-
Sleep Medicine Sep 2023Narcolepsy type 1 is a primary sleep disorder caused by deficient hypocretin transmission leading to excessive daytime sleepiness and cataplexy. Opioids have been...
OBJECTIVE
Narcolepsy type 1 is a primary sleep disorder caused by deficient hypocretin transmission leading to excessive daytime sleepiness and cataplexy. Opioids have been suggested to increase the number of hypocretin-producing neurons. We aimed to assess opioid use and its self-reported effect on narcolepsy type 1 symptom severity through a literature review and questionnaire study.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed literature on opioid use in narcolepsy. We also recruited 100 people with narcolepsy type 1 who completed an online questionnaire on opioid use in the previous three years. The main questionnaire topics were the indication for use, and the possible effects on narcolepsy symptom severity. Structured follow-up interviews were conducted when opioid use was reported.
RESULTS
The systematic literature review mainly showed improvements in narcolepsy symptom severity. Recent opioid use was reported by 16/100 questionnaire respondents, who had used 20 opioids (codeine: 7/20, tramadol: 6/20, oxycodone: 6/20, fentanyl: 1/20). Narcolepsy symptom changes were reported in 11/20. Positive effects on disturbed nocturnal sleep (9/20), excessive daytime sleepiness (4/20), hypnagogic hallucinations (3/17), cataplexy (2/18), and sleep paralysis (1/13) were most pronounced for oxycodone (4/6) and codeine (4/7).
CONCLUSIONS
Opioids were relatively frequently used compared to a similarly young general Dutch sample. Oxycodone and, to a lesser extent, codeine were associated with self-reported narcolepsy symptom severity improvements. Positive changes in disturbed nocturnal sleep and daytime sleepiness were most frequently reported, while cataplexy effects were less pronounced. Randomised controlled trials are now needed to verify the potential of opioids as therapeutic agents for narcolepsy.
Topics: Humans; Cataplexy; Analgesics, Opioid; Orexins; Oxycodone; Narcolepsy; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 37437491
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2023.06.008 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Neonates might be exposed to numerous painful procedures due to diagnostic reasons, therapeutic interventions, or surgical procedures. Options for pain management... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Neonates might be exposed to numerous painful procedures due to diagnostic reasons, therapeutic interventions, or surgical procedures. Options for pain management include opioids, non-pharmacological interventions, and other drugs. Morphine, fentanyl, and remifentanil are the opioids most often used in neonates. However, negative impact of opioids on the structure and function of the developing brain has been reported.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of opioids in term or preterm neonates exposed to procedural pain, compared to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics or sedatives, other opioids, or the same opioid administered by a different route.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was December 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials conducted in preterm and term infants of a postmenstrual age (PMA) up to 46 weeks and 0 days exposed to procedural pain where opioids were compared to 1) placebo or no drug; 2) non-pharmacological intervention; 3) other analgesics or sedatives; 4) other opioids; or 5) the same opioid administered by a different route.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were pain assessed with validated methods and any harms. We used a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, and their confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 independent studies (enrolling 823 newborn infants): seven studies compared opioids to no treatment or placebo (the main comparison in this review), two studies to oral sweet solution or non-pharmacological intervention, and five studies (of which two were part of the same study) to other analgesics and sedatives. All studies were performed in a hospital setting. Opioids compared to placebo or no drug Compared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP)/PIPP-Revised (PIPP-R) scale during the procedure (MD -2.58, 95% CI -3.12 to -2.03; 199 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) during the procedure (MD -1.97, 95% CI -2.46 to -1.48; 102 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence); and may result in little to no difference in pain score assessed with the Douleur Aiguë du Nouveau-né (DAN) scale one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.20, 95% CI -2.21 to 1.81; 42 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R scale up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.45; 123 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) or one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.83, 95% CI -2.42 to 0.75; 54 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia (RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.14 to 72.69; 172 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea compared to placebo (RR 3.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 9.16; 199 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence): with one study reporting a concerning increase in severe apnea (RR 7.44, 95% CI 0.42 to 132.95; 31 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of hypotension (RR not estimable, risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; 88 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Opioids compared to non-pharmacological intervention The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the Crying Requires oxygen Increased vital signs Expression Sleep (CRIES) scale during the procedure when compared to facilitated tucking (MD -4.62, 95% CI -6.38 to -2.86; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) or sensorial stimulation (MD 0.32, 95% CI -1.13 to 1.77; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported. Opioids compared to other analgesics or sedatives The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R during the procedure (MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.58 to 1.01; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence); up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD -1.10, 95% CI -2.82 to 0.62; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); and one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.17, 95% CI -2.22 to 1.88; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported any harms. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of apnea during (RR 3.27, 95% CI 0.85 to 12.58; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and after the procedure (RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.11 to 64.96; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and on hypotension (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.32 to 5.59; 204 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported. We identified no studies comparing different opioids (e.g. morphine versus fentanyl) or different routes for administration of the same opioid (e.g. morphine enterally versus morphine intravenously).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with PIPP/PIPP-R scale during the procedure; may reduce NIPS during the procedure; and may result in little to no difference in DAN one to two hours after the procedure. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain assessed with other pain scores or at different time points. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia, hypotension or severe apnea. Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea. No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the NICU. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on any outcome when compared to non-pharmacological interventions or to other analgesics. We identified no studies comparing opioids to other opioids or comparing different routes of administration of the same opioid.
Topics: Humans; Infant, Newborn; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Apnea; Bradycardia; Fentanyl; Hypotension; Morphine; Pain; Pain, Procedural
PubMed: 37350685
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015056.pub3 -
The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care... Dec 2023Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) has potential as a form of analgesia for trauma patients in the emergency department (ED). The objective of this review was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) has potential as a form of analgesia for trauma patients in the emergency department (ED). The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PCA for the management of adults with acute traumatic pain in the ED. The hypothesis was that PCA can effectively treat acute trauma pain in adults in the ED, with minimal adverse outcomes and better patient satisfaction compared with non-PCA modalities.
METHODS
MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.gov , and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched from inception date to December 13, 2022. Randomized controlled trials involving adults presenting to the ED with acute traumatic pain who received intravenous (IV) analgesia via PCA compared with other modalities were included. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach were used to assess the quality of included studies.
RESULTS
A total of 1,368 publications were screened, with 3 studies involving 382 patients meeting the eligibility criteria. All three studies compared PCA IV morphine with clinician-titrated IV morphine boluses. For the primary outcome of pain relief, the pooled estimate was in favor of PCA with a standard mean difference of -0.36 (95% confidence interval, -0.87 to 0.16). There were mixed results concerning patient satisfaction. Adverse event rates were low overall. The evidence from all three studies was graded as low-quality because of a high risk of bias from lack of blinding.
CONCLUSION
This study did not demonstrate a significant improvement in pain relief or patient satisfaction using PCA for trauma in the ED. Clinicians wishing to use PCA to treat acute trauma pain in adult patients in the ED are advised to consider the available resources in their own practice settings and to implement protocols for monitoring and responding to potential adverse events.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Systematic Review/Meta-Analyses; Level III.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Pain Management; Acute Pain; Emergency Service, Hospital; Morphine
PubMed: 37335181
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000004004 -
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery... Dec 2023To evaluate the effectiveness of combined Tranexamic acid (TXA) and dexamethasone (DEX) in total hip and knee arthroplasty. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate the effectiveness of combined Tranexamic acid (TXA) and dexamethasone (DEX) in total hip and knee arthroplasty.
METHODS
PUBMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL database were systematically searched for randomized studies that utilized TXA and DEX administration of TXA in THA or TKA.
RESULTS
A total of three randomized studies enrolling 288 patients were eligible for qualitative and quantitative analysis. DEX + TXA group demonstrated statistical significantly lesser usage of oxycodone (OR: 0.34, p < 0.0001), metoclopramide (OR: 0.21, p < 0.00001), lesser incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (OR: 0.27, p < 0.0001), better postoperative range of motion (MD: 2.30, p < 0.00001) and shorter length of hospital stay (MD: 0.31, p = 0.03). Comparable results were seen in total blood loss, transfusion rate and postoperative complications.
CONCLUSION
In this meta-analysis, the combination of TXA and DEX has positive impacts on the usage of oxycodone and metoclopramide, postoperative range of motion, postoperative nausea and vomiting and reduces the length of hospital stay.
Topics: Humans; Tranexamic Acid; Antifibrinolytic Agents; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Metoclopramide; Oxycodone; Blood Loss, Surgical; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Dexamethasone; Administration, Intravenous
PubMed: 37329454
DOI: 10.1007/s00590-023-03612-z -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023This is the second update of the original Cochrane review published in 2013 (issue 6), which was updated in 2016 (issue 11). Pruritus occurs in patients with disparate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is the second update of the original Cochrane review published in 2013 (issue 6), which was updated in 2016 (issue 11). Pruritus occurs in patients with disparate underlying diseases and is caused by different pathologic mechanisms. In palliative care patients, pruritus is not the most prevalent but is a burdening symptom. It can cause considerable discomfort and negatively affect patients' quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different pharmacological treatments compared with active control or placebo for preventing or treating pruritus in adult palliative care patients.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID) and Embase (OVID) up to 6 July 2022. In addition, we searched trial registries and checked the reference lists of all relevant studies, key textbooks, reviews and websites, and we contacted investigators and specialists in pruritus and palliative care regarding unpublished data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of different pharmacological treatments, compared with a placebo, no treatment, or an alternative treatment, for preventing or treating pruritus in palliative care patients.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the identified titles and abstracts, performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias and methodological quality. We summarised the results descriptively and quantitatively (meta-analyses) according to the different pharmacological interventions and the diseases associated with pruritus. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created 13 summary of findings tables.
MAIN RESULTS
In total, we included 91 studies and 4652 participants in the review. We added 42 studies with 2839 participants for this update. Altogether, we included 51 different treatments for pruritus in four different patient groups. The overall risk of bias profile was heterogeneous and ranged from high to low risk. The main reason for giving a high risk of bias rating was a small sample size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm). Seventy-nine of 91 studies (87%) had fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm. Eight (9%) studies had low risk of bias in the specified key domains; the remaining studies had an unclear risk of bias (70 studies, 77%) or a high risk of bias (13 studies, 14%). Using GRADE criteria, we judged that the certainty of evidence for the primary outcome (i.e. pruritus) was high for kappa-opioid agonists compared to placebo and moderate for GABA-analogues compared to placebo. Certainty of evidence was low for naltrexone, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids, topical capsaicin, ondansetron and zinc sulphate compared to placebo and gabapentin compared to pregabalin, and very low for cromolyn sodium, paroxetine, montelukast, flumecinol, and rifampicin compared to placebo. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence mainly due to serious study limitations regarding risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. For participants suffering from uraemic pruritus (UP; also known as chronic kidney disease (CKD)-associated pruritus (CKD-aP)), treatment with GABA-analogues compared to placebo likely resulted in a large reduction of pruritus (visual analogue scale (VAS) 0 to 10 cm): mean difference (MD) -5.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.56 to -4.55; five RCTs, N = 297, certainty of evidence: moderate. Treatment with kappa-opioid receptor agonists (difelikefalin, nalbuphine, nalfurafine) compared to placebo reduced pruritus slightly (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.22 to -0.71; six RCTs, N = 1292, certainty of evidence: high); thus, this treatment was less effective than GABA-analogues. Treatment with montelukast compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (two studies, 87 participants): SMD -1.40, 95% CI -1.87 to -0.92; certainty of evidence: very low. Treatment with fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids compared to placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (four studies, 160 observations): SMD -1.60, 95% CI -1.97 to -1.22; certainty of evidence: low. Treatment with cromolyn sodium compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD -3.27, 95% CI -5.91 to -0.63; two RCTs, N = 100, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with topical capsaicin compared with placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (two studies; 112 participants): SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.55 to -0.57; certainty of evidence: low. Ondansetron, zinc sulphate and several other treatments may not reduce pruritus in participants suffering from UP. In participants with cholestatic pruritus (CP), treatment with rifampicin compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS: 0 to 100, MD -42.00, 95% CI -87.31 to 3.31; two RCTs, N = 42, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with flumecinol compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR > 1 favours treatment group; RR 2.32, 95% CI 0.54 to 10.1; two RCTs, N = 69, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with the opioid antagonist naltrexone compared to placebo may reduce pruritus (VAS: 0 to 10 cm, MD -2.42, 95% CI -3.90 to -0.94; two RCTs, N = 52, certainty of evidence: low). However, effects in participants with UP were inconclusive (percentage of difference -12.30%, 95% CI -25.82% to 1.22%, one RCT, N = 32). In palliative care participants with pruritus of a different nature, the treatment with the drug paroxetine (one study), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, compared to placebo may reduce pruritus slightly by 0.78 (numerical analogue scale from 0 to 10 points; 95% CI -1.19 to -0.37; one RCT, N = 48, certainty of evidence: low). Most adverse events were mild or moderate. Two interventions showed multiple major adverse events (naltrexone and nalfurafine).
AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS
Different interventions (GABA-analogues, kappa-opioid receptor agonists, cromolyn sodium, montelukast, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids and topical capsaicin compared to placebo) were effective for uraemic pruritus. GABA-analogues had the largest effect on pruritus. Rifampin, naltrexone and flumecinol tended to be effective for cholestatic pruritus. However, therapies for patients with malignancies are still lacking. Due to the small sample sizes in most meta-analyses and the heterogeneous methodological quality of the included trials, the results should be interpreted cautiously in terms of generalisability.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Capsaicin; Cromolyn Sodium; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Naltrexone; Ondansetron; Palliative Care; Paroxetine; Receptors, Opioid; Rifampin; Zinc Sulfate
PubMed: 37314034
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008320.pub4 -
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 -
Pain Physician May 2023Thoracotomy is associated with severe postoperative pain. Effective management of acute pain after thoracotomy may reduce complications and chronic pain. Epidural... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Thoracotomy is associated with severe postoperative pain. Effective management of acute pain after thoracotomy may reduce complications and chronic pain. Epidural analgesia (EPI) is considered the gold standard for postthoracotomy analgesia; however, it is associated with complications and limitations. Emerging evidence suggests that an intercostal nerve block (ICB) has a low risk of severe complications. Anesthetists will benefit from a review that assesses the advantages and disadvantages associated with ICB and EPI in thoracotomy.
OBJECTIVES
This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of ICB and EPI for pain treatment after thoracotomy.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
METHODS
This study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021255127). Relevant studies were searched for in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Ovid databases. Primary (postoperative pain at rest and during cough) and secondary (nausea and vomiting, morphine consumption, and length of hospital stay) outcomes were analyzed. The standard mean difference for continuous variables and the risk ratio for dichotomous variables were calculated.
RESULTS
Nine randomized controlled studies with a total of 498 patients who underwent thoracotomy were included. The results of the meta-analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences between the 2 methods in terms of the Visual Analog Scale scores for pain at 6-8, 12-15, 24-25, and 48-50 hours at rest and at 24 hours during coughing after surgery. There were no significant differences in nausea and vomiting, morphine consumption, or length of hospital stay between the ICB and EPI groups.
LIMITATIONS
The number of included studies was small, and the quality of evidence was low.
CONCLUSIONS
ICB may be as effective as EPI for pain relief after thoracotomy.
Topics: Humans; Analgesia, Epidural; Thoracotomy; Nerve Block; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pain, Postoperative; Morphine; Nausea; Vomiting; Analgesics, Opioid
PubMed: 37192224
DOI: No ID Found -
The American Journal of Emergency... Aug 2023Pain is commonly encountered in the Emergency Department (ED) and pre-hospital setting and often requires opioid analgesia. We sought to synthesize the available...
BACKGROUND
Pain is commonly encountered in the Emergency Department (ED) and pre-hospital setting and often requires opioid analgesia. We sought to synthesize the available evidence on the effectiveness of sufentanil for acute pain relief for adult patients in the pre-hospital or ED setting.
METHODS
This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched from inception to February 1, 2022. The grey literature was also searched. We included randomized controlled trials of adult patients with acute pain who were treated with sufentanil. Two reviewers independently completed screening, full text review, and data extraction. Primary outcome was reduction in pain. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, need for rescue analgesia, and patient and provider satisfaction. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. A meta-analysis was not performed due to heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Of 1120 unique citations, four studies (3 ED and 1 pre-hospital) met full inclusion criteria (n = 467 participants). The overall quality of the included studies was high. Intranasal (IN) sufentanil was superior to placebo for pain relief at 30 min (difference 20.8%, 95% CI 4.0-36.2%, p = 0.01). Both IN (two studies) and IV sufentanil (one study) were comparable to IV morphine. Mild adverse events were common and there was a higher propensity for minor sedation in patients receiving sufentanil. There were no serious adverse events requiring advanced interventions.
CONCLUSION
Sufentanil was comparable to IV morphine and was superior to placebo for rapid relief of acute pain in the ED setting. The safety profile of sufentanil is similar to IV morphine in this setting, with minimal concern for serious adverse events. The intranasal formulation may provide an alternative, rapid, non-parenteral route that could benefit our unique emergency department and pre-hospital patient population. Due to the overall small sample size of this review, larger studies are required to confirm safety.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Sufentanil; Acute Pain; Analgesics, Opioid; Morphine; Emergency Service, Hospital; Hospitals
PubMed: 37186978
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2023.04.020 -
Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology 2023Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy and safety of oliceridine in patients with postoperative pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy and safety of oliceridine in patients with postoperative pain.
METHODS
Four databases were searched from the beginning of the database to the present. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of oliceridine in patients with postoperative pain. Our endpoints were the proportion of treatment responders to the oliceridine regimen and the incidence of adverse effects such as nausea and vomiting.
RESULTS
The analysis showed that more patients responded significantly with oliceridine compared to placebo. The proportion of treatment responders to oliceridine was comparable to that of morphine. Oliceridine had analgesia effects similar to morphine compared to placebo. The incidence of respiratory safety events was significantly lower with oliceridine compared to morphine. Oliceridine was significantly associated with more adverse events such as nausea and vomiting compared to placebo. The safety profile of oliceridine was superior to morphine compared to morphine.
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review and meta-analysis showed that oliceridine is an effective and safe intravenous analgesic in patients with postoperative pain, producing rapid postoperative analgesic and usually well tolerated, and reducing incidence of adverse events compared to morphine.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42023391581.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Morphine; Analgesics; Pain, Postoperative; Vomiting; Nausea
PubMed: 37171148
DOI: 10.1080/17512433.2023.2213889 -
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