Acupuncture in oncological pain relief: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Introduction: Cancer pain has a considerable impact on patients’ health and quality of life, and its treatment is essentially based on opioid use. Objective: To report the effectiveness of acupuncture in relieving cancer pain (secondary to the disease or to the corresponding therapy) or in decreasing opioid use compared to other interventions. Methods: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials was conducted following the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The trials were selected from the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. Results: The search strategy resulted in the inclusion of eight trials, of which five compared acupuncture and drug therapy and three compared acupuncture and placebo. Seven trials reported decreased pain and analgesic use. The trials showed clinical heterogeneity, making a meta-analysis unfeasible. Conclusion: The findings herein provided no robust evidence to support the routine use of acupuncture as an adjuvant therapy in the treatment of cancer pain. However, its use is promising since the results showed a trend toward decreased pain and analgesic use, thus justifying further studies in the future.

Download Full-text

Use of opioids in patients with cancer with hepatic impairment—a systematic review

BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care ◽

10.1136/bmjspcare-2021-003065 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. bmjspcare-2021-003065

Author(s):

Lewis Thomas Hughes ◽

David Raftery ◽

Paul Coulter ◽

Barry Laird ◽

Marie Fallon

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Cancer Pain ◽

Hepatic Impairment ◽

Evaluation System ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Hepatic Function ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Assessment Development ◽

Patients With Cancer ◽

Central Register

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

Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials of Acupressure Therapy for Primary Dysmenorrhea

Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine ◽

10.1155/2013/169692 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 2013 ◽

pp. 1-9 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Hui-ru Jiang ◽

Shuang Ni ◽

Jin-long Li ◽

Miao-miao Liu ◽

Ji Li ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Statistical Analysis ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Primary Dysmenorrhea ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Central Register

The evidence of acupressure is limited in the management of dysmenorrhea. To evaluate the efficacy of acupressure in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we searched MEDLINE, the Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases from inception until March 2012. Two reviewers independently selected articles and extracted data. Statistical analysis was performed with RevMan 5.1 software. Eight RCTs were identified from the retrieved 224 relevant records. Acupressure improved pain measured with VAS (−1.41 cm 95% CI [−1.61, −1.21]), SF-MPQ at the 3-month followup (WMD −2.33, 95% CI [−4.11, −0.54]) and 6-month followup (WMD −4.67, 95% CI [−7.30, −2.04]), and MDQ at the 3-month followup (WMD −2.31, 95% CI [−3.74, −0.87]) and 6-month followup (WMD −4.67, 95% CI [−7.30, −2.04]). All trials did not report adverse events. These results were limited by the methodological flaws of trials.

Download Full-text

Impact of opioid agonists on mental health in substitution treatment for opioid use disorder: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

10.1101/2020.07.04.20146506 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Ehsan Moazen-Zadeh ◽

Kimia Ziafat ◽

Kiana Yazdani ◽

Mostafa Mamdouh ◽

James Wong ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Mental Health ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Opioid Use Disorder ◽

Substitution Treatment ◽

Opioid Use ◽

Psychosocial Services ◽

Opioid Medications

AbstractObjectiveThere is a dearth of high-quality systematic evidence on the impact of opioid substitution medications on mental health. We compared mental health outcomes between opioid medications and placebo/waitlist, and between different opioids.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was pre-registered at PROSPERO (CRD42018109375). Embase, MEDLINE, PsychInfo, CINAHL Complete, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched from inception to May 2020. RCTs were included if they compared opioid agonists with each other or with a placebo/waitlist in substitution treatment of patients with opioid use disorder, and reported at least one mental health outcome on a span of more than 1-month post baseline. Studies with psychiatric care, adjunct psychotropic medications, or unbalanced psychosocial services were excluded. Primary outcomes were comparison of depressive symptoms and overall mental health between opioids and placebo/waitlist. Random effects model was used for all the meta-analysis.ResultsNineteen studies were included in the narrative synthesis and 15 in the quantitative synthesis. Hydromorphone, diacetylmorphine (DAM), methadone, slow-release oral morphine, buprenorphine, and placebo/waitlist were among the included interventions. Based on network meta-analysis for primary outcomes, buprenorphine (SMD (CI95%)= −0.61 (−1.20, −0.11)), DAM (−1.40 (−2.70, −0.23)), and methadone (−1.20 (−2.30, −0.11)) were superior to waitlist/placebo on overall mental health. Further direct pairwise meta-analysis indicated that overall mental health improved more in DAM compared to methadone (−0.23 (−0.34, −0.13)).ConclusionsIt appears that opioid medications improve mental health independent of psychosocial services. Potential contribution of other factors needs to be further investigated.

Download Full-text

Randomized Controlled Trials of Early Ambulatory Hydroxychloroquine in the Prevention of COVID-19 Infection, Hospitalization, and Death: Meta-Analysis

10.1101/2020.09.30.20204693 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Joseph A. Ladapo ◽

John E. McKinnon ◽

Peter A. McCullough ◽

Harvey Risch

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Side Effects ◽

Fixed Effects ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Exposure Prophylaxis

Objective--To determine if hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) reduces the incidence of new illness, hospitalization or death among outpatients at risk for or infected with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). Design--Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Data sources--Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, medRxiv, PROSPERO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Also review of reference lists from recent meta-analyses. Study selection--Randomized clinical trials in which participants were treated with HCQ or placebo/standard-of-care for pre-exposure prophylaxis, post-exposure prophylaxis, or outpatient therapy for COVID-19. Methods--Two investigators independently extracted data on trial design and outcomes. Medication side effects and adverse reactions were also assessed. The primary outcome was COVID-19 hospitalization or death. When unavailable, new COVID-19 infection was used. We calculated random effects meta-analysis according to the method of DerSimonian and Laird. Heterogeneity between the studies was evaluated by calculation of Cochran Q and I2 parameters. An Egger funnel plot was drawn to investigate publication bias. We also calculated the fixed effects meta-analysis summary of the five studies. All calculations were done in Excel, and results were considered to be statistically significant at a two-sided threshold of P=.05. Results--Five randomized controlled clinical trials enrolling 5,577 patients were included. HCQ was associated with a 24% reduction in COVID-19 infection, hospitalization or death, P=.025 (RR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.97]). No serious adverse cardiac events were reported. The most common side effects were gastrointestinal. Conclusion--Hydroxychloroquine use in outpatients reduces the incidence of the composite outcome of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death. Serious adverse events were not reported and cardiac arrhythmia was rare. Systematic review registration--This review was not registered.

Download Full-text

Efficacy of Adjunctive Treatments Added to Olanzapine or Clozapine for Weight Control in Patients with Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The Scientific World JOURNAL ◽

10.1155/2015/970730 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 2015 ◽

pp. 1-10 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Yun-Jung Choi

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Adverse Effects ◽

Weight Reduction ◽

Weight Control ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Psychiatric Symptoms ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Meta Analyses

Objectives. This study was conducted to review systematically adjunctive treatments for weight reduction in patients with schizophrenia and compare efficacies of clinical trials through meta-analysis, so as to provide effective clinical guideline regarding weight control for patients taking atypical antipsychotics.Methods. Candidate clinical trials were identified through searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and PsycINFO. Fourteen randomized clinical trials were included for systematic review and meta-analysis from 132 potential trials. The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 2 was used for meta-analysis.Results. Difference in means and significances from meta-analyses regarding weight control by adjunctive treatments showed that topiramate, aripiprazole, or sibutramine was more effective than metformin or reboxetine. Psychiatric evaluations did not show statistically significant changes between treatment groups and placebo groups except topiramate adjunctive treatments. Adverse effects regarding adjunctive therapies were tolerable and showed statistically no significances compared to control groups.Conclusion. Though having several reports related to exacerbation of psychiatric symptoms, topiramate and aripiprazole are more efficacious than other medications in regard to weight reduction and less burden of critical adverse effects as well as being beneficial for clinical improvement.

Download Full-text

Effect of Gender on the Outcome of Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Advanced Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Phase III Randomized Clinical Trials

10.20944/preprints201808.0307.v3 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Antonino Grassadonia ◽

Isabella Sperduti ◽

Patrizia Vici ◽

Laura Iezzi ◽

Davide Brocco ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Advanced Cancer ◽

Immune Checkpoint ◽

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Cochrane Central Register

Evidence has recently emerged on the influence of gender on the immune system. In this systematic review and meta-analysis of phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs), we explored the impact of gender on survival in patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We performed a comprehensive search of the literature updated to April 2018, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and EMBASE. We extracted data on study characteristics and risk of bias in duplicate. Of 423 unique citations, 21 RCTs were included, inherently to 12,635 patients. Both males and females showed reduced risk of death associated with ICIs use (HR 0.73, p<0.001 and HR 0.77, p<0.001, respectively). Subgroup analyses by specific ICI showed similar OS in both genders for anti-PD-1/PDL-1. Anti-CTLA-4 use was associated with longer OS in men only (HR 0.77, p<0.012), with the exception of melanoma (in women, HR 0.80, p=0.006). PFS was longer in men than in women (HR 0.67, p<0.001 and HR 0.77, p=0.100, respectively). Conclusively, ICIs use was associated with more favorable outcomes in men, particularly for anti-CTLA-4 agents. In melanoma, not gender-related factors may influence the anti-tumor immune response evoked by ICIs.

Download Full-text

Impact of Chronic Pain on Treatment Prognosis for Patients with Opioid Use Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Substance Abuse Research and Treatment ◽

10.4137/sart.s30120 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 9 ◽

pp. SART.S30120 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Brittany B. Dennis ◽

Monica Bawor ◽

Leen Naji ◽

Carol K. Chan ◽

Jaymie Varenbut ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Substance Use ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Opioid Use Disorder ◽

Opioid Consumption ◽

Opioid Abuse ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Opioid Use ◽

Clinical Trials Registry

Background While a number of pharmacological interventions exist for the treatment of opioid use disorder, evidence evaluating the effect of pain on substance use behavior, attrition rate, and physical or mental health among these therapies has not been well established. We aim to evaluate these effects using evidence gathered from a systematic review of studies evaluating chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) in patients with opioid use disorder. Methods We searched the Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ProQuest Dissertations and theses Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal, and National Institutes for Health Clinical Trials Registry databases to identify articles evaluating the impact of pain on addiction treatment outcomes for patients maintained on opioid agonist therapy. Results Upon screening 3,540 articles, 14 studies with a combined sample of 3,128 patients fulfilled the review inclusion criteria. Results from the meta-analysis suggest that pain has no effect on illicit opioid consumption [pooled odds ratio (pOR): 0.70, 95%CI 0.41–1.17; I 2 = 0.0] but a protective effect for reducing illicit non-opioid substance use (pOR: 0.57, 95%CI 0.41–0.79; I 2 = 0.0). Studies evaluating illicit opioid consumption using other measures demonstrate pain to increase the risk for opioid abuse. Pain is significantly associated with the presence of psychiatric disorders (pOR: 2.18; 95%CI 1.6, 2.9; I 2 = 0.0%). Conclusion CNCP may increase risk for continued opioid abuse and poor psychiatric functioning. Qualitative synthesis of the findings suggests that major methodological differences in the design and measurement of pain and treatment response outcomes are likely impacting the effect estimates.

Download Full-text

Cannabinoids in Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Clinical Medicine Insights Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽

10.1177/1179544120906461 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 13 ◽

pp. 117954412090646 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Herman Johal ◽

Tahira Devji ◽

Yaping Chang ◽

Jonathan Simone ◽

Christopher Vannabouathong ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Cancer Pain ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Route Of Administration ◽

Rheumatic Arthritis ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Patient Reported ◽

The Difference

Background: For patients with chronic, non-cancer pain, traditional pain-relieving medications include opioids, which have shown benefits but are associated with increased risks of addiction and adverse effects. Medical cannabis has emerged as a treatment alternative for managing these patients and there has been a rise in the number of randomized clinical trials in recent years; therefore, a systematic review of the evidence was warranted. Objective: To analyze the evidence surrounding the benefits and harms of medical cannabinoids in the treatment of chronic, non-cancer-related pain. Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Data sources: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Databases. Eligibility criteria: English language randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic, non-cancer-related pain. Data extraction and synthesis: Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. All stages were conducted independently by a team of 6 reviewers. Data were pooled through meta-analysis with different durations of treatment (2 weeks, 2 months, 6 months) and stratified by route of administration (smoked, oromucosal, oral), conditions, and type of cannabinoids. Main outcomes and measures: Patient-reported pain and adverse events (AEs). Results: Thirty-six trials (4006 participants) were included, examining smoked cannabis (4 trials), oromucosal cannabis sprays (14 trials), and oral cannabinoids (18 trials). Compared with placebo, cannabinoids showed a significant reduction in pain which was greatest with treatment duration of 2 to 8 weeks (weighted mean difference on a 0-10 pain visual analogue scale −0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.96 to −0.40, I2 = 8%, P < .00001; n = 16 trials). When stratified by route of administration, pain condition, and type of cannabinoids, oral cannabinoids had a larger reduction in pain compared with placebo relative to oromucosal and smoked formulations but the difference was not significant ( P[interaction] > .05 in all the 3 durations of treatment); cannabinoids had a smaller reduction in pain due to multiple sclerosis compared with placebo relative to other neuropathic pain ( P[interaction] = .05) within 2 weeks and the difference was not significant relative to pain due to rheumatic arthritis; nabilone had a greater reduction in pain compared with placebo relative to other types of cannabinoids longer than 2 weeks of treatment but the difference was not significant ( P[interaction] > .05). Serious AEs were rare, and similar across the cannabinoid (74 out of 2176, 3.4%) and placebo groups (53 out of 1640, 3.2%). There was an increased risk of non-serious AEs with cannabinoids compared with placebo. Conclusions: There was moderate evidence to support cannabinoids in treating chronic, non-cancer pain at 2 weeks. Similar results were observed at later time points, but the confidence in effect is low. There is little evidence that cannabinoids increase the risk of experiencing serious AEs, although non-serious AEs may be common in the short-term period following use.

Download Full-text

Effect of Gender on the Outcome of Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Advanced Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Phase III Randomized Clinical Trials

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm7120542 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 7 (12) ◽

pp. 542 ◽

Cited By ~ 23

Author(s):

Antonino Grassadonia ◽

Isabella Sperduti ◽

Patrizia Vici ◽

Laura Iezzi ◽

Davide Brocco ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Advanced Cancer ◽

Immune Checkpoint ◽

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Cochrane Central Register

Evidence has recently emerged on the influence of gender on the immune system. In this systematic review and meta-analysis of phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs), we explored the impact of gender on survival in patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We performed a comprehensive search of the literature updated to April 2018, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and EMBASE. We extracted data on study characteristics and risk of bias in duplicate. Of 423 unique citations, 21 RCTs were included, inherently to 12,635 patients. Both males and females showed reduced risk of death associated with ICIs use (HR 0.73, p < 0.001 and HR 0.77, p < 0.001, respectively). Subgroup analyses by specific ICI showed similar OS in both genders for anti-PD-1/PDL-1. Anti-CTLA-4 use was associated with longer OS in men only (HR 0.77, p < 0.012), with the exception of melanoma (in women, HR 0.80, p = 0.006). PFS was longer in men than in women (HR 0.67, p < 0.001 and HR 0.77, p = 0.100, respectively). Conclusively, ICIs use was associated with more favorable outcomes in men, particularly for anti-CTLA-4 agents. In melanoma, not gender-related factors may influence the anti-tumor immune response evoked by ICIs.

Download Full-text