-
Experimental Biology and Medicine... Nov 2023The opioid epidemic has become a serious national crisis in the United States. An indepth systematic analysis of opioid-related adverse events (AEs) can clarify the...
The opioid epidemic has become a serious national crisis in the United States. An indepth systematic analysis of opioid-related adverse events (AEs) can clarify the risks presented by opioid exposure, as well as the individual risk profiles of specific opioid drugs and the potential relationships among the opioids. In this study, 92 opioids were identified from the list of all Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs, annotated by RxNorm and were classified into 13 opioid groups: buprenorphine, codeine, dihydrocodeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, meperidine, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, tapentadol, and tramadol. A total of 14,970,399 AE reports were retrieved and downloaded from the FDA Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) from 2004, Quarter 1 to 2020, Quarter 3. After data processing, Empirical Bayes Geometric Mean (EBGM) was then applied which identified 3317 pairs of potential risk signals within the 13 opioid groups. Based on these potential safety signals, a comparative analysis was pursued to provide a global overview of opioid-related AEs for all 13 groups of FDA-approved prescription opioids. The top 10 most reported AEs for each opioid class were then presented. Both network analysis and hierarchical clustering analysis were conducted to further explore the relationship between opioids. Results from the network analysis revealed a close association among fentanyl, oxycodone, hydrocodone, and hydromorphone, which shared more than 22 AEs. In addition, much less commonly reported AEs were shared among dihydrocodeine, meperidine, oxymorphone, and tapentadol. On the contrary, the hierarchical clustering analysis further categorized the 13 opioid classes into two groups by comparing the full profiles of presence/absence of AEs. The results of network analysis and hierarchical clustering analysis were not only consistent and cross-validated each other but also provided a better and deeper understanding of the associations and relationships between the 13 opioid groups with respect to their adverse effect profiles.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Bayes Theorem; Data Mining; Fentanyl; Hydrocodone; Hydromorphone; Meperidine; Oxycodone; Oxymorphone; Tapentadol; United States
PubMed: 38158803
DOI: 10.1177/15353702231211860 -
Research in Social & Administrative... Mar 2024Access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) among racial/ethnic minorities is a growing concern. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) among racial/ethnic minorities is a growing concern.
OBJECTIVES
Inequalities in receiving MOUD among gender and racial/ethnic groups were examined in this systematic review.
METHODS
Studies were retrieved by searching various databases and reference lists of reviews and selected full texts. Adjusted Odds Ratios (AORs) comparing MOUDs among racial/ethnic minorities to Whites were extracted or estimated from their findings. Meta-analysis was performed using STATA 17.
RESULTS
After screening 2438 records, 19 studies were included in this review in two categories. The first category consists of 11 studies comparing receiving MOUD between different races/ethnicities and genders at the individual level. The meta-analysis regarding AORs comparing Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans/Alaska-Natives, Hawaiians, and mixed-race patients with Whites were 0.56 (95 % CI: 0.45-0.68), 0.72 (95 % CI: 0.55-0.94), 0.85 (95 % CI: 0.72-0.99), 0.88 (95%CI: 0.73-1.04), 0.27 (95 % CI: 0.03-2.18), and 0.97 (95 % CI: 0.81-1.16), respectively. The AOR of receiving MOUD for all minorities compared to Whites was 0.70 (95 % CI: 0.61-0.80). Overall AOR comparing MOUD for females to males was 0.95 (95 % CI: 0.87-1.04). The second category of articles compared buprenorphine and methadone treatment among ethnic/racial minorities and Whites.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians have limited access to MOUD. The findings suggest that methadone is the predominant medication for racial/ethnic minorities, while Whites and high-income communities receive buprenorphine more. It is crucial to re-design policies to bridge the gap in access to MOUD.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Buprenorphine; Ethnicity; Methadone; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Racial Groups; Healthcare Disparities
PubMed: 38101952
DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2023.12.001 -
Cureus Sep 2023Patients with diminished renal function necessitate special care. In patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), opioid analgesics should be prescribed based on the... (Review)
Review
Patients with diminished renal function necessitate special care. In patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), opioid analgesics should be prescribed based on the severity of renal insufficiency; this will determine treatment options at the beginning and throughout the management of pain in CKD patients. The dosage of hydrophilic drugs and drugs with active metabolites should be adjusted according to the severity of CKD, and the process of treatment should be monitored by modifying drug dosages as necessary for background and breakthrough pain. Patients with CKD may benefit from opioid analgesics that are lipophilic, such as methadone, fentanyl, and buprenorphine, as the first line; however, fentanyl is inappropriate for patients undergoing hemodialysis. Opioid prescription in CKD patients is the subject of this systematic review, which aims to compare their safety and efficacy. This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 recommendations. Using three databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar), we collected and reviewed articles, including literature reviews, randomized control trials (RCTs), and systematic reviews published between 1980 and 2022, to enable us to gather enough valuable data on this rare topic. After applying appropriate filters, a total of 109 results were obtained. They were further screened and subjected to quality assessment tools, which finally yielded 11 studies included in this systematic review. This consisted of two RCTs, two systematic reviews, and seven narrative reviews. This review focused on the safety and appropriate use of opioids in patients with CKD. The accumulation of morphine and codeine metabolites may result in neurotoxic side effects. Hydromorphone and oxycodone are considered safe to administer but require careful adjustments in dosage. Common comorbidities among patients with CKD may amplify opioid-related adverse effects.
PubMed: 37727840
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.45485 -
Pain Practice : the Official Journal of... Nov 2023Epidural analgesia is a common technique for managing perioperative and obstetric pain. Patients with cancer who cannot tolerate opioids or not responding to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Epidural analgesia is a common technique for managing perioperative and obstetric pain. Patients with cancer who cannot tolerate opioids or not responding to conventional treatment may benefit from epidural analgesia. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of epidural analgesia in patients with intractable cancer pain.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify studies on patients with cancer who received epidural analgesia. We assessed the quality of all included studies using the risk-of-bias tool or Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The primary outcome was pain relief after epidural analgesia, and the secondary outcome was quality of life, analgesic consumption, and adverse events. The studies were grouped based on the medications used for epidural analgesia. A descriptive synthesis was performed following the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis reporting guideline.
RESULTS
Our systematic review included nine randomized controlled trials (n = 340) and 15 observational studies (n = 926). Two randomized controlled trials suggested that epidural opioids were not superior to systemic opioids in relieving pain. Epidural opioids combined with local anesthetics or adjuvants, including calcitonin, clonidine, ketamine, neostigmine, methadone, and dexamethasone, offered better analgesic effects. No significant difference in pain relief between an intermittent bolus and a continuous infusion of epidural morphine was observed. Epidural opioids had more analgesic effects on nociceptive pain than neuropathic pain. The methods used to evaluate the quality of life and the corresponding results were heterogeneous among studies. Six observational studies demonstrated that some patients could have decreased opioid consumption after epidural analgesia. Adverse events, including complications and drug-related side effects, were reported in 23 studies. Five serious complications, such as epidural abscess and hematoma, required surgical management. The heterogeneity and methodological limitations of the studies hindered meta-analysis and evidence-level determination.
CONCLUSION
Coadministration of epidural opioids, local anesthetics, and adjuvants may provide better pain relief for intractable cancer pain. However, we must assess the patients to ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks before epidural analgesia. Therefore, further high-quality studies are required.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Cancer Pain; Neoplasms; Pain, Postoperative; Quality of Life
PubMed: 37455298
DOI: 10.1111/papr.13273 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH) is an adverse event of prolonged opioid use that increases pain intensity. The optimal drug to prevent these adverse effects is still...
Opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH) is an adverse event of prolonged opioid use that increases pain intensity. The optimal drug to prevent these adverse effects is still unknown. We aimed to conduct a network meta-analysis to compare different pharmacological interventions for preventing the increase in postoperative pain intensity caused by OIH. Several databases were searched independently for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing various pharmacological interventions to prevent OIH. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain intensity at rest after 24 h and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Secondary outcomes included pain threshold at 24 h after surgery, total morphine consumption over 24 h, time to first postoperative analgesic requirement, and shivering incidence. In total, 33 RCTs with 1711 patients were identified. In terms of postoperative pain intensity, amantadine, magnesium sulphate, pregabalin, dexmedetomidine, ibuprofen, flurbiprofen plus dexmedetomidine, parecoxib, parecoxib plus dexmedetomidine, and S (+)-ketamine plus methadone were all associated with milder pain intensity than placebo, with amantadine being the most effective (SUCRA values = 96.2). Regarding PONV incidence, intervention with dexmedetomidine or flurbiprofen plus dexmedetomidine resulted in a lower incidence than placebo, with dexmedetomidine showing the best result (SUCRA values = 90.3). Amantadine was identified as the best in controlling postoperative pain intensity and non-inferior to placebo in the incidence of PONV. Dexmedetomidine was the only intervention that outperformed placebo in all indicators. https://www.crd.york.ac. uk/prospero/display_record.php?, CRD42021225361.
PubMed: 37426819
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1199794 -
Substance abuse and susceptibility to false memory formation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in Psychology 2023Substance abuse has an impact on various cognitive domains, including memory. Even though this impact has been extensively examined across different subdomains, false...
BACKGROUND
Substance abuse has an impact on various cognitive domains, including memory. Even though this impact has been extensively examined across different subdomains, false memory has been sparsely studied. This systematic review and meta-analysis seek to synthesize the current scientific data concerning false memory formation in individuals with a history of substance abuse.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and PsycINFO were searched to identify all experimental and observational studies in English, Portuguese, and Spanish. Studies were then examined by four independent reviewers and, if they met the inclusion criteria, assessed for their quality. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklists for quasi-experimental and analytic cross-sectional studies were used to assess the risk of bias.
RESULTS
From the 443 screened studies, 27 (and two more from other sources) were considered eligible for full-text review. A final 18 studies were included in the present review. Of these, 10 were conducted with alcoholics or heavy drinkers, four focused on ecstasy/polydrug users, three were done with cannabis users and one focused on methadone maintenance patients with current cocaine dependence. Regarding false memory type, 15 studies focused on false recognition/recall, and three on provoked confabulation.
CONCLUSIONS
None but one of the studies considering false recognition/recall of critical lures found any significant differences between individuals with a history of substance abuse and healthy controls. However, most of the studies taking into account false recognition/recall of related and unrelated events found that individuals with a history of substance abuse showed significantly higher rates of false memories than controls. Future research should continue to consider different types of false memories as well as their potential association with relevant clinical variables.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=266503, identifier: CRD42021266503.
PubMed: 37213356
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1176564 -
The International Journal on Drug Policy Jul 2023Historical restrictions on take-home medications for opioid use disorder have generated considerable debate. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the perceived risks and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Historical restrictions on take-home medications for opioid use disorder have generated considerable debate. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the perceived risks and benefits of daily clinic attendance and led to widespread policy reform, creating an unprecedented opportunity to explore the impact of more flexible prescribing. We conducted a qualitative systematic review to synthesize the evidence on providers' experiences with relaxing restrictions on take-home doses of medications prescribed for opioid use disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS
The protocol for this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022360589; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/). From Sept.-Nov. 2022, we searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and the grey literature from 2020 onward. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they used qualitative methods to investigate providers' experiences with relaxed restrictions on take-home medications for opioid use disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic. We appraised study quality using the CASP qualitative checklist and used thematic synthesis and GRADE-CERQual to synthesize the results.
RESULTS
We retrieved 13 articles representing 11 studies. Six were conducted in the United States and most focused on changes to methadone treatment. Providers' experiences with increased flexibilities around take-homes were broadly positive, despite widespread initial concern over client safety and the potential for medication misuse. For a small number of providers, concerns about diversion were a specific manifestation of more general unease with loss of control over clients and the treatment process. Most providers appreciated increased flexibilities and described them as enabling more individualized, person-centered care.
CONCLUSION
Our findings support the continuation of flexibilities around take-homes and demonstrate that regulations and policies that reduce flexibility around take-homes conflict with person-centered approaches to care. Stronger guidance and support from professional regulatory agencies may help increase uptake of flexibilities around take-homes.
Topics: Humans; United States; COVID-19; Pandemics; Opioid-Related Disorders
PubMed: 37182352
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2023.104058 -
The Lancet. Psychiatry Jun 2023Opioid dependence is associated with substantial health and social burdens, and opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is highly effective in improving multiple outcomes for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Opioid dependence is associated with substantial health and social burdens, and opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is highly effective in improving multiple outcomes for people who receive this treatment. Methadone and buprenorphine are common medications provided as OAT. We aimed to examine buprenorphine compared with methadone in the treatment of opioid dependence across a wide range of primary and secondary outcomes.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with GATHER and PRISMA guidelines. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO from database inception to Aug 1, 2022; clinical trial registries and previous relevant Cochrane reviews were also reviewed. We included all RCTs and observational studies of adults (aged ≥18 years) with opioid dependence comparing treatment with buprenorphine or methadone. Primary outcomes were retention in treatment at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, treatment adherence (measured through doses taken as prescribed, dosing visits attended, and biological measures), or extra-medical opioid use (measured by urinalysis and self-report). Secondary outcomes were use of benzodiazepines, cannabis, cocaine, amphetamines, and alcohol; withdrawal; craving; criminal activity and engagement with the criminal justice system; overdose; mental and physical health; sleep; pain; global functioning; suicidality and self-harm; and adverse events. Single-arm cohort studies and RCTs that collected data on buprenorphine retention alone were also reviewed. Data on study, participant, and treatment characteristics were extracted. Study authors were contacted to obtain additional data when required. Comparative estimates were pooled with use of random-effects meta-analyses. The proportion of individuals retained in treatment across multiple timepoints was pooled for each drug. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020205109).
FINDINGS
We identified 32 eligible RCTs (N=5808 participants) and 69 observational studies (N=323 340) comparing buprenorphine and methadone, in addition to 51 RCTs (N=11 644) and 124 observational studies (N=700 035) that reported on treatment retention with buprenorphine. Overall, 61 studies were done in western Europe, 162 in North America, 14 in north Africa and the Middle East, 20 in Australasia, five in southeast Asia, seven in south Asia, two in eastern Europe, three in central Europe, one in east Asia, and one in central Asia. 1 040 827 participants were included in these primary studies; however, gender was only reported for 572 111 participants, of whom 377 991 (66·1%) were male and 194 120 (33·9%) were female. Mean age was 37·1 years (SD 6·0). At timepoints beyond 1 month, retention was better for methadone than for buprenorphine: for example, at 6 months, the pooled effect favoured methadone in RCTs (risk ratio 0·76 [95% CI 0·67-0·85]; I·=74·2%; 16 studies, N=3151) and in observational studies (0·77 [0·68-0·86]; I·=98·5%; 21 studies, N=155 111). Retention was generally higher in RCTs than observational studies. There was no evidence suggesting that adherence to treatment differed with buprenorphine compared with methadone. There was some evidence that extra-medical opioid use was lower in those receiving buprenorphine in RCTs that measured this outcome by urinalysis and reported proportion of positive urine samples (over various time frames; standardised mean difference -0·20 [-0·29 to -0·11]; I·=0·0%; three studies, N=841), but no differences were found when using other measures. Some statistically significant differences were found between buprenorphine and methadone among secondary outcomes. There was evidence of reduced cocaine use, cravings, anxiety, and cardiac dysfunction, as well as increased treatment satisfaction among people receiving buprenorphine compared with methadone; and evidence of reduced hospitalisation and alcohol use in people receiving methadone. These differences in secondary outcomes were based on small numbers of studies (maximum five), and were often not consistent across study types or different measures of the same constructs (eg, cocaine use).
INTERPRETATION
Evidence from trials and observational studies suggest that treatment retention is better for methadone than for sublingual buprenorphine. Comparative evidence on other outcomes examined showed few statistically significant differences and was generally based on small numbers of studies. These findings highlight the imperative for interventions to improve retention, consideration of client-centred factors (such as client preference) when selecting between methadone and buprenorphine, and harmonisation of data collection and reporting to strengthen future syntheses.
FUNDING
Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Male; Female; Adolescent; Methadone; Buprenorphine; Analgesics, Opioid; Australia; Opioid-Related Disorders; Cocaine
PubMed: 37167985
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(23)00095-0 -
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Jun 2023Randomised controlled trials in Europe and Canada have shown that supervised heroin assisted treatment (HAT) is an effective treatment option for people with long-term... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Randomised controlled trials in Europe and Canada have shown that supervised heroin assisted treatment (HAT) is an effective treatment option for people with long-term heroin addictions for whom the standard opioid substitution treatments (OST) have not been effective. This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of supervised HAT and analyse the significance of context and implementation in the design of successful HAT programmes.
METHODS
PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, and Web of Science were searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCT) and systematic reviews evaluating supervised HAT compared to any other OST. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were published in English, evaluated a supervised form of HAT, and included illegal drug use and/or health as a primary outcome measure. There were no restrictions on publication date. The following outcomes of the included studies were analysed using narrative synthesis and meta-analysis where possible: retention, street drug use, health, and social functioning.
RESULTS
Nine randomised controlled trials spanning eight studies (n = 2331) and three systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Seven of the eight studies compared HAT to methadone maintenance treatment (MMT). One study compared HAT to injectable hydromorphone in a double-blind non-inferiority trial. Meta-analysis was performed on pooled results of retention across all included studies and found that HAT has a statistically significant effect on retention [Z = 7.65 (P > 0.0001)]. Five of the eight included studies found that supervised HAT reduces participants' use of illegal drugs more significantly than MMT. Evidence of improved health in participants receiving supervised HAT compared to other OSTs was inconsistent; positive effects were observed in three of the included studies (n = 1626).
CONCLUSION
When compared to methadone maintenance treatment (MMT), heroin assisted treatment (HAT) more consistently retains people with heroin addictions in treatment and reduces their consumption of illicit drugs.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration: CRD42022341306.
Topics: Humans; Heroin; Heroin Dependence; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Treatment Outcome; Illicit Drugs; Methadone; Narcotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37086659
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2023.109869 -
Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine Apr 2023It is estimated that over 60 million individuals regularly use opioids globally, with opioid use disorder increasing substantially in the past decade. Several reports... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
It is estimated that over 60 million individuals regularly use opioids globally, with opioid use disorder increasing substantially in the past decade. Several reports have linked sudden cardiac death, QTc prolongation, and other adverse cardiovascular outcomes with opioid use through their inhibitory effect on the human ether-a-go-go-related gene (HERG) ion channel. Therefore, understanding this underlying mechanism may be critical for risk prevention and management in prescribing opioids and treating patients with opioid dependency.
AIM
The present systematic review summarizes the current literature on the impact of opioids-induced inhibition of HERG channel function and its relationship with sudden cardiac death, QTc prolongation, and other cardiovascular adverse effects.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted of the databases PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov of primary studies that reported the effects of opioids on HERG channel function and associated cardiovascular outcomes.
RESULTS
The search identified 1,546 studies, of which 12 were finally included for data extraction. Based on the current literature, methadone, oliceridine, l-α-acetylmethadol (LAAM), and fentanyl were found to inhibit the HERG channel function and were associated with QTc prolongation. However, other opioids such as morphine, codeine, tramadol, and buprenorphine were not associated with inhibition of HERG channels or QTc prolongation. Additional cardiac outcomes associated with opioid related HERG channels dysfunction included sudden cardiac death and Torsade de Pointes.
CONCLUSION
Our findings suggest that certain opioid consumption may result in the inhibition of HERG channels, subsequently prolonging the QTc interval and increasing patient susceptibility to sudden cardiac death.
PubMed: 37015297
DOI: 10.1016/j.tcm.2023.03.006