-
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Oct 2021To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip...
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip osteoarthritis pain and physical function to enable effective and safe use of these drugs at their lowest possible dose.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, regulatory agency websites, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 28 June 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised trials published in English with ≥100 patients per group that evaluated NSAIDs, opioids, or paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat osteoarthritis.
OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The prespecified primary outcome was pain. Physical function and safety outcomes were also assessed.
REVIEW METHODS
Two reviewers independently extracted outcomes data and evaluated the risk of bias of included trials. Bayesian random effects models were used for network meta-analysis of all analyses. Effect estimates are comparisons between active treatments and oral placebo.
RESULTS
192 trials comprising 102 829 participants examined 90 different active preparations or doses (68 for NSAIDs, 19 for opioids, and three for paracetamol). Five oral preparations (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 60 and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg/day) had ≥99% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. Topical diclofenac (70-81 and 140-160 mg/day) had ≥92.3% probability, and all opioids had ≤53% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. 18.5%, 0%, and 83.3% of the oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of dropouts due to adverse events. 29.8%, 0%, and 89.5% of oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of any adverse event. Oxymorphone 80 mg/day had the highest risk of dropouts due to adverse events (51%) and any adverse event (88%).
CONCLUSIONS
Etoricoxib 60 mg/day and diclofenac 150 mg/day seem to be the most effective oral NSAIDs for pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis. However, these treatments are probably not appropriate for patients with comorbidities or for long term use because of the slight increase in the risk of adverse events. Additionally, an increased risk of dropping out due to adverse events was found for diclofenac 150 mg/day. Topical diclofenac 70-81 mg/day seems to be effective and generally safer because of reduced systemic exposure and lower dose, and should be considered as first line pharmacological treatment for knee osteoarthritis. The clinical benefit of opioid treatment, regardless of preparation or dose, does not outweigh the harm it might cause in patients with osteoarthritis.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO number CRD42020213656.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Aged; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Minimal Clinically Important Difference; Network Meta-Analysis; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain Management
PubMed: 34642179
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n2321 -
JAMA Network Open Oct 2020Acetaminophen (paracetamol) and ibuprofen are the most widely prescribed and available over-the-counter medications for management of fever and pain in children. Despite... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Acetaminophen (paracetamol) and ibuprofen are the most widely prescribed and available over-the-counter medications for management of fever and pain in children. Despite the common use of these medications, treatment recommendations for young children remain divergent.
OBJECTIVE
To compare acetaminophen with ibuprofen for the short-term treatment of fever or pain in children younger than 2 years.
DATA SOURCES
Systematic search of the databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov and the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry from inception to March 2019, with no language limits.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies of any design that included children younger than 2 years and directly compared acetaminophen with ibuprofen, reporting antipyretic, analgesic, and/or safety outcomes were considered. There were no limits on length of follow-up.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline, 2 authors independently extracted data and assessed quality. Data were pooled using a fixed-effects method if I2 was less than 50% and using a random-effects method if I2 was 50% or greater.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcomes were fever or pain within 4 hours of treatment onset. Safety outcomes included serious adverse events, kidney impairment, gastrointestinal bleeding, hepatotoxicity, severe soft tissue infection, empyema, and asthma and/or wheeze.
RESULTS
Overall, 19 studies (11 randomized; 8 nonrandomized) of 241 138 participants from 7 countries and various health care settings (hospital-based and community-based) were included. Compared with acetaminophen, ibuprofen resulted in reduced temperature at less than 4 hours (4 studies with 435 participants; standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.08-0.67; P = .01; I2 = 49%; moderate quality evidence) and at 4 to 24 hours (5 studies with 879 participants; SMD, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.03-0.45; P = .03; I2 = 57%; moderate-quality evidence) and less pain at 4 to 24 hours (2 studies with 535 participants; SMD, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.03-0.37; P = .02; I2 = 25%; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events were uncommon. Acetaminophen and ibuprofen appeared to have similar serious adverse event profiles (7 studies with 27 932 participants; ibuprofen vs aceteminophen: odds ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.87-1.33; P = .50, I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this study, use of ibuprofen vs acetaminophen for the treatment of fever or pain in children younger than 2 years was associated with reduced temperature and less pain within the first 24 hours of treatment, with equivalent safety.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Child, Preschool; Female; Fever; Humans; Ibuprofen; Infant; Male; Pain
PubMed: 33125495
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.22398 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2018Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is the most widely used non-prescription analgesic in the world. Paracetamol is commonly taken in overdose either deliberately or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is the most widely used non-prescription analgesic in the world. Paracetamol is commonly taken in overdose either deliberately or unintentionally. In high-income countries, paracetamol toxicity is a common cause of acute liver injury. There are various interventions to treat paracetamol poisoning, depending on the clinical status of the person. These interventions include inhibiting the absorption of paracetamol from the gastrointestinal tract (decontamination), removal of paracetamol from the vascular system, and antidotes to prevent the formation of, or to detoxify, metabolites.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of interventions for paracetamol overdosage irrespective of the cause of the overdose.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (January 2017), CENTRAL (2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to January 2017), Embase (1974 to January 2017), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to January 2017). We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov database (US National Institute of Health) for any ongoing or completed trials (January 2017). We examined the reference lists of relevant papers identified by the search and other published reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials assessing benefits and harms of interventions in people who have ingested a paracetamol overdose. The interventions could have been gastric lavage, ipecacuanha, or activated charcoal, or various extracorporeal treatments, or antidotes. The interventions could have been compared with placebo, no intervention, or to each other in differing regimens.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. We used fixed-effect and random-effects Peto odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for analysis of the review outcomes. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess the risks of bias (i.e. systematic errors leading to overestimation of benefits and underestimation of harms). We used Trial Sequential Analysis to control risks of random errors (i.e. play of chance) and GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence and constructed 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE software.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 11 randomised clinical trials (of which one acetylcysteine trial was abandoned due to low numbers recruited), assessing several different interventions in 700 participants. The variety of interventions studied included decontamination, extracorporeal measures, and antidotes to detoxify paracetamol's toxic metabolite; which included methionine, cysteamine, dimercaprol, or acetylcysteine. There were no randomised clinical trials of agents that inhibit cytochrome P-450 to decrease the activation of the toxic metabolite N-acetyl-p-benzoquinone imine.Of the 11 trials, only two had two common outcomes, and hence, we could only meta-analyse two comparisons. Each of the remaining comparisons included outcome data from one trial only and hence their results are presented as described in the trials. All trial analyses lack power to access efficacy. Furthermore, all the trials were at high risk of bias. Accordingly, the quality of evidence was low or very low for all comparisons. Interventions that prevent absorption, such as gastric lavage, ipecacuanha, or activated charcoal were compared with placebo or no intervention and with each other in one four-armed randomised clinical trial involving 60 participants with an uncertain randomisation procedure and hence very low quality. The trial presented results on lowering plasma paracetamol levels. Activated charcoal seemed to reduce the absorption of paracetamol, but the clinical benefits were unclear. Activated charcoal seemed to have the best risk:benefit ratio among gastric lavage, ipecacuanha, or supportive treatment if given within four hours of ingestion. There seemed to be no difference between gastric lavage and ipecacuanha, but gastric lavage and ipecacuanha seemed more effective than no treatment (very low quality of evidence). Extracorporeal interventions included charcoal haemoperfusion compared with conventional treatment (supportive care including gastric lavage, intravenous fluids, and fresh frozen plasma) in one trial with 16 participants. The mean cumulative amount of paracetamol removed was 1.4 g. One participant from the haemoperfusion group who had ingested 135 g of paracetamol, died. There were no deaths in the conventional treatment group. Accordingly, we found no benefit of charcoal haemoperfusion (very low quality of evidence). Acetylcysteine appeared superior to placebo and had fewer adverse effects when compared with dimercaprol or cysteamine. Acetylcysteine superiority to methionine was unproven. One small trial (low quality evidence) found that acetylcysteine may reduce mortality in people with fulminant hepatic failure (Peto OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.94). The most recent randomised clinical trials studied different acetylcysteine regimens, with the primary outcome being adverse events. It was unclear which acetylcysteine treatment protocol offered the best efficacy, as most trials were underpowered to look at this outcome. One trial showed that a modified 12-hour acetylcysteine regimen with a two-hour acetylcysteine 100 mg/kg bodyweight loading dose was associated with significantly fewer adverse reactions compared with the traditional three-bag 20.25-hour regimen (low quality of evidence). All Trial Sequential Analyses showed lack of sufficient power. Children were not included in the majority of trials. Hence, the evidence pertains only to adults.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
These results highlight the paucity of randomised clinical trials comparing different interventions for paracetamol overdose and their routes of administration and the low or very low level quality of the evidence that is available. Evidence from a single trial found activated charcoal seemed the best choice to reduce absorption of paracetamol. Acetylcysteine should be given to people at risk of toxicity including people presenting with liver failure. Further randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias and adequate number of participants are required to determine which regimen results in the fewest adverse effects with the best efficacy. Current management of paracetamol poisoning worldwide involves the administration of intravenous or oral acetylcysteine which is based mainly on observational studies. Results from these observational studies indicate that treatment with acetylcysteine seems to result in a decrease in morbidity and mortality, However, further evidence from randomised clinical trials comparing different treatments are needed.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Acetylcysteine; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Antidotes; Charcoal; Cysteamine; Dimercaprol; Drug Overdose; Gastric Lavage; Humans; Intestinal Absorption; Liver Failure, Acute; Liver Transplantation; Methionine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29473717
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003328.pub3 -
JAMA Jan 2019The role for aspirin in cardiovascular primary prevention remains controversial, with potential benefits limited by an increased bleeding risk. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The role for aspirin in cardiovascular primary prevention remains controversial, with potential benefits limited by an increased bleeding risk.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the association of aspirin use for primary prevention with cardiovascular events and bleeding.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed and Embase were searched on Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials from the earliest available date through November 1, 2018.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials enrolling at least 1000 participants with no known cardiovascular disease and a follow-up of at least 12 months were included. Included studies compared aspirin use with no aspirin (placebo or no treatment).
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data were screened and extracted independently by both investigators. Bayesian and frequentist meta-analyses were performed.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary cardiovascular outcome was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The primary bleeding outcome was any major bleeding (defined by the individual studies).
RESULTS
A total of 13 trials randomizing 164 225 participants with 1 050 511 participant-years of follow-up were included. The median age of trial participants was 62 years (range, 53-74), 77 501 (47%) were men, 30 361 (19%) had diabetes, and the median baseline risk of the primary cardiovascular outcome was 9.2% (range, 2.6%-15.9%). Aspirin use was associated with significant reductions in the composite cardiovascular outcome compared with no aspirin (57.1 per 10 000 participant-years with aspirin and 61.4 per 10 000 participant-years with no aspirin) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% credible interval, 0.84-0.95]; absolute risk reduction, 0.38% [95% CI, 0.20%-0.55%]; number needed to treat, 265). Aspirin use was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding events compared with no aspirin (23.1 per 10 000 participant-years with aspirin and 16.4 per 10 000 participant-years with no aspirin) (HR, 1.43 [95% credible interval, 1.30-1.56]; absolute risk increase, 0.47% [95% CI, 0.34%-0.62%]; number needed to harm, 210).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The use of aspirin in individuals without cardiovascular disease was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events and an increased risk of major bleeding. This information may inform discussions with patients about aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events and bleeding.
Topics: Aspirin; Cardiovascular Diseases; Diabetes Complications; Diabetes Mellitus; Female; Hemorrhage; Humans; Male; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Primary Prevention; Risk
PubMed: 30667501
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.20578 -
PloS One 2015Metamizole is used to treat pain in many parts of the world. Information on the safety profile of metamizole is scarce; no conclusive summary of the literature exists. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Metamizole is used to treat pain in many parts of the world. Information on the safety profile of metamizole is scarce; no conclusive summary of the literature exists.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether metamizole is clinically safe compared to placebo and other analgesics.
METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and several clinical trial registries. We screened the reference lists of included trials and previous systematic reviews. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of metamizole, administered to adults in any form and for any indication, to other analgesics or to placebo. Two authors extracted data regarding trial design and size, indications for pain medication, patient characteristics, treatment regimens, and methodological characteristics. Adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and dropouts were assessed. We conducted separate meta-analyses for each metamizole comparator, using standard inverse-variance random effects meta-analysis to pool the estimates across trials, reported as risk ratios (RRs). We calculated the DerSimonian and Laird variance estimate T2 to measure heterogeneity between trials. The pre-specified primary end point was any AE during the trial period.
RESULTS
Of the 696 potentially eligible trials, 79 trials including almost 4000 patients with short-term metamizole use of less than two weeks met our inclusion criteria. Fewer AEs were reported for metamizole compared to opioids, RR = 0.79 (confidence interval 0.79 to 0.96). We found no differences between metamizole and placebo, paracetamol and NSAIDs. Only a few SAEs were reported, with no difference between metamizole and other analgesics. No agranulocytosis or deaths were reported. Our results were limited by the mediocre overall quality of the reports.
CONCLUSION
For short-term use in the hospital setting, metamizole seems to be a safe choice when compared to other widely used analgesics. High-quality, adequately sized trials assessing the intermediate- and long-term safety of metamizole are needed.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Adult; Agranulocytosis; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Dipyrone; Female; Hospitalization; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Quality Control; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 25875821
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122918 -
Advances in Therapy Jan 2020International guidelines support the use of low molecular weight heparins for the treatment of thromboembolism and thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy. However, evidence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
International guidelines support the use of low molecular weight heparins for the treatment of thromboembolism and thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy. However, evidence of the benefit and harm associated with specific low molecular weight heparins such as enoxaparin is dated. No current systematic review and meta-analysis describing the safety and efficacy of enoxaparin for thromboembolism and thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy exists.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched on August 17, 2018 for clinical trials or observational studies in pregnant women receiving enoxaparin; patients with a prosthetic heart valve were excluded. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model, and heterogeneity was measured using the I statistic.
RESULTS
Of the 485 records identified in the search, 24 studies published clinical trials, and observational studies were found dating back to 2000. Only one observational cohort and one randomized control trial focused on the use of enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis and therefore efficacy was not assessed; the other studies included women with recurrent pregnancy loss (15 studies), history of placental vascular complications (five studies), and recurrent in vitro fertilization failure (two studies) and were therefore analyzed in terms of safety only. Bleeding events were non-significantly more often reported for enoxaparin compared to untreated controls (RR 1.35 [0.88-2.07]) but less often reported for enoxaparin versus aspirin (RR 0.93 [0.62-1.39]); thromboembolic events, thrombocytopenia, and teratogenicity were rarely reported events; in patients with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss, encouragingly the rates of pregnancy loss were significantly lower for enoxaparin compared to untreated controls (RR 0.58 [0.34-0.96]) and enoxaparin + aspirin versus aspirin alone (RR 0.42 [0.32-0.56]) as well as observably lower for enoxaparin versus aspirin alone (RR 0.39 [0.15-1.01]), though significant heterogeneity was observed (I > 60).
CONCLUSION
Literature on the efficacy and safety of enoxaparin for thromboembolism and thromboprophylaxis remains scanty, and therefore efficacy was not assessed; in terms of safety, when including other indications for enoxaparin in pregnancy, we found that enoxaparin was associated with significantly lower complications than aspirin. Given differences in study design and study heterogeneity, pregnancy loss results should be interpreted with caution. Moreover, reports of thromboembolic events, thrombocytopenia, and congenital malformations were rare.
FUNDING
Sanofi.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Aspirin; Enoxaparin; Female; Hemorrhage; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 31673991
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-019-01124-z -
American Journal of Preventive Medicine Jul 2021Low-dose aspirin is used for pre-eclampsia prophylaxis during pregnancy, but a study that comprehensively investigates both maternal and perinatal outcomes from aspirin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
Low-dose aspirin is used for pre-eclampsia prophylaxis during pregnancy, but a study that comprehensively investigates both maternal and perinatal outcomes from aspirin administration utilizing stratification methods is lacking. The aim of this study is to comprehensively investigate the maternal and neonatal outcomes related to aspirin prophylaxis during pregnancy in relation to dose and therapy initiation by utilizing a stratification method.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Placebo-controlled randomized trials investigating the effect of low-dose aspirin on maternal or perinatal outcomes with sufficient raw data and published in English from inception to August 2020 were searched for from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Review articles, editorials, case reports, conference abstracts, and nonplacebo-controlled studies were excluded.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of 35 placebo-controlled randomized trials with 46,568 pregnant women were included in this meta-analysis. Aspirin prophylaxis substantially lowered the risk of pre-eclampsia, preterm birth, perinatal mortality, and intrauterine growth retardation without elevated bleeding risks. Low-dose aspirin considerably enhanced neonatal birth weight but did not decrease the risk of gestational hypertension. The subgroup analysis revealed substantially reduced pre-eclampsia risk and enhanced birth weight and gestational age at delivery in women who initiated aspirin before 20 weeks of gestation (RR=0.76, 95% CI=0.64, 0.90, p=0.001). However, the effect of aspirin dose on pregnancy outcomes was insignificant and requires further evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS
Initiation of low-dose aspirin administration before 20 weeks of gestation considerably decreases the incidence of pre-eclampsia and related neonatal outcomes without increasing bleeding risk.
Topics: Aspirin; Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth
PubMed: 33795180
DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2021.01.032 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Mar 2018Metaanalyses of randomized controlled trials have reported contradictory results about the effect of aspirin in the prevention of preeclampsia, both in terms of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE DATA
Metaanalyses of randomized controlled trials have reported contradictory results about the effect of aspirin in the prevention of preeclampsia, both in terms of the gestational age at the onset of treatment and the dose of the drug. The controversy may be resolved by a metaanalysis that includes several recently published trials and particularly the large Combined Multimarker Screening and Randomized Patient Treatment with Aspirin for Evidence-based Preeclampsia Prevention trial and by examination of whether there is a difference of the effect of aspirin on preterm vs term preeclampsia.
STUDY
We performed a systematic review and metaanalysis that evaluated the prophylactic effect of aspirin during pregnancy.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
We completed a literature search through PubMed, Cinhal, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library from 1985 to June 2017. Relative risks with random effect were calculated with their 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
Sixteen trials that included 18,907 participants provided data for preterm and term preeclampsia. Eight of the included studies were evaluated as being of good quality, and the other 8 studies were deemed to be of poor or uncertain quality. There was high heterogeneity within studies (I >50%) for preterm and term preeclampsia, but no heterogeneity was found in the subgroup of preterm preeclampsia when the onset of treatment was ≤16 weeks of gestation and the daily dose of aspirin was ≥100 mg (I=0%). Administration of aspirin was associated with reduction in the risk of preterm preeclampsia (relative risk, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.87), but there was no significant effect on term preeclampsia (relative risk, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-1.21). The reduction in preterm preeclampsia was confined to the subgroup in which aspirin was initiated at ≤16 weeks of gestation and at a daily dose of ≥100 mg (relative risk, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.57). This effect was also observed in the high-quality studies. The reduction in preterm preeclampsia that was observed in the largest trial (Combined Multimarker Screening and Randomized Patient Treatment with Aspirin for Evidence-based Preeclampsia Prevention; n=1620; relative risk, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.72) was similar to that in the 5 smaller trials in which aspirin was initiated at ≤16 weeks of gestation and at a daily dose of ≥100 mg (n=639; relative risk, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.66).
CONCLUSION
Aspirin reduces the risk of preterm preeclampsia, but not term preeclampsia, and only when it is initiated at ≤16 weeks of gestation and at a daily dose of ≥100 mg.
Topics: Aspirin; Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors; Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy
PubMed: 29138036
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.11.561 -
JAMA Internal Medicine Mar 2020Patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) receive venous thromboembolism (VTE) pharmacoprophylaxis. It is unclear which... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of Aspirin for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis After Total Hip and Knee Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.
IMPORTANCE
Patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) receive venous thromboembolism (VTE) pharmacoprophylaxis. It is unclear which anticoagulant is preferable. Observational data suggest aspirin provides effective VTE prophylaxis.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness and safety of aspirin for VTE prophylaxis after THR and TKR.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), with no language restrictions, from inception to September 19, 2019, using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and bibliographic searches. The computer-based searches combined terms and combinations of keywords related to the population (eg, hip replacement, knee replacement, hip arthroplasty, and knee arthroplasty), drug intervention (eg, aspirin, heparin, clexane, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin), and outcome (eg, venous thromboembolism, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and bleeding) in humans.
STUDY SELECTION
This study included RCTs assessing the effectiveness and safety of aspirin for VTE prophylaxis compared with other anticoagulants in adults undergoing THR and TKR. The RCTs with a placebo control group were excluded. The searches and study selection were independently performed.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
This study followed PRISMA recommendations and used the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Data were screened and extracted independently by both reviewers. Study-specific relative risks (RRs) were aggregated using random-effects models. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was any postoperative VTE (asymptomatic or symptomatic). Secondary outcomes were adverse events associated with therapy, including bleeding.
RESULTS
Of 437 identified articles, 13 RCTs were included (6060 participants; 3466 [57.2%] women; mean age, 63.0 years). The RR of VTE after THR and TKR was 1.12 (95% CI, 0.78-1.62) for aspirin compared with other anticoagulants. Comparable findings were observed for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.72-1.51) and pulmonary embolism (PE) (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.68-1.48). The risk of adverse events, including major bleeding, wound hematoma, and wound infection, was not statistically significantly different in patients receiving aspirin vs other anticoagulants. When analyzing THRs and TKRs separately, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of VTE, DVT, and PE between aspirin and other anticoagulants. Aspirin had a VTE risk not statistically significantly different from low-molecular-weight heparin (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.37-1.56) or rivaroxaban (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.56-4.12). The quality of the evidence ranged from low to high.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In terms of clinical effectiveness and safety profile, aspirin did not differ statistically significantly from other anticoagulants used for VTE prophylaxis after THR and TKR. Future trials should focus on noninferiority analysis of aspirin compared with alternative anticoagulants and cost-effectiveness.
Topics: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Aspirin; Fibrinolytic Agents; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 32011647
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6108 -
European Journal of Pediatrics Apr 2021The efficacy of antipyretics for preventing febrile seizure recurrence has been reported by a recent study, and the results might overturn previous evidence. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The efficacy of antipyretics for preventing febrile seizure recurrence has been reported by a recent study, and the results might overturn previous evidence. We systematically reviewed the efficacy of antipyretics in the prevention of febrile seizure recurrence in children focused on the timing of its administration. We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for randomized and quasi-randomized trials and prospective non-randomized studies of aged up to 60 months, diagnosed with febrile seizure, who were treated with antipyretics. Data were extracted from eight studies. Only one study reported that antipyretics prevented the recurrence of febrile seizures within the same fever episode (9.1% in the acetaminophen group vs. 23.5% in the control group, p < 0.01). Four studies found no evidence for the efficacy of antipyretics in preventing febrile seizure recurrence in distant fever episodes (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-1.48, for two randomized controlled studies).Conclusion: This review provides very limited support for the use of antipyretics in preventing febrile seizure recurrence within the same fever episode and no evidence for its use in distant fever episodes. New studies are required to evaluate this topic further and determine whether the effectiveness of antipyretics is based on intervention timing. What is Known: • Reviews of prophylactic drug management among febrile seizure children found that antipyretics had no significant benefits. • Recent data suggest that antipyretics are effective in preventing febrile seizures. What is New: • Weak evidence suggests a possible role in preventing febrile seizure recurrence within the same fever episode. • There is clearly no role for antipyretic prophylaxis in preventing febrile seizures during distant fever episodes.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Aged; Antipyretics; Child; Humans; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Prospective Studies; Recurrence; Seizures, Febrile
PubMed: 33125519
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-020-03845-8