCT found that polyethylene glycol was significantly more effective than sennosides. Seven studies compared an opioid antagonist (naloxone, methylnaltrexone or naldemedine) with placebo and three studies compared different dosages of opioid antagonists. These studies with opioid antagonists were used for the meta-analysis. Oxycodone/naloxone showed a significant improvement in Bowel Function Index compared to oxycodone with laxatives (MD -13.68; 95 % CI -18.38 to -8.98; I = 58 %). Adverse drug event rates were similar amongst both groups, except for nausea in favour of oxycodone/naloxone (RR 0.51; 95 % CI 0.31-0.83; I = 0 %). Naldemedine (NAL) and methylnaltrexone (MNTX) demonstrated significantly higher response rates compared to placebo (NAL: RR 2.07, 95 % CI 1.64-2.61, I = 0 %; MNTX: RR 3.83, 95 % CI 2.81-5.22, I = 0 %). With regard to adverse events, abdominal pain was more present in treatment with methylnaltrexone and diarrhea was significantly more present in treatment with naldemedine. Different dosages of methylnaltrexone were not significantly different with regard to both efficacy and adverse drug event rates.
CONCLUSIONS
Magnesium oxide and naldemedine are most likely effective for prevention of OIC in cancer patients. Naloxone in a fixed combination with oxycodone, naldemedine and methylnaltrexone effectively treat OIC in cancer patients with acceptable adverse events. However, their effect has not been compared to standard (osmotic and stimulant) laxatives. More studies comparing standard laxatives with each other and with opioid antagonists are necessary before recommendations for clinical practice can be made.
Topics: Humans; Laxatives; Analgesics, Opioid; Narcotic Antagonists; Constipation; Oxycodone; Opioid-Induced Constipation; Magnesium Oxide; Cohort Studies; Naloxone; Polyethylene Glycols; Neoplasms; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Quaternary Ammonium Compounds; Naltrexone
PubMed: 38452708
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102704 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology Mar 2024Although naltrexone is an evidence-based medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), few data are available with use in pregnancy. Our objective was to assess outcomes of...
OBJECTIVE
Although naltrexone is an evidence-based medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), few data are available with use in pregnancy. Our objective was to assess outcomes of pregnant individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) taking naltrexone compared with those taking methadone or buprenorphine.
DATA SOURCES
We undertook a systematic review using electronic database search (PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo), conference proceedings, and trial registries including ClinicalTrials.gov .
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
We conducted an electronic search of research articles through May 2023 for randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort, and retrospective cohort studies of naltrexone (oral, implant, or extended release) compared with methadone or buprenorphine (sublingual or extended release) among pregnant individuals with OUD. After double review of all articles, we abstracted obstetric (primary outcome: gestational age at delivery), neonatal (primary outcome: neonatal abstinence syndrome [NAS]), and substance use outcomes.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
Five studies met eligibility criteria; four were retrospective cohort studies, and one was a prospective cohort study. Four studies included data on gestational age at delivery (weeks) with no difference detected between the two groups in any study (mean difference ranging -0.20, 95% CI, -1.49-1.09 to 0.8, 95% CI, -0.15 to 1.75). Three studies included data on NAS with all studies detecting a lower risk in the naltrexone group compared with methadone or buprenorphine (relative risk ranging from 0.08, 95% CI, 0.01-1.16 to 0.15, 95% CI, 0.06-0.36). Most studies (four of five) had a moderate or high potential for selection bias primarily driven by small sample size and lack of controlling for confounders.
CONCLUSION
Although the evidence base is limited, available data suggest that naltrexone use in pregnancy is a reasonable MOUD option with reassuring perinatal outcomes. To enhance confidence in this conclusion and to assess substance use outcomes, further comparative studies of pregnant people with OUD taking naltrexone and other MOUD types are needed.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO, 42017074249.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Buprenorphine; Methadone; Naltrexone; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 38227945
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005510 -
The American Journal of Drug and... Jan 2024The relationship between cannabis use and the risk of returning to using opioids non-medically during treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) remains unclear. We sought... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The impact of cannabis on non-medical opioid use among individuals receiving pharmacotherapies for opioid use disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.
The relationship between cannabis use and the risk of returning to using opioids non-medically during treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) remains unclear. We sought to quantify the impact of cannabis use on the risk of non-medical opioid use among people receiving pharmacotherapies for OUD. A comprehensive search was performed using multiple databases from March 1 to April 5 of 2023. Eligible studies longitudinally assessed the association between cannabis use and non-medical opioid use among people with OUD receiving treatment with buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone. We utilized a random-effects model employing the restricted maximum likelihood method. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to understand potential differences between each OUD treatment modality. A total of 10 studies were included in the final meta-analysis. There were 8,367 participants (38% female). The average follow-up time across these studies was 9.7 months (SD = 3.77), ranging from 4 to 15 months. The pharmacotherapies involved were methadone (76.3%) buprenorphine (21.3%), and naltrexone (2.4%). The pooled odds ratio did not indicate that cannabis use significantly influenced non-medical opioid use (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.97-1.04, = .98). There is evidence of moderate heterogeneity and publication bias. There was no significant association between cannabis use and non-medical opioid use among patients receiving pharmacotherapies for OUD. These findings neither confirm concerns about cannabis increasing non-medical opioid use during MOUD, nor do they endorse its efficacy in decreasing non-medical opioid use with MOUD. This indicates a need for individualized approaches for cannabis use and challenges the requirement of cannabis abstinence to maintain OUD pharmacotherapies.
Topics: Humans; Female; Male; Analgesics, Opioid; Naltrexone; Cannabis; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Buprenorphine; Methadone; Longitudinal Studies; Hallucinogens
PubMed: 38225727
DOI: 10.1080/00952990.2023.2287406 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2024Cocaine is a psychostimulant used by approximately 0.4% of the general population worldwide. Cocaine dependence is a chronic mental disorder characterised by the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cocaine is a psychostimulant used by approximately 0.4% of the general population worldwide. Cocaine dependence is a chronic mental disorder characterised by the inability to control cocaine use and a host of severe medical and psychosocial complications. There is current no approved pharmacological treatment for cocaine dependence. Some researchers have proposed disulfiram, a medication approved to treat alcohol use disorder. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2010.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of disulfiram for the treatment of cocaine dependence.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to August 2022: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via two trials registries. We handsearched the references of topic-related systematic reviews and included studies. The searches had no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated disulfiram alone or associated with psychosocial interventions versus placebo, no intervention, other pharmacological interventions, or any psychosocial intervention for the treatment of cocaine dependence.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen studies (1191 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Disulfiram versus placebo or no treatment Disulfiram compared to placebo may increase the number of people who are abstinent at the end of treatment (point abstinence; risk ratio (RR) 1.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 2.36; 3 datasets, 142 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment, disulfiram may have little or no effect on frequency of cocaine use (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.11 standard deviations (SDs), 95% CI -0.39 to 0.17; 13 datasets, 818 participants), amount of cocaine use (SMD -0.00 SDs, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.30; 7 datasets, 376 participants), continuous abstinence (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.91; 6 datasets, 386 participants), and dropout for any reason (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.55; 14 datasets, 841 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low for all these outcomes. We are unsure about the effects of disulfiram versus placebo on dropout due to adverse events (RR 12.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 218.37; 1 study, 67 participants) and on the occurrence of adverse events (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 25.98), because the certainty of the evidence was very low for these outcomes. Disulfiram versus naltrexone Disulfiram compared with naltrexone may reduce the frequency of cocaine use (mean difference (MD) -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.37 to -0.43; 2 datasets, 123 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may have little or no effect on amount of cocaine use (SMD 0.12 SDs, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.51, 2 datasets, 123 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are unsure about the effect of disulfiram versus naltrexone on dropout for any reason (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.32, 3 datasets, 131 participants) and dropout due to adverse events (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55; 1 dataset, 8 participants), because the certainty of the evidence was very low for these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our results show that disulfiram compared to placebo may increase point abstinence. However, disulfiram compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment may have little or no effect on frequency of cocaine use, amount of cocaine use, continued abstinence, and dropout for any reason. We are unsure if disulfiram has any adverse effects in this population. Caution is required when transferring our results to clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Disulfiram; Cocaine-Related Disorders; Naltrexone; Alcoholism; Cocaine
PubMed: 38180268
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007024.pub3 -
JAMA Nov 2023Alcohol use disorder affects more than 28.3 million people in the United States and is associated with increased rates of morbidity and mortality. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Alcohol use disorder affects more than 28.3 million people in the United States and is associated with increased rates of morbidity and mortality.
OBJECTIVE
To compare efficacy and comparative efficacy of therapies for alcohol use disorder.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Trials Registry, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched from November 2012 to September 9, 2022 Literature was subsequently systematically monitored to identify relevant articles up to August 14, 2023, and the PubMed search was updated on August 14, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
For efficacy outcomes, randomized clinical trials of at least 12 weeks' duration were included. For adverse effects, randomized clinical trials and prospective cohort studies that compared drug therapies and reported health outcomes or harms were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers evaluated each study, assessed risk of bias, and graded strength of evidence. Meta-analyses used random-effects models. Numbers needed to treat were calculated for medications with at least moderate strength of evidence for benefit.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was alcohol consumption. Secondary outcomes were motor vehicle crashes, injuries, quality of life, function, mortality, and harms.
RESULTS
Data from 118 clinical trials and 20 976 participants were included. The numbers needed to treat to prevent 1 person from returning to any drinking were 11 (95% CI, 1-32) for acamprosate and 18 (95% CI, 4-32) for oral naltrexone at a dose of 50 mg/d. Compared with placebo, oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) was associated with lower rates of return to heavy drinking, with a number needed to treat of 11 (95% CI, 5-41). Injectable naltrexone was associated with fewer drinking days over the 30-day treatment period (weighted mean difference, -4.99 days; 95% CI, -9.49 to -0.49 days) Adverse effects included higher gastrointestinal distress for acamprosate (diarrhea: risk ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.27-1.97) and naltrexone (nausea: risk ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.51-1.98; vomiting: risk ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.23-1.91) compared with placebo.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In conjunction with psychosocial interventions, these findings support the use of oral naltrexone at 50 mg/d and acamprosate as first-line pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorder.
Topics: Humans; Acamprosate; Alcohol Drinking; Alcoholism; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Naltrexone; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; United States; Alcohol Deterrents; Psychosocial Intervention
PubMed: 37934220
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.19761 -
European Journal of Clinical... Apr 2024Considering the conflicting effects of bupropion on parameters related to metabolic syndrome including glucose metabolism and lipid profile, in this meta-analysis study,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Changes in lipid profile and glucose metabolism following administration of bupropion alone or in combination with naltrexone: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis.
BACKGROUND
Considering the conflicting effects of bupropion on parameters related to metabolic syndrome including glucose metabolism and lipid profile, in this meta-analysis study, we investigated the effects of this drug alone or in combination with naltrexone on glucose metabolism and lipid profile.
METHODS
Scopus, PubMed/Medline, Web of Science and Embase databases were searched using standard keywords to identify all controlled trials investigating effects of bupropion alone and combined with naltrexone on the glucose and lipid profile. Pooled weighted mean difference and 95% confidence intervals were achieved by random-effects model.
RESULTS
Twelve studies with 5152 participants' were included in this article. The pooled findings showed that bupropion alone or in combination with naltrexone would significantly reduce glucose (weighted mean difference (WMD): -2.25 mg/dL, 95% confidence interval (CI): -4.10, -0.40), insulin (WMD: -4.06 μU/mL, 95% CI: -6.09, -2.03), homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (WMD: -0.58, 95% CI: -0.98, -0.19), triglyceride (TG) (WMD: -11.78 mg/dL, 95% CI: -14.48 to -9.08) and increase high-density lipoprotein (HDL) (WMD: 2.68 mg/dL, 95% CI: 2.13 to 3.24). A Greater reduction in glucose levels was observed with duration >26 weeks. Dose of bupropion intake ≤360 mg and intervention for more than 26 weeks decreased insulin level significantly. With regard to lipid profile, reduction of triglycerides is more significant with dose of bupropion greater than 360 mg and a shorter intervention length equal to 26 weeks.
CONCLUSIONS
The addition of combination therapies such as bupropion and naltrexone to lifestyle modification can significantly improve glucose metabolism and some lipid parameters.
Topics: Humans; Bupropion; Dietary Supplements; Glucose; Insulin; Naltrexone; Triglycerides
PubMed: 37929909
DOI: 10.1111/eci.14122 -
European Journal of Clinical... Mar 2024Considering the conflicting effects of bupropion on parameters related to cardiovascular system including blood pressure and inflammation, in this meta-analysis study,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The effects of bupropion alone and combined with naltrexone on blood pressure and CRP concentration: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Considering the conflicting effects of bupropion on parameters related to cardiovascular system including blood pressure and inflammation, in this meta-analysis study, we investigated the effects of this drug alone or in combination with naltrexone on systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and C-reactive protein (CRP).
METHODS
Scopus, PubMed/Medline, Web of Science and Embase databases were searched using standard keywords to identify all controlled trials investigating effects of bupropion alone and combined with naltrexone on the BP and CRP. Pooled weighted mean difference and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were achieved by random-effects model analysis for the best estimation of outcomes.
RESULTS
The pooled findings showed that that bupropion alone or in combination with naltrexone would significantly increase SBP (weighted mean difference (WMD): 1.34 mmHg, 95% CI: 0.38-2.29) and DBP (WMD: 0.93 mmHg, 95% CI 0.88-0.99) as well as decrease CRP (WMD: -0.89 mg/L, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.70). The findings of the subgroup also show the greater effect of bupropion on blood pressure (SBP and DBP) increase in a dose greater than 360 mg and a duration of intervention less equal to 26 weeks. In addition, the subgroup analysis showed that changes in SBP after receiving bupropion together with naltrexone were more compared to bupropion alone.
CONCLUSIONS
The addition of combination therapies such as bupropion and naltrexone can significantly improve CRP levels. However, its effect on blood pressure requires proper management of this drug.
Topics: Humans; Blood Pressure; C-Reactive Protein; Naltrexone; Bupropion; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Regression Analysis; Hypertension
PubMed: 37924302
DOI: 10.1111/eci.14118 -
Neurogastroenterology and Motility Dec 2023Constipation is frequent in critically ill patients, and potentially related to adverse outcomes. Peripherally-active mu-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Peripherally-active mu-opioid receptor antagonists for constipation in critically ill patients receiving opioids: A case-series and a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.
BACKGROUND
Constipation is frequent in critically ill patients, and potentially related to adverse outcomes. Peripherally-active mu-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) are approved for opioid-induced constipation, but information on their efficacy and safety in critically ill patients is limited. We present a single-center, retrospective, case-series of the use of naldemedine for opioid-associated constipation, and we systematically reviewed the use of PAMORAs in critically ill patients.
METHODS
Case-series included consecutive mechanically-ventilated patients; constipation was defined as absence of bowel movements for >3 days. Naldemedine was administered after failure of the local laxation protocol. Systematic review: PubMed was searched for studies of PAMORAs to treat opioid-induced constipation in adult critically ill patients.
PRIMARY OUTCOMES
time to laxation, and number of patients laxating at the shortest follow-up.
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
gastric residual volumes and adverse events.
KEY RESULTS
A total of 13 patients were included in the case-series; the most common diagnosis was COVID-19 ARDS. Patients had their first bowel movement 1 [0;2] day after naldemedine. Daily gastric residual volume was 725 [405;1805] before vs. 250 [45;1090] mL after naldemedine, p = 0.0078. Systematic review identified nine studies (two RCTs, one prospective case-series, three retrospective case-series and three case-reports). Outcomes were similar between groups, with a trend toward a lower gastric residual volume in PAMORAs group.
CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES
In a highly-selected case-series of patients with refractory, opioid-associated constipation, naldemedine was safe and associated to reduced gastric residuals and promoting laxation. In the systematic review and meta-analysis, the use of PAMORAs (mainly methylnaltrexone) was safe and associated with a reduced intolerance to enteral feeding but no difference in the time to laxation.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Narcotic Antagonists; Analgesics, Opioid; Constipation; Opioid-Induced Constipation; Retrospective Studies; Critical Illness; Naltrexone; Laxatives
PubMed: 37869768
DOI: 10.1111/nmo.14694 -
The Australian and New Zealand Journal... Feb 2024Alcohol use disorders confer a significant burden of disease and economic cost worldwide. However, the utilisation of pharmacotherapies to manage alcohol use disorder is... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Alcohol use disorders confer a significant burden of disease and economic cost worldwide. However, the utilisation of pharmacotherapies to manage alcohol use disorder is poor. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of economic evaluation studies of alcohol use disorder pharmacotherapies.
METHODS
A search was conducted in Embase, Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO and EconLit (August 2019, updated September 2022). Full economic evaluations using pharmacotherapy to treat alcohol use disorders were included. Included studies were stratified by medication and summarised descriptively. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list was used to assess the methodological quality.
RESULTS
A total of 1139 studies were retrieved, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. All studies were conducted in high-income countries. Four studies analysed nalmefene, four studies assessed acamprosate, three for naltrexone and four for stand-alone and/or combinations of naltrexone and acamprosate. There were 21 interventions synthesised from 15 studies as some studies evaluated multiple interventions and comparators. More than half of the included studies (73%) reported pharmacotherapy as dominant (less costly and more effective than comparators). From healthcare payer perspectives, five studies found that pharmacotherapy added to psychosocial support was dominant or cost-effective, accruing additional benefits at a higher cost but under accepted willingness to pay thresholds. Three analyses from a societal perspective found pharmacotherapy added to psychosocial support was a dominant or cost-effective strategy. Quality scores ranged from 63% to 95%.
CONCLUSION
Pharmacotherapy added to psychosocial support was cost-effective from both healthcare and societal perspectives, emphasising an increased role for pharmacotherapy to reduce the burden of alcohol use disorders.
Topics: Humans; Alcoholism; Acamprosate; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Naltrexone; Alcohol Drinking; Ethanol
PubMed: 37822267
DOI: 10.1177/00048674231201541