-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023Germinal matrix hemorrhage and intraventricular hemorrhage (GMH-IVH) may contribute to neonatal morbidity and mortality and result in long-term neurodevelopmental... (Review)
Review
Pharmacological pain and sedation interventions for the prevention of intraventricular hemorrhage in preterm infants on assisted ventilation - an overview of systematic reviews.
BACKGROUND
Germinal matrix hemorrhage and intraventricular hemorrhage (GMH-IVH) may contribute to neonatal morbidity and mortality and result in long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae. Appropriate pain and sedation management in ventilated preterm infants may decrease the risk of GMH-IVH; however, it might be associated with harms.
OBJECTIVES
To summarize the evidence from systematic reviews regarding the effects and safety of pharmacological interventions related to pain and sedation management in order to prevent GMH-IVH in ventilated preterm infants.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Library August 2022 for reviews on pharmacological interventions for pain and sedation management to prevent GMH-IVH in ventilated preterm infants (< 37 weeks' gestation). We included Cochrane Reviews assessing the following interventions administered within the first week of life: benzodiazepines, paracetamol, opioids, ibuprofen, anesthetics, barbiturates, and antiadrenergics. Primary outcomes were any GMH-IVH (aGMH-IVH), severe IVH (sIVH), all-cause neonatal death (ACND), and major neurodevelopmental disability (MND). We assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using the AMSTAR-2 tool. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven Cochrane Reviews and one Cochrane Review protocol. The reviews on clonidine and paracetamol did not include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) matching our inclusion criteria. We included 40 RCTs (3791 infants) from reviews on paracetamol for patent ductus arteriosus (3), midazolam (3), phenobarbital (9), opioids (20), and ibuprofen (5). The quality of the included reviews was high. The certainty of the evidence was moderate to very low, because of serious imprecision and study limitations. Germinal matrix hemorrhage-intraventricular hemorrhage (any grade) Compared to placebo or no intervention, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of paracetamol on aGMH-IVH (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 2.07; 2 RCTs, 82 infants; very low-certainty evidence); midazolam may result in little to no difference in the incidence of aGMH-IVH (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.87 to 3.24; 3 RCTs, 122 infants; low-certainty evidence); the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital on aGMH-IVH (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; 9 RCTs, 732 infants; very low-certainty evidence); opioids may result in little to no difference in aGMH-IVH (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; 7 RCTs, 469 infants; low-certainty evidence); ibuprofen likely results in little to no difference in aGMH-IVH (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; 4 RCTs, 759 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to ibuprofen, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of paracetamol on aGMH-IVH (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.31 to 4.34; 1 RCT, 30 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to midazolam, morphine may result in a reduction in aGMH-IVH (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.87; 1 RCT, 46 infants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to diamorphine, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of morphine on aGMH-IVH (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.07; 1 RCT, 88 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Severe intraventricular hemorrhage (grade 3 to 4) Compared to placebo or no intervention, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of paracetamol on sIVH (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.43 to 7.49; 2 RCTs, 82 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and of phenobarbital (grade 3 to 4) (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.25; 9 RCTs, 732 infants; very low-certainty evidence); opioids may result in little to no difference in sIVH (grade 3 to 4) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.34; 6 RCTs, 1299 infants; low-certainty evidence); ibuprofen may result in little to no difference in sIVH (grade 3 to 4) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.26; 4 RCTs, 747 infants; low-certainty evidence). No studies on midazolam reported this outcome. Compared to ibuprofen, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of paracetamol on sIVH (RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.12 to 60.21; 1 RCT, 30 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to midazolam, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of morphine on sIVH (grade 3 to 4) (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.43; 1 RCT, 46 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to fentanyl, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of morphine on sIVH (grade 3 to 4) (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.95; 1 RCT, 163 infants; very low-certainty evidence). All-cause neonatal death Compared to placebo or no intervention, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital on ACND (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.72; 3 RCTs, 203 infants; very low-certainty evidence); opioids likely result in little to no difference in ACND (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.55; 5 RCTs, 1189 infants; moderate-certainty evidence); the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen on ACND (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.64; 2 RCTs, 112 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to midazolam, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of morphine on ACND (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.16; 1 RCT, 46 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to diamorphine, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of morphine on ACND (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.43 to 3.19; 1 RCT, 88 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Major neurodevelopmental disability Compared to placebo, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on MND at 18 to 24 months (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.39 to 10.29; 1 RCT, 78 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and at five to six years (RR 1.6, 95% CI 0.56 to 4.56; 1 RCT, 95 infants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies on other drugs reported this outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
None of the reported studies had an impact on aGMH-IVH, sIVH, ACND, or MND. The certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low. Large RCTs of rigorous methodology are needed to achieve an optimal information size to assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for pain and sedation management for the prevention of GMH-IVH and mortality in preterm infants. Studies might compare interventions against either placebo or other drugs. Reporting of the outcome data should include the assessment of GMH-IVH and long-term neurodevelopment.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Ibuprofen; Acetaminophen; Midazolam; Analgesics, Opioid; Respiration, Artificial; Heroin; Perinatal Death; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Infant, Premature; Pain; Cerebral Hemorrhage; Phenobarbital
PubMed: 37565681
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012706.pub2 -
JAMA Network Open Aug 2023Patients undergoing spine surgery often experience severe pain. The optimal dosage of pregabalin and gabapentin for pain control and safety in these patients has not... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Patients undergoing spine surgery often experience severe pain. The optimal dosage of pregabalin and gabapentin for pain control and safety in these patients has not been well established.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the associations of pain, opioid consumption, and adverse events with different dosages of pregabalin and gabapentin in patients undergoing spine surgery.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and Scopus databases were searched for articles until August 7, 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials conducted among patients who received pregabalin or gabapentin while undergoing spine surgery were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two investigators independently performed data extraction following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) reporting guideline. The network meta-analysis was conducted from August 2022 to February 2023 using a random-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was pain intensity measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and secondary outcomes included opioid consumption and adverse events.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven randomized clinical trials with 1861 patients (median age, 45.99 years [range, 20.00-70.00 years]; 759 women [40.8%]) were included in the systematic review and network meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, the VAS pain score was lowest with gabapentin 900 mg per day, followed by gabapentin 1200 mg per day, gabapentin 600 mg per day, gabapentin 300 mg per day, pregabalin 300 mg per day, pregabalin 150 mg per day, and pregabalin 75 mg per day. Additionally, gabapentin 900 mg per day was found to be associated with the lowest opioid consumption among all dosages of gabapentin and pregabalin, with a mean difference of -22.07% (95% CI, -33.22% to -10.92%) for the surface under the cumulative ranking curve compared with placebo. There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events (nausea, vomiting, and dizziness) among all treatments. No substantial inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence was detected for all outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These findings suggest that gabapentin 900 mg per day before spine surgery is associated with the lowest VAS pain score among all dosages. In addition, no differences in adverse events were noted among all treatments.
Topics: Humans; Female; Middle Aged; Gabapentin; Pregabalin; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37556139
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.28121 -
Pediatric Emergency Care Feb 2024To systematically appraise the literature on the relative effectiveness of pharmacologic procedural distress management agents for children undergoing laceration repair.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically appraise the literature on the relative effectiveness of pharmacologic procedural distress management agents for children undergoing laceration repair.
METHODS
Six databases were searched in August 2021, and the search was updated in January 2023. We included completed randomized or quasi-randomized trials involving ( a ) children younger than 15 years undergoing laceration repair in the emergency department; ( b ) randomization to at least one anxiolytic, sedative, and/or analgesic agent versus any comparator agent or placebo; ( c ) efficacy of procedural distress management measured on any scale. Secondary outcomes were pain during the procedure, administration acceptance, sedation duration, additional sedation, length of stay, and stakeholder satisfaction. Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias tool assessed individual studies. Ranges and proportions summarized results where applicable.
RESULTS
Among 21 trials (n = 1621 participants), the most commonly studied anxiolytic agents were midazolam, ketamine, and N 2 O. Oral midazolam, oral ketamine, and N 2 O were found to reduce procedural distress more effectively than their comparators in 4, 3, and 2 studies, respectively. Eight studies comparing routes, doses, or volumes of administration of the same agent led to indeterminate results. Meta-analysis was not performed because of heterogeneity in comparators, routes, and outcome measures across studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on procedural distress reduction, this study favors oral midazolam and oral ketamine. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution because of heterogeneous comparators across studies and minor conflicting results. An optimal agent for procedural distress management cannot be recommended based on the limited evidence. Future research should seek to identify the minimal, essential measures of patient distress during pharmacologic anxiolysis and/or sedation in laceration repair to guide future trials and reviews.
Topics: Child; Humans; Midazolam; Ketamine; Lacerations; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Analgesics
PubMed: 37487548
DOI: 10.1097/PEC.0000000000003020 -
Annals of Clinical Psychiatry :... Aug 2023Catatonia due to a general medical condition may result from a variety of causes, including substance intoxication and withdrawal. Stimulants are occasionally associated...
BACKGROUND
Catatonia due to a general medical condition may result from a variety of causes, including substance intoxication and withdrawal. Stimulants are occasionally associated with catatonia, though there has been little investigation of methamphetamine's relationship to catatonia. Here we present 5 cases of catatonia associated with methamphetamine use and a systematic review of the associated literature from 1943 to 2020.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the literature and present 5 cases of catatonia evaluated using the Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale and KANNER catatonia rating scale.
RESULTS
Methamphetamine use was associated with catatonia in a small number of cases in the literature. However, some of these reports included other possible etiologies. The patients in our case series met DSM-5 criteria for catatonia due to a general medical condition, with all reporting recent methamphetamine use and testing positive for amphetamines on urine drug screen.
CONCLUSIONS
Given the ongoing rise in methamphetamine use in the United States, it is important that clinicians understand that methamphetamine use can be associated with catatonia. Patients with methamphetamine-associated catatonia may respond favorably to lorazepam and require shorter hospital stays than other catatonic patients. Lastly, methamphetamine-associated catatonia highlights how alteration in dopamine function and projections may be a critical neural mechanism underlying catatonia in general.
Topics: Humans; Catatonia; Methamphetamine; Lorazepam; Research; Central Nervous System Stimulants
PubMed: 37459499
DOI: 10.12788/acp.0116 -
The International Journal of Risk &... 2023Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurological disorders, affecting more than 50 million people globally. In this review we summarised the evidence from... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurological disorders, affecting more than 50 million people globally. In this review we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials of gabapentin used as monotherapy for the treatment of focal epilepsy, both newly diagnosed and drug-resistant, with or without secondary generalisation.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effects of gabapentin monotherapy for people with epileptic focal seizures with and without secondary generalisation.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 24 February 2020) on 25 February 2020. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRA), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We also searched several Russian databases, reference lists of relevant studies, ongoing trials registers, conference proceedings, and we contacted trial authors.
RESULTS
We found five randomised controlled trials (3167 participants) comparing gabapentin to other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and differing doses of gabapentin as monotherapy for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy and drug- resistant focal epilepsy with or without secondary generalisation. Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality, risk of bias, and extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence and present seven patient-important outcomes in the "Summary of findings" tables. The quality of evidence was very low to moderate due to poor reporting quality, poor trial design, and other risks of bias, such as selective presentation of findings and potential heavy industry input. Better quality research may change our certainty in the effect estimates. None of the included trials reported on the number of people with 50% or greater reduction in seizures and time to withdrawal (retention time) in an extractable way. Gabapentin-treated participants were more likely to withdraw from treatment for any cause (285/539) than those treated with lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate pooled together (695/1317) (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.25; 3 studies, 1856 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but not carbamazepine. Fewer people treated with gabapentin withdrew from treatment owing to adverse events (190/525) than those treated with carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate (479/1238), (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.91; 1763 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), but not lamotrigine.
CONCLUSION
Gabapentin as monotherapy probably controlled seizures no better and no worse than comparator AEDs (lamotrigine, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and topiramate). Compared to carbamazepine, gabapentin was probably better in retaining people in studies and preventing withdrawals due to adverse events. The most common side effects associated with gabapentin were ataxia (poor co-ordination and unsteady gait), dizziness, fatigue, and drowsiness.
Topics: Humans; Gabapentin; Oxcarbazepine; Topiramate; Epilepsy; Anticonvulsants; Epilepsies, Partial; Seizures; Lamotrigine; Carbamazepine; Drug Resistant Epilepsy
PubMed: 37393439
DOI: 10.3233/JRS-235001 -
Arquivos de Neuro-psiquiatria Jun 2023Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global health problem, and gabapentin and pregabalin are often used in the treatment of patients without associated radiculopathy or...
BACKGROUND
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global health problem, and gabapentin and pregabalin are often used in the treatment of patients without associated radiculopathy or neuropathy. Therefore, determining their efficacy and safety is of enormous value.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the efficacy and safety of using gabapentin and pregabalin for CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy.
METHODS
We performed a search on the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and Web of Science data bases for clinical trials, cohorts, and case-control studies that evaluated patients with CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy for at least eight weeks. The data were extracted and inserted into a previously-prepared Microsoft Excel spreadsheet; the outcomes were evaluated using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and the quality of evidence, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.
RESULTS
Of the 2,230 articles identified, only 5 were included, totaling 242 participants. In them, pregabalin was slightly less efficacious than amitriptyline, the combination of tramadol/acetaminophen, and celecoxib, and pregabalin added to celecoxib showed no benefit when compared to celecoxib alone (very low evidence for all). On the other hand, although one study with gabapentin did not support its use in a general sample of patients with low back pain, another found a reduction in the pain scale and improved mobility (moderate evidence). No serious adverse events were observed in any of the studies.
CONCLUSION
Quality information to support the use of pregabalin or gabapentin in the treatment of CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy is lacking, although results may suggest gabapentin as a viable option. More data is needed to fill this current gap in knowledge.
Topics: Humans; Radiculopathy; Gabapentin; Pregabalin; Low Back Pain; Celecoxib
PubMed: 37379868
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1764414 -
Medicine Jun 2023The analgesic sedation of dexmedetomidine compared with midazolam for third molar surgery remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The analgesic sedation of dexmedetomidine compared with midazolam for third molar surgery remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for third molar surgery.
METHODS
We have searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through December 2022 for randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for third molar surgery. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model.
RESULTS
Four randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with midazolam for third molar surgery, dexmedetomidine administration leads to comparable oxygen saturation (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.24 to 0.74; P = .31), heart rate (SMD = -0.37; 95% CI = -1.18 to 0.44; P = .37), SBP (SMD = -0.24; 95% CI = -0.57 to 0.09; P = .16), DBP (SMD = -0.26; 95% CI = -0.60 to 0.07; P = .12), as well as nausea and vomiting (OR = 0.58; 95% CI = 0.05-6.61; P = .66).
CONCLUSIONS
Dexmedetomidine may obtain the comparable sedation efficacy with midazolam for third molar surgery.
Topics: Humans; Midazolam; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Dexmedetomidine; Molar, Third; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37352026
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000033155 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Sep 2023Peripheral regional anaesthesia is frequently used for upper extremity surgery. To prolong the duration of analgesia, adjuvants can be added to single-injection local... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The effect of adjuvants added to local anaesthetics for single-injection upper extremity peripheral regional anaesthesia: A systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomised trials.
BACKGROUND
Peripheral regional anaesthesia is frequently used for upper extremity surgery. To prolong the duration of analgesia, adjuvants can be added to single-injection local anaesthetics. Despite attempts to compare several adjuvants in pairwise meta-analyses, a comprehensive comparison is still missing.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this network meta-analysis was to determine the effectiveness of adjuvants in upper extremity peripheral nerve blocks.
DESIGN
A systematic review of randomised controlled trials with network meta-analyses.
DATA SOURCES
A literature search in Embase, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Web of Science was performed up to March 2023.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomised trials comparing different adjuvants injected perineurally in peripheral upper extremity nerve blocks were eligible. Frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model with physiological saline as the comparator. The primary endpoint was the ratio of means (ROM) of the duration of analgesia.
RESULTS
The review included 242 randomised controlled trials with a total of 17 391 patients. Twenty-eight adjuvants were compared in the largest networks. Most network estimations consisted of a high proportion of direct evidence. Fourteen adjuvants increased the duration of analgesia significantly by the following factors, ROM [95% confidence interval (CI)]: dexamethasone 1.95 (1.79 to 2.13), buprenorphine 1.83 (1.51 to 2.24), butorphanol 1.84 (1.41 to 2.39), potassium chloride 1.89 (1.15 to 3.11), dexmedetomidine 1.70 (1.59 to 1.81), sufentanil 1.70 (1.27 to 2.29), ketorolac 1.68 (1.24 to 2.27), midazolam 1.55 (1.24 to 1.94), tramadol 1.52 (1.32 to 1.75), nalbuphine 1.50 (1.30 to 1.72), morphine 1.43 (1.09 to 1.88), magnesium sulfate 1.42 (1.20 to 1.67), clonidine 1.36 (1.24 to 1.50) and fentanyl 1.23 (1.08 to 1.40). Inconsistency in network meta-analysis was substantial. Overall side effect rates were low with all adjuvants.
CONCLUSION
The best interventions to prolong the duration of analgesia were dexamethasone, followed by dexmedetomidine, opioids, electrolytes, ketorolac and midazolam. There are general concerns about the quality of underlying studies and the risk of publication bias.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018115722.
Topics: Humans; Anesthetics, Local; Network Meta-Analysis; Midazolam; Dexmedetomidine; Ketorolac; Anesthesia, Conduction; Pain; Upper Extremity; Dexamethasone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37337656
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001860 -
Medicine Jun 2023Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF), as a new technique, is used to treat a variety of chronic pain syndromes, but it has a high recurrence rate for herpetic neuralgia and is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF), as a new technique, is used to treat a variety of chronic pain syndromes, but it has a high recurrence rate for herpetic neuralgia and is often combined with drugs therapy. The aim of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of PRF combined with pregabalin in the treatment of herpetic neuralgia.
METHODS
The electronic databases, including CNKI, Wanfang data, PubMed, Embase, web of science, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January 31, 2023. The outcomes were pain scores, sleep quality and side effects.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies with 1817 patients were included in this meta-analysis. PRF combined with pregabalin significantly reduced the visual analogue scale/score in patients with postherpetic neuralgia or herpes zoster neuralgia when compared with pregabalin or PRF monotherapy [P < .00001, standardized mean difference (SMD) = -2.01, confidence intervals (CI) = -2.36 to -1.66; P < .00001, SMD = -0.69, CI = -0.77 to -0.61]. Compared with pregabalin monotherapy, PRF combined with pregabalin significantly decreased the pittsburgh sleep quality index score, the dosage and number of days of using pregabalin (P < .00001, SMD = -1.68, CI = -2.19 to -1.17; P < .00001, SMD = -0.94, CI = -1.25 to -0.64; P < .00001, SMD = -1.52, CI = -1.85 to -1.19). However, there was no significant difference in the effect of PRF combined with pregabalin versus PRF alone on pittsburgh sleep quality index score in patients with postherpetic neuralgia (P = .70, SMD = -1.02, CI = -6.11 to 4.07). In addition, PRF combined with pregabalin could significantly decrease the incidence of dizziness, somnolence, ataxia and pain at puncture site when compared with pregabalin monotherapy (P = .0007, odds ratio [OR] = 0.56, CI = 0.40 to 0.78; P = .008, OR = 0.60, CI = 0.41 to 0.88; P = .008, OR = 0.52, CI = 0.32 to 0.84; P = .0007, OR = 12.39, CI = 2.87 to 53.43), but no significant difference was observed when compared with PRF alone.
CONCLUSIONS
PRF combined with pregabalin can effectively alleviate the pain intensity and improve sleep quality in patients with herpetic neuralgia, and the incidence of complications was low, so it was worthy of clinical application.
Topics: Humans; Pregabalin; Neuralgia, Postherpetic; Pulsed Radiofrequency Treatment; Neuralgia; Herpes Zoster; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37335664
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000033932 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Pain is a common symptom in people with cancer; 30% to 50% of people with cancer will experience moderate-to-severe pain. This can have a major negative impact on their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pain is a common symptom in people with cancer; 30% to 50% of people with cancer will experience moderate-to-severe pain. This can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine-like) medications are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. Pain is not sufficiently relieved by opioid medications in 10% to 15% of people with cancer. In people with insufficient relief of cancer pain, new analgesics are needed to effectively and safely supplement or replace opioids.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines, including medical cannabis, for treating pain and other symptoms in adults with cancer compared to placebo or any other established analgesic for cancer pain.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 January 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected double-blind randomised, controlled trials (RCT) of medical cannabis, plant-derived and synthetic cannabis-based medicines against placebo or any other active treatment for cancer pain in adults, with any treatment duration and at least 10 participants per treatment arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. The primary outcomes were 1. proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain; 2. Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved and 3. withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were 4. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater and overall opioid use reduced or stable; 5. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater, or 50% or greater; 6. pain intensity; 7. sleep problems; 8. depression and anxiety; 9. daily maintenance and breakthrough opioid dosage; 10. dropouts due to lack of efficacy; 11. all central nervous system adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 14 studies involving 1823 participants. No study assessed the proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain on treatment by 14 days after start of treatment. We found five RCTs assessing oromucosal nabiximols (tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD)) or THC alone involving 1539 participants with moderate or severe pain despite opioid therapy. The double-blind periods of the RCTs ranged between two and five weeks. Four studies with a parallel design and 1333 participants were available for meta-analysis. There was moderate-certainty evidence that there was no clinically relevant benefit for proportions of PGIC much or very much improved (risk difference (RD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.12; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 16, 95% CI 8 to 100). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of withdrawals due to adverse events (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0 to 0.08; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 25, 95% CI 16 to endless). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no difference between nabiximols or THC and placebo in the frequency of serious adverse events (RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07). There was moderate-certainty evidence that nabiximols and THC used as add-on treatment for opioid-refractory cancer pain did not differ from placebo in reducing mean pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.02). There was low-certainty evidence that a synthetic THC analogue (nabilone) delivered over eight weeks was not superior to placebo in reducing pain associated with chemotherapy or radiochemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer (2 studies, 89 participants, qualitative analysis). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies. There was low-certainty evidence that synthetic THC analogues were superior to placebo (SMD -0.98, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.60), but not superior to low-dose codeine (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.32; 5 single-dose trials; 126 participants) in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain after cessation of previous analgesic treatment for three to four and a half hours (2 single-dose trials; 66 participants). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies. There was low-certainty evidence that CBD oil did not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain intensity in people with advanced cancer. There was no difference in the number of dropouts due to adverse events and serious adverse events (1 study, 144 participants, qualitative analysis). We found no studies using herbal cannabis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-certainty evidence that oromucosal nabiximols and THC are ineffective in relieving moderate-to-severe opioid-refractory cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that nabilone is ineffective in reducing pain associated with (radio-) chemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. There is low-certainty evidence that a single dose of synthetic THC analogues is not superior to a single low-dose morphine equivalent in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that CBD does not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain in people with advanced cancer.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Cancer Pain; Cannabis; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Codeine; Lung Neoplasms; Medical Marijuana; Morphine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37283486
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014915.pub2