治疗老年人急性疼痛的丁丙诺啡:系统综述与荟萃分析。

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Pain Medicine Pub Date : 2024-07-18 DOI:10.1093/pm/pnae064
Katherine Selman, Sarah Perelman, Caroline Blatcher, David Fett, Amanda Adams, Brian Roberts
{"title":"治疗老年人急性疼痛的丁丙诺啡:系统综述与荟萃分析。","authors":"Katherine Selman, Sarah Perelman, Caroline Blatcher, David Fett, Amanda Adams, Brian Roberts","doi":"10.1093/pm/pnae064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Buprenorphine, a partial opioid agonist, has emerging evidence as an alternative to full agonist opioids for treatment of acute pain. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of buprenorphine for acute pain in older adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINHAL, Web of Science database, and Google Scholar were searched. We included articles that reported buprenorphine as an intervention to treat acute pain among patients 60 years or older. Primary outcome was difference in pain scores for patients treated with buprenorphine compared to other analgesia. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, opioid consumption, and patient satisfaction. Meta-analysis was conducted on difference in pain scores and differences in nausea and vomiting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-two studies were included (n = 2610). Buprenorphine was administered as nerve blocks in six studies, transdermal in eight, intravenous or intramuscular in five, sublingual in two studies, and both intravenous and sublingual in one study. 10 out of 20 (50%) studies found improved pain control in buprenorphine groups. Meta-analysis found no significant difference in pain scores between buprenorphine and control analgesia at 24 hours (Cohen's d = -0.29 [95% CI -0.85 to 0.27]) and 7 days (Cohen's d = -0.89 [95% CI -2.66-0.88]). Six studies (54.5%) found reduced opioid consumption in patients receiving buprenorphine. There was no difference in adverse effects in most studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review did not find buprenorphine to be superior to alternative analgesia; however the mixed results provide scientific rationale for future studies testing buprenorphine in older populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":19744,"journal":{"name":"Pain Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Buprenorphine for acute pain in older adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Katherine Selman, Sarah Perelman, Caroline Blatcher, David Fett, Amanda Adams, Brian Roberts\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/pm/pnae064\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Buprenorphine, a partial opioid agonist, has emerging evidence as an alternative to full agonist opioids for treatment of acute pain. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of buprenorphine for acute pain in older adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINHAL, Web of Science database, and Google Scholar were searched. We included articles that reported buprenorphine as an intervention to treat acute pain among patients 60 years or older. Primary outcome was difference in pain scores for patients treated with buprenorphine compared to other analgesia. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, opioid consumption, and patient satisfaction. Meta-analysis was conducted on difference in pain scores and differences in nausea and vomiting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-two studies were included (n = 2610). Buprenorphine was administered as nerve blocks in six studies, transdermal in eight, intravenous or intramuscular in five, sublingual in two studies, and both intravenous and sublingual in one study. 10 out of 20 (50%) studies found improved pain control in buprenorphine groups. Meta-analysis found no significant difference in pain scores between buprenorphine and control analgesia at 24 hours (Cohen's d = -0.29 [95% CI -0.85 to 0.27]) and 7 days (Cohen's d = -0.89 [95% CI -2.66-0.88]). Six studies (54.5%) found reduced opioid consumption in patients receiving buprenorphine. There was no difference in adverse effects in most studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review did not find buprenorphine to be superior to alternative analgesia; however the mixed results provide scientific rationale for future studies testing buprenorphine in older populations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19744,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pain Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pain Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnae064\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnae064","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:丁丙诺啡是一种阿片部分激动剂,有证据表明它可以替代完全激动阿片治疗急性疼痛。本系统综述旨在评估丁丙诺啡治疗老年人急性疼痛的安全性和有效性:方法:检索了 PubMed Medline、Embase、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials、CINHAL、Web of Science 数据库和 Google Scholar。我们纳入了报道丁丙诺啡作为治疗 60 岁或以上患者急性疼痛干预措施的文章。主要结果是与其他镇痛方法相比,接受丁丙诺啡治疗的患者疼痛评分的差异。次要结果包括不良事件、阿片类药物消耗量和患者满意度。对疼痛评分的差异以及恶心和呕吐的差异进行了 Meta 分析:共纳入 22 项研究(n = 2610)。6项研究中丁丙诺啡被用作神经阻滞剂,8项研究中丁丙诺啡被用作透皮剂,5项研究中丁丙诺啡被用作静脉注射或肌肉注射,2项研究中丁丙诺啡被用作舌下含服,1项研究中丁丙诺啡被用作静脉注射和舌下含服。20 项研究中有 10 项(50%)发现丁丙诺啡组对疼痛的控制有所改善。Meta 分析发现,在 24 小时(Cohen's d = -0.29 [95% CI -0.85 to 0.27])和 7 天(Cohen's d = -0.89 [95% CI -2.66-0.88])时,丁丙诺啡与对照镇痛之间的疼痛评分无显著差异。六项研究(54.5%)发现,接受丁丙诺啡治疗的患者阿片类药物的消耗量有所减少。大多数研究的不良反应没有差异:本综述未发现丁丙诺啡优于其他镇痛方法;但是,喜忧参半的结果为今后在老年人群中测试丁丙诺啡的研究提供了科学依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Buprenorphine for acute pain in older adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Background: Buprenorphine, a partial opioid agonist, has emerging evidence as an alternative to full agonist opioids for treatment of acute pain. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of buprenorphine for acute pain in older adults.

Methods: PubMed Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINHAL, Web of Science database, and Google Scholar were searched. We included articles that reported buprenorphine as an intervention to treat acute pain among patients 60 years or older. Primary outcome was difference in pain scores for patients treated with buprenorphine compared to other analgesia. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, opioid consumption, and patient satisfaction. Meta-analysis was conducted on difference in pain scores and differences in nausea and vomiting.

Results: Twenty-two studies were included (n = 2610). Buprenorphine was administered as nerve blocks in six studies, transdermal in eight, intravenous or intramuscular in five, sublingual in two studies, and both intravenous and sublingual in one study. 10 out of 20 (50%) studies found improved pain control in buprenorphine groups. Meta-analysis found no significant difference in pain scores between buprenorphine and control analgesia at 24 hours (Cohen's d = -0.29 [95% CI -0.85 to 0.27]) and 7 days (Cohen's d = -0.89 [95% CI -2.66-0.88]). Six studies (54.5%) found reduced opioid consumption in patients receiving buprenorphine. There was no difference in adverse effects in most studies.

Conclusions: This review did not find buprenorphine to be superior to alternative analgesia; however the mixed results provide scientific rationale for future studies testing buprenorphine in older populations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pain Medicine
Pain Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
3.20%
发文量
187
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Pain Medicine is a multi-disciplinary journal dedicated to pain clinicians, educators and researchers with an interest in pain from various medical specialties such as pain medicine, anaesthesiology, family practice, internal medicine, neurology, neurological surgery, orthopaedic spine surgery, psychiatry, and rehabilitation medicine as well as related health disciplines such as psychology, neuroscience, nursing, nurse practitioner, physical therapy, and integrative health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信