-
The International Journal on Drug Policy Mar 2022Opioid agonist therapy (OAT) has been severely disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The risks of opioid withdrawal, overdose, and diversion have increased, so there is an... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Opioid agonist therapy (OAT) has been severely disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The risks of opioid withdrawal, overdose, and diversion have increased, so there is an urgent need to adapt OAT to best support people who use drugs (PWUD). This review examines the views and experiences of PWUD, health care providers, and health system administrators on OAT during major disruptions to medical care to inform appropriate health system responses during the current pandemic and beyond.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis. We searched three comprehensive datasets for qualitative and mixed-methods studies that examined OAT in the context of major disruptions such as natural disasters, and analyzed included studies using thematic analysis and the constant comparative method. We used conceptual frameworks of health systems resilience and adaptive systems to interpret our findings.
RESULTS
We included 10 studies published between 2002 and 2020 that examined OAT in the context of hurricanes, earthquakes, and terrorist attacks. We organized our results into three themes: uncertainty, inconsistency, and vulnerability; regulatory inflexibility; and lack of coordination. The highly regulated but poorly coordinated systems of OAT provision lacked flexibility to adapt to major disruptions, thereby manufacturing vulnerability for both PWUD and health workers.
CONCLUSIONS
OAT programs must be resilient and adaptable to face major disruptions while maintaining quality care. Our findings provide guidance to develop and implement innovative strategies that increase the adaptive potential of OAT programs while focusing on the needs of PWUD.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; COVID-19; Humans; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34902805
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103556 -
Pharmacogenomics Apr 2023To analyze roles of single nucleotide variants (SNVs) on weight loss with US FDA-approved medications. We searched the literature up until November 2022. Preferred... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To analyze roles of single nucleotide variants (SNVs) on weight loss with US FDA-approved medications. We searched the literature up until November 2022. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. 14 studies were included in qualitative analysis and seven in meta-analysis. SNVs in , , , , , , and were evaluated relative to weight loss with glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (13 studies) or naltrexone-bupropion (one study). gene (rs1049353), gene (rs6923761, rs10305420), gene (rs7903146) were associated with weight loss in at least one study involving glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist(s). The meta-analysis did not identify any consistent effect of SNVs. Pharmacogenetic interactions for exenatide, liraglutide, naltrexone-bupropion and weight loss were identified, but the directionality was inconsistent.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Pharmacogenetics; Naltrexone; Bupropion; Peptides; Venoms; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1; Weight Loss; Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Protein Serine-Threonine Kinases
PubMed: 36999540
DOI: 10.2217/pgs-2022-0192 -
Cancer Treatment Reviews Apr 2024Cancer-related pain often requires opioid treatment with opioid-induced constipation (OIC) as its most frequent gastrointestinal side-effect. Both for prevention and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cancer-related pain often requires opioid treatment with opioid-induced constipation (OIC) as its most frequent gastrointestinal side-effect. Both for prevention and treatment of OIC osmotic (e.g. polyethylene glycol) and stimulant (e.g. bisacodyl) laxatives are widely used. Newer drugs such as the peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) and naloxone in a fixed combination with oxycodone have become available for the management of OIC. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to give an overview of the scientific evidence on pharmacological strategies for the prevention and treatment of OIC in cancer patients.
METHODS
A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library was completed from inception up to 22 October 2022. Randomized and non-randomized studies were systematically selected. Bowel function and adverse drug events were assessed.
RESULTS
Twenty trials (prevention: five RCTs and three cohort studies; treatment: ten RCTs and two comparative cohort studies) were included in the review. Regarding the prevention of OIC, three RCTs compared laxatives with other laxatives, finding no clear differences in effectivity of the laxatives used. One cohort study showed a significant benefit of magnesium oxide compared with no laxative. One RCT found a significant benefit for the PAMORA naldemedine compared with magnesium oxide. Preventive use of oxycodone/naloxone did not show a significant difference in two out of three other studies compared to oxycodone or fentanyl. A meta-analysis was not possible. Regarding the treatment of OIC, two RCTs compared laxatives, of which one RCT found that polyethylene glycol was significantly more effective than sennosides. Seven studies compared an opioid antagonist (naloxone, methylnaltrexone or naldemedine) with placebo and three studies compared different dosages of opioid antagonists. These studies with opioid antagonists were used for the meta-analysis. Oxycodone/naloxone showed a significant improvement in Bowel Function Index compared to oxycodone with laxatives (MD -13.68; 95 % CI -18.38 to -8.98; I = 58 %). Adverse drug event rates were similar amongst both groups, except for nausea in favour of oxycodone/naloxone (RR 0.51; 95 % CI 0.31-0.83; I = 0 %). Naldemedine (NAL) and methylnaltrexone (MNTX) demonstrated significantly higher response rates compared to placebo (NAL: RR 2.07, 95 % CI 1.64-2.61, I = 0 %; MNTX: RR 3.83, 95 % CI 2.81-5.22, I = 0 %). With regard to adverse events, abdominal pain was more present in treatment with methylnaltrexone and diarrhea was significantly more present in treatment with naldemedine. Different dosages of methylnaltrexone were not significantly different with regard to both efficacy and adverse drug event rates.
CONCLUSIONS
Magnesium oxide and naldemedine are most likely effective for prevention of OIC in cancer patients. Naloxone in a fixed combination with oxycodone, naldemedine and methylnaltrexone effectively treat OIC in cancer patients with acceptable adverse events. However, their effect has not been compared to standard (osmotic and stimulant) laxatives. More studies comparing standard laxatives with each other and with opioid antagonists are necessary before recommendations for clinical practice can be made.
Topics: Humans; Laxatives; Analgesics, Opioid; Narcotic Antagonists; Constipation; Oxycodone; Opioid-Induced Constipation; Magnesium Oxide; Cohort Studies; Naloxone; Polyethylene Glycols; Neoplasms; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Quaternary Ammonium Compounds; Naltrexone
PubMed: 38452708
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102704 -
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 -
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Sep 2017Use of non-prescribed drugs during treatment for opiate addiction reduces treatment success, creating a need for effective interventions. This review aimed to assess the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Use of non-prescribed drugs during treatment for opiate addiction reduces treatment success, creating a need for effective interventions. This review aimed to assess the efficacy of contingency management, a behavioural treatment that uses rewards to encourage desired behaviours, for treating non-prescribed drug use during opiate addiction treatment.
METHODS
A systematic search of the databases Embase, PsychInfo, PsychArticles and Medline from inception to March 2015 was performed. Random effects meta-analysis tested the use of contingency management to treat the use of drugs during opiate addiction treatment, using either longest duration of abstinence (LDA) or percentage of negative samples (PNS). Random effects moderator analyses were performed for six potential moderators: drug targeted for intervention, decade in which the study was carried out, study quality, intervention duration, type of reinforcer, and form of opiate treatment.
RESULTS
The search returned 3860 papers; 22 studies met inclusion criteria and were meta-analysed. Follow-up data was only available for three studies, so all analyses used end of treatment data. Contingency management performed significantly better than control in reducing drug use measured using LDA (d=0.57, 95% CI: 0.42-0.72) or PNS (d=0.41) (95% CI: 0.28-0.54). This was true for all drugs other than opiates. The only significant moderator was drug targeted (LDA: Q=10.75, p=0.03).
CONCLUSION
Contingency management appears to be efficacious for treating most drug use during treatment for opiate addiction. Further research is required to ascertain the full effects of moderating variables, and longer term effects.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Behavior Therapy; Humans; Opioid-Related Disorders
PubMed: 28688295
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.05.028 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Opioid drugs, including buprenorphine, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Opioid drugs, including buprenorphine, 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 buprenorphine, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy of buprenorphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 11 June 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any oral dose or formulation of buprenorphine 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. We did not carry out any pooled analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
Searches identified 10 published studies, and one study with results in ClinicalTrials.gov. None of these 11 studies satisfied our inclusion criteria, and so we included no studies in the review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that buprenorphine has any efficacy in any neuropathic pain condition.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Humans; Neuralgia
PubMed: 26421677
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011603.pub2 -
Addiction (Abingdon, England) Feb 2016Smoking prevalence is higher among people enrolled in addiction treatment compared with the general population, and very high rates of smoking are associated with opiate... (Review)
Review
AIMS
Smoking prevalence is higher among people enrolled in addiction treatment compared with the general population, and very high rates of smoking are associated with opiate drug use and receipt of opiate replacement therapy (ORT). We assessed whether these findings are observed internationally.
METHODS
PubMed, PsycINFO and the Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Science Database were searched for papers reporting smoking prevalence among addiction treatment samples, published in English, from 1987 to 2013. Search terms included tobacco use, cessation and substance use disorders using and/or Boolean connectors. For 4549 papers identified, abstracts were reviewed by multiple raters; 239 abstracts met inclusion criteria and these full papers were reviewed for exclusion. Fifty-four studies, collectively comprising 37,364 participants, were included. For each paper we extracted country, author, year, sample size and gender, treatment modality, primary drug treated and smoking prevalence.
RESULTS
The random-effect pooled estimate of smoking across people in addiction treatment was 84% [confidence interval (CI) = 79, 88%], while the pooled estimate of smoking prevalence across matched population samples was 31% (CI = 29, 33%). The difference in the pooled estimates was 52% (CI = 48%, 57%, P < .0001). Smoking rates were higher in programs treating opiate use compared with alcohol use [odds ratio (OR) = 2.52, CI = 2.00, 3.17], and higher in ORT compared to out-patient programs (OR = 1.42, CI = 1.19, 1.68).
CONCLUSIONS
Smoking rates among people in addiction treatment are more than double those of people with similar demographic characteristics. Smoking rates are also higher in people being treated for opiate dependence compared with people being treated for alcohol use disorder.
Topics: Female; Global Health; Humans; Male; Prevalence; Smoking; Smoking Prevention; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 26392127
DOI: 10.1111/add.13099 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2015This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 3, 2006 (Perry 2006). The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 3, 2006 (Perry 2006). The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders. This specific review considers interventions for female drug-using offenders.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity, or drug use, or both.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2014 and five additional Website resources (between 2004 and November 2011). We contacted experts in the field for further information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse of drug use or criminal activity in female drug-using offenders. We also reported data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
Nine trials with 1792 participants met the inclusion criteria. Trial quality and risks of bias varied across each study. We rated the majority of studies as being at 'unclear' risk of bias due to a lack of descriptive information. We divided the studies into different categories for the purpose of meta-analyses: for any psychosocial treatments in comparison to treatment as usual we found low quality evidence that there were no significant differences in arrest rates, (two studies; 489 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.52) or drug use (one study; 77 participants; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.12), but we found moderate quality evidence that there was a significant reduction in reincarceration, (three studies; 630 participants; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.64). Pharmacological intervention using buprenorphine in comparison to a placebo did not significantly reduce self reported drug use (one study; 36 participants; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.35). No cost or cost-effectiveness evidence was reported in the studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Three of the nine trials show a positive trend towards the use of any psychosocial treatment in comparison to treatment as usual showing an overall significant reduction in subsequent reincarceration, but not arrest rates or drug use. Pharmacological interventions in comparison to a placebo did not significantly reduce drug use and did not measure criminal activity. Four different treatment comparisons showed varying results and were not combined due to differences in the intervention and comparison groups. The studies overall showed a high degree of heterogeneity for types of comparisons and outcome measures assessed, which limited the possibility to pool the data. Descriptions of treatment modalities are required to identify the important elements for treatment success in drug-using female offenders. More trials are required to increase the precision of confidence with which we can draw conclusions about the effectiveness of treatments for female drug-using offenders.
Topics: Buprenorphine; Case Management; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Crime; Criminals; Female; Humans; Law Enforcement; Narcotic Antagonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sex Factors; Substance-Related Disorders; Therapeutic Community
PubMed: 26035085
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010910.pub2 -
Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2023Despite current advances in acute postoperative pain management, prevalence remains high. Inadequate treatment could lead to poor outcomes and even progression to... (Review)
Review
Despite current advances in acute postoperative pain management, prevalence remains high. Inadequate treatment could lead to poor outcomes and even progression to chronic pain. Opioids have traditionally been the mainstay for treatment of moderate to severe acute pain. However, their use has been associated with opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs), such as respiratory depression, sedation, nausea, vomiting, pruritus, and decreased bowel motility. In addition, their liberal use has been implicated in the current opioid epidemic. As a result, there has been renewed interest in multimodal analgesia to target different mechanisms of action in order to achieve a synergistic effect and minimize opioid usage. Oliceridine is a novel mu-opioid receptor agonist that is part of a new class of biased ligands that selectively activate G-protein signaling and downregulate β-arrestin recruitment. Since G-protein signaling has been associated with analgesia while β-arrestin recruitment has been associated with ORAEs, there is potential for a wider therapeutic window. In this review, we will discuss the clinical evidence behind oliceridine and its potential role in acute postoperative pain management. We have systematically searched the PubMed database using the keywords , and . All articles identified were reviewed and evaluated, and all clinical trials were included.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Morphine; Pain, Postoperative; GTP-Binding Proteins
PubMed: 36987403
DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S372612 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2008Up to 80% of people with cancer experience pain at some time during their illness, and most will need opioid analgesics. This review assesses how different opioid... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Up to 80% of people with cancer experience pain at some time during their illness, and most will need opioid analgesics. This review assesses how different opioid analgesics compare, in terms of both pain control and adverse effects, in people with cancer.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: what are the effects of opioids in treating cancer-related pain? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2007 (BMJ Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 22 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: codeine, dihydrocodeine, transdermal fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, and tramadol.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Codeine; Fentanyl; Humans; Methadone; Neoplasms; Oxycodone; Pain
PubMed: 19445735
DOI: No ID Found