SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Opioid”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

57 records · Page 4Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Naltrexone Is Superior to Placebo for Abstinence and Craving Reduction in Alcohol-Associated Cirrhosis: NAL-CI Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) coexisting with cirrhosis carries high morbidity and mortality, with no approved pharmacotherapy for AUD. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of naltrexone, an opioid receptor antagonist, in patients with compensated alcohol-associated cirrhosis (AaC) and AUD. METHODS: One hundred patients with compensated AaC and DSM-5 AUD were randomised 1:1 to naltrexone (50 mg/day) or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was point-prevalence abstinence at 12 weeks, defined as no alcohol use in the four preceding weeks. Secondary endpoints included craving (Obsessive Compulsive Drinking Scale [OCDS]-Obsessive and Compulsive subscales), lapses, relapses, and hepatic safety. Standardised psychosocial support was provided to both arms. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were well matched between groups (mean MELD 12.6 vs. 12.7; CTP score 5.9 vs. 6.2; age 42.9 vs. 44.3 years). AUDIT and OCDS scores were comparable between groups. Abstinence at 12 weeks was significantly higher with naltrexone: 64% (32/50) versus 22% (11/50), p < 0.001; OR 10.86 (95% CI: 1.89-62.2). Naltrexone significantly reduced lapses at 3 months (28% vs. 54%, p = 0.008) and showed a trend toward fewer heavy-drinking relapses (12% vs. 28%, p = 0.07). Maintenance of abstinence at 6 months favoured naltrexone (22% vs. 8%, p = 0.09). No patient developed hepatic decompensation attributable to study medication, and no AST/ALT elevation exceeding 5× ULN was observed in either group. Mean craving scores were lower with naltrexone by week 12 than with placebo: OCDS-O score (6.63 ± 1.16 vs. 9.29 ± 1.78, p < 0.01) and OCDS-C score (6.35 ± 1.23 vs. 9.02 ± 1.86, p < 0.01). Adverse events were comparable between the groups. CONCLUSION: Naltrexone is safe and effective in patients with compensated alcohol-associated cirrhosis, achieving a threefold higher abstinence rate and significantly reducing craving compared with placebo. These findings support the use of naltrexone as a pharmacological option in patients with compensated AaC and AUD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04391764.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

A Novel Multiple Sensory Nerve Block Combination Using Ultrasound Guidance in Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Combining adductor canal block (ACB), infiltration between the popliteal artery and posterior capsule of the knee (IPACK), and genicular nerve blocks provides motor-sparing analgesia in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Adding nerve blocks targeting the nerve to vastus medialis, vastus intermedius, and anterior femoral cutaneous nerve may improve postoperative pain management without affecting mobility. This study evaluated the effect of an eight-nerve block combination for pain relief after TKA versus local infiltration analgesia (LIA). METHODS: Participants were randomized into intervention or standard treatment groups. The intervention group received an eight-nerve block combination using 40 mL ropivacaine, 5 mg/mL, with 75 µg of clonidine. The control group received LIA comprising 150 mL ropivacaine, 2 mg/mL, supplemented with 0.5 mg adrenaline. The primary outcome was postoperative pain intensity, measured by the numeric rating scale (NRS) at postanesthesia care unit (PACU) arrival, 1 hour, 2 hours after PACU arrival, at ward arrival, evening of surgery, morning of postoperative day 1 (POD1), and at 14:00 POD1. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Secondary outcomes included 48-hour oral morphine equivalent (OME) consumption and length of hospital stay (LOS). RESULTS: A total of 217 patients scheduled for TKA were randomized. No significant differences were observed in the primary outcome. NRS at rest, presented as median (IQR), did not differ between groups at any time point. At PACU arrival 0 (0-3) vs 0 (0-4), at 1 hour 2 (0-4) vs 2 (0-5), at 2 hours 2 (0-6) vs 2.5 (0-4), at ward arrival 3 (2-5) vs 3 (2-5), on the evening of POD0 4 (3-5) vs 3.5 (2-6), on the morning of POD1 4 (3-6) vs 4 (2-5), and at 14:00 POD1 3 (2-5) vs 3 (2-5) for nerve block and LIA groups, respectively (all P > .05). Exploratory secondary outcomes indicated reduced 48-hour OME consumption presented as median (IQR), 70 mg (52.5-96.3), vs 96 mg (61.3-148.8); P = .008) and shortened hospital stay, median (IQR), 1 day (1-2), vs 2 days, (1-3); P < .001) in the nerve block group compared to the LIA group. CONCLUSIONS: No differences were observed in pain scores between the eight-nerve block combination and LIA. Secondary outcomes revealed a reduction in 48-hour opioid consumption and a modestly shorter hospital stay with nerve block compared to LIA.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Ibuprofen versus acetaminophen for acute mild-to-moderate pain management in pediatric populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of their efficacy.

UNLABELLED: Ibuprofen and acetaminophen are the most widely used analgesics in pediatric practice for the management of acute mild-to-moderate pain. Despite their widespread use, the comparative analgesic efficacy of these two agents in children remains a subject of ongoing debate, with existing evidence largely derived from heterogeneous clinical settings and small individual trials. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials comparing the analgesic efficacy of ibuprofen versus acetaminophen in pediatric populations with acute mild-to-moderate pain. A systematic literature search was conducted up to May 2026 in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA-Children and Adolescents (PRISMA-C) 2026 reporting guideline. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials comparing ibuprofen with acetaminophen in children and adolescents (defined as individuals aged 0 to < 18 years) with acute pain, reporting at least one extractable efficacy outcome. Continuous outcomes were synthesized as standardized mean differences (Hedges' g) using random-effects models; dichotomous outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Eight randomized controlled trials enrolling 1325 participants were included. Three pediatric trials contributed to the primary continuous pain outcome meta-analysis (n = 196 analyzable participants), yielding a pooled SMD of - 0.28 (95% CI - 0.57 to 0.00; p = 0.052; I2 = 0%), indicating a small effect favoring ibuprofen that did not reach conventional statistical significance. Given the small number of contributing studies (k = 3), the I2 statistic should be interpreted with caution as it has limited power to detect heterogeneity in this context. For the dichotomous pain freedom outcome (2 trials, n = 114), no significant difference was observed (pooled RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.53-1.99; p = 0.93; I2 = 0%). A prespecified sensitivity analysis including an adult soft-tissue injury trial attenuated the pooled effect toward the null (SMD - 0.15, 95% CI - 0.38 to 0.09; p = 0.23; I2 = 36.6%). Narrative synthesis of additional studies generally demonstrated comparable analgesic efficacy between the two agents across postoperative and outpatient pediatric settings. The overall certainty of evidence was rated as low for both primary outcomes, primarily due to imprecision and indirectness. CONCLUSION: Current evidence from randomized controlled trials does not demonstrate a superiority of ibuprofen over acetaminophen for acute mild-to-moderate pain management in children. Both agents appear to provide clinically meaningful analgesia across heterogeneous pediatric pain settings. The clinical choice between agents should be guided by individual patient factors, including contraindications to NSAIDs, the inflammatory nature of the pain etiology, and patient-specific characteristics. The low certainty of evidence underscores the need for adequately powered, methodologically rigorous trials to definitively establish the comparative efficacy of these two analgesics in the pediatric population. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Ibuprofen and acetaminophen are the two most widely used non-opioid analgesics for acute mild-to-moderate pain in children, and both are recommended as first-line agents by major international guidelines. • Prior meta-analyses in mixed pediatric-adult populations have suggested a modest analgesic advantage of ibuprofen over acetaminophen, but pediatric-specific evidence has remained limited and methodologically heterogeneous. WHAT IS NEW: • This systematic review and meta-analysis, restricted to randomized controlled trials in pediatric populations, found that ibuprofen showed a small effect favoring pain reduction compared with acetaminophen (SMD - 0.28, p = 0.052), although this did not reach conventional statistical significance. • The analgesic advantage of ibuprofen may be more pronounced in pain etiologies with a significant inflammatory component (e.g., fractures). At the same time, both agents appear broadly equivalent in most other acute pediatric pain settings, supporting individualized analgesic selection based on clinical context and patient-specific factors.

Humans↗