-
European Journal of Gastroenterology &... Dec 2016Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (post-ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication following ERCP. We carried out a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (post-ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication following ERCP. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of the global literature on PEP prevention to provide clinical guidance and a framework for future research in this important field.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, Ovid, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched by two independent reviewers to identify full-length, prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up until March 2016 investigating the use of pancreatic duct stents and pharmacological agents to prevent PEP.
RESULTS
Twelve RCTs comparing the risk of PEP after pancreatic duct stent placement (1369 patients) and 30 RCTs comparing pharmacological agents over placebo (10251 patients) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were selected for final review and analysis. Meta-analysis showed that prophylactic pancreatic stents significantly decreased the odds of post-ERCP pancreatitis [odds ratio (OR), 0.28; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.18-0.42]. Significant OR reduction of PEP was also observed in relation to rectal administration of diclofenac (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.48) and rectal administration of indometacin (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.79) compared with placebo. Subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction with bolus-administered somatostatin (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.49). Subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction with bolus-administered somatostatin (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.49).
CONCLUSION
Pancreatic stent placement, rectal diclofenac, and bolus administration of somatostatin appear to be most effective in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Administration, Rectal; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Diclofenac; Hormones; Humans; Indomethacin; Odds Ratio; Pancreatic Ducts; Pancreatitis; Postoperative Complications; Somatostatin; Stents
PubMed: 27580214
DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000000734 -
International Journal of Environmental... Oct 2022There are several techniques for the removal of pharmaceuticals (drugs) from wastewater; however, strengths and weaknesses have been observed in their elimination... (Review)
Review
There are several techniques for the removal of pharmaceuticals (drugs) from wastewater; however, strengths and weaknesses have been observed in their elimination processes that limit their applicability. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the best techniques for the removal of pharmaceuticals from municipal and hospital wastewater. For this, a non-experimental, descriptive, qualitative-quantitative design was used, corresponding to a systematic review without meta-analysis. Based on established inclusion and exclusion criteria, 31 open-access articles were selected from the Scopus, ProQuest, EBSCOhost, and ScienceDirect databases. The results showed that high concentrations of analgesics such as naproxen (1.37 mg/L) and antibiotics such as norfloxacin (0.561 mg/L) are frequently found in wastewater and that techniques such as reverse osmosis, ozonation, and activated sludge have the best removal efficiency, achieving values of 99%. It was concluded that reverse osmosis is one of the most efficient techniques for eliminating ofloxacin, sulfamethoxazole, carbamazepine, and diclofenac from municipal wastewater, with removal rates ranging from 96 to 99.9%, while for hospital wastewater the activated sludge technique proved to be efficient, eliminating analgesics and antibiotics in the range of 41-99%.
Topics: Wastewater; Sewage; Diclofenac; Naproxen; Norfloxacin; Water Pollutants, Chemical; Carbamazepine; Hospitals; Ozone; Sulfamethoxazole; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Ofloxacin; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Waste Disposal, Fluid
PubMed: 36293682
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192013105 -
International Journal of Clinical... Jan 2017Effective medical expulsion for ureteric stones with α-blockers offers numerous advantages over surgical alternatives. However, its effectiveness remains uncertain and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Effective medical expulsion for ureteric stones with α-blockers offers numerous advantages over surgical alternatives. However, its effectiveness remains uncertain and with the publication of new trial data, the available evidence requires reappraisal.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of α-blockers the management of ureteric lithiasis.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature, with predefined search criteria, was conducted using PubMed and Embase. All randomised trials comparing α-blocker monotherapy to placebo or standard therapy were included. Stone expulsion rate was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures were time to stone expulsion, analgesic usage and pain scores. Subgroup analyses assessed individual adrenergic antagonists and variations in standard therapy. Sensitivity analysis was based on stone location, stone size, Cochrane Risk of Bias score and study protocol. Summary effects were calculated using a random-effect model and presented as Relative risks (RR) and mean differences (MD) for dichotomous and continuous outcome measures, respectively.
RESULTS
Sixty-seven studies randomising 6654 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Stone expulsion rates improved with α-blockers (RR, 1.49; 95% CI 1.38-1.61). Contrast enhanced funnel showed evidence of publication bias. Stone expulsion time was 3.99 days (CI -4.75 to -3.23) shorter with α-blockers. Similarly, patients required 106.53 mg [CI -148.20 to -64.86] less diclofenac compared with control/placebo, and had 0.80 [CI -1.07 to -0.54] fewer pain episodes. Visual Analogue Scores were also reduced, -2.43 [CI -3.87 to -0.99]. All formulations of α-antagonists all demonstrated beneficial effects over conservative treatment/placebo. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated significant effects of stone location, stone size and study design.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Despite the opposing results of recently published trial, current evidence continues to demonstrate a potential benefit of α-blocker treatment particularly for distal stones over 5 mm.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists; Analgesics; Diclofenac; Humans; Pain; Pain Measurement; Time Factors; Ureteral Calculi
PubMed: 28097758
DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.12917 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) May 2017To characterise the determinants, time course, and risks of acute myocardial infarction associated with use of oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To characterise the determinants, time course, and risks of acute myocardial infarction associated with use of oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Systematic review followed by a one stage bayesian individual patient data meta-analysis. Studies from Canadian and European healthcare databases. Eligible studies were sourced from computerised drug prescription or medical databases, conducted in the general or an elderly population, documented acute myocardial infarction as specific outcome, studied selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors (including rofecoxib) and traditional NSAIDs, compared risk of acute myocardial infarction in NSAID users with non-users, allowed for time dependent analyses, and minimised effects of confounding and misclassification bias. Drug exposure was modelled as an indicator variable incorporating the specific NSAID, its recency, duration of use, and dose. The outcome measures were the summary adjusted odds ratios of first acute myocardial infarction after study entry for each category of NSAID use at index date (date of acute myocardial infarction for cases, matched date for controls) versus non-use in the preceding year and the posterior probability of acute myocardial infarction. A cohort of 446 763 individuals including 61 460 with acute myocardial infarction was acquired. Taking any dose of NSAIDs for one week, one month, or more than a month was associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction. With use for one to seven days the probability of increased myocardial infarction risk (posterior probability of odds ratio >1.0) was 92% for celecoxib, 97% for ibuprofen, and 99% for diclofenac, naproxen, and rofecoxib. The corresponding odds ratios (95% credible intervals) were 1.24 (0.91 to 1.82) for celecoxib, 1.48 (1.00 to 2.26) for ibuprofen, 1.50 (1.06 to 2.04) for diclofenac, 1.53 (1.07 to 2.33) for naproxen, and 1.58 (1.07 to 2.17) for rofecoxib. Greater risk of myocardial infarction was documented for higher dose of NSAIDs. With use for longer than one month, risks did not appear to exceed those associated with shorter durations. All NSAIDs, including naproxen, were found to be associated with an increased risk of acute myocardial infarction. Risk of myocardial infarction with celecoxib was comparable to that of traditional NSAIDS and was lower than for rofecoxib. Risk was greatest during the first month of NSAID use and with higher doses.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Bayes Theorem; Canada; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Europe; Humans; Myocardial Infarction
PubMed: 28487435
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j1909 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, reduces the incidence and severity of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, reduces the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous diclofenac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases without language restrictions: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Register of Studies Online), MEDLINE, and Embase on 22 May 2018. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous diclofenac with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for review inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data.Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a four- and six-hour period.Our secondary outcomes were time to, and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, AEs, and for any cause; and number of participants experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and NSAID-related AEs. We performed a post hoc analysis of opioid-related AEs, to enable indirect comparisons with other analyses of postoperative analgesics.For subgroup analysis, we planned to analyze different doses and formulations of parenteral diclofenac separately.We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight studies, involving 1756 participants undergoing various surgeries (dental, mixed minor, abdominal, and orthopedic), with 20 to 175 participants receiving intravenous diclofenac in each study. Mean study population ages ranged from 24.5 years to 54.5 years. Intravenous diclofenac doses varied among and within studies, ranging from 3.75 mg to 75 mg. Five studies assessed newer formulations of parenteral diclofenac that could be administered as an undiluted intravenous bolus. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias for several domains and a high risk of bias due to small sample size. The overall quality of evidence for each outcome was generally low for reasons including unclear risk of bias in studies, imprecision, and low event numbers.Primary outcomeThree studies (277 participants) produced a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for at least 50% of maximum pain relief versus placebo of 2.4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9 to 3.1) over four hours (low-quality evidence). Four studies (436 participants) produced an NNTB of 3.8 versus placebo (95% CI 2.9 to 5.9) over six hours (low-quality evidence). No studies provided data for the comparison of intravenous diclofenac with another NSAID over four hours. At six hours there was no difference between intravenous diclofenac and another NSAID (low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesFor secondary efficacy outcomes, intravenous diclofenac was generally superior to placebo and similar to other NSAIDs.For time to rescue medication, comparison of intravenous diclofenac versus placebo demonstrated a median of 226 minutes for diclofenac versus 80 minutes for placebo (5 studies, 542 participants, low-quality evidence). There were insufficient data for pooled analysis for comparisons of diclofenac with another NSAID (very low-quality evidence).For the number of participants using rescue medication, two studies (235 participants) compared diclofenac with placebo. The number needed to treat to prevent one additional harmful event (NNTp) (here, the need for rescue medication) compared with placebo was 3.0 (2.2 to 4.5, low-quality evidence). The comparison of diclofenac with another NSAID included only one study (98 participants). The NNTp was 4.5 (2.5 to 33) for ketorolac versus diclofenac (very low-quality evidence).The numbers of participants withdrawing were generally low and inconsistently reported (very low-quality evidence). Participant withdrawals were: 6% (8/140) diclofenac versus 5% (7/128) placebo, and 9% (8/87) diclofenac versus 7% (6/82) another NSAID for lack of efficacy; 2% (4/211) diclofenac versus 0% (0/198) placebo, and 3% (4/138) diclofenac versus 2% (2/129) another NSAID due to AEs; and 11% (21/191) diclofenac versus 17% (30/179) placebo, and 18% (21/118) diclofenac versus 15% (17/111) another NSAID for any cause.Overall adverse event rates were similar between intravenous diclofenac and placebo (71% in both groups, 2 studies, 296 participants) and between intravenous diclofenac and another NSAID (55% and 58%, respectively, 2 studies, 265 participants) (low-quality evidence for both comparisons). Serious and specific AEs were rare, preventing meta-analysis.There were sufficient data for a dose-effect analysis for our primary outcome for only one alternative dose, 18.75 mg. Analysis of the highest dose employed in each study demonstrated a relative benefit compared with placebo of 1.9 (1.4 to 2.4), whereas for the group receiving 18.75 mg, the relative benefit versus placebo was 1.6 (1.2 to 2.1, 2 studies). Compared to another NSAID, the high-dose analysis demonstrated a relative benefit of 0.9 (0.8 to 1.1), for the group receiving 18.75 mg, the relative benefit was 0.78 (0.65 to 0.93). For direct comparison of high dose versus 18.75 mg, the proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief was 66% (90/137) for the high-dose arm versus 57% (77/135) in the low-dose arm. There were insufficient data for subgroup meta-analysis of different diclofenac formulations.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The amount and quality of evidence for the use of intravenous diclofenac as a treatment for postoperative pain is low. The available evidence indicates that postoperative intravenous diclofenac administration offers good pain relief for the majority of patients, but further research may impact this estimate. Adverse events appear to occur at a similar rate to other NSAIDs. Insufficient information is available to assess whether intravenous diclofenac has a different rate of bleeding, renal dysfunction, or cardiovascular events versus other NSAIDs. There was insufficient information to evaluate the efficacy and safety of newer versus traditional formulations of intravenous diclofenac. There was a lack of studies in major and cardiovascular surgeries and in elderly populations, which may be at increased risk for adverse events.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Diclofenac; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Pain, Postoperative; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30153336
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012498.pub2 -
Acta Dermato-venereologica Jan 2021A systematic literature review was conducted to identify and qualitatively assess randomized controlled trials in immunocompetent patients ≥ 18 years with head-... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic literature review was conducted to identify and qualitatively assess randomized controlled trials in immunocompetent patients ≥ 18 years with head- region lesions of actinic keratoses who were treated with field-directed, lesion-directed and other therapies. Network meta-analysis was used to quantitatively evaluate field-directed therapies (5-fluorouracil formulations, diclofenac sodium, imiquimod, ingenol mebutate, 5-aminolevulinic acid or methyl aminolevulinate plus photodynamic therapy) using complete clearance or partial clearance of actinic keratoses lesions, and adverse event-related withdrawals as a proxy of acceptability. Of 2,863 references identified, 75 trials reported in 151 publications were included. In summary, comparative network meta-analysis evaluation showed that 5-fluorouracil formulations were the most efficacious interventions examined. 5-fluorouracil 4%, which was recently approved, showed a comparable efficacy profile to 5-fluorouracil 5%, and had satisfactory acceptability outcomes.
Topics: Diterpenes; Humans; Imiquimod; Keratosis, Actinic; Network Meta-Analysis; Photochemotherapy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33170301
DOI: 10.2340/00015555-3690 -
European Review For Medical and... Nov 2021This systematic review with network meta-analysis was performed to compare the effectiveness of oral anti-inflammatory drugs used in Brazil for osteoarthritis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review with network meta-analysis was performed to compare the effectiveness of oral anti-inflammatory drugs used in Brazil for osteoarthritis.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Randomized clinical trials evaluating ultramicronised diclofenac, diclofenac, celecoxib, etodolac and placebo in patients with osteoarthritis were identified. A search was conducted in May 2021 through PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases. A network meta-analysis was developed for efficacy outcome related to analgesia measured by the pain subscale of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities tool. In addition, surface under the cumulative ranking was performed to rank the drugs in relation to this outcome.
RESULTS
Twelve randomized clinical trials were included. Overall, ultramicronised diclofenac 105 mg/day (UD105) was better than all the others, including ultramicronised diclofenac 70 mg/day (UD70). In addition, surface under the cumulative ranking resulted in the following order: 1) ultramicronised diclofenac 105 mg/day (100%), 2) ultramicronised diclofenac 70 mg/day (80%), 3) celecoxib 200 mg/day (49%), 4) diclofenac 100 mg/day (48%), 5) placebo (19%) and 6) diclofenac 150 mg/day (6%).
CONCLUSIONS
Ultramicronised diclofenac demonstrated superior efficacy compared to other conventional anti-inflammatory drugs and placebo in relieving osteoarthritis pain.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Celecoxib; Diclofenac; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Osteoarthritis; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34859865
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202111_27252 -
Stroke Feb 2016The association between hemorrhagic stroke and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is not well established. We conducted a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The association between hemorrhagic stroke and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is not well established. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observation studies to further characterize this possible association.
METHODS
Case-control and cohort studies that reported odds ratio, relative risk, hazard ratio, or standardized incidence ratio comparing risk of hemorrhagic stroke among NSAIDs users versus nonusers were systematically searched. Point estimates from each study were extracted. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all NSAIDs and individual NSAIDs were calculated using random-effect, generic inverse variance method.
RESULTS
Ten studies were identified and included in our data analysis. As a single group, NSAIDs use was associated with a small but insignificant risk of hemorrhagic stroke with the pooled RR of 1.09 (95% CI, 0.98-1.22). Individual NSAIDs analysis revealed a significantly increased risk among diclofenac and meloxicam users (RR 1.27; 95% CI, 1.02-1.59 and RR 1.27; 95% CI, 1.08-1.50, respectively). The risk estimate for rofecoxib users was higher, but statistically nonsignificant (RR 1.35; 95% CI, 0.88-2.06).
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the use of NSAIDs is not associated with an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke, although this risk was modestly significantly elevated in diclofenac and meloxicam users.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Celecoxib; Cerebral Hemorrhage; Diclofenac; Humans; Ibuprofen; Incidence; Indomethacin; Lactones; Meloxicam; Naproxen; Observational Studies as Topic; Odds Ratio; Piroxicam; Proportional Hazards Models; Stroke; Sulfones; Thiazines; Thiazoles
PubMed: 26670086
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.011678 -
International Journal of Hepatology 2018Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most widely used medication in several countries, including Thailand. NSAIDs have been associated with hepatic side... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most widely used medication in several countries, including Thailand. NSAIDs have been associated with hepatic side effects; however, the frequency of these side effects is uncertain.
AIM OF THE REVIEW
To systematically review published literature on randomized, controlled trials that assessed the risk of clinically significant hepatotoxicity associated with NSAIDs.
METHODS
Searches of bibliographic databases EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library were conducted up to July 30, 2016, to identify randomized controlled trials of ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, piroxicam, meloxicam, mefenamic acid, indomethacin, celecoxib, and etoricoxib in adults with any disease that provide information on hepatotoxicity outcomes.
RESULTS
Among the 698 studies, 18 studies met the selection criteria. However, only 8 studies regarding three NSAIDs (celecoxib, etoricoxib, and diclofenac) demonstrated clinically significant hepatotoxic evidence based on hepatotoxicity justification criteria. Of all the hepatotoxicity events found from the above-mentioned three NSAIDs, diclofenac had the highest proportion, which ranged from 0.015 to 4.3 (×10), followed by celecoxib, which ranged from 0.13 to 0.38 (×10), and etoricoxib, which ranged from 0.005 to 0.930 (×10).
CONCLUSION
Diclofenac had higher rates of hepatotoxic evidence compared to other NSAIDs. Hepatotoxic evidence is mostly demonstrated as aminotransferase elevation, while liver-related hospitalization or discontinuation was very low.
PubMed: 29568654
DOI: 10.1155/2018/5253623 -
Pain Reports 2022Pain is highly prevalent in patients with cancer-nearly 40% report moderate-severe pain, which is commonly treated with opioids. Increasing cancer survivorship, opioid... (Review)
Review
Pain is highly prevalent in patients with cancer-nearly 40% report moderate-severe pain, which is commonly treated with opioids. Increasing cancer survivorship, opioid epidemics in some regions of the world, and limited opioid access in other regions have focused attention on nonopioid treatments. Given the limitations of monotherapy, combining nonopioids-such as antiepileptics and antidepressants-have shown promise in noncancer pain. This review seeks to evaluate efficacy of nonopioid combinations for cancer-related pain. Systematic searches of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were conducted for double-blind, randomized, controlled trials comparing a nonopioid combination with at least one of its components and/or placebo. This search yielded 4 randomized controlled trials, published between 1998 and 2019 involving studies of (1) imipramine + diclofenac; (2) mitoxantrone + prednisone + clodronate; (3) pentoxifylline + tocopherol + clodronate; and (4) duloxetine + pregabalin + opioid. In the first 3 of these trials, trends favouring combination efficacy failed to reach statistical significance. However, in the fourth trial, duloxetine + pregabalin + opioid was superior to pregabalin + opioid. This review illustrates recognition for the need to evaluate nonopioid drug combinations in cancer pain, although few trials have been published to date. Given the growing practice of prescribing more than 1 nonopioid for cancer pain and the need to expand the evidence base for rational combination therapy, more high-quality trials in this area are needed.
PubMed: 35261931
DOI: 10.1097/PR9.0000000000000995