首页> 外文期刊>Pain medicine : >Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of prescription opioids, including abuse-deterrent formulations, in non-cancer pain management
【24h】

Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of prescription opioids, including abuse-deterrent formulations, in non-cancer pain management

机译:系统文献综述和荟萃分析处方阿片类药物的疗效和安全性,包括滥用禁险的制剂,非癌症疼痛管理

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Objective: This study was conducted to compare safety and efficacy outcomes between opioids formulated with technologies designed to deter or resist tampering (i.e., abuse-deterrent formulations [ADFs]) and non-ADFs for commonly prescribed opioids for treatment of non-cancer pain in adults. Methods: PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched for opioid publications between September 1, 2001 and August 31, 2011, and pivotal clinical trials from all years; abstracts from key pain conferences (2010-2011) were also reviewed. One hundred and ninety-one publications were initially identified, 68 of which met eligibility criteria and were systematically reviewed; a subset of 16 involved a placebo group (13 non-ADFs vs placebo, 3 ADFs vs placebo) and reported both efficacy and safety outcomes, and were included for a meta-analysis. Summary estimates of standardized difference in mean change of pain intensity (DMCPI), standardized difference in sum of pain intensity difference (DSPID), and odds ratios (ORs) of each adverse event (AE) were computed through random-effects estimates for ADFs (and non-ADFs) vs placebo. Indirect treatment comparisons were conducted to compare ADFs and non-ADFs. Results: Summary estimates for standardized DMCPI and for standardized DSPID indicated that ADFs and non-ADFs showed significantly greater efficacy than placebo in reducing pain intensity. Indirect analyses assessing the efficacy outcomes between ADFs and non-ADFs indicated that they were not significantly different (standardized DMCPI [0.39 {95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00-0.76}]; standardized DSPID [-0.22 {95% CI -0.74 to 0.30}]). ADFs and non-ADFs both were associated with higher odds of AEs than placebo. Odds ratios from indirect analyses comparing AEs for ADFs vs non-ADFs were not significant (nausea, 0.87 [0.24-3.12]; vomiting, 1.54 [0.40-5.97]; dizziness/vertigo, 0.61 [0.21-1.76]; headache, 1.42 [0.57-3.53]; somnolence/drowsiness, 0.47 [0.09-2.58]; constipation, 0.64 [0.28-1.49]; pruritus 0.41 [0.05-3.51]). Conclusion: ADFs and non-ADFs had comparable efficacy and safety profiles, while both were more efficacious than placebo in reducing pain intensity.
机译:目的,进行了本研究以比较与设计用于阻止或抵抗篡改(即滥用 - 威慑制剂[ADFS])和通常规定阿片类药物的非ADFS治疗非癌症疼痛的非癌症疼痛的技术成年人。方法:在2001年9月1日至2011年8月31日至2011年8月31日之间搜索了PubMed和Cochrane图书馆数据库,以及各个年的关键临床试验;还审查了关键疼痛会议(2010-2011)的摘要。最初确定了一百九十一出版物,其中68人达到了资格标准,并进行了系统地审查; 16个涉及安慰剂组的子集(13个非ADFS与安慰剂,3 ADFS VS安慰剂),并报告了疗效和安全结果,并被包括在荟萃分析中。概述疼痛强度(DMCPI)的平均变化的标准化差异,通过ADF的随机效应估计计算每个不良事件(AE)的疼痛强度差(DSPID)和多元量值(ORS)的标准化差异(和非ADFS)VS安慰剂。进行间接治疗比较以比较ADF和非ADF。结果:标准化DMCPI和标准化DSPID的摘要估计表明,ADF和非ADF在降低疼痛强度方面表现出比安慰剂更大的疗效。间接分析评估ADF和非ADF之间的疗效结果表明它们没有显着差异(标准化DMCPI [0.39 {95%置信区间(CI)0.00-0.76}];标准化DSPID [-0.22 {95%CI -0.74至0.30}])。 ADF和非ADFS两者都与AES的几率高于安慰剂相关联。来自间接分析的差距比较ADFS与非ADFS的AES不显着(恶心,0.87 [0.24-3.12];呕吐,1.54 [0.40-5.97];头晕/眩晕,0.61 [0.21-1.76];头痛,1.42 [ 0.57-3.53];嗜睡/嗜睡,0.47 [0.09-2.58];便秘,0.64 [0.28-1.49];瘙痒0.41 [0.05-3.51])。结论:ADFS和非ADFS具有相当的功效和安全性曲线,而两者在降低疼痛强度时均比安慰剂更具效率。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Pain medicine :》 |2014年第1期|共14页
  • 作者单位

    Brigham and Women's Hospital Harvard Medical School Boston MA United States;

    Analysis Group Inc. Boston MA United States;

    Analysis Group Inc. Boston MA United States;

    Analysis Group Inc. Boston MA United States;

    Analysis Group Inc. Boston MA United States;

    Analysis Group Inc. Boston MA United States;

    Pfizer Inc. New York NY United States;

    Pfizer Inc. New York NY United States;

    Pfizer Inc. New York NY United States;

    Analysis Group Inc. Boston MA United States;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 症状诊断学;
  • 关键词

    Opioids; Pain management; Safety;

    机译:阿片类药物;疼痛管理;安全;

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号