-
Neurological Sciences : Official... Oct 2023The study aims to increase understanding of edaravone's efficacy and safety as an amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) treatment and provide significant insights... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
The study aims to increase understanding of edaravone's efficacy and safety as an amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) treatment and provide significant insights regarding this field's future research.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search of the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for randomized controlled trials and observational studies up until September 2022. We evaluated the studies' quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the National Institutes of Health tool.
RESULTS
We included 11 studies with 2845 ALS patients. We found that edaravone improved the survival rate at 18, 24, and 30 months (risk ratio (RR) = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.02 to 1.24], P = 0.02), (RR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.06 to 1.41], P = 0.007), and (RR = 1.17, 95% CI [1.01 to 1.34], P = 0.03), respectively. However, the administration of edaravone did not result in any significant difference in adverse effects or efficacy outcomes between the two groups, as indicated by a P value greater than 0.05.
CONCLUSION
Edaravone improves survival rates of ALS patients at 18, 24, and 30 months with no adverse effects. However, edaravone does not affect functional outcomes. In order to ensure the validity of our findings and assess the results in accordance with the disease stage, it is essential to carry out additional prospective, rigorous, and high-quality clinical trials. The current study offers preliminary indications regarding the effectiveness and safety of edaravone. However, further comprehensive research is required to establish the generalizability and sustainability of the findings.
Topics: United States; Humans; Edaravone; Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 37249667
DOI: 10.1007/s10072-023-06869-8 -
Arquivos de Neuro-psiquiatria Jun 2023Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global health problem, and gabapentin and pregabalin are often used in the treatment of patients without associated radiculopathy or...
BACKGROUND
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global health problem, and gabapentin and pregabalin are often used in the treatment of patients without associated radiculopathy or neuropathy. Therefore, determining their efficacy and safety is of enormous value.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the efficacy and safety of using gabapentin and pregabalin for CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy.
METHODS
We performed a search on the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and Web of Science data bases for clinical trials, cohorts, and case-control studies that evaluated patients with CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy for at least eight weeks. The data were extracted and inserted into a previously-prepared Microsoft Excel spreadsheet; the outcomes were evaluated using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and the quality of evidence, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.
RESULTS
Of the 2,230 articles identified, only 5 were included, totaling 242 participants. In them, pregabalin was slightly less efficacious than amitriptyline, the combination of tramadol/acetaminophen, and celecoxib, and pregabalin added to celecoxib showed no benefit when compared to celecoxib alone (very low evidence for all). On the other hand, although one study with gabapentin did not support its use in a general sample of patients with low back pain, another found a reduction in the pain scale and improved mobility (moderate evidence). No serious adverse events were observed in any of the studies.
CONCLUSION
Quality information to support the use of pregabalin or gabapentin in the treatment of CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy is lacking, although results may suggest gabapentin as a viable option. More data is needed to fill this current gap in knowledge.
Topics: Humans; Radiculopathy; Gabapentin; Pregabalin; Low Back Pain; Celecoxib
PubMed: 37379868
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1764414 -
Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) 2021Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a widely acquired, relapsing inflammatory skin disease. Biologics are now widely used in patients with moderate-to-severe AD.
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a widely acquired, relapsing inflammatory skin disease. Biologics are now widely used in patients with moderate-to-severe AD.
OBJECTIVE
This work aims to summarize both label and off-label biologics on AD treatment in phase II and phase III stages, and compile evidence on the efficacy of the most-studied biologics.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive literature search through PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify all documented biological therapies for AD. The criteria were further refined to focus on those treatments with the highest evidence level for AD with at least one randomized clinical trial supporting their use. Only studies or articles published in English were enrolled in this study.
FINDINGS
Primary searches identified 525 relevant articles and 27 trials. Duplicated articles and papers without a full text were excluded. Only completed trials were enrolled. We included 28 randomized controlled trials, 4 unpublished trials, 2 observational studies, and 1 meta-analysis. Eight kinds of biologics, including IL-4/IL-13 inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, anti-IL-13 antibodies, anti-IL-22 antibodies, anti-IL-33 antibodies, thymic stromal lymphopoietin inhibitor (TSLP), OX40 antibodies, and H4R-antagonists were included in this work. Dupliumab, as the most widely used and investigated biologic, was reported in 1 meta-analysis and 4 trials exploring its long-term use and application in both adults and pediatric patients. Besides dupilumab, four other IL-4/IL-13 inhibitors recruited were all randomized, clinical trials at phase 2-3 stage. Six different kinds of JAK inhibitors were summarized with strong evidence revealing their significant therapeutic effects on AD. There were 3 trials for nemolizumab, an anti-IL-13 antibody, all of which were in the phase 2 clinical trial stage. Results showed nemolizumab could be another alternative therapy for moderate-to-severe AD with long-term efficiency and safety.
CONCLUSION
The biological therapies with the most robust evidence on efficacy and long-term safety for AD treatment include dupilumab, barcitinib, abrocitinib, and delgocitinib. Most of the biologics mentioned in this review were still at the exploratory stage. This review will help practitioners advise patients seeking suitable biological therapies and offer experimental study directions for treatment.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Azetidines; Biological Products; Carbamates; Clinical Trials as Topic; Dermatitis, Atopic; Dermatologic Agents; Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring; Humans; Nitriles; Piperidines; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Purines; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Pyrroles; Sulfonamides
PubMed: 33735876
DOI: 10.1159/000514535 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2024Clinicians and healthcare policymakers have been drenched with a deluge of overlapping meta-analyses (MAs), and the necessity for comprehensive and clearly defined...
BACKGROUND
Clinicians and healthcare policymakers have been drenched with a deluge of overlapping meta-analyses (MAs), and the necessity for comprehensive and clearly defined evidence of Janus kinase inhibitors (JKIs) in atopic dermatitis (AD) is urgent.
METHODS
Six databases were searched for MAs published until October 2023. Qualitative description of MAs was mainly used, and Investigator's Global Assessment response (IGA response), the 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index (the EASI75), peak pruritus Numerical rating score (PP-NRS), and adverse effects were cited to describe the efficacy and safety of JKIs. The methodological quality of the included MAs was assessed by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews II (AMSTAR II), and the quality of evidence was evaluated by the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE).
RESULTS
Sixteen MAs were pooled in this review, of which five studies appraised JKIs, five appraised systemic JKIs, five papers assessed abrocitinib only, and one assessed baricitinib. Two studies were of "high" methodological quality and 14 MAs were of "moderate" quality. Eleven MAs integrated the results of JKIs and reported that JKIs provide faster onset of IGA response (RR=2.83, 95% CI [2.25, 3.56], high-quality evidence). Similarly, 10 MAs showed that JAK inhibitors were more effective in improving the EASI75 (RR=2.84, 95% CI [2.2, 3.67], high-quality evidence). Results from 12 MAs showed JKIs were active in reducing the PP-NRS (SMD=-0.49, 95% CI [-0.67, -0.32]). All MAs affirmed JKIs added no adverse effects leading to discontinuation and serious adverse events (P<0.05). However, 200mg of abrocitinib had a higher risk of acne (RR=4.34, 95% CI [1.61, 11.71), herpes zoster (RR=1.64, 95% CI [0.42, 6.39]), headache (RR=1.76, 95% CI [1.03, 3]), and nausea (RR=7.81, 95% CI [3.84, 15.87]). Upadacitinib was known to increase acne (RR=6.23, 95% CI [4.08, 9.49]), nasopharyngitis (RR=1.36, 95% CI [1.03, 1.8]) and blood creatine phosphokinase (blood CPK) (RR=2.41, 95% CI [1.47, 3.95]). Baricitinib at 2mg was associated with increased blood CPK (RR=2.25, 95% CI [1.1, 2.97]).
CONCLUSION
Compared to placebo or dupilumab, the administration of JKIs can ameliorate IGA response more effectively, improve the EASI75, and relieve pruritus without severe adverse effect, while accompanied by more acne, nasopharyngitis, headache, and digestive disturbances. The curative effect of 200 mg of abrocitinib is significant and more caution should be given in patients with gastrointestinal dysfunction, herpes zoster, and those who are acne-prone. Baricitinib and upadacitinib should be avoided in populations at high risk for cardiovascular events.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=369369, PROSPERO (CRD42022369369).
Topics: Humans; Dermatitis, Atopic; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Nasopharyngitis; Pruritus; Acne Vulgaris; Headache; Herpes Zoster; Immunoglobulin A; Purines; Sulfonamides; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Azetidines
PubMed: 38464512
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1342810 -
BMC Neurology Jun 2023Many drugs are prescribed in relieving acute migraine attacks, we aim to compare metoclopramide with other antimigraine drugs. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficacy and safety of metoclopramide in relieving acute migraine attacks compared with other anti-migraine drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Many drugs are prescribed in relieving acute migraine attacks, we aim to compare metoclopramide with other antimigraine drugs.
METHODS
We searched online databases like PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science till June 2022 for RCTs that compared metoclopramide alone with placebo or active drugs. The main outcomes were the mean change in headache score and complete headache relief. The secondary outcomes were the rescue medications need, side effects, nausea and recurrence rate. We qualitatively reviewed the outcomes. Then, we performed the network meta-analyses (NMAs) when it was possible. which were done by the Frequentist method using the MetaInsight online software.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included with a total of 1934 patients: 826 received metoclopramide, 302 received placebo, and 806 received other active drugs. Metoclopramide was effective in reducing headache outcomes even for 24 h. The intravenous route was the most chosen route in the included studies and showed significant positive results regarding headache outcomes; however, the best route whether intramuscular, intravenous, or suppository was not compared in the previous studies. Also, both 10 and 20 mg doses of metoclopramide were effective in improving headache outcomes; however, there was no direct comparison between both doses and the 10 mg dose was the most frequently used dosage. In NMA of headache change after 30 min or 1 h, metoclopramide effect came after granisetron, ketorolac, chlorpromazine, and Dexketoprofen trometamol. Only granisetron's effect was significantly higher than metoclopramide's effect which was only significantly higher than placebo and sumatriptan. In headache-free symptoms, only prochlorperazine was non-significantly higher than metoclopramide which was higher than other medications and showed significantly higher effects only with placebo. In rescue medication, metoclopramide's effect was only non-significantly lower than prochlorperazine and chlorpromazine while its effect was higher than other drugs and showed higher significant effects only than placebo and valproate. In the recurrence rate, studies showed no significant difference between metoclopramide and other drugs. Metoclopramide significantly decreased nausea more than the placebo. Regarding side effects, metoclopramide showed a lower incidence of mild side effects than pethidine and chlorpromazine and showed a higher incidence of mild side effects than placebo, dexamethasone, and ketorolac. The reported extrapyramidal symptoms with metoclopramide were dystonia or akathisia.
CONCLUSION
A dose of 10 mg IV Metoclopramide was effective in relieving migraine attacks with minimal side effects. Compared to other active drugs, it only showed a lower significant effect compared with granisetron regarding headache change while it showed significantly higher effects only with placebo in both rescue medication needs and headache-free symptoms and valproate in only rescue medication need. Also, it significantly decreased headache scores more than placebo and sumatriptan. However, more studies are needed to support our results.
Topics: Humans; Metoclopramide; Sumatriptan; Network Meta-Analysis; Prochlorperazine; Chlorpromazine; Granisetron; Valproic Acid; Ketorolac; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Migraine Disorders; Nausea; Headache
PubMed: 37291500
DOI: 10.1186/s12883-023-03259-7 -
Journal For Immunotherapy of Cancer Jan 2024Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment has become an important therapeutic option for various cancer types. Although the treatment is effective, ICI can...
Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment has become an important therapeutic option for various cancer types. Although the treatment is effective, ICI can overstimulate the patient's immune system, leading to potentially severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including hepatitis, colitis, pneumonitis and myocarditis. The initial mainstay of treatments includes the administration of corticosteroids. There is little evidence how to treat steroid-resistant (sr) irAEs. It is mainly based on small case series or single case reports. This systematic review summarizes available evidence about sr-irAEs. We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed. Additionally, we included European Society for Medical Oncology, Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Society of Clinical Oncology Guidelines for irAEs in our assessment. The study population of all selected publications had to include patients with cancer who developed hepatitis, colitis, pneumonitis or myocarditis during or after an immunotherapy treatment and for whom corticosteroid therapy was not sufficient. Our literature search was not restricted to any specific cancer diagnosis. Case reports were also included. There is limited data regarding life-threatening sr-irAEs of colon/liver/lung/heart and the majority of publications are single case reports. Most publications investigated sr colitis (n=26), followed by hepatitis (n=21), pneumonitis (n=17) and myocarditis (n=15). There is most data for mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) to treat sr hepatitis and for infliximab, followed by vedolizumab, to treat sr colitis. Regarding sr pneumonitis there is most data for MMF and intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) while data regarding infliximab are conflicting. In sr myocarditis, most evidence is available for the use of abatacept or anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) (both with or without MMF) or ruxolitinib with abatacept. This review highlights the need for prompt recognition and treatment of sr hepatitis, colitis, pneumonitis and myocarditis. Guideline recommendations for sr situations are not defined precisely. Based on our search, we recommend-as first line treatment-(1) MMF for sr hepatitis, (2) infliximab for sr colitis, followed by vedolizumab, (3) MMF and IVIG for sr pneumonitis and (4) abatacept or ATG (both with or without MMF) or ruxolitinib with abatacept for sr myocarditis. These additional immunosuppressive agents should be initiated promptly if there is no sufficient response to corticosteroids within 3 days.
Topics: Humans; Abatacept; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Colitis; Hepatitis; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Infliximab; Mycophenolic Acid; Myocarditis; Neoplasms; Nitriles; Pneumonia; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines
PubMed: 38233099
DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2023-007409 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths. Presently, there is no cure for rheumatoid arthritis and treatment focuses on managing symptoms such as pain, stiffness and mobility, with the aim of achieving stable remission and improving mobility. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used for treatment of people with rheumatoid arthritis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of celecoxib in people with rheumatoid arthritis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization trials portal) to May 18, 2017. We also searched the reference and citation lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral celecoxib (200 mg and 400 mg daily) versus no intervention, placebo or a traditional NSAID (tNSAID) in people with confirmed rheumatoid arthritis, of any age and either sex. We excluded studies with fewer than 50 participants in each arm or had durations of fewer than four weeks treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs with durations of 4 to 24 weeks, published between 1998 and 2014 that involved a total of 3988 adults (mean age = 54 years), most of whom were women (73%). Participants had rheumatoid arthritis for an average of 9.2 years. All studies were assessed at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Overall, evidence was assessed as moderate-to-low quality. Five studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Celecoxib versus placeboWe included two studies (N = 873) in which participants received 200 mg daily or 400 mg daily or placebo. Participants who received celecoxib showed significant clinical improvement compared with those receiving placebo (15% absolute improvement; 95% CI 7% to 25%; RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.86; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 7, 95% CI 5 to 13; 2 studies, 873 participants; moderate to low quality evidence).Participants who received celecoxib reported less pain than placebo-treated people (11% absolute improvement; 95% CI 8% to 14%; NNTB = 4, 95% CI 3 to 6; 1 study, 706 participants) but results were inconclusive for improvement in physical function (MD -0.10, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.10; 1 study, 706 participants).In the celecoxib group, 15/293 participants developed ulcers, compared with 4/99 in the placebo group (Peto OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.63; 1 study, 392 participants; low quality evidence). Nine (of 475) participants in the celecoxib group developed short-term serious adverse events, compared with five (of 231) in the placebo group (Peto OR 0.87 (0.28 to 2.69; 1 study, 706 participants; low quality evidence).There were fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (163/475) compared with placebo (130/231) (22% absolute change; 95% CI 16% to 27%; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72; 1 study, 706 participants).Cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke) were not reported. However, regulatory agencies warn of increased cardiovascular event risk associated with celecoxib. Celecoxib versus tNSAIDsSeven studies (N = 2930) compared celecoxib and tNSAIDs (amtolmetin guacyl, diclofenac, ibuprofen, meloxicam, nabumetone, naproxen, pelubiprofen); one study included comparisons of both placebo and tNSAIDs (N = 1149).There was a small improvement, which may not be clinically significant, in numbers of participants achieving ACR20 criteria response in the celecoxib group compared to tNSAIDs (4% absolute improvement; 95% CI 0% less improvement to 8% more improvement; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.23; 4 studies, 1981 participants). There was a lack of evidence of difference between participants in the celecoxib and tNSAID groups in terms of pain or physical function. Results were assessed at moderate-to-low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency).People who received celecoxib had a lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers ≥ 3 mm (34/870) compared with those who received tNSAIDs (116/698). This corresponded to 12% absolute change (95% CI 11% to 13%; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.32; 5 studies, 1568 participants; moderate quality evidence). There were 7% fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (95% CI 4% to 9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.86; 6 studies, 2639 participants).Results were inconclusive for short-term serious adverse events and cardiovascular events (low quality evidence). There were 17/918 serious adverse events in people taking celecoxib compared to 42/1236 among people who received placebo (Peto OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.28; 5 studies, 2154 participants). Cardiovascular events were reported in both celecoxib and placebo groups in one study (149 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Celecoxib may improve clinical symptoms, alleviate pain and contribute to little or no difference in physical function compared with placebo. Celecoxib was associated with fewer numbers of participant withdrawals. Results for incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and short-term serious adverse events were uncertain; however, there were few reported events for either.Celecoxib may slightly improve clinical symptoms compared with tNSAIDs. Results for reduced pain and improved physical function were uncertain. Particpants taking celecoxib had lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and there were fewer withdrawals from trials. Results for cardiovascular events and short-term serious adverse events were also uncertain.Uncertainty about the rate of cardiovascular events between celecoxib and tNSAIDs could be due to risk of bias; another factor is that these were small, short-term trials. It has been reported previously that both celecoxib and tNSAIDs increase cardiovascular event rates. Our confidence in results about harms is therefore low. Larger head-to-head clinical trials comparing celecoxib to other tNSAIDs is needed to better inform clinical practice.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Celecoxib; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomach Ulcer; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28597983
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012095.pub2 -
Journal of Endocrinological... May 2023There are efficacy and safety concerns related to teneligliptin treatment. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was undertaken to comprehensively... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
There are efficacy and safety concerns related to teneligliptin treatment. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was undertaken to comprehensively profile the efficacy and safety of teneligliptin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
METHODS
Thirteen studies were chosen from a search of scientific databases for RCTs using teneligliptin as a monotherapy or as an adjunct to other glycemic agents with pre-specified inclusion criteria. We calculated weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in each included trial and pooled the data using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies enrolled 2853 patients were identified. Teneligliptin treatment was associated with weight gain (vs. placebo, weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.28 kg; 95% CI - 0.20-0.77 kg; I = 86%; P = 0.25). Compared to monotherapy, add on therapy with teneligliptin showed significant improvement in FPG mg/dl levels (WMD - 16.75 mg/dl; 95% CI - 19.38 to - 14.13 mg/dl), HOMA-β (WMD 7.91; 95% CI 5.38-10.45) and HOMA-IR (WMD - 0.27; 95% CI - 0.46 to - 0.07). The improvement in HbA1c was greater with monotherapy (WMD - 8.88 mmol/mol; 95% CI - 9.59 to - 8.08 mmol/mol). There was no significant risk of any hypoglycemia with teneligliptin compared to placebo (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.44-1.60; I = 0%; P = 0.60). However, the risk was 1.84 times high when combined with other glycemic agents. The risk of cardiovascular events was comparable, regardless of treatment duration when compared to placebo or any other active comparator (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.40-1.57; I = 0%; P = 0.50). [PROSPERO, CRD42022360785].
CONCLUSIONS
Teneligliptin is an effective and safe therapeutic option for patients with T2DM, both as monotherapy and as add-on therapy. However, additional large-scale, high-quality, long-term follow-up clinical trials with diverse ethnic populations are required to confirm its long-term efficacy and safety.
Topics: Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Blood Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Pyrazoles
PubMed: 36624224
DOI: 10.1007/s40618-023-02003-9 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and... Oct 2016Metamizole was withdrawn from the market in the United States and several European countries following reports of fatal agranulocytosis among users, but is still... (Review)
Review
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE
Metamizole was withdrawn from the market in the United States and several European countries following reports of fatal agranulocytosis among users, but is still available in many countries in Europe, South America and Asia. Over the past several decades, a number of epidemiologic studies have been conducted to quantify the risk of agranulocytosis and other adverse effects associated with metamizole and other non-narcotic analgesics. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of the safety of metamizole.
METHODS
Epidemiologic studies published between 1 January 1980 and 15 December 2014 were identified through systematic searches of PubMed and Google Scholar; the reference sections of selected articles were also reviewed to identify potentially relevant studies. Studies included in this review focused on the safety of metamizole, that is on outcomes such as haematologic abnormalities, gastrointestinal bleeding, anaphylaxis and hepatotoxicity. Two study investigators independently reviewed the abstracts and articles to determine relevant studies according to prespecified criteria.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A total of 22 articles met the criteria for evaluation. The majority of studies that evaluated agranulocytosis indicated an increased risk associated with metamizole, with relative risk (RR) estimates ranging from 1·5 (95% CI, 0·8-2·7) to 40·2 (95% CI, 14·7-113·3). Findings of three case-control studies do not suggest an association between metamizole and aplastic anaemia. Of the five case-control studies that evaluated the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, four found a statistically significant increased risk associated with metamizole (RR estimates ranging from 1·4 to 2·7). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether metamizole increases the risk of other outcomes (e.g. hepatic effects, anaphylaxis, congenital anomalies). Few studies evaluated the effects of dose, route of administration or duration of therapy.
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION
Published studies reported differences in the magnitude of risk of adverse outcomes associated with metamizole use and often had small sample sizes and a number of other limitations that may have biased the results. Further research is needed to better quantify the potential risks associated with metamizole compared to other non-narcotic analgesics.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Dipyrone; Epidemiologic Studies; Europe; Humans; Safety; United States
PubMed: 27422768
DOI: 10.1111/jcpt.12422 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2014The original authors of this review are unable to update it. The Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group (PaPaS) is seeking new authors to update and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The original authors of this review are unable to update it. The Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group (PaPaS) is seeking new authors to update and split the review into two separate reviews on migraine and tension‐type headache. If you are interested, please contact the Managing Editor of PaPaS (contact details provided under 'Contact Person'). At July 2014, this review has been withdrawn. This review is out of date although it is correct as of the date of publication. The latest version is available in the ‘Other versions’ tab on The Cochrane Library, and may still be useful to readers. The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Dipyrone; Headache Disorders, Primary; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25019294
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004842.pub3