-
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Oct 2017Aprepitant and fosaprepitant, commonly used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, alter cytochrome P450 activity. This systematic review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
Aprepitant and fosaprepitant, commonly used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, alter cytochrome P450 activity. This systematic review evaluates clinically significant pharmacokinetic drug interactions with aprepitant and fosaprepitant and describes adverse events ascribed to drug interactions with aprepitant or fosaprepitant.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed the literature to September 11, 2016, to identify articles evaluating drug interactions involving aprepitant/fosaprepitant. The clinical significance of each reported pharmacokinetic drug interaction was evaluated based on the United States Food and Drug Administration guidance document on conducting drug interaction studies. The probability of an adverse event reported in case reports being due to a drug interaction with aprepitant/fosaprepitant was determined using the Drug Interaction Probability Scale.
RESULTS
A total of 4377 publications were identified. Of these, 64 met inclusion eligibility criteria: 34 described pharmacokinetic drug interactions and 30 described adverse events ascribed to a drug interaction. Clinically significant pharmacokinetic interactions between aprepitant/fosaprepitant and bosutinib PO, cabazitaxel IV, cyclophosphamide IV, dexamethasone PO, methylprednisolone IV, midazolam PO/IV, oxycodone PO and tolbutamide PO were identified, as were adverse events resulting from an interaction between aprepitant/fosaprepitant and alcohol, anthracyclines, ifosfamide, oxycodone, quetiapine, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors/serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and warfarin.
CONCLUSIONS
The potential for a drug interaction with aprepitant and fosaprepitant should be considered when selecting antiemetic therapy.
Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C9 Inducers; Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A Inhibitors; Drug Interactions; Ethanol; Humans; Injection Site Reaction; Morpholines; Nausea; Oxycodone; Quetiapine Fumarate; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors; Vomiting
PubMed: 28470980
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13322 -
Drugs & Aging Jun 2017There is substantial evidence that the use of opioids increases the risk of adverse outcomes such as delirium, but whether this risk differs between the various opioids... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
There is substantial evidence that the use of opioids increases the risk of adverse outcomes such as delirium, but whether this risk differs between the various opioids remains controversial. In this systematic review, we evaluate and discuss possible differences in the risk of delirium from the use of various types of opioids in older patients.
METHODS
We performed a search in MEDLINE by combining search terms on delirium and opioids. A specific search filter for use in geriatric medicine was used. Quality was scored according to the quality assessment for cohort studies of the Dutch Cochrane Institute.
RESULTS
Six studies were included, all performed in surgical departments and all observational. No study was rated high quality, one was rated moderate quality, and five were rated low quality. Information about dose, route, and timing of administration of the opioid was frequently missing. Pain and other important risk factors of delirium were often not taken into account. Use of tramadol or meperidine was associated with an increased risk of delirium, whereas the use of morphine, fentanyl, oxycodone, and codeine were not, when compared with no opioid. Meperidine was also associated with an increased risk of delirium compared with other opioids, whereas tramadol was not. The risk of delirium appeared to be lower with hydromorphone or fentanyl, compared with other opioids. Numbers used for comparisons were small.
CONCLUSION
Some data suggest that meperidine may lead to a higher perioperative risk for delirium; however, high-quality studies that compare different opioids are lacking. Further comparative research is needed.
Topics: Aged; Analgesics, Opioid; Delirium; Humans; Hydromorphone; Meperidine; Morphine; Oxycodone; Pain; Pain Measurement; Risk Factors; Tramadol
PubMed: 28405945
DOI: 10.1007/s40266-017-0455-9 -
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Feb 2017To systematically review the quantitative and qualitative evidence base pertaining to the prevalence, practice of, and treatment response to the diversion of prescribed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
To systematically review the quantitative and qualitative evidence base pertaining to the prevalence, practice of, and treatment response to the diversion of prescribed opiates in the prison setting.
METHODS
Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, ASSIA and Science Direct databases were searched for papers from 1995 to the present relevant to the abuse of prescribed opiate medication. Identified journals and their reference lists were hand searched for other relevant articles. Of the abstracts identified as relevant, full text papers were retrieved and critiqued against the inclusion criteria for the review.
RESULTS
Three hundred and fifty-five abstracts were identified, leading to 42 full-text articles being retrieved. Of those, 10 papers were included in the review. Significant differences in abuse behaviours between different countries were reported. However, a key theme emerged from the data regarding a culture of nasal administration of prescribed sublingual buprenorphine within some prisons due to both reduced prevalence of injection within prison and reduced supplies of illicit drugs within prison. The buprenorphine/naloxone preparation appears to be less amenable to abuse. The review highlighted a paucity of empirical research pertaining to both prevalence of the phenomenon and treatment responses.
CLINICAL AND RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS
Healthcare providers within prisons need to prescribe opioids in the least abuseable preparation since the risk of abuse is significant, despite widespread processes of supervised dispensing. Prescription medication abuse is not limited to opioids and the predominant drug of abuse in an individual prison can rapidly change according to availability.
Topics: Administration, Sublingual; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Drug Prescriptions; Humans; Illicit Drugs; Narcotics; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Prescription Drug Misuse; Prevalence; Prisons; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28086177
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.11.032 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Cancer pain is an important and distressing symptom that tends to increase in frequency and intensity as the cancer advances. For people with advanced cancer, the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cancer pain is an important and distressing symptom that tends to increase in frequency and intensity as the cancer advances. For people with advanced cancer, the prevalence of pain can be as high as 90%. It has been estimated that 30% to 50% of people with cancer categorise their pain as moderate to severe, with between 75% and 90% of people with cancer experiencing pain that they describe as having a major impact on their daily life. Epidemiological studies suggest that approximately 15% of people with cancer pain fail to experience acceptable pain relief with conventional management. Uncontrolled pain can lead to physical and psychological distress and can, consequently, have a drastic effect on people's quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the analgesic efficacy of hydromorphone in relieving cancer pain, as well as the incidence and severity of any adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers up to April 2016. There were no language, document type or publication status limitations applied in the search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared hydromorphone with placebo or other active pain medication for cancer pain in both adults and children. The four main outcomes selected have previously been identified as important to people with cancer; pain no worse than mild pain, and the impact of the treatment on consciousness, appetite and thirst. We did not consider physician-, nurse- or carer-reported measures of pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We used a random-effects model and assessed the risk of bias for all included studies. A meta-analysis was not completed on any of the primary outcomes in this review due to the lack of data. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four studies (604 adult participants), which compared hydromorphone to oxycodone (two studies) or morphine (two studies). Overall, the included studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, rated unclear due to unknown status of blinding of outcome assessment; we rated three studies at high risk of bias for potential conflict of interest. Data for 504 participants were available for analysis. We collected data on endpoint participant-reported pain intensity measured with a visual analogue scale (VAS) (mean ± standard deviation (SD): hydromorphone 28.86 ± 17.08, n = 19; oxycodone 30.30 ± 25.33, n = 12; scale from 0 to 100 with higher score indicating worse pain), and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) 24 hours worst pain subscale (mean ± SD: hydromorphone 3.5 ± 2.9, n = 99; morphine 4.3 ± 3.0, n = 101, scale from 0 to 10 with higher score indicating worse pain). The data demonstrated a similar effect between groups with both comparisons. The pain intensity data showed that participants in all four trials achieved no worse than mild pain. There were several adverse events: some were the expected opioid adverse effects such as nausea, constipation and vomiting; others were not typical opioid adverse effects (for example, decreased appetite, dizziness and pyrexia, as shown in Table 1 in the main review), but generally showed no difference between groups. There were three deaths in the morphine group during the trial period, considered to be due to disease progression and unrelated to the drug. Three trials had over 10% dropout, but the reason and proportion of dropout was balanced between groups. The overall quality of evidence was very low mainly due to high risk of bias, imprecision of effect estimates and publication bias. There were no data available for children or for several participant-important outcomes, including participant-reported pain relief and treatment impact on consciousness, appetite or thirst.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review indicated little difference between hydromorphone and other opioids in terms of analgesic efficacy. Data gathered in this review showed that hydromorphone had a similar effect on participant-reported pain intensity as reported for oxycodone and morphine. Participants generally achieved no worse than mild pain after taking hydromorphone, which is comparable with the other drugs. It produced a consistent analgesic effect through the night and could be considered for use in people with cancer pain experiencing sleep disturbance. However, the overall quality of evidence was very low mainly due to risk of bias, imprecision of effect estimates and publication bias. This review only included four studies with limited sample size and a range of study designs. Data for some important outcomes, such as impact of the treatment on consciousness, appetite or thirst, were not available. Therefore, we were unable to demonstrate superiority or inferiority of hydromorphone in comparison with other analgesics for these outcomes. We recommend that further research with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive outcome data collection is required.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Female; Humans; Hydromorphone; Male; Morphine; Neoplasms; Oxycodone; Pain; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27727452
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011108.pub2 -
JAMA Internal Medicine Nov 2016Overuse of medical care is an increasingly recognized problem in clinical medicine. (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
Overuse of medical care is an increasingly recognized problem in clinical medicine.
OBJECTIVE
To identify and highlight original research articles published in 2015 that are most likely to reduce overuse of medical care, organized into 3 categories: overuse of testing, overtreatment, and questionable use of services. The articles were reviewed and interpreted for their importance to clinical medicine.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
A structured review of English-language articles on PubMed published in 2015 and review of tables of contents of relevant journals to identify potential articles that related to medical overuse in adults.
FINDINGS
Between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015, we reviewed 1445 articles, of which 821 addressed overuse of medical care. Of these, 112 were deemed most relevant based on their originality, methodologic quality, and number of patients potentially affected. The 10 most influential articles were selected by consensus using the same criteria. Findings included a doubling of specialty referrals and advanced imaging for simple headache (from 6.7% in 2000 to 13.9% in 2010); unnecessary hospital admission for low-risk syncope, often leading to adverse events; and overly frequent colonoscopy screening for 34% of patients. Overtreatment was common in the following areas: 1 in 4 patients with atrial fibrillation at low risk for thromboembolism received anticoagulation; 94% of testosterone replacement therapy was administered off guideline recommendations; 91% of patients resumed taking opioids after overdose; and 61% of patients with diabetes were treated to potentially harmfully low hemoglobin A1c levels (<7%). Findings also identified medical practices to question, including questionable use of treatment of acute low-back pain with cyclobenzaprine and oxycodone/acetaminophen; of testing for Clostridium difficile with molecular assays; and serial follow-up of benign thyroid nodules.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The number of articles on overuse of medical care nearly doubled from 2014 to 2015. The present review promotes reflection on the top 10 articles and may lead to questioning other non-evidence-based practices.
Topics: Delivery of Health Care; Evidence-Based Medicine; Guidelines as Topic; Health Services Misuse; Humans; Mass Screening; Medical Overuse; Patient Readmission; Prescription Drug Overuse; Quality of Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; United States; Unnecessary Procedures
PubMed: 27654002
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5381 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2016This review replaces part of an earlier review that evaluated oxycodone for both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, which has now been split into separate reviews for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This review replaces part of an earlier review that evaluated oxycodone for both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, which has now been split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review will consider pain in fibromyalgia only.Opioid drugs are commonly used to treat fibromyalgia, but they may not be beneficial for people with this condition. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for oxycodone, at any dose, and by any route of administration.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of oxycodone for treating pain in fibromyalgia in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomised controlled trials from inception to 25 July 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include randomised, double-blind trials of eight weeks' duration or longer, comparing oxycodone (alone or in fixed-dose combination with naloxone) with placebo or another active treatment. We did not include observational studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The plan was for two independent review authors to extract data and assess trial quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.
MAIN RESULTS
No study satisfied the inclusion criteria. Effects of interventions were not assessed as there were no included studies. We have only very low quality evidence and are very uncertain about estimates of benefit and harm.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no randomised trial evidence to support or refute the suggestion that oxycodone, alone or in combination with naloxone, reduces pain in fibromyalgia.
PubMed: 27582266
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012329 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2016This is an update of an earlier review that considered both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia (Issue 6, 2014), which has now been split into separate reviews for the two... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of an earlier review that considered both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia (Issue 6, 2014), which has now been split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review considers neuropathic pain only.Opioid drugs, including oxycodone, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for oxycodone, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Separate reviews consider other opioids.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of oxycodone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 6 November 2013 for the original review and from January 2013 to 21 December 2015 for this update. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and two online clinical trial registries. This update differs from the earlier review in that we have included studies using oxycodone in combination with naloxone, and oxycodone used as add-on treatment to stable, but inadequate, treatment with another class of drug.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any dose or formulation of oxycodone with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
The updated searches identified one additional published study, and one clinical trial registry report. We included five studies reporting on 687 participants; 637 had painful diabetic neuropathy and 50 had postherpetic neuralgia. Two studies used a cross-over design and three used a parallel group design; all studies used a placebo comparator, although one study used an active placebo (benztropine). Modified-release oxycodone (oxycodone MR) was titrated to effect and tolerability. One study used a fixed dose combination of oxycodone MR and naloxone. Two studies added oxycodone therapy to ongoing, stable treatment with either pregabalin or gabapentin. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study reported the proportion of participants experiencing 'substantial benefit' (at least 50% pain relief or who were very much improved). Three studies (537 participants) in painful diabetic neuropathy reported outcomes equivalent to 'moderate benefit' (at least 30% pain relief or who were much or very much improved), which was experienced by 44% of participants with oxycodone and 27% with placebo (number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) 5.7).All studies reported group mean pain scores at the end of treatment. Three studies reported a greater pain intensity reduction and better patient satisfaction with oxycodone MR alone than with placebo. There was a similar result in the study adding oxycodone MR to stable, ongoing gabapentin, but adding oxycodone MR plus naloxone to stable, ongoing pregabalin did not show any additional effect.More participants experienced adverse events with oxycodone MR alone (86%) than with placebo (63%); the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNH) was 4.3. Serious adverse events (oxycodone 3.4%, placebo 7.0%) and adverse event withdrawals (oxycodone 11%, placebo 6.4%) were not significantly different between groups. Withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were less frequent with oxycodone MR (1.1%) than placebo (11%), with a number needed to treat to prevent one withdrawal of 10. The add-on studies reported similar results.We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low for all outcomes, due to limitations in the study methods, heterogeneity in the pain condition and study methods, and sparse data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was only very low quality evidence that oxycodone (as oxycodone MR) is of value in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia. There was no evidence for other neuropathic pain conditions. Adverse events typical of opioids appeared to be common.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Analgesics, Opioid; Constipation; Delayed-Action Preparations; Diabetic Neuropathies; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Dizziness; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neuralgia, Postherpetic; Oxycodone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27465317
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010692.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2016Restless legs syndrome (RLS) is a distressing and common neurological disorder that may have a huge impact in the quality of life of those with frequent and intense... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Restless legs syndrome (RLS) is a distressing and common neurological disorder that may have a huge impact in the quality of life of those with frequent and intense symptoms. Patients complain of unpleasant sensations in the legs, at or before bedtime, and feel an urge to move the legs, which improves with movement, such as walking. Symptoms start with the patient at rest (e.g. sitting or lying down), and follow a circadian pattern, increasing during the evening or at night. Many pharmacological intervention are available for RLS, including drugs used to treat Parkinson's disease (L-Dopa and dopaminergic agonists), epilepsy (anticonvulsants), anxiety (benzodiazepines), and pain (opioids). Dopaminergic drugs are those most frequently used for treatment of RLS, but some patients do not respond effectively and require other medication. Opioids, a class of medications used to treat severe pain, seem to be effective in treating RLS symptoms, and are recommended for patients with severe symptoms, because RLS and pain appear to share the same mechanism in the central nervous system. All available drugs are associated to some degree with side effects, which can impede treatment. Opioids are associated with adverse events such as constipation, tolerance, and dependence. This justifies the conduct of a systematic review to ascertain whether opioids are safe and effective for treatment of RLS.
OBJECTIVES
To asses the effects of opioids compared to placebo treatment for restless legs syndrome in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, CENTRAL 2016, issue 4 and MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS up to April 2016, using a search strategy adapted by Cochraneto identify randomised clinical trials. We checked the references of each study and established personal communication with other authors to identify any additional studies. We considered publications in all languages.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled clinical trials of opioid treatment in adults with idiopathic RLS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened articles, independently extracted data into a standard form, and assessed for risk of bias. If necessary, they discussed discrepancies with a third researcher to resolve any doubts.
MAIN RESULTS
We included one randomised clinical trial (N = 304 randomised; 204 completed; 276 analysed) that evaluated opioids (prolonged release oxycodone/naloxone) versus placebo. After 12 weeks, RSL symptoms had improved more in the drug group than in the placebo group (using the IRLSSS: MD -7.0; 95% CI -9.69 to -4.31 and the CGI: MD -1.11; 95% CI -1.49 to -0.73). More patients in the drug group than in the placebo group were drug responders (using the IRLSSS: RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.42 and the CGI: RR1.92; 95% ICI 1.49 to 2.48). The proportion of remitters was greater in the drug group than in the placebo group (using the IRLSSS: RR 2.14; 95% CI 1.45 to 3.16). Quality of life scores also improved more in the drug group than in the placebo group (MD -0.73; 95% CI -1.1 to -0.36). Quality of sleep was improved more in the drug group measured by sleep adequacy (MD -0.74; 95% CI -1.15 to -0.33), and sleep quantity (MD 0.89; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.26).There was no difference between groups for daytime somnolence, trouble staying awake during the day, or naps during the day. More adverse events were reported in the drug group (RR 1.22; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.39). The major adverse events were gastrointestinal problems, fatigue, and headache.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Opioids seem to be effective for treating RLS symptoms, but there are no definitive data regarding the important problem of safety. This conclusion is based on only one study with a high dropout rate (moderate quality evidence).
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Humans; Naloxone; Oxycodone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Restless Legs Syndrome
PubMed: 27355187
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006941.pub2 -
Pain Physician May 2016Opioid overdose continues to be a significant and growing cause of preventable mortality and morbidity. Studies suggest that unintentional, non-fatal overdose from... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Opioid overdose continues to be a significant and growing cause of preventable mortality and morbidity. Studies suggest that unintentional, non-fatal overdose from prescription opioid analgesics constitutes a large portion of total overdose events. The societal burden associated with these events is a frequently overlooked public health concern.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate unintentional, non-fatal prescription opioid overdoses, including the identification of risk factors, societal burden, and knowledge gaps where further study is warranted.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review of the literature for unintentional, non-fatal opioid overdose.
METHODS
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines were used in constructing this systematic review. To determine the scope of the existing literature, a systematic search was conducted using the MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases.
RESULTS
This systematic review analyzes 24 articles (21 retrospective descriptive analyses, 2 prospective analyses, one phase III trial, and one meta-analysis). Articles were reviewed by authors and relevant data examined. Results show that opioid overdose morbidity is significantly more prevalent than mortality and sequelae of non-fatal events should be studied in more detail.
LIMITATIONS
The limitations of this systematic review include the range of study populations and opioids discussed and the broad and variable definitions of "opioid overdose" in the literature.
CONCLUSIONS
Opioid overdose morbidity and mortality is seen across the entire spectrum of inpatient and outpatient use with significant numbers of adverse events occurring in population segments not identified by high risk indicators. Increased physician awareness and a multi-modal approach could help mitigate the overdose epidemic while maintaining effective pain control for patients.
KEY WORDS
Prescription, opioid, accidental drug overdose, unintentional overdose, drug poisoning, fentanyl, oxycodone, hydrocodone, methadone, oxymorphone, hydromorphone.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Drug Overdose; Humans; Prescription Drug Overuse
PubMed: 27228510
DOI: No ID Found -
Medicine Apr 2016The adverse events (AEs) of oxycodone in cancer-related pain were controversial, so we conducted a meta-analysis to determine it. PubMed, Embase, CBM, CNKI, WanFang... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The adverse events (AEs) of oxycodone in cancer-related pain were controversial, so we conducted a meta-analysis to determine it. PubMed, Embase, CBM, CNKI, WanFang database, The Cochrane library, Web of Science, and the reference of included studies were searched to recognize pertinent studies. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all AEs were all extracted. The fixed-effects model was used to calculate pooled RRs and 95% CIs. Power calculation was performed using macro embedded in SAS software after all syntheses were completed. We identified 11 eligible trials involving 1211 patients: 604 patients included in oxycodone group and 607 patients involved in control group. Our quantitative analysis included 8 AEs, and the pooled analyses indicated that oxycodone compared with other opioids in cancer-related pain were not significantly decreased RRs of all AEs (dizziness RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.69-1.30, Z = 0.35, P = 0.72; nausea RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.72-1.07, Z = 1.26, P = 0.21; vomiting RR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.70-1.15, Z = 0.9, P = 0.37; sleepiness RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.38-1.36, Z = 0.36, P = 0.72; constipation RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.81-1.19, Z = 0.21, P = 0.83; anorexia RR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.58-1.62, Z = 0.11, P = 0.91; pruritus RR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.44-1.30, Z = 1.01, P = 0.31; dysuria RR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.07-1.62, Z = 1.36, P = 0.1)]. The subgroup analysis shown that Ox controlled-release (CR) had less sleepiness compared with MS-contin (Mc) CR (RR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.25-0.90, P = 0.02). The power analysis suggests that all AEs have low statistical power. The present meta-analysis detected that no statistically significant difference were found among oxycodone and other opioids in all AEs, but Ox CR may had less sleepiness compared with Mc CR when subgroup analysis were conducted.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Delayed-Action Preparations; Humans; Neoplasms; Oxycodone; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27082588
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003341