弱阿片类药物治疗骨关节炎的风险效益比较:随机对照试验的网络荟萃分析

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Postgraduate Medicine Pub Date : 2022-11-01 Epub Date: 2022-06-07 DOI:10.1080/00325481.2022.2080360
Wei Li, Hongyi He, Zidan Yang, Ziying Wu, Dongxing Xie
{"title":"弱阿片类药物治疗骨关节炎的风险效益比较:随机对照试验的网络荟萃分析","authors":"Wei Li, Hongyi He, Zidan Yang, Ziying Wu, Dongxing Xie","doi":"10.1080/00325481.2022.2080360","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite their poor tolerance, weak opioids are still the most commonly-prescribed medicine for osteoarthritis (OA)-related pain. The objective of this network meta-analysis was to comparatively examine the efficacy and safety of weak opioids in OA treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched from inception to 4 April 2022 to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing weak opioids with placebo or between one another in OA patients. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed on the following outcomes of interest, namely the change-from-baseline score in pain relief, gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs), central nervous system (CNS) AEs, and total number of AEs (i.e. the number of subjects experiencing any AE for at least once) during follow-up. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to rank the effectiveness of each treatment and identify the best treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 14 RCTs invoving four types of weak opioids were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to placebo, tramadol (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.34, 95% credible interval [CrI]: -0.53 to -0.18) and codeine (SMD = -0.39, 95% CrI: -0.79 to -0.04) were effective for pain relief, but involved a higher risk of GI AEs, CNS AEs and total number of AEs. Dextropropoxyphene demonstrated a significantly lower risk of GI AEs (OR = 0.28, 95%CrI: 0.17 to 0.51), CNS AEs (OR = 0.29, 95%CrI: 0.11 to 0.78) and total number of AEs (OR = 0.35, 95%CrI: 0.15 to 0.82) compared to codeine. Dihydrocodeine had a better safety profile in CNS AEs (SUCRA = 64.8%) and total number of AEs (SUCRA = 66.6%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of the present study confirmed that tramadol and codeine were effective drugs for the treatment of OA, but involved considerable safety issues. Dextropropoxyphene and dihydrocodeine exhibited a relatively good safety profile but their efficacy still warrant further investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":20329,"journal":{"name":"Postgraduate Medicine","volume":"134 1","pages":"784-794"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative risk-benefit profiles of weak opioids in the treatment of osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.\",\"authors\":\"Wei Li, Hongyi He, Zidan Yang, Ziying Wu, Dongxing Xie\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00325481.2022.2080360\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite their poor tolerance, weak opioids are still the most commonly-prescribed medicine for osteoarthritis (OA)-related pain. The objective of this network meta-analysis was to comparatively examine the efficacy and safety of weak opioids in OA treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched from inception to 4 April 2022 to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing weak opioids with placebo or between one another in OA patients. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed on the following outcomes of interest, namely the change-from-baseline score in pain relief, gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs), central nervous system (CNS) AEs, and total number of AEs (i.e. the number of subjects experiencing any AE for at least once) during follow-up. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to rank the effectiveness of each treatment and identify the best treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 14 RCTs invoving four types of weak opioids were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to placebo, tramadol (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.34, 95% credible interval [CrI]: -0.53 to -0.18) and codeine (SMD = -0.39, 95% CrI: -0.79 to -0.04) were effective for pain relief, but involved a higher risk of GI AEs, CNS AEs and total number of AEs. Dextropropoxyphene demonstrated a significantly lower risk of GI AEs (OR = 0.28, 95%CrI: 0.17 to 0.51), CNS AEs (OR = 0.29, 95%CrI: 0.11 to 0.78) and total number of AEs (OR = 0.35, 95%CrI: 0.15 to 0.82) compared to codeine. Dihydrocodeine had a better safety profile in CNS AEs (SUCRA = 64.8%) and total number of AEs (SUCRA = 66.6%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of the present study confirmed that tramadol and codeine were effective drugs for the treatment of OA, but involved considerable safety issues. Dextropropoxyphene and dihydrocodeine exhibited a relatively good safety profile but their efficacy still warrant further investigation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Postgraduate Medicine\",\"volume\":\"134 1\",\"pages\":\"784-794\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Postgraduate Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00325481.2022.2080360\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/6/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Postgraduate Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00325481.2022.2080360","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/6/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要背景尽管弱阿片类药物耐受性差,但它们仍然是治疗骨关节炎(OA)相关疼痛最常见的处方药。该网络荟萃分析的目的是比较研究弱阿片类药物治疗OA的疗效和安全性。方法从开始到2022年4月4日,检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library和Web of Science等数据库,检索OA患者中弱阿片类药物与安慰剂或相互之间的随机对照试验(RCT)。对以下感兴趣的结果进行了贝叶斯网络荟萃分析,即疼痛缓解、胃肠道(GI)不良事件(AE)、中枢神经系统(CNS)AE与基线评分的变化,以及随访期间的AE总数(即经历任何AE至少一次的受试者数)。累积排名曲线下的表面(SUCRA)用于对每种治疗的有效性进行排名,并确定最佳治疗。结果共有14项随机对照试验涉及四种类型的弱阿片类药物。与安慰剂相比,曲马多(标准化平均差[SMD]=−0.34,95%可信区间[CrI]:−0.53至−0.18)和可待因(SMD=−0.39,95%置信区间:−0.79至−0.04)对疼痛缓解有效,但发生胃肠道AE、中枢神经系统AE和AE总数的风险更高。与可待因相比,右丙氧酚的胃肠道不良事件(OR=0.28,95%CI:0.17至0.51)、中枢神经系统不良事件(OR=0.29,95%CI:0.11至0.78)和不良事件总数(OR=0.35,95%CI:0.15至0.82)风险显著降低。二氢可待因在中枢神经系统AE(SUCRA=64.8%)和AE总数(SUCRA:66.6%)中具有更好的安全性。结论本研究结果证实曲马多和可待因是治疗OA的有效药物,但涉及相当大的安全性问题。右丙氧酚和二氢可待因表现出相对良好的安全性,但其疗效仍需进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative risk-benefit profiles of weak opioids in the treatment of osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: Despite their poor tolerance, weak opioids are still the most commonly-prescribed medicine for osteoarthritis (OA)-related pain. The objective of this network meta-analysis was to comparatively examine the efficacy and safety of weak opioids in OA treatment.

Methods: Databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched from inception to 4 April 2022 to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing weak opioids with placebo or between one another in OA patients. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed on the following outcomes of interest, namely the change-from-baseline score in pain relief, gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs), central nervous system (CNS) AEs, and total number of AEs (i.e. the number of subjects experiencing any AE for at least once) during follow-up. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to rank the effectiveness of each treatment and identify the best treatment.

Results: A total of 14 RCTs invoving four types of weak opioids were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to placebo, tramadol (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.34, 95% credible interval [CrI]: -0.53 to -0.18) and codeine (SMD = -0.39, 95% CrI: -0.79 to -0.04) were effective for pain relief, but involved a higher risk of GI AEs, CNS AEs and total number of AEs. Dextropropoxyphene demonstrated a significantly lower risk of GI AEs (OR = 0.28, 95%CrI: 0.17 to 0.51), CNS AEs (OR = 0.29, 95%CrI: 0.11 to 0.78) and total number of AEs (OR = 0.35, 95%CrI: 0.15 to 0.82) compared to codeine. Dihydrocodeine had a better safety profile in CNS AEs (SUCRA = 64.8%) and total number of AEs (SUCRA = 66.6%).

Conclusions: The results of the present study confirmed that tramadol and codeine were effective drugs for the treatment of OA, but involved considerable safety issues. Dextropropoxyphene and dihydrocodeine exhibited a relatively good safety profile but their efficacy still warrant further investigation.

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
Postgraduate Medicine
Postgraduate Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.40%
发文量
110
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Postgraduate Medicine is a rapid peer-reviewed medical journal published for physicians. Tracing its roots back to 1916,  Postgraduate Medicine  was established by Charles Mayo, MD, as a peer-to-peer method of communicating the latest research to aid physicians when making treatment decisions, and it maintains that aim to this day. In addition to its core subscriber base, Postgraduate Medicine is distributed to hundreds of US-based physicians within internal medicine and family practice.
×
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