-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Vitamin B deficiency is common, and the incidence increases with age. Most people with vitamin B deficiency are treated in primary care with intramuscular (IM) vitamin... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Vitamin B deficiency is common, and the incidence increases with age. Most people with vitamin B deficiency are treated in primary care with intramuscular (IM) vitamin B. Doctors may not be prescribing oral vitamin B formulations because they may be unaware of this option or have concerns regarding its effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of oral vitamin B versus intramuscular vitamin B for vitamin B deficiency.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS, as well as the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. The latest search date was 17 July 2017. We applied no language restrictions. We also contacted authors of relevant trials to enquire about other published or unpublished studies and ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of oral versus IM vitamin B for vitamin B deficiency.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were serum vitamin B levels, clinical signs and symptoms of vitamin B deficiency, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, acceptability to patients, haemoglobin and mean corpuscular volume, total homocysteine and serum methylmalonic acid levels, and socioeconomic effects. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for important outcomes. We did not perform meta-analyses due to the small number of included trials and substantial clinical heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
Three RCTs met our inclusion criteria. The trials randomised 153 participants (74 participants to oral vitamin B and 79 participants to IM vitamin B). Treatment duration and follow-up ranged between three and four months. The mean age of participants ranged from 38.6 to 72 years. The treatment frequency and daily dose of vitamin B in the oral and IM groups varied among trials. Only one trial had low or unclear risk of bias across all domains and outcome measures. Two trials reported data for serum vitamin B levels. The overall quality of evidence for this outcome was low due to serious imprecision (low number of trials and participants). In two trials employing 1000 μg/day oral vitamin B, there was no clinically relevant difference in vitamin B levels when compared with IM vitamin B. One trial used 2000 μg/day vitamin B and demonstrated a mean difference of 680 pg/mL (95% confidence interval 392.7 to 967.3) in favour of oral vitamin B. Two trials reported data on adverse events (very low-quality evidence due to risk of performance bias, detection bias, and serious imprecision). One trial stated that no treatment-related adverse events were seen in both the oral and IM vitamin B groups. One trial reported that 2 of 30 participants (6.7%) in the oral vitamin B group left the trial early due to adverse events. Orally taken vitamin B showed lower treatment-associated costs than IM vitamin B in one trial (low-quality evidence due to serious imprecision). No trial reported on clinical signs and symptoms of vitamin B deficiency, health-related quality of life, or acceptability of the treatment scheme.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low quality evidence shows oral and IM vitamin B having similar effects in terms of normalising serum vitamin B levels, but oral treatment costs less. We found very low-quality evidence that oral vitamin B appears as safe as IM vitamin B. Further trials should conduct better randomisation and blinding procedures, recruit more participants, and provide adequate reporting. Future trials should also measure important outcomes such as the clinical signs and symptoms of vitamin B deficiency, health related-quality of life, socioeconomic effects, and report adverse events adequately, preferably in a primary care setting.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Aged; Humans; Injections, Intramuscular; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vitamin B 12; Vitamin B 12 Deficiency; Vitamin B Complex
PubMed: 29543316
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004655.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2015Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia (a drop in core temperature to below 36°C) occurs because of interference with normal temperature regulation by anaesthetic drugs,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia (a drop in core temperature to below 36°C) occurs because of interference with normal temperature regulation by anaesthetic drugs, exposure of skin for prolonged periods and receipt of large volumes of intravenous and irrigation fluids. If the temperature of these fluids is below core body temperature, they can cause significant heat loss. Warming intravenous and irrigation fluids to core body temperature or above might prevent some of this heat loss and subsequent hypothermia.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the effectiveness of preoperative or intraoperative warming, or both, of intravenous and irrigation fluids in preventing perioperative hypothermia and its complications during surgery in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid SP (1956 to 4 February 2014), EMBASE Ovid SP (1982 to 4 February 2014), the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (1950 to 4 February 2014), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) EBSCOhost (1980 to 4 February 2014) and reference lists of identified articles. We also searched the Current Controlled Trials website and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing fluid warming methods versus standard care or versus other warming methods used to maintain normothermia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from eligible trials and settled disputes with a third review author. We contacted study authors to ask for additional details when needed. We collected data on adverse events only if they were reported in the trials.
MAIN RESULTS
We included in this review 24 studies with a total of 1250 participants. The trials included various numbers and types of participants. Investigators used a range of methods to warm fluids to temperatures between 37°C and 41°C. We found that evidence was of moderate quality because descriptions of trial design were often unclear, resulting in high or unclear risk of bias due to inappropriate or unclear randomization and blinding procedures. These factors may have influenced results in some way. Our protocol specified the risk of hypothermia as the primary outcome; as no trials reported this, we decided to include data related to mean core temperature. The only secondary outcome reported in the trials that provided useable data was shivering. Evidence was unclear regarding the effects of fluid warming on bleeding. No data were reported on our other specified outcomes of cardiovascular complications, infection, pressure ulcers, bleeding, mortality, length of stay, unplanned intensive care admission and adverse events.Researchers found that warmed intravenous fluids kept the core temperature of study participants about half a degree warmer than that of participants given room temperature intravenous fluids at 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes, and at the end of surgery. Warmed intravenous fluids also further reduced the risk of shivering compared with room temperature intravenous fluidsInvestigators reported no statistically significant differences in core body temperature or shivering between individuals given warmed and room temperature irrigation fluids.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Warm intravenous fluids appear to keep patients warmer during surgery than room temperature fluids. It is unclear whether the actual differences in temperature are clinically meaningful, or if other benefits or harms are associated with the use of warmed fluids. It is also unclear if using fluid warming in addition to other warming methods confers any benefit, as a ceiling effect is likely when multiple methods of warming are used.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Anesthesia; Body Temperature; Hot Temperature; Humans; Hypothermia; Infusions, Intravenous; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Shivering; Therapeutic Irrigation
PubMed: 25866139
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009891.pub2 -
Journal of Patient Safety Dec 2021Delivery of intravenous medications in hospitals is a complex process posing to systemic risks for errors. The aim of this study was to identify systemic causes of...
OBJECTIVES
Delivery of intravenous medications in hospitals is a complex process posing to systemic risks for errors. The aim of this study was to identify systemic causes of in-hospital intravenous medication errors.
METHODS
A systematic review adhering to PRISMA guidelines was conducted. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, CINAHL, and EMB reviews for articles published between January 2005 and June 2016. Peer-reviewed journal articles published in English were included. Two reviewers independently selected articles according to a predetermined PICO tool. The quality of studies was assessed using the GRADE system and the evidence analyzed using qualitative content analysis.
RESULTS
Eleven studies from six countries were included in the analysis. We identified systemic causes related to prescribing (n = 6 studies), preparation (n = 6), administration (n = 6), dispensing and storage (n = 5), and treatment monitoring (n = 2). Administration, prescribing, and preparation were the process phases most prone to systemic errors. Insufficient actions to secure safe use of high-alert medications, lack of knowledge of the drug, calculation tasks, failure in double-checking procedures, and confusion between look-alike, sound-alike medications were the leading causes of intravenous medication errors. The number of the included studies was limited, all of them being observational studies and graded as low quality.
CONCLUSIONS
Current intravenous medication systems remain vulnerable, which can result in patient harm. Our findings suggest further focus on medication safety activities related to administration, prescribing, and preparation of intravenous medications. This study provides healthcare organizations with preliminary knowledge about systemic causes of intravenous medication errors, but more rigorous evidence is needed.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Hospitals; Humans; Medication Errors; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 32011427
DOI: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000632 -
Neurocritical Care Oct 2019Intrathecal nicardipine has been shown to have some efficacy for the treatment of symptomatic cerebral vasospasm in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). We...
Intrathecal nicardipine has been shown to have some efficacy for the treatment of symptomatic cerebral vasospasm in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). We performed a PRISMA-based systematic review of intrathecal nicardipine for the treatment of cerebral vasospasm in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. A total of 825 articles were reviewed. After duplicates were removed and the search criteria was applied, 9 articles remained that were eligible for inclusion and analysis. 377 patients received a total of 6,596 injections of intrathecal nicardipine for aSAH-related cerebral vasospasm. The cumulative ventriculostomy-associated infection risk was 6%. Intrathecal nicardipine injections for aSAH-related cerebral vasospasm appears efficacious and safe. Administration of 4 mg of nicardipine every 12 hours was the most commonly reported dosing regimen. Intrathecal nicardipine decreases mean flow velocities on transcranial Doppler and reduces angiographic and clinical vasospasm. The infection risk appears to be in-line with studies in which rates of EVD-related infections have been reported.
Topics: Blood Flow Velocity; Cerebrovascular Circulation; Humans; Injections, Intraventricular; Injections, Spinal; Nicardipine; Subarachnoid Hemorrhage; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonography, Doppler, Transcranial; Vasodilator Agents; Vasospasm, Intracranial; Ventriculostomy
PubMed: 30607826
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-018-0659-9 -
Clinical Rehabilitation Dec 2019To assess the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic ultrasound with sham ultrasound on pain relief and functional improvement in knee osteoarthritis patients. As... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic ultrasound with sham ultrasound on pain relief and functional improvement in knee osteoarthritis patients. As phonophoresis is a unique therapeutic ultrasound, we also compared the effects of phonophoresis with conventional non-drug ultrasound.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials from inception up to June 2019.
REVIEW METHODS
Randomized controlled trials comparing therapeutic ultrasound with sham ultrasound in knee osteoarthritis patients were included. Phonophoresis in the experimental and control groups were compared through conventional ultrasound, and corresponding trials were also included. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies and extracted data. Risk of bias assessments and therapeutic ultrasound safety assessments were also performed.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies including three phonophoresis-related studies with 1074 patients were included. Meta-analyses demonstrated that therapeutic ultrasound significantly relieved pain ( < 0.00001) and reduced the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) physical function score ( = 0.03). In addition, therapeutic ultrasound increased the active range of motion ( < 0.00001) and reduced the Lequesne index ( < 0.00001). Subgroup analysis of phonophoresis ultrasound illustrated significant differences on the visual analogue scale ( = 0.009), but no significant differences on WOMAC pain subscales ( = 0.10), and total WOMAC scores were observed ( = 0.30). There was no evidence to suggest that ultrasound was unsafe treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
Therapeutic ultrasound is a safe treatment to relieve pain and improve physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis. However, phonophoresis does not produce additional benefits to functional improvement, but may relieve pain compared to conventional non-drug ultrasound.
Topics: Humans; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Phonophoresis; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonic Therapy
PubMed: 31382781
DOI: 10.1177/0269215519866494 -
Journal of Crohn's & Colitis Jul 20215-Aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] are the mainstay of treatment for ulcerative colitis [UC]. The optimum preparation, dose, and route of administration for UC remain unclear.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
5-Aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] are the mainstay of treatment for ulcerative colitis [UC]. The optimum preparation, dose, and route of administration for UC remain unclear. We conducted a network meta-analysis to examine this issue.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE Classic, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials from inception to December 2020. We included randomised controlled trials [RCTs] comparing oral, topical, or combined oral and topical 5-ASAs, with each other or placebo for induction of remission or prevention of relapse of UC. Results were reported as pooled relative risks [RRs] with 95% confidence intervals [CIs] to summarise effect of each comparison tested, with treatments ranked according to P-score.
RESULTS
We identified 40 RCTs for induction of remission and 23 for prevention of relapse. Topical mesalazine [P-score 0.99], or oral and topical mesalazine combined [P-score 0.87] ranked first and second for clinical and endoscopic remission combined. Combined therapy ranked first in trials where ≥50% of patients had left-sided/extensive disease, and topical mesalazine first in trials where ≥50% of patients had proctitis/proctosigmoiditis. High-dose [≥3.3 g/day] oral mesalazine ranked third in most analyses, with the most trials and most patients. For relapse of disease activity, combined therapy and high-dose oral mesalazine ranked first and second, with topical mesalazine third. 5-ASAs were safe and well tolerated, regardless of regimen.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results support previous evidence; however, higher doses of oral mesalazine had more evidence for induction of remission than combined therapy and were significantly more efficacious than lower doses. Future RCTs should better establish the role of combined therapy for induction of remission, as well as optimal doses of oral 5-ASAs to prevent relapse.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Colitis, Ulcerative; Humans; Mesalamine; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 33433562
DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab010 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Lumbosacral radicular pain (commonly called sciatica) is a syndrome involving patients who report radiating leg pain. Epidural corticosteroid injections deliver a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Lumbosacral radicular pain (commonly called sciatica) is a syndrome involving patients who report radiating leg pain. Epidural corticosteroid injections deliver a corticosteroid dose into the epidural space, with the aim of reducing the local inflammatory process and, consequently, relieving the symptoms of lumbosacral radicular pain. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review published in Annals of Internal Medicine in 2012. Some placebo-controlled trials have been published recently, which highlights the importance of updating the previous review.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the efficacy and safety of epidural corticosteroid injections compared with placebo injection on pain and disability in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases without language limitations up to 25 September 2019: Cochrane Back and Neck group trial register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and two trial registers. We also performed citation tracking of included studies and relevant systematic reviews in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies that compared epidural corticosteroid injections of any corticosteroid drug to placebo injections in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. We accepted all three anatomical approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) to delivering corticosteroids into the epidural space. We considered trials that included a placebo treatment as delivery of an inert substance (i.e. one with no pharmacologic activity), an innocuous substance (e.g. normal saline solution), or a pharmacologically active substance but not one considered to provide sustained benefit (e.g. local anaesthetic), either into the epidural space (i.e. to mimic epidural corticosteroid injection) or adjacent spinal tissue (i.e. subcutaneous, intramuscular, or interspinous tissue). We also included trials in which a local anaesthetic with a short duration of action was used as a placebo and injected together with corticosteroid in the intervention group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently performed the screening, data extraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessments. In case of insufficient information, we contacted the authors of the original studies or estimated the data. We grouped the outcome data into four time points of assessment: immediate (≤ 2 weeks), short term (> 2 weeks but ≤ 3 months), intermediate term (> 3 months but < 12 months), and long term (≥ 12 months). We assessed the overall quality of evidence for each outcome and time point using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 25 clinical trials (from 29 publications) investigating the effects of epidural corticosteroid injections compared to placebo in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. The included studies provided data for a total of 2470 participants with a mean age ranging from 37.3 to 52.8 years. Seventeen studies included participants with lumbosacral radicular pain with a diagnosis based on clinical assessment and 15 studies included participants with mixed duration of symptoms. The included studies were conducted mainly in North America and Europe. Fifteen studies did not report funding sources, five studies reported not receiving funding, and five reported receiving funding from a non-profit or government source. Eight trials reported data on pain intensity, 12 reported data on disability, and eight studies reported data on adverse events. The duration of the follow-up assessments ranged from 12 hours to 1 year. We considered eight trials to be of high quality because we judged them as having low risk of bias in four out of the five bias domains. We identified one ongoing trial in a trial registry. Epidural corticosteroid injections were probably slightly more effective compared to placebo in reducing leg pain at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -4.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.77 to -1.09 on a 0 to 100 scale; 8 trials, n = 949; moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias)). For disability, epidural corticosteroid injections were probably slightly more effective compared to placebo in reducing disability at short-term follow-up (MD -4.18, 95% CI -6.04 to -2.17, on a 0 to 100 scale; 12 trials, n = 1367; moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias)). The treatment effects are small, however, and may not be considered clinically important by patients and clinicians (i.e. MD lower than 10%). Most trials provided insufficient information on how or when adverse events were assessed (immediate or short-term follow-up) and only reported adverse drug reactions - that is, adverse events that the trialists attributed to the study treatment. We are very uncertain that epidural corticosteroid injections make no difference compared to placebo injection in the frequency of minor adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.42; 8 trials, n = 877; very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision)). Minor adverse events included increased pain during or after the injection, non-specific headache, post-dural puncture headache, irregular periods, accidental dural puncture, thoracic pain, non-local rash, sinusitis, vasovagal response, hypotension, nausea, and tinnitus. One study reported a major drug reaction for one patient on anticoagulant therapy who had a retroperitoneal haematoma as a complication of the corticosteroid injection.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This study found that epidural corticosteroid injections probably slightly reduced leg pain and disability at short-term follow-up in people with lumbosacral radicular pain. In addition, no minor or major adverse events were reported at short-term follow-up after epidural corticosteroid injections or placebo injection. Although the current review identified additional clinical trials, the available evidence still provides only limited support for the use of epidural corticosteroid injections in people with lumbosacral radicular pain as the treatment effects are small, mainly evident at short-term follow-up and may not be considered clinically important by patients and clinicians (i.e. mean difference lower than 10%). According to GRADE, the quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate, suggesting that further studies are likely to play an important role in clarifying the efficacy and tolerability of this treatment. We recommend that further trials should attend to methodological features such as appropriate allocation concealment and blinding of care providers to minimise the potential for biased estimates of treatment and harmful effects.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Injections, Epidural; Lumbosacral Region; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sciatica
PubMed: 32271952
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013577 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Aug 2015A woman has premenstrual syndrome (PMS) if she complains of recurrent psychological and/or physical symptoms occurring during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
A woman has premenstrual syndrome (PMS) if she complains of recurrent psychological and/or physical symptoms occurring during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle, and often resolving by the end of menstruation. Symptom severity can vary between women. Premenstrual symptoms occur in 95% of women of reproductive age. Severe, debilitating symptoms occur in about 5% of those women. There is no consensus on how symptom severity should be assessed for PMS, which has led to the use of a wide variety of symptom scores and scales, thus making it difficult to synthesise data on treatment efficacy. The cyclical nature of the condition also makes it difficult to conduct RCTs.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic overview, aiming to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of continuous hormonal treatments in women with premenstrual syndrome? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2014 (Clinical Evidence overviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this overview).
RESULTS
At this update, searching of electronic databases retrieved 132 studies. After deduplication and removal of conference abstracts, 132 records were screened for inclusion in the overview. Appraisal of titles and abstracts led to the exclusion of 102 studies and the further review of 30 full publications. Of the 30 full articles evaluated, one systematic review and three RCTs were added to this overview. We performed a GRADE evaluation for three PICO combinations.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic overview, we categorised the efficacy for three interventions based on information relating to the effectiveness and safety of continuous combined oral contraceptives, continuous transdermal estradiol, and continuous subcutaneous estradiol implants.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Drug Implants; Estradiol; Female; Humans; Infusions, Subcutaneous; Premenstrual Syndrome
PubMed: 26303988
DOI: No ID Found -
Critical Care (London, England) Feb 2023During high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy, flow plays a crucial role in the physiological effects. However, there is no consensus on the initial flow settings and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
During high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy, flow plays a crucial role in the physiological effects. However, there is no consensus on the initial flow settings and subsequent titration. Thus, we aimed to systematically synthesize the effects of flows during HFNC treatment.
METHODS
In this systematic review, two investigators independently searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane for in vitro and in vivo studies investigating the effects of flows in HFNC treatment published in English before July 10, 2022. We excluded studies that investigated the pediatric population (< 18 years) or used only one flow. Two investigators independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. The study protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022345419.
RESULTS
In total, 32,543 studies were identified, and 44 were included. In vitro studies evaluated the effects of flow settings on the fraction of inspired oxygen (FO), positive end-expiratory pressure, and carbon dioxide (CO) washout. These effects are flow-dependent and are maximized when the flow exceeds the patient peak inspiratory flow, which varies between patients and disease conditions. In vivo studies report that higher flows result in improved oxygenation and dead space washout and can reduce work of breathing. Higher flows also lead to alveolar overdistention in non-dependent lung regions and patient discomfort. The impact of flows on different patients is largely heterogeneous.
INTERPRETATION
Individualizing flow settings during HFNC treatment is necessary, and titrating flow based on clinical findings like oxygenation, respiratory rates, ROX index, and patient comfort is a pragmatic way forward.
Topics: Child; Humans; Adult; Cannula; Administration, Intranasal; Carbon Dioxide; Consensus; Oxygen
PubMed: 36855198
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-023-04361-5 -
Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ Jul 2023Paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opiates/opioids, administered parenterally via intravenous or intramuscular route, are widely used to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of intravenous paracetamol (acetaminophen) to intravenously or intramuscularly administered non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or opioids for patients presenting with moderate to severe acute pain conditions to the ED: systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opiates/opioids, administered parenterally via intravenous or intramuscular route, are widely used to provide analgesia for patients with moderate to severe pain. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the level of analgesia provided by intravenous paracetamol (IVP) alone compared with NSAIDs (intravenous or intramuscular), or opioids (intravenous) alone in adults attending the ED with acute pain.
METHODS
Two authors independently searched PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Embase (OVID), Cochrane Library, SCOPUS and Google Scholar (3 March 2021-20 May 2022) for randomised trials without any language or date restriction. Clinical trials were evaluated using the Risk of Bias V.2 tool. The primary outcome was mean difference (MD) for pain reduction at 30 min (T30) post analgesia delivery. The secondary outcomes were MD in pain reduction at 60, 90 and 120 min; the need for rescue analgesia; and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
Twenty-seven trials (5427 patients) were included in the systematic review and 25 trials (5006 patients) in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in pain reduction at T30 between the IVP group and opioids (MD -0.13, 95% CI -1.49 to 1.22) or IVP and NSAIDs (MD -0.27, 95% CI -1.0 to 1.54. There was also no difference at 60 min, IVP group versus opioid group (MD -0.09, 95% CI -2.69 to 2.52) or IVP versus NSAIDs (MD 0.51, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.91). The quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development and Evaluations methodology was low for MD in pain scores.The need for rescue analgesia at T30 was significantly higher in the IVP group compared with the NSAID group (risk ratio (RR): 1.50, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.83), with no difference found between the IVP group and the opioid group (RR: 1.07, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.70). AEs were 50% lower in the IVP group compared with the opioid group (RR: 0.50, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.62), whereas no difference was observed in the IVP group compared with the NSAID group (RR: 1.30, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.15).
CONCLUSION
In patients presenting to the ED with a diverse range of pain conditions, IVP provides similar levels of pain relief compared with opiates/opioids or NSAIDs at T30 post administration. Patients treated with NSAIDs had lower risk of rescue analgesia, and opioids cause more AEs, suggesting NSAIDs as the first-choice analgesia and IVP as a suitable alternative.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021240099.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Acetaminophen; Acute Pain; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Administration, Intravenous; Injections, Intramuscular; Emergency Service, Hospital; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37173122
DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2022-212869