SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “opioid consumption”

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.

112 records · Page 7Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Effect of Local Anesthetic Solution at Different Temperatures for Epidural Labor Analgesia on Intrapartum Fever: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether heating local anesthetic solutions to core body temperature (37°C) for epidural labor analgesia reduces intrapartum fever incidence remains undefined in the current literature. METHODS: This double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) enrolled 220 nulliparous parturients (18-35 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] physical status II, term singleton pregnancy). Participants were randomized to receive epidural labor analgesia with 0.075% ropivacaine + 0.5 µg/mL sufentanil at 37°C (warmed group) or 22°C (room-temperature group). Epidurals were placed at L3-L4 with a test dose of 3 mL of 1.5% lidocaine at room temperature, followed by programmed bolus epidural analgesia (initial 10 mL, 10 mL/h) and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) 5 mL (30-minute lockout). Tympanic temperature was measured every 30 minutes from epidural initiation to delivery, defining intrapartum fever as ≥38°C. The primary outcome was fever incidence, on which the power analysis was based, and also maximum temperature and shivering. Secondary outcomes comprised analgesia onset, block level, labor durations, neonatal Apgar scores, umbilical cord blood pH and BE, and maternal adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 220 parturients were included (warmed group, n = 110; room-temperature group, n = 110). The warmed group had a lower intrapartum fever incidence (15.5% [17/110] vs 30.9% [34/110], relative risk [RR] 0.5 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.298-0.840]; P = .007); however, the reduction of 49.8% did not reach the preset clinically meaningful difference of 60% reduction proposed in the power analysis. The maximum body temperature was also lower in the warmed group: median (interquartile range [IQR]) 37.4 (IQR, 37.2-37.7) °C vs 37.6 (IQR, 37.3-38.0) °C, median difference -0.2 (95% CI, -0.3 to -0.1) °C ( P = .006). Shivering incidence was not different between groups (10.9% [12/110] vs 14.5% [16/110]; P = .418). No statistically significant differences were observed between groups in any of the secondary outcomes assessed, including block characteristics, local anesthetic consumption, labor duration, neonatal outcomes, and maternal adverse events. CONCLUSION: Although we found a 50% reduction in the incidence of temperature rise using warmed (37°C) local anesthetics for epidural labor analgesia, this did not reach our preset threshold of 60% reduction.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Specialized pro-resolving mediator (SPM)-enriched supplementation modulates inflammatory biomarkers in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: Blood plasma analysis from the GAUDI study.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of chronic pain and functional impairment, associated with persistent inflammation, potentially due to impaired resolution. Specialized pro-resolving lipid mediators (SPMs) regulate inflammation resolution and restore homeostasis. The GAUDI study previously demonstrated that SPM supplementation reduces pain and improves quality of life (QoL) in patients with knee OA. This analysis assesses the impact of SPM supplementation on inflammatory biomarkers (IB) and SPM levels and their relationship with clinical outcomes. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of the GAUDI trial, a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted in Spain in adults with symptomatic knee OA who received daily supplementation with SPMs or placebo for 12 weeks. Endpoints included changes in plasma IB and SPM levels and their correlation with clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Changes in IL-1 (15.9 vs. -1.1 pg/ml, p-value: 0.051) and IL-18 (10.3 vs. -1.4 pg/ml, p-value: 0.29) showed a tendency toward reduction in the SPM group compared to the placebo group. Changes in IL-1 and IL-8 positively correlated (r = 0.707, p-value: 0.005 and r = 0.551, p-value: 0.04; respectively) with changes in WOMAC score and negatively correlated (r = -0.797, p-value <0.001 and r = -0.804, p-value <0.001; respectively) with changes in EuroQoL-5 VAS score. Changes in IL-1 (r = 0.554, p-value: 0.048) and IL-6 (r = 0.631, p-value: 0.014 and r = 0.572, p-value: 0.031) correlated with changes in OMERACT-OARSI pain score. No significant differences in IB levels were observed between groups during the intervention. Minor changes in SPM levels point to metabolic pathways at work with SPM supplementation. In patients with a BMI ≥25 kg/m², most IB tended to decrease following SPM consumption. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests a potential association between SPM supplementation, decreased inflammation, and improved pain and QoL in patients with knee OA. Subtle changes in blood plasma SPM levels were detected that indicate, through bioinformatics analysis, a pathway-specific metabolome activation induced by SPM supplementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05633849. Registered December 1st, 2022. Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT05633849.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Effect of a digitally augmented general health promotion intervention on abstinence from health-risk behaviors among emergency department discharge patients: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading global cause of death and are driven by modifiable behaviors, such as tobacco use, harmful alcohol consumption, unhealthy diet, and physical inactivity. Recognizing that emergency department (ED) visits represent a unique opportunity to promote behavior change, this trial evaluated a digitally augmented, theory based general health promotion approach, combining a brief telephone-based intervention with mobile instant messaging support, to help discharged ED patients abstain from health risk behaviors. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted in a major public hospital ED in Hong Kong. Adults (18-65 years) triaged as semi-urgent or non-urgent and with ≥1 health-risk behavior and smartphone access were randomized to receive a digitally augmented, theory‑based general health‑promotion intervention consisting of a brief telephone‑based AWARD‑model intervention (Ask, Warn, Advise, Refer, and Do-it-again) followed by weekly WhatsApp or WeChat messages for 6 months, or to a control group receiving brief telephone advice only. The primary outcome was self-report abstinence from ≥1 health-risk behavior at 6 months; secondary outcomes included the proportion of participants who achieved self-reported abstinence from ≥1 health-risk behavior at 12 months and reduction in the number of behaviors at 6 and 12 months. Of the 2,134 screened patients, 572 were enrolled (286 per group). At 6 months, 30.1% of the intervention participants versus 19.9% of the controls achieved self-reported abstinence (RR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.13-2.02; P = 0.006). The intervention also significantly increased the likelihood of fewer risky behaviors at 6 (RR = 1.54; P = 0.01) and 12 (RR = 1.48; P = 0.02) months. Physical inactivity showed the greatest improvement at 6 months (31.7% versus 16.2%; P < 0.001). The effects attenuated after cessation of booster messaging. Limitations include reliance on self-reported outcomes, the single-center study design, and loss to follow-up, which may have affected the generalizability of the results. CONCLUSIONS: A digitally augmented, theory-based general health promotion strategy delivered at ED discharge through brief telephone intervention and mobile instant messaging support demonstrated short-term benefits in promoting self-reported abstinence and reducing health-risk behaviors at 6 months. However, the absence of a sustained effect at 12 months suggests that extended support or maintenance strategies may be required to maintain these improvements over time. Multicenter trials with longer follow-up are warranted to evaluate long-term effectiveness. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Registration No: NCT06077565).

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↗