-
Burns & Trauma 2022Topical local analgesic and anaesthetic agents have been used both pre- and immediately post-harvest on split-thickness skin graft (STSG) donor site wounds (DSW). There...
BACKGROUND
Topical local analgesic and anaesthetic agents have been used both pre- and immediately post-harvest on split-thickness skin graft (STSG) donor site wounds (DSW). There is no systematic review of their effectiveness in providing post-harvest analgesia, or of the possible toxic effects of systemic absorption. This study is designed to address the question of which agent, if any, is favoured over the others and whether there are any safety data regarding their use.
METHODS
Systematic literature review of randomised controlled trials of topical agents applied to STSG DSWs, with a view to providing analgesia. Studies identified via search of Cochrane and EBSCO databases. No restrictions on language or publication year. Primary outcomes: pain at the time of (awake) STSG, and post-harvest pain (up to first dressing change). Secondary outcome was serum medication levels relative to published data on toxic doses. Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool utilised in assessment of included studies. At least 2 reviewers screened and reviewed included studies. A narrative review is presented.
RESULTS
There were 11 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Overall methodological quality and patient numbers were low. Topical eutectic mixture of lidocaine and prilocaine pre-harvest affords good local anaesthesia in awake STSG harvesting. Topical bupivacaine (5 studies) or lidocaine (1 study) gave significantly better post-harvest anaesthesia/analgesia than placebo. Topical morphine performs no better than placebo. Topical local anaesthetic agents at reported doses were all well below toxic serum levels.
CONCLUSIONS
Topical local anaesthetics (lidocaine or bupivacaine) provide good analgesia, both during and after STSG harvest, at well below toxic serum levels, but there are no good data determining the best local anaesthetic agent to use. There is no evidence morphine performs better than placebo.
PubMed: 36133279
DOI: 10.1093/burnst/tkac020 -
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 -
Computational and Mathematical Methods... 2022In recent years, erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has been increasingly used as a new regional block technique for postoperative analgesia; however, little is known on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In recent years, erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has been increasingly used as a new regional block technique for postoperative analgesia; however, little is known on its benefits. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of ESPB in lumbar spine surgery.
METHODS
Databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ESPB with no block in lumbar spine surgery until September 30, 2021. The primary outcome was opioid consumption after surgery. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias was used to evaluate the quality of included studies.
RESULTS
Fifteen RCTs involving 980 patients were included in the study. Opioid consumption 24 hours after surgery was significantly lower in the ESPB group standardized mean difference (SMD = -2.27, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) (-3.21, -1.32); < 0.01). ESPB reduced pain scores at rest and on movement within 48 hours after surgery and the incidence of the postoperative rescue analgesia (RR = 0.32, 95% CI (0.31, 0.80); = 0.02), while it significantly prolonged time to first rescue analgesia (SMD = 4.87, 95% CI (2.84, 6.90); < 0.01). Moreover, significantly better patient satisfaction was associated with ESPB (SMD = 1.89, 95% CI (1.03, 2.74); < 0.01).
CONCLUSION
EPSB provides effective and safe postoperative analgesia after lumbar spine surgery.
Topics: Analgesia; Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35991141
DOI: 10.1155/2022/3264142 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... Oct 2022We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous sedation (IVS), intraarticular anesthetic injection (IAA), and peripheral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous sedation (IVS), intraarticular anesthetic injection (IAA), and peripheral nerve block (PNB) as sedation or analgesia methods for the reduction of anterior shoulder dislocation.
METHODS
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different sedation or analgesia methods for anterior shoulder dislocation reduction. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar databases were searched in October 2021. We conducted a random-effects NMA within a frequentist framework. We evaluated the confidence in each outcome using the CINeMA tool.
RESULTS
Sixteen RCTs (957 patients) were included. Regarding the primary outcomes, the three methods might result in little to no difference in the immediate success rate of reduction and patient satisfaction. The IAA method had a shorter emergency department length of stay than that of the IVS method (mean difference [MD] -107.88 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] -202.58 to -13.18). In the secondary outcomes, the IAA method had a lower pain score than that of the PNB method (standardized MD -1.83, 95% CI -3.64 to -0.02). The IAA and PNB methods might require a longer time for reduction than that of the IVS method (MD 5.3 min, 95% CI 2.4 to 10.36; MD 15.25, 95% CI 5.49 to 25.01). The three methods might result in little to no difference in the number of reduction attempts and total success rate of reduction. However, the confidence ratings for all treatment comparisons were very low. IAA and PNB had no adverse respiratory events.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of our NMA indicated that three sedation or analgesia methods (IVS, IAA, and PNB) might result in little to no difference in the success rate of reduction and patient satisfaction. IAA and PNB had no adverse respiratory events.
Topics: Analgesia; Humans; Nerve Block; Network Meta-Analysis; Shoulder; Shoulder Dislocation
PubMed: 35872652
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14568 -
BMC Anesthesiology Jun 2022Systematic reviews associate peripheral nerve blocks based on anatomic landmarks or nerve stimulation with reduced pain and need for systemic analgesia in hip fracture... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Systematic reviews associate peripheral nerve blocks based on anatomic landmarks or nerve stimulation with reduced pain and need for systemic analgesia in hip fracture patients. We aimed to investigate the effect of ultrasound-guided nerve blocks compared to conventional analgesia for preoperative pain management in hip fractures. Five databases were searched until June 2021 to identify randomised controlled trials. Two independent authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data was pooled for meta-analysis and quality of evidence was evaluated using Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We included 12 trials (976 participants) comparing ultrasound-guided nerve blocks to conventional systemic analgesia. In favour of ultrasound, pain measured closest to two hours after block placement decreased with a mean difference of -2.26 (VAS 0 to 10); (p < 0.001) 95% CI [-2.97 to -1.55]. In favour of ultrasound, preoperative analgesic usage of iv. morphine equivalents in milligram decreased with a mean difference of -5.34 (p=0.003) 95% CI [-8.11 to -2.58]. Time from admission until surgery ranged from six hours to more than three days. Further, ultrasound-guided nerve blocks may be associated with a lower frequency of delirium: risk ratio 0.6 (p = 0.03) 95% CI [0.38 to 0.94], fewer serious adverse events: risk ratio 0.33 (p = 0.006) 95% CI [0.15 to 0.73] and higher patient satisfaction: mean difference 25.9 (VAS 0 to 100) (p < 0.001) 95% CI [19.74 to 32.07]. However, the quality of evidence was judged low or very low. In conclusion, despite low quality of evidence, ultrasound-guided blocks were associated with benefits compared to conventional systemic analgesia.
Topics: Hip Fractures; Humans; Pain; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Peripheral Nerves; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 35729489
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-022-01720-7 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine May 2022To compare the intravenous and epidural routes of patient-controlled anesthesia in abdominal surgery. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare the intravenous and epidural routes of patient-controlled anesthesia in abdominal surgery.
METHODS
We searched for randomized clinical trials that compared the intravenous and epidural modes of patient-controlled anesthesia in intra-abdominal surgery in adults. Data analysis was performed in RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was measured using I statistic. Risk of bias was assessed using the Jadad/Oxford quality scoring system.
RESULTS
Seven studies reporting 529 patients were included into the meta-analysis. For pain at rest, the mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was -0.00 [-0.79, 0.78], -value 0.99, while for pain on coughing, it was 0.43 [-0.02, 0.88], -value 0.06, indicating that patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) was superior. For the sedation score, the mean difference with 95% CI was 0.26 [-0.37, 0.89], -value 0.42, slightly favoring PCEA. For the length of hospital stay, the mean difference with 95% CI was 1.13 [0.29, 1.98], -value 0.009, favoring PCEA. For postoperative complications, the risk ratio with 95% CI was 0.8 [0.62, 1.03], -value 0.08, slightly favoring patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIVA). A significant effect was observed for hypotension, favoring PCIVA.
CONCLUSIONS
Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia compared with patient-controlled epidural analgesia was associated with fewer episodes of hypotension. PCEA, on other hand, was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay. Pain control and other side effects did not differ significantly. Only three studies out of seven had an acceptable methodological quality. Thus, these conclusions should be taken with caution.
PubMed: 35566705
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11092579 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Abortion is common worldwide and increasingly abortions are performed at less than 14 weeks' gestation using medical methods, specifically using a combination of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Abortion is common worldwide and increasingly abortions are performed at less than 14 weeks' gestation using medical methods, specifically using a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol. Medical abortion is known to be a painful process, but the optimal method of pain management is unclear. We sought to identify and compare pain management regimens for medical abortion before 14 weeks' gestation. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective To determine if there is evidence of superiority of any particular pain relief regimen in the management of combination medical abortion (mifepristone + misoprostol) under 14 weeks' gestation (i.e. up to 13 + 6 weeks or 97 days). Secondary objectives To compare the rate of gastrointestinal side effects resulting from different methods of analgesia To compare the rate of complete abortion resulting from different methods of analgesia during medical abortion To determine if the induction-to-abortion interval is associated with different methods of analgesia To determine if any method of analgesia is associated with unscheduled contact with the care provider in relation to pain.
SEARCH METHODS
On 21 August 2019 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACs, PsycINFO, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov together with reference checking and handsearching of conference abstracts of relevant learned societies and professional organisations to identify further studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs)) of any pain relief intervention (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for mifepristone-misoprostol combination medical abortion of pregnancies less than 14 weeks' gestation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (JRW and MA) independently assessed all identified papers for inclusion and risks of bias, resolving any discrepancies through discussion with a third and fourth author as required (CM and SC). Two review authors independently conducted data extraction, including calculations of pain relief scores, and checked for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four RCTs and one NRSI. Due to the heterogeneity of study designs, interventions and outcome reporting, we were unable to perform meta-analysis for any of the primary or secondary outcomes in this review. Only one study found evidence of an effect between interventions on pain score: a prophylactic dose of ibuprofen 1600 mg likely reduces the pain score when compared to a dose of paracetamol 2000 mg (mean difference (MD) 2.26 out of 10 lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.00 to 1.52 lower; 1 RCT 108 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in pain score when comparing pregabalin 300 mg with placebo (MD 0.5 out of 10 lower, 95% CI 1.41 lower to 0.41 higher; 1 RCT, 107 women; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in pain score when comparing ibuprofen 800 mg with placebo (MD 1.4 out of 10 lower, 95% CI 3.33 lower to 0.53 higher; 1 RCT, 61 women; low-certainty evidence). Ambulation or non-ambulation during medical abortion treatment may have little to no effect on pain score, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD 0.1 out of 5 higher, 95% CI 0.26 lower to 0.46 higher; 1 NRSI, 130 women; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in pain score when comparing therapeutic versus prophylactic administration of ibuprofen 800 mg (MD 0.2 out of 10 higher, 95% CI 0.41 lower to 0.81 higher; 1 RCT, 228 women; low-certainty evidence). Other outcomes of interest were reported inconsistently across studies. Where these outcomes were reported, there was no evidence of difference in incidence of gastrointestinal side effects, complete abortion rate, interval between misoprostol administration to pregnancy expulsion, unscheduled contact with a care provider, patient satisfaction with analgesia regimen nor patient satisfaction with abortion experience overall. However, the certainty of evidence was very low to low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this review provide some support for the use of ibuprofen as a single dose given with misoprostol prophylactically, or in response to pain as needed. The optimal dosing of ibuprofen is unclear, but a single dose of ibuprofen 1600 mg was shown to be effective, and it was less certain whether 800 mg was effective. Paracetamol 2000 mg does not improve pain scores as much as ibuprofen 1600 mg, however its use does not appear to cause greater frequency of side effects or reduce the success of the abortion. A single dose of pregabalin 300 mg does not affect pain scores during medical abortion, but like paracetamol, does not appear to cause harm. Ambulation or non-ambulation during the medical abortion procedure does not appear to affect pain scores, outcomes, or duration of treatment and so women can be advised to mobilise or not, as they wish. The majority of outcomes in this review had low- to very low-certainty evidence, primarily due to small sample sizes and two studies at high risk of bias. High-quality, large-scale RCT research is needed for pain management during medical abortion at gestations less than 14 weeks. Consistent recording of pain with a validated measure would be of value to the field going forward.
Topics: Abortion, Induced; Abortion, Spontaneous; Acetaminophen; Female; Humans; Ibuprofen; Mifepristone; Misoprostol; Pain; Pain Management; Pregabalin; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35553047
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013525.pub2 -
Pain Medicine (Malden, Mass.) Aug 2022Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) surgeries are among the most common elective procedures. Moderate to severe postoperative pain during the... (Review)
Review
Effectiveness of Pharmacological-Based Interventions, Including Education and Prescribing Strategies, to Reduce Subacute Pain After Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
BACKGROUND
Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) surgeries are among the most common elective procedures. Moderate to severe postoperative pain during the subacute period (defined here as the period from hospital discharge to 3 months postoperatively) is a predictor of persistent pain 12 months postoperatively. This review aimed to examine the available postdischarge pharmacological interventions, including educational and prescribing strategies, and their effect on reducing pain during the subacute period after TKA or THA.
METHODS
We searched seven electronic databases from inception to April 22, 2021. Published randomized controlled trials of adults who underwent TKA or THA and received a pharmacological-based intervention commencing within 1 week after hospital discharge and conducted for up to 3 months postoperatively were compared with any treatment. Two reviewers independently extracted data on the primary outcome, pain intensity. This review was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021250384).
RESULTS
Four trials involving 660 participants were included. Interventions included changing analgesic prescribing practices upon hospital discharge and education on analgesic use. Providing multimodal non-opioid analgesia in addition to reduced opioid quantity was associated with lower subacute pain (coefficient -0.81; 95% confidence interval -1.33 to -0.29; P = 0.003). Education on analgesic use during multidisciplinary home visits was effective for reducing pain intensity during the subacute period (6.25 ± 10.13 vs 35.67 ± 22.05; P < 0.001) compared with usual care.
CONCLUSIONS
Interventions involving the provision of multimodal non-opioid analgesia and education on analgesic use show positive effects on reducing pain intensity during the subacute period after TKA and THA.
Topics: Adult; Aftercare; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Patient Discharge; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35325201
DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnac052 -
Trials Mar 2022Developments in the care of critically ill patients with severe burns have led to improved hospital survival, but long-term recovery may be impaired. The extent to which... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Developments in the care of critically ill patients with severe burns have led to improved hospital survival, but long-term recovery may be impaired. The extent to which patient-centred outcomes are assessed and reported in studies in this population is unclear.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review to assess the outcomes reported in studies involving critically ill burns patients. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies on the topics of fluid resuscitation, analgesia, haemodynamic monitoring, ventilation strategies, transfusion targets, enteral nutrition and timing of surgery were included. We assessed the outcomes reported and then classified these according to two suggested core outcome sets.
RESULTS
A comprehensive search returned 6154 studies; 98 papers met inclusion criteria. There were 66 RCTs, 19 clinical studies with concurrent controls and 13 interventional studies without concurrent controls. Outcome reporting was inconsistent across studies. Pain, reported using the visual analogue scale, fluid volume administered and mortality were the only outcomes measured in more than three studies. Sixty-six studies (67%) had surrogate primary outcomes. Follow-up was poor, with median longest follow-up across all studies 5 days (IQR 3-28). When compared to the suggested OMERACT core outcome set, 53% of papers reported on mortality, 28% reported on life impact, 30% reported resource/economic outcomes and 95% reported on pathophysiological manifestations. Burns-specific Falder outcome reporting was globally poor, with only 4.3% of outcomes being reported across the 98 papers.
CONCLUSION
There are deficiencies in the reporting of outcomes in the literature pertaining to the intensive care management of patients with severe burns, both with regard to the consistency of outcomes as well as a lack of focus on patient-centred outcomes. Long-term outcomes are infrequently reported. The development and validation of a core outcome dataset for severe burns would improve the quality of reporting.
Topics: Burns; Critical Care; Critical Illness; Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care
PubMed: 35246209
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-022-06104-3 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Jul 2022Cancer prevalence is increasing, with many patients requiring opioid analgesia. Clinicians need to ensure patients receive adequate pain relief. However, opioid misuse... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Cancer prevalence is increasing, with many patients requiring opioid analgesia. Clinicians need to ensure patients receive adequate pain relief. However, opioid misuse is widespread, and cancer patients are at risk.
OBJECTIVES
This study aims (1) to identify screening approaches that have been used to assess and monitor risk of opioid misuse in patients with cancer; (2) to compare the prevalence of risk estimated by each of these screening approaches; and (3) to compare risk factors among demographic and clinical variables associated with a positive screen on each of the approaches.
METHODS
Medline, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase databases were searched for articles reporting opioid misuse screening in cancer patients, along with handsearching the reference list of included articles. Bias was assessed using tools from the Joanna Briggs Suite.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies met the eligibility criteria, evaluating seven approaches: Urine Drug Test (UDT) (n = 8); the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain (SOAPP) and two variants, Revised and Short Form (n = 6); the Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye-opener (CAGE) tool and one variant, Adapted to Include Drugs (n = 6); the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) (n = 4); Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP) (n = 3); the Screen for Opioid-Associated Aberrant Behavior Risk (SOABR) (n = 1); and structured/specialist interviews (n = 1). Eight studies compared two or more approaches. The rates of risk of opioid misuse in the studied populations ranged from 6 to 65%, acknowledging that estimates are likely to have varied partly because of how specific to opioids the screening approaches were and whether a single or multi-step approach was used. UDT prompted by an intervention or observation of aberrant opioid behaviors (AOB) were conclusive of actual opioid misuse found to be 6.5-24%. Younger age, found in 8/10 studies; personal or family history of anxiety or other mental ill health, found in 6/8 studies; and history of illicit drug use, found in 4/6 studies, showed an increased risk of misuse.
CONCLUSIONS
Younger age, personal or familial mental health history, and history of illicit drug use consistently showed an increased risk of opioid misuse. Clinical suspicion of opioid misuse may be raised by data from PMP or any of the standardized list of AOBs. Clinicians may use SOAPP-R, CAGE-AID, or ORT to screen for increased risk and may use UDT to confirm suspicion of opioid misuse or monitor adherence. More research into this important area is required.
SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS
This systematic review summarized the literature on the use of opioid misuse risk approaches in people with cancer. The rates of reported risk range from 6 to 65%; however, true rate may be closer to 6.5-24%. Younger age, personal or familial mental health history, and history of illicit drug use consistently showed an increased risk of opioid misuse. Clinicians may choose from several approaches. Limited data are available on feasibility and patient experience. PROSPERO registration number. CRD42020163385.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Illicit Drugs; Neoplasms; Opioid-Related Disorders; Pain
PubMed: 35166898
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-022-06895-w