Current medical research and opinion · 2017
Indirect treatment comparison of two non-invasive patient-controlled analgesia treatments for acute post-operative pain management.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Katz Pablo, Takyar Shweta, Palmer Pamela, Liedgens Hiltrud
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relative clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability associated with two non-invasive patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) treatments, sufentanil sublingual tablet system (SSTS) and fentanyl iontophoretic patient-controlled transdermal system (PCTS). These two treatments have recently been approved in the EU for the management of acute moderate-to-severe post-operative pain in adult patients.
METHODS: As no head-to-head trials comparing SSTS and PCTS currently exist, indirect treatment comparison (ITC) analyses were conducted to evaluate SSTS or PCTS versus intravenous (IV) morphine PCA.
RESULTS: Five studies, four assessing PCTS and one assessing SSTS, were included in this analysis. SSTS had statistical or numerical advantages over PCTS for both patient global assessment (PGA) and healthcare professional global assessment (HPGA) outcomes at all time points investigated. SSTS was also associated with greater patient ease of use (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.02-0.28) and a higher patient satisfaction score (WMD: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.05-0.57; p = .019) compared with PCTS. In terms of tolerability, all-cause withdrawals from treatment were reported to be less likely with SSTS (risk ratio: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.42-1.02). No significant differences were observed between SSTS and PCTS in terms of safety and adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of direct head-to-head data, the combination of promising phase III trial results compared to IV morphine PCA, a SLR comparison against other opioid treatments, and the results of this exploratory analysis present a strong rationale in support of SSTS as a key option for management of post-operative pain.
METHODS: As no head-to-head trials comparing SSTS and PCTS currently exist, indirect treatment comparison (ITC) analyses were conducted to evaluate SSTS or PCTS versus intravenous (IV) morphine PCA.
RESULTS: Five studies, four assessing PCTS and one assessing SSTS, were included in this analysis. SSTS had statistical or numerical advantages over PCTS for both patient global assessment (PGA) and healthcare professional global assessment (HPGA) outcomes at all time points investigated. SSTS was also associated with greater patient ease of use (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.02-0.28) and a higher patient satisfaction score (WMD: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.05-0.57; p = .019) compared with PCTS. In terms of tolerability, all-cause withdrawals from treatment were reported to be less likely with SSTS (risk ratio: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.42-1.02). No significant differences were observed between SSTS and PCTS in terms of safety and adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of direct head-to-head data, the combination of promising phase III trial results compared to IV morphine PCA, a SLR comparison against other opioid treatments, and the results of this exploratory analysis present a strong rationale in support of SSTS as a key option for management of post-operative pain.