-
Health Technology Assessment... Mar 2007To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine maintenance therapy (BMT) and methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) for the management of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine maintenance therapy (BMT) and methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) for the management of opioid-dependent individuals.
DATA SOURCES
Major electronic databases were searched from inception to August 2005. Industry submissions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence were accessed.
REVIEW METHODS
The assessment of clinical effectiveness was based on a review of existing reviews plus an updated search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A decision tree with Monte Carlo simulation model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of BMT and MMT. Retention in treatment and opiate abuse parameters were sourced from the meta-analysis of RCTs directly comparing flexible MMT with flexible dose BMT. Utilities were derived from a panel representing a societal perspective.
RESULTS
Most of the included systematic reviews and RCTs were of moderate to good quality, and focused on short-term (up to 1-year follow-up) outcomes of retention in treatment and the level of opiate use (self-report or urinalysis). Most studies employed a trial design that compared a fixed-dose strategy (i.e. all individuals received a standard dose) of MMT or BMT and were conducted in predominantly young men who fulfilled criteria as opiate-dependent or heroin-dependent users, without significant co-morbidities. RCT meta-analyses have shown that a fixed dose of MMT or BMT has superior levels of retention in treatment and opiate use than placebo or no treatment, with higher fixed doses being more effective than lower fixed doses. There was evidence, primarily from non-randomised observational studies, that fixed-dose MMT reduces mortality, HIV risk behaviour and levels of crime compared with no therapy and one small RCT has shown the level of mortality with fixed-dose BMT to be significantly less than with placebo. Flexible dosing (i.e. individualised doses) of MMT and BMT is more reflective of real-world practice. Retention in treatment was superior for flexible MMT than flexible BMT dosing but there was no significant difference in opiate use. Indirect comparison of data from population cross-sectional studies suggests that mortality with BMT may be lower than that with MMT. A pooled RCT analysis showed no significant difference in serious adverse events with MMT compared with BMT. Although treatment modifier evidence was limited, adjunct psychosocial and contingency interventions (e.g. financial incentives for opiate-free urine samples) appeared to enhance the effects of both MMT and BMT. Also, MMT and BMT appear to be similarly effective whether delivered in a primary care or outpatient clinic setting. Although most of the included economic evaluations were considered to be of high quality, none used all of the appropriate parameters, effectiveness data, perspective and comparators required to make their results generalisable to the NHS context. One company (Schering-Plough) submitted cost-effectiveness evidence based on an economic model that had a 1-year time horizon and sourced data from a single RCT of flexible-dose MMT compared with flexible-dose BMT and utility values obtained from the literature; the results showed that for MMT vs no drug therapy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was pound 12,584/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), for BMT versus no drug therapy, the ICER was pound 30,048/QALY and in a direct comparison, MMT was found to be slightly more effective and less costly than BMT. The assessment group model found for MMT versus no drug therapy that the ICER was pound 13,697/QALY, for BMT versus no drug therapy that the ICER was pound 26,429/QALY and, as with the industry model, in direct comparison, MMT was slightly more effective and less costly than BMT. When considering social costs, both MMT and BMT gave more health gain and were less costly than no drug treatment. These findings were robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Both flexible-dose MMT and BMT are more clinically effective and more cost-effective than no drug therapy in dependent opiate users. In direct comparison, a flexible dosing strategy with MMT was found be somewhat more effective in maintaining individuals in treatment than flexible-dose BMT and therefore associated with a slightly higher health gain and lower costs. However, this needs to be balanced by the more recent experience of clinicians in the use of buprenorphine, the possible risk of higher mortality of MMT and individual opiate-dependent users' preferences. Future research should be directed towards the safety and effectiveness of MMT and BMT; potential safety concerns regarding methadone and buprenorphine, specifically mortality and key drug interactions; efficacy of substitution medications (in particular patient subgroups, such as within the criminal justice system, or within young people); and uncertainties in cost-effectiveness identified by current economic models.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Female; Heroin Dependence; Humans; Male; Methadone
PubMed: 17313907
DOI: 10.3310/hta11090 -
European Journal of Clinical... Jun 2015The aim of the study was to determine the extent of inter-individual variation in clearance of intravenous morphine in children and to establish which factors are... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the study was to determine the extent of inter-individual variation in clearance of intravenous morphine in children and to establish which factors are responsible for this variation.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed to identify papers describing the clearance of morphine in children. The following databases were searched: Medline, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, CINAHL, and Cochrane library. From the papers, the range in plasma clearance and the coefficient of variation (CV) in plasma clearance were determined.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies were identified. After quality assessment, 20 studies were included. Only 10 studies gave clearance values for individual patients. The majority of the studies were in critically ill patients. Inter-individual variability of morphine clearance was observed in all age groups, but greatest in critically ill neonates (both preterm and term) and infants. In critically ill patients, the CV was 16-97% in preterm neonates, 24-87% in term neonates, 35 and 134% in infants, 39 and 55% in children, and 74% in adolescents. The CV was 37 and 44% respectively in non-critically ill neonates and infants. The mean clearance was higher in children (32 and 52 ml min(-1) kg(-1)) than in neonates (2 to 16 ml min(-1) kg(-1)).
CONCLUSIONS
Large inter-individual variation was seen in morphine clearance values in critically ill neonates and infants.
Topics: Child; Critical Illness; Humans; Individuality; Morphine
PubMed: 25845657
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-015-1843-x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2014Alcohol dependence is a major public health problem that is characterised by recidivism and a host of medical and psychosocial complications. Besides psychosocial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Alcohol dependence is a major public health problem that is characterised by recidivism and a host of medical and psychosocial complications. Besides psychosocial interventions, different pharmacological interventions have been or currently are under investigation through Cochrane systematic reviews.
OBJECTIVES
The primary aim of the review is to assess the benefits/risks of anticonvulsants for the treatment of alcohol dependence.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Trials Register (October 2013), PubMed (1966 to October 2013), EMBASE (1974 to October 2013) and CINAHL (1982 to October 2013).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing anticonvulsants alone or in association with other drugs and/or psychosocial interventions versus placebo, no treatment and other pharmacological or psychosocial interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 25 studies were included in the review (2641 participants). Most participants were male, with an average age of 44 years. Anticonvulsants were compared with placebo (17 studies), other medications (seven studies) and no medication (two studies). The mean duration of the trials was 17 weeks (range four to 52 weeks). The studies took place in the USA, Europe, South America, India and Thailand. Variation was reported in the characteristics of the studies, including their design and the rating instruments used. For many key outcomes, the risk of bias associated with unclear or unconcealed allocation and lack of blinding affected the quality of the evidence.Anticonvulsants versus placebo: For dropouts (16 studies, 1675 participants, risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (Cl) 0.74 to 1.19, moderate-quality evidence) and continuous abstinence (eight studies, 634 participants, RR 1.21, 95% Cl 95% 0.97 to 1.52, moderate-quality evidence), results showed no evidence of differences. Moderate-quality evidence suggested that anticonvulsants reduced drinks/drinking days (11 studies, 1126 participants, mean difference (MD) -1.49, 95% Cl -2.32 to -0.65) and heavy drinking (12 studies, 1129 participants, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35, 95% Cl -0.51 to -0.19). Moreover, withdrawal for medical reasons (12 studies, 1410 participants, RR 1.22, 95% Cl 0.58 to 2.56, moderate-quality evidence) showed no evidence of difference, but for specific adverse effects (nine studies, 1164 participants), two of 18 adverse event outcomes favoured placebo. The direction of results was confirmed by subgroup analyses for topiramate and partially for gabapentin and valproate.Anticonvulsants versus naltrexone: No evidence of difference was shown in dropout rates (five studies, 528 participants, RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.06), severe relapse rates (four studies, 427 participants, RR 0.69, 95% Cl 0.44 to 1.07) and continuous abstinence rates (five studies, 528 participants, RR 1.21, 95% Cl 0.99 to 1.49); anticonvulsants were associated with fewer heavy drinking days (three studies, 308 participants, MD -5.21, 95% Cl -8.58 to -1.83), more days to severe relapse (three studies, 244 participants, MD 11.88, 95% Cl 3.29 to 20.46) and lower withdrawal for medical reasons (three studies, 245 participants, RR 0.13, 95% Cl 0.03 to 0.58).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
At the current stage of research, randomised evidence supporting the clinical use of anticonvulsants to treat alcohol dependence is insufficient. Results are conditioned by heterogeneity and by the low number and quality of studies comparing anticonvulsants with other medications. The uncertainty associated with these results leaves to clinicians the need to balance possible benefits/risks of treatment with anticonvulsants versus other medications as supported by evidence of efficacy.
Topics: Adult; Alcohol Abstinence; Alcoholism; Anticonvulsants; Female; Humans; Male; Naltrexone; Patient Dropouts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 24523233
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008544.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2013The reinforcing properties of nicotine may be mediated through release of various neurotransmitters both centrally and systemically. People who smoke report positive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The reinforcing properties of nicotine may be mediated through release of various neurotransmitters both centrally and systemically. People who smoke report positive effects such as pleasure, arousal, and relaxation as well as relief of negative affect, tension, and anxiety. Opioid (narcotic) antagonists are of particular interest to investigators as potential agents to attenuate the rewarding effects of cigarette smoking.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of opioid antagonists in promoting long-term smoking cessation. The drugs include naloxone and the longer-acting opioid antagonist naltrexone.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register for trials of naloxone, naltrexone and other opioid antagonists and conducted an additional search of MEDLINE using 'Narcotic antagonists' and smoking terms in April 2013. We also contacted investigators, when possible, for information on unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials comparing opioid antagonists to placebo or an alternative therapeutic control for smoking cessation. We included in the meta-analysis only those trials which reported data on abstinence for a minimum of six months. We also reviewed, for descriptive purposes, results from short-term laboratory-based studies of opioid antagonists designed to evaluate psycho-biological mediating variables associated with nicotine dependence.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data in duplicate on the study population, the nature of the drug therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomisation, and completeness of follow-up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up in patients smoking at baseline. Abstinence at end of treatment was a secondary outcome. We extracted cotinine- or carbon monoxide-verified abstinence where available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis, pooling risk ratios using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.
MAIN RESULTS
Eight trials of naltrexone met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis of long-term cessation. One trial used a factorial design so five trials compared naltrexone versus placebo and four trials compared naltrexone plus nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) versus placebo plus NRT. Results from 250 participants in one long-term trial remain unpublished. No significant difference was detected between naltrexone and placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.51, 445 participants), or between naltrexone and placebo as an adjunct to NRT (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30, 768 participants). The estimate was similar when all eight trials were pooled (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.24, 1213 participants). In a secondary analysis of abstinence at end of treatment, there was also no evidence of any early treatment effect, (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.22, 1213 participants). No trials of naloxone or buprenorphine reported abstinence outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on data from eight trials and over 1200 individuals, there was no evidence of an effect of naltrexone alone or as an adjunct to NRT on long-term smoking abstinence, with a point estimate strongly suggesting no effect and confidence intervals that make a clinically important effect of treatment unlikely. Although further trials might narrow the confidence intervals they are unlikely to be a good use of resources.
Topics: Buprenorphine; Humans; Naloxone; Naltrexone; Narcotic Antagonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices
PubMed: 23744347
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003086.pub3 -
AIDS (London, England) Nov 2014To systematically review and analyse data from cohorts of people who inject drugs (PWID) to improve existing estimates of non-AIDS mortality used to calculate mortality... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and analyse data from cohorts of people who inject drugs (PWID) to improve existing estimates of non-AIDS mortality used to calculate mortality among PWID in the Spectrum Estimates and Projection Package.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We conducted an update of an earlier systematic review of mortality among PWID, searching specifically for studies providing data on non-AIDS-related deaths. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to derive pooled estimates of non-AIDS crude mortality rates across cohorts disaggregated by sex, HIV status and periods in and out of opioid substitution therapy (OST). Within each cohort, ratios of non-AIDS CMRs were calculated and then pooled across studies for the following paired sub-groups: HIV-negative versus HIV-positive PWID; male versus female PWID; periods in OST versus out of OST. For each analysis, pooled estimates by country income group and by geographic region were also calculated.
RESULTS
Thirty-seven eligible studies from high-income countries and five from low and middle-income countries were found. Non-AIDS mortality was significantly higher in low and middle-income countries [2.74 per 100 person-years; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.76-3.72] than in high-income countries (1.56 per 100 person-years; 95% CI 1.38-1.74). Non-AIDS CMRs were 1.34 times greater among men than women (95% CI 1.14-1.57; N = 19 studies); 1.50 times greater among HIV-positive than HIV-negative PWID (95% CI 1.15, 1.96; N = 16 studies); and more than three times greater during periods out of OST than for periods on OST (N = 7 studies).
CONCLUSIONS
A comprehensive response to injecting drug must include efforts to reduce the high levels of non-AIDS mortality among PWID. Due to limitations of currently available data, including substantial heterogeneity between studies, estimates of non-AIDS mortality specific to geographic regions, country income level, or the availability of OST should be interpreted with caution.
Topics: Cause of Death; Cohort Studies; Developed Countries; Developing Countries; Female; HIV Infections; Humans; Male; Mortality; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Sex Factors; Substance Abuse, Intravenous
PubMed: 25409098
DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000000435 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 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). No studies reported any harms. 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). 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. No studies reported if any harms occurred. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia or hypotension. 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; Infant, Newborn; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Apnea; Bradycardia; Fentanyl; Hypotension; Morphine; Pain; Pain, Procedural
PubMed: 37019853
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015056.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016Oxygen (O) is widely used in people with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Previous systematic reviews concluded that there was insufficient evidence to know whether... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Oxygen (O) is widely used in people with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Previous systematic reviews concluded that there was insufficient evidence to know whether oxygen reduced, increased or had no effect on heart ischaemia or infarct size. Our first Cochrane review in 2010 also concluded there was insufficient evidence to know whether oxygen should be used. Since 2010, the lack of evidence to support this widely used intervention has attracted considerable attention, prompting further trials of oxygen therapy in myocardial infarction patients. It is thus important to update this Cochrane review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of routine use of inhaled oxygen for acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following bibliographic databases on 6 June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO) and Web of Science (Thomson Reuters). LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature) was last searched in September 2016. We also contacted experts to identify eligible studies. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials in people with suspected or proven AMI (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI) within 24 hours after onset, in which the intervention was inhaled oxygen (at normal pressure) compared to air, regardless of co-therapies provided to participants in both arms of the trial.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of identified studies to see if they met the inclusion criteria and independently undertook the data extraction. We assessed the quality of studies and the risk of bias according to guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The primary outcome was death. The measure of effect used was the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the quality of the evidence and the GRADE profiler (GRADEpro) to import data from Review Manager 5 and create 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
The updated search yielded one new trial, for a total of five included studies involving 1173 participants, 32 of whom died. The pooled risk ratio (RR) of all-cause mortality in the intention-to-treat analysis was 0.99 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.95; 4 studies, N = 1123; I = 46%; quality of evidence: very low) and 1.02 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.98; 4 studies, N = 871; I = 49%; quality of evidence: very low) when only analysing participants with confirmed AMI. One trial measured pain directly, and two others measured it by opiate usage. The trial showed no effect, with a pooled RR of 0.97 for the use of opiates (95% CI 0.78 to 1.20; 2 studies, N = 250). The result on mortality and pain are inconclusive. There is no clear effect for oxygen on infarct size (the evidence is inconsistent and low quality).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support the routine use of inhaled oxygen in people with AMI, and we cannot rule out a harmful effect. Given the uncertainty surrounding the effect of oxygen therapy on all-cause mortality and on other outcomes critical for clinical decision, well-conducted, high quality randomised controlled trials are urgently required to inform guidelines in order to give definitive recommendations about the routine use of oxygen in AMI.
Topics: Air; Analgesics; Cause of Death; Humans; Intention to Treat Analysis; Myocardial Infarction; Oxygen Inhalation Therapy; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27991651
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007160.pub4 -
European Journal of Psychotraumatology 2023The clinical guidelines for the treatment of dissociation focus primarily on psychotherapy. However, different psychoactive drugs are used in clinical practice. The use... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The clinical guidelines for the treatment of dissociation focus primarily on psychotherapy. However, different psychoactive drugs are used in clinical practice. The use of opioid antagonists has been proposed as a therapeutic option based on the theory that dissociation might be a phenomenon mediated by dysregulation of the endogenous opioid system.
OBJECTIVE
To review and meta-analyse the available evidence on the efficacy of the opioid antagonists naltrexone, naloxone, and nalmefene as treatments for dissociative symptoms and disorders.
METHOD
The PRISMA guidelines were followed, and this review was registered in Prospero with reference number CRD42021280976. The search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and PubPsych databases.
RESULTS
1,798 citations were obtained. After removing duplicates and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 5 comparative studies with 9 dissociation measures that had included a total of 154 participants, of whom 134 had been treated with an opioid antagonist. The results of the meta-analysis showed a treatment effect for dissociation when using opioid antagonists [pooled = 1.46 (95% CI: 0.62-2.31)]. However, the studies we included were very heterogeneous [Q = 66.89 ( < .001)] and there may have been publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Although more research is needed and the results must be interpreted with caution because of the limited amount of data and heterogeneity in the studies and their methodological qualities, opioid antagonists (particularly naltrexone) are promising candidates for the treatment of dissociative symptoms and showed a moderate - large effect size in reducing these symptoms.
Topics: Humans; Narcotic Antagonists; Naltrexone; Naloxone; Dissociative Disorders
PubMed: 37860852
DOI: 10.1080/20008066.2023.2265184 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2017Many people with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, such as oxycodone and morphine. Strong opioids are, however, not... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Many people with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, such as oxycodone and morphine. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all people, neither are they well-tolerated by all people. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for adults with cancer pain. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2015, Issue 2 on oxycodone for cancer-related pain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone by any route of administration for pain in adults with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), and PsycINFO (Ovid) to November 2016. We also searched four trial registries, checked the bibliographic references of relevant studies, and contacted the authors of the included studies. We applied no language, date, or publication status restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (parallel group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults by examining pain intensity/relief, adverse events, quality of life, and participant preference.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the included studies using standard Cochrane methodology. We meta-analysed pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, and adverse events using the Mantel-Haenszel method, or summarised these data narratively along with the quality of life and participant preference data. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
For this update, we identified six new studies (1258 participants) for inclusion. In total, we included 23 studies which enrolled/randomised 2648 participants, with 2144 of these analysed for efficacy and 2363 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons.Pooled analysis of three of the four studies comparing controlled-release (CR) oxycodone to immediate-release (IR) oxycodone showed that the ability of CR and IR oxycodone to provide pain relief were similar (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.06 to 0.26; low quality evidence). Pooled analyses of adverse events showed no significant differences between CR and IR oxycodone for asthenia (risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.68), confusion (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.2 to 3.02), constipation (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13), dizziness/lightheadedness (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.37), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.54), dry mouth (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.75), insomnia (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.53), nausea (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28), nervousness (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.64), pruritus (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.25), vomiting (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15), and discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.22). The quality of the evidence was very low for all these adverse events. Three of the four studies found similar results for treatment acceptability.Pooled analysis of seven of the nine studies comparing CR oxycodone to CR morphine indicated that pain relief was significantly better after treatment with CR morphine than CR oxycodone (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.27; low quality evidence). However, sensitivity analysis did not corroborate this result (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.26).Pooled analyses of adverse events showed no significant differences between CR oxycodone and CR morphine for confusion (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.78 to 1.31), constipation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16), dizziness/lightheadedness (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.76), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.08), dry mouth (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.26), dysuria (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.26), nausea (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26), pruritus (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.29), vomiting (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.29), and discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.6). However, the RR for hallucinations was significantly lower after treatment with CR oxycodone compared to CR morphine (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.97). The quality of the evidence was very low for all these adverse events. There were no marked differences in treatment acceptability or quality of life ratings.The remaining studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability.The quality of this evidence base was limited by the high or unclear risk of bias of the studies and by imprecision due to low or very low event rates or participant numbers for many outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions have not changed since the previous version of this review. The data suggest that oxycodone offers similar levels of pain relief and overall adverse events to other strong opioids including morphine. Although we identified a clinically insignificant benefit on pain relief in favour of CR morphine over CR oxycodone, this did not persist following sensitivity analysis and so we do not consider this important. However, in this updated analysis, we found that hallucinations occurred less often with CR oxycodone than with CR morphine, but the quality of this evidence was very low so this finding should be treated with utmost caution. Our conclusions are consistent with other reviews and suggest that while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis it seems unlikely that larger head to head studies of oxycodone versus morphine are justified, although well-designed trials comparing oxycodone to other strong analgesics may well be useful. For clinical purposes, oxycodone or morphine can be used as first-line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain in adults.
Topics: Aged; Analgesics, Opioid; Cancer Pain; Constipation; Delayed-Action Preparations; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Morphine; Nausea; Neoplasms; Oxycodone; Pain Measurement; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Stages; Vomiting
PubMed: 28829910
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003870.pub6 -
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