-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2011Thirty-five Cochrane Reviews of randomised trials testing the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain have been published. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Thirty-five Cochrane Reviews of randomised trials testing the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain have been published. This overview brings together the results of all those reviews and assesses the reliability of available data.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise data from all Cochrane Reviews that have assessed the effects of pharmaceutical interventions for acute pain in adults with at least moderate pain following surgery, who have been given a single dose of oral analgesic taken alone.
METHODS
We identified systematic reviews in The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single Review Group, had a standard title, and had as their primary outcome numbers of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. For individual reviews we extracted the number needed to treat (NNT) for this outcome for each drug/dose combination, and also the percentage of participants achieving at least 50% maximum pain relief, the mean of mean or median time to remedication, the percentage of participants remedicating by 6, 8, 12, or 24 hours, and results for participants experiencing at least one adverse event.
MAIN RESULTS
The overview included 35 separate Cochrane Reviews with 38 analyses of single dose oral analgesics tested in acute postoperative pain models, with results from about 45,000 participants studied in approximately 350 individual studies. The individual reviews included only high-quality trials of standardised design and outcome reporting. The reviews used standardised methods and reporting for both efficacy and harm. Event rates with placebo were consistent in larger data sets. No statistical comparison was undertaken.There were reviews but no trial data were available for acemetacin, meloxicam, nabumetone, nefopam, sulindac, tenoxicam, and tiaprofenic acid. Inadequate amounts of data were available for dexibuprofen, dextropropoxyphene 130 mg, diflunisal 125 mg, etoricoxib 60 mg, fenbufen, and indometacin. Where there was adequate information for drug/dose combinations (at least 200 participants, in at least two studies), we defined the addition of four comparisons of typical size (400 participants in total) with zero effect as making the result potentially subject to publication bias and therefore unreliable. Reliable results were obtained for 46 drug/dose combinations in all painful postsurgical conditions; 45 in dental pain and 14 in other painful conditions.NNTs varied from about 1.5 to 20 for at least 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. The proportion of participants achieving this level of benefit varied from about 30% to over 70%, and the time to remedication varied from two hours (placebo) to over 20 hours in the same pain condition. Participants reporting at least one adverse event were few and generally no different between active drug and placebo, with a few exceptions, principally for aspirin and opioids.Drug/dose combinations with good (low) NNTs were ibuprofen 400 mg (2.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4 to 2.6), diclofenac 50 mg (2.7; 95% CI 2.4 to 3.0), etoricoxib 120 mg (1.9; 95% CI 1.7 to 2.1), codeine 60 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg (2.2; 95% CI 1.8 to 2.9), celecoxib 400 mg (2.5; 95% CI 2.2 to 2.9), and naproxen 500/550 mg (2.7; 95% CI 2.3 to 3.3). Long duration of action (≥ 8 hours) was found for etoricoxib 120 mg, diflunisal 500 mg, oxycodone 10 mg + paracetamol 650 mg, naproxen 500/550 mg, and celecoxib 400 mg.Not all participants had good pain relief and for many drug/dose combinations 50% or more did not achieve at last 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a wealth of reliable evidence on the analgesic efficacy of single dose oral analgesics. There is also important information on drugs for which there are no data, inadequate data, or where results are unreliable due to susceptibility to publication bias. This should inform choices by professionals and consumers.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Analgesics; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Review Literature as Topic; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 21901726
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008659.pub2 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Apr 1997To assess the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for low back pain. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To assess the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for low back pain.
DATA SOURCES
Computer aided search of published randomised clinical trials and assessment of the methods of the studies.
STUDY SELECTION
26 randomised clinical trials evaluating NSAIDs for low back pain were identified.
DATA EXTRACTION
Score for quality (maximum = 100 points) of the methods based on four categories: study population; interventions; effect measurement; data presentation and analysis. Determination of success rate per study group and evaluation of different contrasts. Statistical pooling of placebo controlled trials in similar patient groups and using similar outcome measures.
RESULTS
The methods scores of the trials ranged from 27 to 83 points. NSAIDs were compared with placebo treatment in 10 studies. The pooled odds ratio in four trials comparing NSAIDs with placebo after one week was 0.53 (95% confidence intervals 0.32 to 0.89) using the fixed effect model, indicating a significant effect in favour of NSAIDs compared with placebo. In nine studies NSAIDs were compared with other (drug) therapies. Of these, only two studies reported better results of NSAIDs compared with paracetamol with and without dextropropoxyphene. In the other trials NSAIDs were not better than the reference treatment. In 11 studies different NSAIDs were compared, of which seven studies reported no differences in effect.
CONCLUSIONS
There are flaws in the design of most studies. The pooled odds ratio must be interpreted with caution because the trials at issue, including the high quality trials, did not use identical outcome measures. The results of the 26 randomised trials that have been carried out to date, suggest that NSAIDs might be effective for short-term symptomatic relief in patients with uncomplicated low back pain, but are less effective or ineffective in patients with low back pain with sciatica and patients with sciatica with nerve root symptoms.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Low Back Pain; MEDLINE; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design
PubMed: 9165992
DOI: 10.1136/ard.56.4.214 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Mar 2006To determine the in vitro kinetics of morphine-3-glucuronide (M3G) and morphine-6-glucuronide (M6G) formation and the inhibition potential by methadone enantiomers and...
AIMS
To determine the in vitro kinetics of morphine-3-glucuronide (M3G) and morphine-6-glucuronide (M6G) formation and the inhibition potential by methadone enantiomers and structurally related opioids.
METHODS
M3G and M6G formation kinetics from morphine were determined using microsomes from five human livers. Inhibition of glucuronide formation was investigated with eight inhibitors (100 microm) and the mechanism of inhibition determined for (R)- and (S)-methadone (70-500 microm) using three microsomal samples.
RESULTS
Glucuronide formation displayed single enzyme kinetics. The M3G Vmax (mean+/-SD) was 4.8-fold greater than M6G Vmax (555+/-110 vs. 115+/-19 nmol mg-1 protein h-1; P=0.006, mean of difference 439; 95% confidence interval 313, 565 nmol mg-1 protein h-1). Km values for M3G and M6G formation were not significantly different (1.12+/-0.37 vs. 1.11+/-0.31 mm; P=0.89, 0.02; -0.29, 0.32 mm). M3G and M6G formation was inhibited (P<0.01) with a significant increase in the M3G/M6G ratio (P<0.01) for all compounds tested. Detailed analysis with (R)- and (S)-methadone revealed noncompetitive inhibition with (R)-methadone Ki of 320+/-42 microm and 192+/-12 microm for M3G and M6G, respectively, and (S)-methadone Ki of 226+/-30 microm and 152+/-20 microm for M3G and M6G, respectively. Ki values for M3G inhibition were significantly greater than for M6G for (R)-methadone (P=0.017, 128; 55, 202 microm) and (S)-methadone (P=0.026, 75; 22, 128 microm).
CONCLUSIONS
Both methadone enantiomers noncompetitively inhibited the formation of morphine's primary metabolites, with greater inhibition of M6G formation compared with M3G. These findings indicate a mechanism for reduced morphine clearance in methadone-maintained patients and reduced relative formation of the opioid active M6G compared with M3G.
Topics: Alamethicin; Analgesics, Opioid; Dextropropoxyphene; Humans; Ionophores; Methadone; Methadyl Acetate; Microsomes, Liver; Morphine Derivatives
PubMed: 16487227
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2005.02573.x -
Clinical Gastroenterology and... Jun 2019Many patients with gastroparesis are prescribed opioids for pain control, but indications for opioid prescriptions and the relationship of opioid use to gastroparesis...
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Many patients with gastroparesis are prescribed opioids for pain control, but indications for opioid prescriptions and the relationship of opioid use to gastroparesis manifestations are undefined. We characterized associations of use of potent vs weaker opioids and presentations of diabetic and idiopathic gastroparesis.
METHODS
We collected data on symptoms, gastric emptying, quality of life, and health care resource use from 583 patients with gastroparesis (>10% 4-h scintigraphic retention) from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Gastroparesis Consortium, from January 2007 through November 2016. Patients completed medical questionnaires that included questions about opioid use. The opioid(s) were categorized for potency relative to oral morphine. Symptom severities were quantified by Patient Assessment of Upper Gastrointestinal Disorders Symptoms questionnaires. Subgroup analyses compared patients on potent vs weaker opioids and opioid effects in diabetic vs idiopathic etiologies.
RESULTS
Forty-one percent of patients were taking opioids; 82% of these took potent agents (morphine, hydrocodone, oxycodone, methadone, hydromorphone, buprenorphine, or fentanyl). Abdominal pain was the reason for prescription for 61% of patients taking opioids. Mean scores for gastroparesis, nausea/vomiting, bloating/distention, abdominal pain, and constipation scores were higher in opioid users (P ≤ .05). Opioid use was associated with greater levels of gastric retention, worse quality of life, increased hospitalization, and increased use of antiemetic and pain modulator medications compared with nonusers (P ≤ .03). Use of potent opioids was associated with worse gastroparesis, nausea/vomiting, upper abdominal pain, and quality-of-life scores, and more hospitalizations compared with weaker opioids (tapentadol, tramadol, codeine, or propoxyphene) (P ≤ .05). Opioid use was associated with larger increases in gastric retention in patients with idiopathic vs diabetic gastroparesis (P = .008).
CONCLUSIONS
Opioid use is prevalent among patients with diabetic or idiopathic gastroparesis, and is associated with worse symptoms, delays in gastric emptying, and lower quality of life, as well as greater use of resources. Potent opioids are associated with larger effects than weaker agents. These findings form a basis for studies to characterize adverse outcomes of opioid use in patients with gastroparesis and to help identify those who might benefit from interventions to prevent opioid overuse.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Female; Gastric Emptying; Gastroparesis; Health Resources; Humans; Male; Prognosis; Quality of Life
PubMed: 30326297
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.10.013 -
Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain... Feb 2017About a year after dextropropoxyphene (DXP) withdrawal from the French market, we conducted a survey among members of the French Society of Anesthesia & Intensive Care...
About a year after dextropropoxyphene (DXP) withdrawal from the French market, we conducted a survey among members of the French Society of Anesthesia & Intensive Care Medicine (Sfar) and of the French Society of the Study and Treatment of Pain (SFETD) to identify the indications for which this WHO level II analgesic had been prescribed, the prescriber's feedback following withdrawal, and the substitutive analgesics prescribed. DXP had been prescribed by more than 75% of the 430 anaesthesiologists and 230 pain specialists interviewed, mainly for acute and chronic non-cancer pain of moderate intensity. While two thirds of pain specialists were not satisfied with DXP withdrawal, this decision did not affect the majority of anaesthesiologists. In both groups, the main substitutive analgesic was tramadol combined with acetaminophen, while only 24% of prescribers considered acetaminophen alone as a substitute.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Adult; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthesiologists; Anesthesiology; Critical Care; Dextropropoxyphene; Drug Combinations; Drug Prescriptions; Female; France; Health Care Surveys; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pain; Pain Management; Societies, Medical; Tramadol
PubMed: 27320052
DOI: 10.1016/j.accpm.2016.01.007 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Jan 1985Healthy volunteers received single doses of three benzodiazepines (diazepam, 10 mg i.v.; alprazolam, 1.0 mg orally; lorazepam, 2 mg i.v.) on two occasions in random... (Clinical Trial)
Clinical Trial Randomized Controlled Trial
Healthy volunteers received single doses of three benzodiazepines (diazepam, 10 mg i.v.; alprazolam, 1.0 mg orally; lorazepam, 2 mg i.v.) on two occasions in random sequence. One trial was a control; for the other, subjects ingested propoxyphene, 65 mg every 6 h, for the duration of the benzodiazepine study. The kinetics of each benzodiazepine were determined from multiple plasma concentrations measured following each dose. For diazepam, propoxyphene produced a small and statistically insignificant prolongation of elimination half-life (43 vs 38 h) and reduction of total clearance (0.41 vs 0.47 ml min-1 kg-1). Propoxyphene significantly prolonged alprazolam half-life (18 vs 12 h, P less than 0.005) and reduced total clearance (0.8 vs 1.3 ml min-1 kg-1, P less than 0.005). Propoxyphene had no apparent influence on lorazepam half-life (13.4 vs 13.5 h) or clearance (1.5 vs 1.4 ml min-1 kg-1). Thus propoxyphene significantly impairs the clearance of alprazolam, biotransformed mainly by the oxidative reaction of aliphatic hydroxylation. Propoxyphene has far less effect on the oxidation of diazepam by N-demethylation, and has no apparent influence on lorazepam conjugation.
Topics: Adult; Alprazolam; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Benzodiazepines; Dextropropoxyphene; Diazepam; Drug Interactions; Female; Half-Life; Humans; Kinetics; Lorazepam; Male; Metabolic Clearance Rate; Middle Aged
PubMed: 2858217
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1985.tb02612.x -
CNS Drug Reviews 2003Moclobemide is a reversible inhibitor of monoamine-oxidase-A (RIMA) and has been extensively evaluated in the treatment of a wide spectrum of depressive disorders and... (Review)
Review
Moclobemide is a reversible inhibitor of monoamine-oxidase-A (RIMA) and has been extensively evaluated in the treatment of a wide spectrum of depressive disorders and less extensively studied in anxiety disorders. Nearly all meta-analyses and most comparative studies indicated that in the acute management of depression this drug is more efficacious than placebo and as efficacious as tricyclic (or some heterocyclic) antidepressants or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). There is a growing evidence that moclobemide is not inferior to other antidepressants in the treatment of subtypes of depression, such as dysthymia, endogenous (unipolar and bipolar), reactive, atypical, agitated, and retarded depression as with other antidepressants limited evidence suggests that moclobemide has consistent long-term efficacy. However, more controlled studies addressing this issue are needed. For patients with bipolar depression the risk of developing mania seems to be not higher with moclobemide than with other antidepressants. The effective therapeutic dose range for moclobemide in most acute phase trials was 300 to 600 mg, divided in 2 to 3 doses. While one controlled trial and one long-term open-label study found moclobemide to be efficacious in social phobia, three controlled trials subsequently revealed either no effect or less robust effects with the tendency of higher doses (600 - 900 mg/d) to be more efficacious. Two comparative trials demonstrated moclobemide to be as efficacious as fluoxetine or clomipramine in patients suffering from panic disorder. Placebo-controlled trials in this indication are, however, still lacking. A relationship between the plasma concentration of moclobemide and its therapeutic efficacy is not apparent but a positive correlation with adverse events has been found. Dizziness, nausea and insomnia occurred more frequently on moclobemide than on placebo. Due to negligible anticholinergic and antihistaminic actions, moclobemide has been better tolerated than tri- or heterocyclic antidepressants. Gastrointestinal side effects and, especially, sexual dysfunction were much less frequent with moclobemide than with SSRIs. Unlike irreversible MAO-inhibitors, moclobemide has a negligible propensity to induce hypertensive crisis after ingestion of tyramine-rich food ("cheese-reaction"). Therefore, dietary restrictions are not as strict. However, with moclobemide doses above 900 mg/d the risk of interaction with ingested tyramine might become clinically relevant. After multiple dosing the oral bioavailability of moclobemide reaches almost 100%. At therapeutic doses, moclobemide lacks significant negative effects on psychomotor performance, cognitive function or cardiovascular system. Due to the relative freedom from these side effects, moclobemide is particularly attractive in the treatment of elderly patients. Moclobemide is a substrate of CYP2C19. Although it acts as an inhibitor of CYP1A2, CYP2C19, and CYP2D6, relatively few clinically important drug interactions involving moclobemide have been reported. It is relatively safe even in overdose. The drug has a short plasma elimination half-life that allows switching to an alternative agent within 24 h. Since it is well tolerated, therapeutic doses can often be reached rapidly upon onset of treatment. Steady-state plasma levels are reached approximately at one week following dose adjustment. Patients with renal dysfunction require no dose reduction in contrast to patients with severe hepatic impairment. Cases of refractory depression might improve with a combination of moclobemide with other antidepressants, such as clomipramine or a SSRI. Since this combination has rarely been associated with a potentially lethal serotonin syndrome, it requires lower entry doses, a slower dose titration and a more careful monitoring of patients. Combination therapy with moclobemide and other serotonergic agents, or opioids, should be undertaken with caution, although no serious adverse events have been published with therapeutic doses of moclobemide to date. On the basis of animal data the combined use of moclobemide with pethidine or dextropropoxyphene should be avoided. There is no evidence that moclobemide would increase body weight or produce seizures. Some preclinical data suggest that moclobemide may have anticonvulsant property.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Antidepressive Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Depressive Disorder; Drug Interactions; Humans; Mental Disorders; Middle Aged; Moclobemide; Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors
PubMed: 12595913
DOI: 10.1111/j.1527-3458.2003.tb00245.x -
Archives of Pathology & Laboratory... Feb 2020Urine drug testing is frequently ordered by health care providers. Immunoassays are widely used for drug testing, yet have potential limitations, including variable...
CONTEXT.—
Urine drug testing is frequently ordered by health care providers. Immunoassays are widely used for drug testing, yet have potential limitations, including variable cross-reactivity. The last decade has seen worsening of a prescription drug abuse epidemic.
OBJECTIVE.—
To use data from a College of American Pathologists proficiency testing survey, Urine Drug Testing, Screening, to determine and summarize the characteristics, performance, and limitations of immunoassays.
DESIGN.—
Seven years of proficiency surveys were reviewed (2011-2017).
RESULTS.—
Rapid growth was seen in participant volumes for specific immunoassays for synthetic opioids (eg, buprenorphine, fentanyl, oxycodone) and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine ("ecstasy"). Participant volumes remained high for immunoassays targeting less commonly abused drugs such as barbiturates and phencyclidine. For opiate immunoassays, the number of laboratories using a 2000 ng/mL positive cutoff remained stable, and an increasing number adopted a 100 ng/mL cutoff. Opiate and amphetamine immunoassays showed high variability in cross-reactivity for drugs other than the assay calibrator. Assays targeting a single drug or metabolite generally performed well on drug challenges.
CONCLUSIONS.—
Survey results indicate strong clinical interest in urine drug testing and some adoption of new assays. However, urine drug testing availability does not parallel prevailing patterns of drug prescribing and abuse patterns. In particular, specific immunoassays for synthetic opioids and a lower positive cutoff for opiate immunoassays may be underused, whereas immunoassays for barbiturates, methadone, propoxyphene, and phencyclidine may be overused. Laboratories are encouraged to review their test menu, cutoffs, and assay performance and adjust their test offerings based on clinical needs and technical capabilities.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Immunoassay; Laboratory Proficiency Testing; Retrospective Studies; Substance Abuse Detection
PubMed: 31313960
DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2018-0562-CP -
Drug, Healthcare and Patient Safety 2019The U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), contains information on adverse drug events and medication error reports submitted to the...
BACKGROUND
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), contains information on adverse drug events and medication error reports submitted to the FDA through the MedWatch program. A significant number of adverse events reported in the FAERS database have been for opioid use. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency counts and associated deaths of opioid drug names in the FAERS database.
METHODS
Drug data were obtained from the DRUG and OUTCOME files in the database. Drugs identified included: morphine, fentanyl, oxycodone, hydrocodone, tramadol, hydromorphone, methadone, codeine, oxymorphone, meperidine, propoxyphene, diphenoxylate, and heroin. Frequency counts and concomitant deaths of opioid drug names were determined via the MySQL database management system.
RESULTS
Fifteen different opioid drugs identified in the FAERS database were associated with ADEs, including death, and 3 drugs (oxycodone, hydrocodone, fentanyl) accounted for more than half of the reports. The highest frequency count value was 158,181 for oxycodone, which represents approximately 20.2% of the frequency counts for the opioids. The lowest frequency count value was 2,161 for dextromethorphan, which represents approximately 0.3% of the total. The opioid with the highest proportion of deaths to drug count was heroin (71.8%), followed by dextromethorphan (55.6%), methadone (37.2%), morphine (26.8%), and propoxyphene (23.7%).
CONCLUSION
The FAERS database represents an important source for detection and reporting of adverse drug events (ADEs), in particular the opioids and related drugs. It remains a challenge to estimate the true incidence of ADEs for this class of drugs in the general population.
PubMed: 31695510
DOI: 10.2147/DHPS.S214771 -
BMC Health Services Research Apr 2018In 2009, the European Medicines Agency recommended withdrawal of dextropropoxyphene (DXP); in March 2011 it was withdrawn from the market in France. Up until that time...
BACKGROUND
In 2009, the European Medicines Agency recommended withdrawal of dextropropoxyphene (DXP); in March 2011 it was withdrawn from the market in France. Up until that time the combination dextropropoxyphene-paracetamol (DXP/PC) was widely used for analgesia. At withdrawal, French regulators recommended that DXP/PC be replaced by other step 2 analgesics, i.e. tramadol, codeine, or opium-containing drugs, or by PC for a weak level of pain. To investigate prescribing behaviours after DXP/PC withdrawal, dispensations of analgesics before and after withdrawal were analysed.
METHODS
Aggregated dispensation data of analgesics prescribed between January 2009 and December 2012 in the Rhône-Alpes region were obtained from the general health insurance claims data; changes in analgesic dispensation over time were analysed with the ATC/DDD methodology. Pre (Jan-June 2009) and post-withdrawal (Jan-June 2012) changes of DDDs where computed for each analgesic step.
RESULTS
The dispensations of DXP/PC experienced a two-step decrease until 2011. Over the withdrawal period 2009-2012, there was a 14% decrease in the overall use of analgesic (from 109 to 94 DDDs), while the use of step 2 analgesics declined by 46% (- 22 DDDs, from 47 to 25 DDDs). This latter decline included a cessation of use of DXP/PC (29 DDDs in 2009) that were only in part (+ 7 DDDs, from 18 to 25 DDDs) compensated by increased use of codeine, tramadol and opium, in monotherapy or combined with PC. For step 1 analgesics, use increased with 9%, mostly PC (+ 8 DDDs, from 31 to 39 DDDs). Step 3 analgesics dispensations remained largely unchanged over this period (around 3 DDDs).
CONCLUSIONS
In the Rhône-Alpes region, DXP/PC withdrawal was accompanied in part by an increased use of same level analgesics, and in part by an increased use of PC in monotherapy. The extent of DXP/PC use before withdrawal, and the increased use of PC after DXP withdrawal, underline the complexity of pain management.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Codeine; Dextropropoxyphene; Drug Combinations; Drug Prescriptions; France; Humans; Pain; Pain Management; Safety-Based Drug Withdrawals; Tramadol
PubMed: 29609613
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-3058-1