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:对非癌症疼痛治疗中处方阿片类药物(包括抑制滥用的制剂)的功效和安全性进行系统文献综述和荟萃分析

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:进行这项研究,以比较使用阿片类药物制止或抵抗篡改的技术(即防止滥用的制剂[ADFs])和非ADFs(通常用于治疗非癌性疼痛的常用处方阿片类药物)之间的安全性和疗效。大人。方法:在2001年9月1日至2011年8月31日期间,搜索PubMed和Cochrane图书馆数据库中的阿片类药物出版物,并进行多年的关键临床试验。还审查了主要疼痛会议(2010-2011年)的摘要。最初确定了191个出版物,其中68个符合资格标准并进行了系统审查;有16个子集涉及安慰剂组(13个非ADF与安慰剂,3个ADF与安慰剂)并报告了疗效和安全性结果,并纳入荟萃分析。通过ADF的随机效应估算来计算疼痛平均强度变化(DMCPI)的标准差,疼痛强度总和的标准差(DSPID)以及每个不良事件(AE)的比值比(OR)的摘要估算值(和非ADF)与安慰剂。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在减轻疼痛强度方面显示出比安慰剂明显更高的功效。评估ADF和非ADF之间功效结果的间接分析表明,它们之间没有显着差异(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}])。与安慰剂相比,ADF和非ADF的AE几率均更高。间接分析比较了ADF和非ADF的不良事件的赔率并不显着(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:ADF和非ADF具有可比的疗效和安全性,同时在减轻疼痛强度方面比安慰剂更有效。

著录项

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