-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological interventions for LBP published in the Cochrane Library, is limited by lack of a comprehensive overview.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP.
METHODS
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched from inception to 3 June 2021, to identify reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools. The review focused on placebo comparisons and the main outcomes were pain intensity, function, and safety.
MAIN RESULTS
Seven Cochrane Reviews that included 103 studies (22,238 participants) were included. There is high confidence in the findings of five reviews, moderate confidence in one, and low confidence in the findings of another. The reviews reported data on six medicines or medicine classes: paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), muscle relaxants, benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants. Three reviews included participants with acute or sub-acute LBP and five reviews included participants with chronic LBP. Acute LBP Paracetamol There was high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD 0.49 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.99 to 2.97), reducing disability (MD 0.05 on a 0 to 24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -0.50 to 0.60), and increasing the risk of adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33). NSAIDs There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -7.29 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.98 to -3.61), high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for reducing disability (MD -2.02 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15), and very low-certainty evidence for no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0. 63 to 1.18). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring muscle relaxants compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76), and higher chance of improving physical function (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77), and increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1. 14 to 1.98). Opioids None of the included Cochrane Reviews aimed to identify evidence for acute LBP. Antidepressants No evidence was identified by the included reviews for acute LBP. Chronic LBP Paracetamol No evidence was identified by the included reviews for chronic LBP. NSAIDs There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD -6.97 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.74 to -3.19), reducing disability (MD -0.85 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -1.30 to -0.40), and no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.17), all at intermediate-term follow-up (> 3 months and ≤ 12 months postintervention). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring benzodiazepines compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93), and low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between muscle relaxants and placebo in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.57). Opioids There was high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tapentadol compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -8.00 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.22 to -0.38), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.33), low-certainty evidence for a medium between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.44) and very low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.26). There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids compared to placebo for reducing disability (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.15), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing disability (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07), and low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing disability (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.25). There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for an increased risk of adverse events for opioids (all types) compared to placebo; nausea (RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14), headaches (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05), constipation (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), and dizziness (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11). Antidepressants There was low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference for antidepressants (all types) compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.17) and reducing disability (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.29).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no high- or moderate-certainty evidence that any investigated pharmacological intervention provided a large or medium effect on pain intensity for acute or chronic LBP compared to placebo. For acute LBP, we found moderate-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and muscle relaxants may provide a small effect on pain, and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo. For safety, we found very low- and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference with NSAIDs and paracetamol compared to placebo for the risk of adverse events, and moderate-certainty evidence that muscle relaxants may increase the risk of adverse events. For chronic LBP, we found low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and very low- to high-certainty evidence that opioids may provide a small effect on pain. For safety, we found low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between NSAIDs and placebo for the risk of adverse events, and low-certainty evidence that opioids may increase the risk of adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Acetaminophen; Low Back Pain; Tramadol; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Acute Pain; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine
PubMed: 37014979
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013815.pub2 -
European Journal of Pediatrics May 2022Although widely believed by pediatricians and parents to be safe for use in infants and children when used as directed, increasing evidence indicates that early life... (Review)
Review
Although widely believed by pediatricians and parents to be safe for use in infants and children when used as directed, increasing evidence indicates that early life exposure to paracetamol (acetaminophen) may cause long-term neurodevelopmental problems. Furthermore, recent studies in animal models demonstrate that cognitive development is exquisitely sensitive to paracetamol exposure during early development. In this study, evidence for the claim that paracetamol is safe was evaluated using a systematic literature search. Publications on PubMed between 1974 and 2017 that contained the keywords "infant" and either "paracetamol" or "acetaminophen" were considered. Of those initial 3096 papers, 218 were identified that made claims that paracetamol was safe for use with infants or children. From these 218, a total of 103 papers were identified as sources of authority for the safety claim. Conclusion: A total of 52 papers contained actual experiments designed to test safety, and had a median follow-up time of 48 h. None monitored neurodevelopment. Furthermore, no trial considered total exposure to drug since birth, eliminating the possibility that the effects of drug exposure on long-term neurodevelopment could be accurately assessed. On the other hand, abundant and sufficient evidence was found to conclude that paracetamol does not induce acute liver damage in babies or children when used as directed. What is Known: • Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is widely thought by pediatricians and parents to be safe when used as directed in the pediatric population, and is the most widely used drug in that population, with more than 90% of children exposed to the drug in some reports. • Paracetamol is known to cause liver damage in adults under conditions of oxidative stress or when used in excess, but increasing evidence from studies in humans and in laboratory animals indicates that the target organ for paracetamol toxicity during early development is the brain, not the liver. What is New: • This study finds hundreds of published reports in the medical literature asserting that paracetamol is safe when used as directed, providing a foundation for the widespread belief that the drug is safe. • This study shows that paracetamol was proven to be safe by approximately 50 short-term studies demonstrating the drug's safety for the pediatric liver, but the drug was never shown to be safe for neurodevelopment. Paracetamol is widely believed to be safe for infants and children when used as directed, despite mounting evidence in humans and in laboratory animals indicating that the drug is not safe for neurodevelopment. An exhaustive search of published work cited for safe use of paracetamol in the pediatric population revealed 52 experimental studies pointing toward safety, but the median follow-up time was only 48 h, and neurodevelopment was never assessed.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Child; Humans
PubMed: 35175416
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-022-04407-w -
Frontiers in Surgery 2023There is an ongoing debate on the indications for tonsil surgery in both children and adults with recurrent acute tonsillitis. The aim is to provide practical... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There is an ongoing debate on the indications for tonsil surgery in both children and adults with recurrent acute tonsillitis. The aim is to provide practical recommendations for diagnostics and treatment for recurrent acute tonsillitis including evidence-based decision making for tonsillectomy.
METHODS
A systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect from 2014 until April 2023 resulted in 68 articles. These were the basis for the review and a comprehensive series of consensus statements on the most important diagnostics and indications for both non-surgical and surgical therapy. A consensus paper was circulated among the authors and members of the International Head and Neck Scientific Group until a final agreement was reached for all recommendations.
RESULTS
The differentiation between sore throat and tonsillitis patient episodes is mostly not feasible and hence is not relevant for diagnostic decision making. Diagnostics of a tonsillitis/sore throat episode should always include a classification with a scoring system (Centor, McIssac, FeverPAIN score) to estimate the probability of a bacterial tonsillitis, mainly due to group A (GAS). In ambiguous cases, a point-of-care test GAS swab test is helpful. Consecutive counting of the tonsillitis/sore throat episodes is important. In addition, a specific quality of life score (Tonsillectomy Outcome Inventory 14 or Tonsil and Adenoid Health Status Instrument) should be used for each episode. Conservative treatment includes a combination of paracetamol and/or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In case of high probability of bacterial tonsillitis, and only in such cases, especially in patients at risk, standard antibiotic treatment is initiated directly or by delayed prescription. Tonsillectomy is indicated and is highly effective if the patient has had ≥7 adequately treated episodes in the preceding year, ≥5 such episodes in each of the preceding 2 years, or ≥3 such episodes in each of the preceding 3 years. An essential part of surgery is standardized pain management because severe postoperative pain can be expected in most patients.
CONCLUSION
It is necessary to follow a stringent treatment algorithm for an optimal and evidence-based treatment for patients with recurrent acute tonsillitis. This will help decrease worldwide treatment variability, antibiotic overuse, and avoid ineffective tonsillectomy.
PubMed: 37881239
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1221932 -
Cureus Oct 2023A herniated disc in the spine is a condition during which a nucleus pulposus is displaced from intervertebral space. It is a common cause of back pain. The patients who... (Review)
Review
A herniated disc in the spine is a condition during which a nucleus pulposus is displaced from intervertebral space. It is a common cause of back pain. The patients who experience pain related to a herniated disc often remember an inciting event that caused their pain. This activity reviews the evaluation and management of lumbar disc herniation and discusses the role of the healthcare team in evaluating and improving care for patients with this condition. Data sources were PubMed/Medline and Embase. Our review investigated English-language articles (from 2010 to 2023) according to the PRISMA guidelines. Overall, there were seven articles. Surveys and analyses of national databases were the most widely used methods (n=7). The search identified 777 studies; 7 were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. Further understanding of spinal disc herniation and treatment protocols may help improve evaluation and management in the future. Our research covered a range of management options. Disc herniation is a frequent problem for internists, emergency department doctors, nurse practitioners, and primary care physicians. To manage efficiently, an interprofessional team is needed. The first course of treatment is conservative, with paracetamol and anti-inflammatories being frequently used to relieve pain. A chemist must supervise the use of opioid analgesics in certain situations. Although surgery is sometimes the final option, patients frequently have neurological damage and lingering discomfort. In circumstances where physical treatment is not working, MRI interpretation becomes necessary. Primary care physicians or mental health professionals should handle back pain as it is frequently linked to mental health issues. Results can be enhanced by regular exercise and preserving a healthy body weight.
PubMed: 38034203
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.47908 -
Anaesthesia Jul 2021Tonsillectomy is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures; however, pain management remains challenging. Procedure-specific efficacy as well as specific...
Tonsillectomy is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures; however, pain management remains challenging. Procedure-specific efficacy as well as specific risks of treatment options should guide selection of pain management protocols based on evidence and should optimise analgesia without harm. The aims of this systematic review were to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after tonsillectomy. A systematic review utilising preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines with procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials published in the English language up to November 2019 assessing postoperative pain using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified. Out of the 719 potentially eligible studies identified, 226 randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, excluding the studies examining surgical techniques. Pre-operative and intra-operative interventions that improved postoperative pain were paracetamol; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; intravenous dexamethasone; ketamine (only assessed in children); gabapentinoids; dexmedetomidine; honey; and acupuncture. Inconsistent evidence was found for local anaesthetic infiltration; antibiotics; and magnesium sulphate. Limited evidence was found for clonidine. The analgesic regimen for tonsillectomy should include paracetamol; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; and intravenous dexamethasone, with opioids as rescue analgesics. Analgesic adjuncts such as intra-operative and postoperative acupuncture as well as postoperative honey are also recommended. Ketamine (only for children); dexmedetomidine; or gabapentinoids may be considered when some of the first-line analgesics are contra-indicated. Further randomised controlled trials are required to define risk and combination of drugs most effective for postoperative pain relief after tonsillectomy.
Topics: Acupuncture; Analgesia; Analgesics; Anesthetics, Local; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Child; Honey; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Tonsillectomy
PubMed: 33201518
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15299 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. Several non-pharmacological, pharmacological, and surgical... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. Several non-pharmacological, pharmacological, and surgical approaches have been explored to prevent or treat a PDA.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise Cochrane Neonatal evidence on interventions (pharmacological or surgical) for the prevention of PDA and related complications, and interventions for the management of asymptomatic and symptomatic PDA in preterm infants.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 20 October 2022 for ongoing and published Cochrane Reviews on the prevention and treatment of PDA in preterm (< 37 weeks' gestation) or low birthweight (< 2500 g) infants. We included all published Cochrane Reviews assessing the following categories of interventions: pharmacological therapy using prostaglandin inhibitor drugs (indomethacin, ibuprofen, and acetaminophen), adjunctive pharmacological interventions, invasive PDA closure procedures, and non-pharmacological interventions. Two overview authors independently checked the eligibility of the reviews retrieved by the search, and extracted data from the included reviews using a predefined data extraction form. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third overview author. Two overview authors independently assessed the methodological quality of the included reviews using the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) tool. We reported the GRADE certainty of evidence as assessed by the respective review authors using summary of findings tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 Cochrane Reviews, corresponding to 138 randomised clinical trials (RCT) and 11,856 preterm infants, on the prevention and treatment of PDA in preterm infants. One of the 16 reviews had no included studies, and therefore, did not contribute to the results. Six reviews reported on prophylactic interventions for the prevention of PDA and included pharmacological prophylaxis with prostaglandin inhibitor drugs, prophylactic surgical PDA ligation, and non-pharmacologic interventions (chest shielding during phototherapy and restriction of fluid intake); one review reported on the use of indomethacin for the management of asymptomatic PDA; nine reviews reported on interventions for the management of symptomatic PDA, and included pharmacotherapy with prostaglandin inhibitor drugs in various routes and dosages, surgical PDA ligation, and adjunct therapies (use of furosemide and dopamine in conjunction with indomethacin). The quality of reviews varied. Two reviews were assessed to be high quality, seven reviews were of moderate quality, five of low quality, while two reviews were deemed to be of critically low quality. For prevention of PDA, prophylactic indomethacin reduces severe intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH; relative risk (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.82; 14 RCTs, 2588 infants), and the need for invasive PDA closure (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.71; 8 RCTs, 1791 infants), but it does not appear to affect the composite outcome of death or moderate/severe neurodevelopmental disability (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.15; 3 RCTs, 1491 infants). Prophylactic ibuprofen probably marginally reduces severe IVH (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.00; 7 RCTs, 925 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), and the need for invasive PDA closure (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96; 7 RCTs, 925 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain on the effect of prophylactic acetaminophen on severe IVH (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.39; 1 RCT, 48 infants). Necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) was lower with both prophylactic surgical ligation (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.83; 1 RCT, 84 infants), and fluid restriction (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.87; 4 RCTs, 526 infants). For treatment of asymptomatic PDA, indomethacin appears to reduce the development of symptomatic PDA post-treatment (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.68; 3 RCTs, 97 infants; quality of source review: critically low). For treatment of symptomatic PDA, all available prostaglandin inhibitor drugs appear to be more effective in closing a PDA than placebo or no treatment (indomethacin: RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.38; 10 RCTs, 654 infants; high-certainty evidence; ibuprofen: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.86; 2 RCTs, 206 infants; moderate-certainty evidence; early administration of acetaminophen: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.53; 2 RCTs, 127 infants; low-certainty evidence). Oral ibuprofen appears to be more effective in PDA closure than intravenous (IV) ibuprofen (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.56; 5 RCTs, 406 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). High-dose ibuprofen appears to be more effective in PDA closure than standard-dose ibuprofen (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.61; 3 RCTs, 190 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). With respect to adverse outcomes, compared to indomethacin administration, NEC appears to be lower with ibuprofen (any route; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.94; 18 RCTs, 1292 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), oral ibuprofen (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.73; 7 RCTs, 249 infants; low-certainty evidence), and with acetaminophen (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.96; 4 RCTs, 384 infants; low-certainty evidence). However, NEC appears to be increased with a prolonged course of indomethacin versus a shorter course (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.27; 4 RCTs, 310 infants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This overview summarised the evidence from 16 Cochrane Reviews of RCTs regarding the effects of interventions for the prevention and treatment of PDA in preterm infants. Prophylactic indomethacin reduces severe IVH, but does not appear to affect the composite outcome of death or moderate/severe neurodevelopmental disability. Prophylactic ibuprofen probably marginally reduces severe IVH (moderate-certainty evidence), while the evidence is very uncertain on the effect of prophylactic acetaminophen on severe IVH. All available prostaglandin inhibitor drugs appear to be effective in symptomatic PDA closure compared to no treatment (high-certainty evidence for indomethacin; moderate-certainty evidence for ibuprofen; low-certainty evidence for early administration of acetaminophen). Oral ibuprofen appears to be more effective in PDA closure than IV ibuprofen (moderate-certainty evidence). High dose ibuprofen appears to be more effective in PDA closure than standard-dose ibuprofen (moderate-certainty evidence). There are currently two ongoing reviews, one on fluid restriction for symptomatic PDA, and the other on invasive management of PDA in preterm infants.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Ductus Arteriosus, Patent; Ibuprofen; Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors; Acetaminophen; Prostaglandin Antagonists; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Infant, Premature; Indomethacin
PubMed: 37039501
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013588.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015Dysmenorrhoea is a common gynaecological problem consisting of painful cramps accompanying menstruation, which in the absence of any underlying abnormality is known as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dysmenorrhoea is a common gynaecological problem consisting of painful cramps accompanying menstruation, which in the absence of any underlying abnormality is known as primary dysmenorrhoea. Research has shown that women with dysmenorrhoea have high levels of prostaglandins, hormones known to cause cramping abdominal pain. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are drugs that act by blocking prostaglandin production. They inhibit the action of cyclooxygenase (COX), an enzyme responsible for the formation of prostaglandins. The COX enzyme exists in two forms, COX-1 and COX-2. Traditional NSAIDs are considered 'non-selective' because they inhibit both COX-1 and COX-2 enzymes. More selective NSAIDs that solely target COX-2 enzymes (COX-2-specific inhibitors) were launched in 1999 with the aim of reducing side effects commonly reported in association with NSAIDs, such as indigestion, headaches and drowsiness.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of NSAIDs in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases in January 2015: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, November 2014 issue), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science. We also searched clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP). We checked the abstracts of major scientific meetings and the reference lists of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparisons of NSAIDs versus placebo, other NSAIDs or paracetamol, when used to treat primary dysmenorrhoea.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected the studies, assessed their risk of bias and extracted data, calculating odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used inverse variance methods to combine data. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 80 randomised controlled trials (5820 women). They compared 20 different NSAIDs (18 non-selective and two COX-2-specific) versus placebo, paracetamol or each other. NSAIDs versus placeboAmong women with primary dysmenorrhoea, NSAIDs were more effective for pain relief than placebo (OR 4.37, 95% CI 3.76 to 5.09; 35 RCTs, I(2) = 53%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if 18% of women taking placebo achieve moderate or excellent pain relief, between 45% and 53% taking NSAIDs will do so.However, NSAIDs were associated with more adverse effects (overall adverse effects: OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.51, 25 RCTs, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence; gastrointestinal adverse effects: OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.23, 14 RCTs, I(2) = 30%; neurological adverse effects: OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.66 to 4.53, seven RCTs, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if 10% of women taking placebo experience side effects, between 11% and 14% of women taking NSAIDs will do so. NSAIDs versus other NSAIDsWhen NSAIDs were compared with each other there was little evidence of the superiority of any individual NSAID for either pain relief or safety. However, the available evidence had little power to detect such differences, as most individual comparisons were based on very few small trials. Non-selective NSAIDs versus COX-2-specific selectorsOnly two of the included studies utilised COX-2-specific inhibitors (etoricoxib and celecoxib). There was no evidence that COX-2-specific inhibitors were more effective or tolerable for the treatment of dysmenorrhoea than traditional NSAIDs; however data were very scanty. NSAIDs versus paracetamolNSAIDs appeared to be more effective for pain relief than paracetamol (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.43, three RCTs, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference with regard to adverse effects, though data were very scanty.Most of the studies were commercially funded (59%); a further 31% failed to state their source of funding.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
NSAIDs appear to be a very effective treatment for dysmenorrhoea, though women using them need to be aware of the substantial risk of adverse effects. There is insufficient evidence to determine which (if any) individual NSAID is the safest and most effective for the treatment of dysmenorrhoea. We rated the quality of the evidence as low for most comparisons, mainly due to poor reporting of study methods.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors; Dysmenorrhea; Female; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26224322
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001751.pub3 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Mar 2023To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to 20 February 2022.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION
Randomised controlled trials of analgesic medicines (eg, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anti-convulsant drugs, skeletal muscle relaxants, or corticosteroids) compared with another analgesic medicine, placebo, or no treatment. Adults (≥18 years) who reported acute non-specific low back pain (for less than six weeks).
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity (0-100 scale) at end of treatment and safety (number of participants who reported any adverse event during treatment). Secondary outcomes were low back specific function, serious adverse events, and discontinuation from treatment. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was done and confidence was evaluated by the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis method.
RESULTS
98 randomised controlled trials (15 134 participants, 49% women) included 69 different medicines or combinations. Low or very low confidence was noted in evidence for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference -26.1 (95% confidence intervals -34.0 to -18.2)), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (-26.1 (-38.5 to -13.6)), pregabalin (-24.7 (-34.6 to -14.7)), and 14 other medicines compared with placebo. Low or very low confidence was noted for no difference between the effects of several of these medicines. Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 4.5)), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (2.4 (1.5 to 3.8)), baclofen (2.3 (1.5 to 3.4)), and paracetamol plus tramadol (2.1 (1.3 to 3.4)) compared with placebo. These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes.
CONCLUSIONS
The comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain are uncertain. Until higher quality randomised controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are published, clinicians and patients are recommended to take a cautious approach to manage acute non-specific low back pain with analgesic medicines.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42019145257.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Female; Male; Acetaminophen; Low Back Pain; Tramadol; Network Meta-Analysis; Analgesics; Acute Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36948512
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-072962 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Febrile seizures occurring in a child older than one month during an episode of fever affect 2-4% of children in Great Britain and the United States and recur in 30%.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Febrile seizures occurring in a child older than one month during an episode of fever affect 2-4% of children in Great Britain and the United States and recur in 30%. Rapid-acting antiepileptics and antipyretics given during subsequent fever episodes have been used to avoid the adverse effects of continuous antiepileptic drugs. This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate primarily the effectiveness and safety of antiepileptic and antipyretic drugs used prophylactically to treat children with febrile seizures; and also to evaluate any other drug intervention where there is a sound biological rationale for its use.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update we searched the following databases on 3 February 2020: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 31 January 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We imposed no language restrictions and contacted researchers to identify continuing or unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Trials using randomised or quasi-randomised participant allocation that compared the use of antiepileptics, antipyretics or recognised Central Nervous System active agents with each other, placebo, or no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For the original review, two review authors independently applied predefined criteria to select trials for inclusion and extracted the predefined relevant data, recording methods for randomisation, blinding, and exclusions. For the 2016 update, a third review author checked all original inclusions, data analyses, and updated the search. For the 2020 update, one review author updated the search and performed the data analysis following a peer-review process with the original review authors. We assessed seizure recurrence at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48 months, and where data were available at age 5 to 6 years along with recorded adverse effects. We evaluated the presence of publication bias using funnel plots.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 42 articles describing 32 randomised trials, with 4431 randomised participants used in the analysis of this review. We analysed 15 interventions of continuous or intermittent prophylaxis and their control treatments. Methodological quality was moderate to poor in most studies. We found no significant benefit for intermittent phenobarbital, phenytoin, valproate, pyridoxine, ibuprofen, or zinc sulfate versus placebo or no treatment; nor for diclofenac versus placebo followed by ibuprofen, paracetamol, or placebo; nor for continuous phenobarbital versus diazepam, intermittent rectal diazepam versus intermittent valproate, or oral diazepam versus clobazam. There was a significant reduction of recurrent febrile seizures with intermittent diazepam versus placebo or no treatment at six months (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 0.85; 6 studies, 1151 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), 12 months (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.84; 8 studies, 1416 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), 18 months (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60; 1 study, 289 participants; low-certainty evidence), 24 months (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; 4 studies, 739 participants; high-certainty evidence), 36 months (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85; 1 study, 139 participants; low-certainty evidence), 48 months (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.89; 1 study, 110 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), with no benefit at 60 to 72 months (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.31; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Phenobarbital versus placebo or no treatment reduced seizures at six months (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83; 6 studies, 833 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), 12 months (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.70; 7 studies, 807 participants; low-certainty evidence), and 24 months (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.89; 3 studies, 533 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but not at 18 months (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.05; 2 studies, 264 participants) or 60 to 72 months follow-up (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.69; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Intermittent clobazam compared to placebo at six months resulted in a RR of 0.36 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.64; 1 study, 60 participants; low-certainty evidence), an effect found against an extremely high (83.3%) recurrence rate in the controls, a result that needs replication. When compared to intermittent diazepam, intermittent oral melatonin did not significantly reduce seizures at six months (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.15; 1 study, 60 participants; very-low certainty evidence). When compared to placebo, intermittent oral levetiracetam significantly reduced recurrent seizures at 12 months (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.52; 1 study, 115 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The recording of adverse effects was variable. Two studies reported lower comprehension scores in phenobarbital-treated children. Adverse effects were recorded in up to 30% of children in the phenobarbital-treated groups and 36% in benzodiazepine-treated groups. We found evidence of publication bias in the meta-analyses of comparisons for phenobarbital versus placebo (seven studies) at 12 months but not at six months (six studies); and valproate versus placebo (four studies) at 12 months. There were too few studies to identify publication bias for the other comparisons. The methodological quality of most of the included studies was low or very low. Methods of randomisation and allocation concealment often did not meet current standards, and 'treatment versus no treatment' was more commonly seen than 'treatment versus placebo', leading to obvious risks of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found reduced recurrence rates for intermittent diazepam and continuous phenobarbital, with adverse effects in up to 30% of children. The apparent benefit for clobazam treatment in one trial needs to be replicated. Levetiracetam also shows benefit with a good safety profile; however, further study is required. Given the benign nature of recurrent febrile seizures, and the high prevalence of adverse effects of these drugs, parents and families should be supported with adequate contact details of medical services and information on recurrence, first aid management, and, most importantly, the benign nature of the phenomenon.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Antipyretics; Child; Child, Preschool; Confidence Intervals; Humans; Infant; Placebos; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Seizures, Febrile
PubMed: 34131913
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003031.pub4