Efficacy and safety of the Cav2.2 blocker Ziconotide in pain: a meta-analysis and systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Chronic pain remains a significant clinical challenge, especially in refractory cases. Ziconotide, a selective Ca v 2.2 channel blocker, offers an intrathecal approach, but concerns about its safety, potential biases, and impact on opioid consumption persist. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies (1,531 participants) to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and secondary outcomes of Ziconotide. Key outcomes were pain intensity reduction, adverse events, and serious adverse events. As secondary outcomes, we assessed changes in opioid consumption. The risk of bias and the certainty of evidence were assessed using risk of bias 2 and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation for randomized controlled trials, ROBINS-I and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies, and the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for case reports. Publication bias was explored using funnel plot analysis. Ziconotide demonstrated significant pain reduction compared with placebo (mean difference: −22.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −36.70 to −8.38, P = 0.002), although heterogeneity was high. Adverse events were frequent (94.9% vs 76.9% in placebo; risk ratio 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09–1.41, P = 0.0008), with serious adverse events reported in 17.85% patients (risk ratio 2.63, 95% CI: 1.52–4.57, P = 0.0006). Secondary outcomes suggested potential reductions in opioid consumption in observational studies, with decreases ranging from 6.4% to 91.5%, though randomized trials showed inconsistent results. Certainty of the evidence was rated as low to moderate. Although Ziconotide shows promise as an intrathecal treatment for refractory pain, its frequent adverse effects, the availability of high-certainty evidence, and inconclusive impact on opioid consumption highlight the need for cautious use. This meta-analysis underscores the need for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".