Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 6 de 6
Filtrar
1.
Can Fam Physician ; 66(3): e89-e98, 2020 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32165479

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To determine how many patients with chronic osteoarthritis pain respond to various non-surgical treatments. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and the Cochrane Library. STUDY SELECTION: Published systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included meta-analysis of responder outcomes for at least 1 of the following interventions were included: acetaminophen, oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), topical NSAIDs, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants, cannabinoids, counseling, exercise, platelet-rich plasma, viscosupplementation, glucosamine, chondroitin, intra-articular corticosteroids, rubefacients, or opioids. SYNTHESIS: In total, 235 systematic reviews were included. Owing to limited reporting of responder meta-analyses, a post hoc decision was made to evaluate individual RCTs with responder analysis within the included systematic reviews. New meta-analyses were performed where possible. A total of 155 RCTs were included. Interventions that led to more patients attaining meaningful pain relief compared with control included exercise (risk ratio [RR] of 2.36; 95% CI 1.79 to 3.12), intra-articular corticosteroids (RR = 1.74; 95% CI 1.15 to 2.62), SNRIs (RR = 1.53; 95% CI 1.25 to 1.87), oral NSAIDs (RR = 1.44; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.52), glucosamine (RR = 1.33; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.74), topical NSAIDs (RR = 1.27; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.38), chondroitin (RR = 1.26; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.41), viscosupplementation (RR = 1.22; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.33), and opioids (RR = 1.16; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.32). Preplanned subgroup analysis demonstrated no effect with glucosamine, chondroitin, or viscosupplementation in studies that were only publicly funded. When trials longer than 4 weeks were analyzed, the benefits of opioids were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Interventions that provide meaningful relief for chronic osteoarthritis pain might include exercise, intra-articular corticosteroids, SNRIs, oral and topical NSAIDs, glucosamine, chondroitin, viscosupplementation, and opioids. However, funding of studies and length of treatment are important considerations in interpreting these data.


Asunto(s)
Manejo de la Enfermedad , Osteoartritis/diagnóstico , Osteoartritis/terapia , Atención Primaria de Salud/métodos , Dolor Crónico/etiología , Estado de Salud , Humanos , Osteoartritis/complicaciones , Manejo del Dolor/métodos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto
2.
Can Fam Physician ; 65(5): e194-e206, 2019 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31088885

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the best available evidence regarding various topics related to primary care management of opioid use disorder (OUD). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Google, and the references of included studies and relevant guidelines. STUDY SELECTION: Published systematic reviews and newer randomized controlled trials from the past 5 to 10 years that investigated patient-oriented outcomes related to managing OUD in primary care, diagnosis, pharmacotherapies (including buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone), tapering strategies, psychosocial interventions, prescribing practices, and management of comorbidities. SYNTHESIS: From 8626 articles, 39 systematic reviews and an additional 26 randomized controlled trials were included. New meta-analyses were performed where possible. One cohort study suggests 1 case-finding tool might be reasonable to assist with diagnosis (positive likelihood ratio of 10.3). Meta-analysis demonstrated that retention in treatment improves when buprenorphine or methadone are used (64% to 73% vs 22% to 39% for control), when OUD is treated in primary care (86% vs 67% in specialty care, risk ratio [RR] of 1.25, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.47), and when counseling is added to pharmacotherapy (74% vs 62% for controls, RR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.36). Retention was also improved with naltrexone (33% vs 25% for controls, RR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.64) and reduced with medication-related contingency management (eg, loss of take-home doses as a punitive measure; 68% vs 77% for no contingency, RR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.99). CONCLUSION: There is reasonable evidence that patients with OUD should be managed in the primary care setting. Diagnostic criteria for OUD remain elusive, with 1 reasonable case-finding tool. Methadone and buprenorphine improve treatment retention, while medication-related contingency methods could worsen retention. Counseling is beneficial when added to pharmacotherapy.


Asunto(s)
Antagonistas de Narcóticos/uso terapéutico , Tratamiento de Sustitución de Opiáceos/métodos , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/diagnóstico , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/tratamiento farmacológico , Atención Primaria de Salud/métodos , Analgésicos Opioides/efectos adversos , Buprenorfina/uso terapéutico , Consejo , Humanos , Metadona/uso terapéutico , Naltrexona/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto
6.
Can Fam Physician ; 64(12): e529-e530, 2018 12.
Artículo en Francés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30541818
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA