Prevention and Treatment of Chronic and Opioid-Induced Constipation in Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (RP511)

PurposeOpioids are recommended for moderate-to-severe cancer pain; however, in patients with cancer, impaired hepatic function can affect opioid metabolism. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence for the use of opioids in patients with cancer with hepatic impairment.MethodsA systematic review was conducted and the following databases searched: AMED (−2021), MEDLINE (−2021), EMBASECLASSIC + EMBASE (−2021) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (−2021). Eligible studies met the following criteria: patients with cancer-related pain, taking an opioid (as defined by the WHO Guidelines for the pharmacological and radiotherapeutic management of cancer pain in adults and adolescents); >18 years of age; patients with hepatic impairment defined using recognised or study-defined definitions; clinical outcome hepatic impairment related; and primary studies. All eligible studies were appraised using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.ResultsThree studies (n=95) were eligible but heterogeneity meant meta-analysis was not possible. Each individual study focused on only one each of oxycodone±hydrocotarnine, oxycodone/naloxone and morphine. No recommendations could be formulated on the preferred opioid in patients with hepatic impairment.ConclusionsMorphine is the preferred opioid in hepatic impairment owing to clinical experience and pharmacokinetics. This review, however, found little clinical evidence to support this. Dose adjustments of morphine and the oxycodone formulations reviewed remain necessary in the absence of quality evidence. Overall, the quality of existing evidence on opioid treatments in cancer pain and hepatic impairment is low and there remains a need for high-quality clinical studies examining this.

Download Full-text

Physiotherapy and Pelvic Floor Muscle Exercises for the Prevention and Treatment of Pregnancy-Related Pelvic Floor Dysfunctions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

International Journal of Women s Health and Reproduction Sciences ◽

10.15296/ijwhr.2020.20 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 8 (2) ◽

pp. 125-132

Author(s):

Fahime Khorasani ◽

Fariba Ghaderi ◽

Parvin Sarbakhsh ◽

Parisa Ahadi ◽

Elahe Khorasani ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Pelvic Floor ◽

Pelvic Floor Muscle ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Groups ◽

Pelvic Floor Muscle Exercises ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Prevention And Treatment ◽

Pfm Strength

Objectives: The present systematic review focused on the prevention or treatment of three main types of pelvic floor dysfunctions (PFDs) specifically pelvic organ prolapse (POP), urinary incontinence (UI), and fecal incontinence (FI) using physiotherapy and pelvic floor muscle exercises (PFMEs). With regard to the breadth of the problem, there is not much evidence grounded on the best management. The main purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects of physiotherapy and PFMEs on the prevention and treatment of pregnancy-related PFDs; namely, POP, FI, and UI. Therefore, this review incorporated studies comparing the use of physiotherapy and PFMEs with every other existing interventions. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted on randomized-controlled-trial (RCT) articles and quasi-RCT designs through a search in the studies published with no time limits until December 2017 in the databases of PubMed (Medline), Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest. The meta-analysis was also applied for data synthesis. Moreover, heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran’s Q test and I2 index. Results: A total number of 26 RCTs were examined in this review in which the outcome variables were related to POP, UI, and FI prevalence; POP, UI, and FI severity, as well as pelvic floor muscle (PFM) strength and endurance. In most articles, UI prevalence or severity in intervention groups had significantly improved compared with those in controls. The number of studies examining POP and FI was also relatively low. In two studies, FI severity or prevalence in intervention groups had significantly enhanced in comparison with those in control groups; however, FI prevalence in two articles had been reported lower in intervention groups than that in control groups although no significant difference had been observed. There was also no significant improvement in intervention groups in two other studies in this respect. Besides, three articles had not reported traces of improvement in POP, as well as a significant difference between intervention and control groups. Nevertheless, two studies had found a significant improvement in POP in this regard. Based on meta-analysis results for the variable of PFM strength, Cochran’s Q test (P<0.001) and I2 index (90.02) indicated heterogeneity between studies; so, a random-effect meta-analysis was applied to estimate overall effect sizes. The overall mean differences following intervention between the study groups were also equal to 6.94, with a 95% CI (1.36 to 12.52). Conclusions: It was concluded that physiotherapy and PFMEs might have effects on pregnancy-related UI, but they had not consistently reduced FI severity or prevalence and failed to constantly improve POP.

Download Full-text