-
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Sep 2021Complex spinal procedures are associated with intense pain in the postoperative period. Adequate peri-operative pain management has been shown to correlate with improved...
BACKGROUND
Complex spinal procedures are associated with intense pain in the postoperative period. Adequate peri-operative pain management has been shown to correlate with improved outcomes including early ambulation and early discharge.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after complex spine surgery.
DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES
A systematic review using the PROcedure SPECific postoperative pain managemenT methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in the English language from January 2008 to April 2020 assessing postoperative pain after complex spine surgery using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases.
RESULTS
Out of 111 eligible studies identified, 31 randomised controlled trials and four systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Pre-operative and intra-operative interventions that improved postoperative pain were paracetamol, cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 specific-inhibitors or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intravenous ketamine infusion and regional analgesia techniques including epidural analgesia using local anaesthetics with or without opioids. Limited evidence was found for local wound infiltration, intrathecal and epidural opioids, erector spinae plane block, thoracolumbar interfascial plane block, intravenous lidocaine, dexmedetomidine and gabapentin.
CONCLUSIONS
The analgesic regimen for complex spine surgery should include pre-operative or intra-operative paracetamol and COX-2 specific inhibitors or NSAIDs, continued postoperatively with opioids used as rescue analgesics. Other recommendations are intra-operative ketamine and epidural analgesia using local anaesthetics with or without opioids. Although there is procedure-specific evidence in favour of intra-operative methadone, it is not recommended as it was compared with shorter-acting opioids and due to its limited safety profile. Furthermore, the methadone studies did not use non-opioid analgesics, which should be the primary analgesics to ultimately reduce overall opioid requirements, including methadone. Further qualitative randomised controlled trials are required to confirm the efficacy and safety of these recommended analgesics on postoperative pain relief.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 34397527
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001448 -
Clinical Psychology Review Jul 2016The importance of compassion is widely recognized and it is receiving increasing research attention. Yet, there is lack of consensus on definition and a paucity of... (Review)
Review
The importance of compassion is widely recognized and it is receiving increasing research attention. Yet, there is lack of consensus on definition and a paucity of psychometrically robust measures of this construct. Without an agreed definition and adequate measures, we cannot study compassion, measure compassion or evaluate whether interventions designed to enhance compassion are effective. In response, this paper proposes a definition of compassion and offers a systematic review of self- and observer-rated measures. Following consolidation of existing definitions, we propose that compassion consists of five elements: recognizing suffering, understanding the universality of human suffering, feeling for the person suffering, tolerating uncomfortable feelings, and motivation to act/acting to alleviate suffering. Three databases were searched (Web of Science, PsycInfo, and Medline) and nine measures included and rated for quality. Quality ratings ranged from 2 to 7 out of 14 with low ratings due to poor internal consistency for subscales, insufficient evidence for factor structure and/or failure to examine floor/ceiling effects, test-retest reliability, and discriminant validity. We call our five-element definition, and if supported, the development of a measure of compassion based on this operational definition, and which demonstrates adequate psychometric properties.
Topics: Empathy; Humans
PubMed: 27267346
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2016.05.004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019The standard way most people are advised to stop smoking is by quitting abruptly on a designated quit day. However, many people who smoke have tried to quit many times...
BACKGROUND
The standard way most people are advised to stop smoking is by quitting abruptly on a designated quit day. However, many people who smoke have tried to quit many times and may like to try an alternative method. Reducing smoking behaviour before quitting could be an alternative approach to cessation. However, before this method can be recommended it is important to ensure that abrupt quitting is not more effective than reducing to quit, and to determine whether there are ways to optimise reduction methods to increase the chances of cessation.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of reduction-to-quit interventions on long-term smoking cessation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO for studies, using the terms: cold turkey, schedul*, cut* down, cut-down, gradual*, abrupt*, fading, reduc*, taper*, controlled smoking and smoking reduction. We also searched trial registries to identify unpublished studies. Date of the most recent search: 29 October 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials in which people who smoked were advised to reduce their smoking consumption before quitting smoking altogether in at least one trial arm. This advice could be delivered using self-help materials or behavioural support, and provided alongside smoking cessation pharmacotherapies or not. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of less than six months, where participants spontaneously reduced without being advised to do so, where the goal of reduction was not to quit altogether, or where participants were advised to switch to cigarettes with lower nicotine levels without reducing the amount of cigarettes smoked or the length of time spent smoking. We also excluded trials carried out in pregnant women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking cessation was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison (no smoking cessation treatment, abrupt quitting interventions, and other reduction-to-quit interventions) and carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. We also extracted data on quit attempts, pre-quit smoking reduction, adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, and meta-analysed these where sufficient data were available.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 51 trials with 22,509 participants. Most recruited adults from the community using media or local advertising. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked an average of 23 cigarettes a day. We judged 18 of the studies to be at high risk of bias, but restricting the analysis only to the five studies at low or to the 28 studies at unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results.We identified very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision, comparing the effect of reduction-to-quit interventions with no treatment on cessation rates (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.38; I = 45%; 6 studies, 1599 participants). However, when comparing reduction-to-quit interventions with abrupt quitting (standard care) we found evidence that neither approach resulted in superior quit rates (RR 1. 01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.17; I = 29%; 22 studies, 9219 participants). We judged this estimate to be of moderate certainty, due to imprecision. Subgroup analysis provided some evidence (P = 0.01, I = 77%) that reduction-to-quit interventions may result in more favourable quit rates than abrupt quitting if varenicline is used as a reduction aid. Our analysis comparing reduction using pharmacotherapy with reduction alone found low-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency and imprecision, that reduction aided by pharmacotherapy resulted in higher quit rates (RR 1. 68, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.58; I = 78%; 11 studies, 8636 participants). However, a significant subgroup analysis (P < 0.001, I = 80% for subgroup differences) suggests that this may only be true when fast-acting NRT or varenicline are used (both moderate-certainty evidence) and not when nicotine patch, combination NRT or bupropion are used as an aid (all low- or very low-quality evidence). More evidence is likely to change the interpretation of the latter effects.Although there was some evidence from within-study comparisons that behavioural support for reduction to quit resulted in higher quit rates than self-help resources alone, the relative efficacy of various other characteristics of reduction-to-quit interventions investigated through within- and between-study comparisons did not provide any evidence that they enhanced the success of reduction-to-quit interventions. Pre-quit AEs, SAEs and nicotine withdrawal symptoms were measured variably and infrequently across studies. There was some evidence that AEs occurred more frequently in studies that compared reduction using pharmacotherapy versus no pharmacotherapy; however, the AEs reported were mild and usual symptoms associated with NRT use. There was no clear evidence that the number of people reporting SAEs, or changes in withdrawal symptoms, differed between trial arms.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-certainty evidence that neither reduction-to-quit nor abrupt quitting interventions result in superior long-term quit rates when compared with one another. Evidence comparing the efficacy of reduction-to-quit interventions with no treatment was inconclusive and of low certainty. There is also low-certainty evidence to suggest that reduction-to-quit interventions may be more effective when pharmacotherapy is used as an aid, particularly fast-acting NRT or varenicline (moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence for any adverse effects of reduction-to-quit interventions was sparse, but available data suggested no excess of pre-quit SAEs or withdrawal symptoms. We downgraded the evidence across comparisons due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. Future research should aim to match any additional components of multicomponent reduction-to-quit interventions across study arms, so that the effect of reduction can be isolated. In particular, well-conducted, adequately-powered studies should focus on investigating the most effective features of reduction-to-quit interventions to maximise cessation rates.
Topics: Bupropion; Humans; Nicotine; Nicotinic Agonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smoking Cessation; Smoking Reduction; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices
PubMed: 31565800
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013183.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2023Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disease worldwide. Stopping smoking can reduce this harm and many people would like to stop. There are a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disease worldwide. Stopping smoking can reduce this harm and many people would like to stop. There are a number of medicines licenced to help people quit globally, and e-cigarettes are used for this purpose in many countries. Typically treatments work by reducing cravings to smoke, thus aiding initial abstinence and preventing relapse. More information on comparative effects of these treatments is needed to inform treatment decisions and policies.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the comparative benefits, harms and tolerability of different smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and e-cigarettes, when used to help people stop smoking tobacco.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified studies from recent updates of Cochrane Reviews investigating our interventions of interest. We updated the searches for each review using the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group (TAG) specialised register to 29 April 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and factorial RCTs, which measured smoking cessation at six months or longer, recruited adults who smoked combustible cigarettes at enrolment (excluding pregnant people) and randomised them to approved pharmacotherapies and technologies used for smoking cessation worldwide (varenicline, cytisine, nortriptyline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and e-cigarettes) versus no pharmacological intervention, placebo (control) or another approved pharmacotherapy. Studies providing co-interventions (e.g. behavioural support) were eligible if the co-intervention was provided equally to study arms.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening, data extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessment (using the RoB 1 tool). Primary outcome measures were smoking cessation at six months or longer, and the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs). We also measured withdrawals due to treatment. We used Bayesian component network meta-analyses (cNMA) to examine intervention type, delivery mode, dose, duration, timing in relation to quit day and tapering of nicotine dose, using odds ratios (OR) and 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). We calculated an effect estimate for combination NRT using an additive model. We evaluated the influence of population and study characteristics, provision of behavioural support and control arm rates using meta-regression. We evaluated certainty using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
Of our 332 eligible RCTs, 319 (835 study arms, 157,179 participants) provided sufficient data to be included in our cNMA. Of these, we judged 51 to be at low risk of bias overall, 104 at high risk and 164 at unclear risk, and 118 reported pharmaceutical or e-cigarette/tobacco industry funding. Removing studies at high risk of bias did not change our interpretation of the results. Benefits We found high-certainty evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes (OR 2.37, 95% CrI 1.73 to 3.24; 16 RCTs, 3828 participants), varenicline (OR 2.33, 95% CrI 2.02 to 2.68; 67 RCTs, 16,430 participants) and cytisine (OR 2.21, 95% CrI 1.66 to 2.97; 7 RCTs, 3848 participants) were associated with higher quit rates than control. In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional eight (95% CrI 4 to 13), eight (95% CrI 6 to 10) and seven additional quitters per 100 (95% CrI 4 to 12), respectively. These interventions appeared to be more effective than the other interventions apart from combination NRT (patch and a fast-acting form of NRT), which had a lower point estimate (calculated additive effect) but overlapping 95% CrIs (OR 1.93, 95% CrI 1.61 to 2.34). There was also high-certainty evidence that nicotine patch alone (OR 1.37, 95% CrI 1.20 to 1.56; 105 RCTs, 37,319 participants), fast-acting NRT alone (OR 1.41, 95% CrI 1.29 to 1.55; 120 RCTs, 31,756 participants) and bupropion (OR 1.43, 95% CrI 1.26 to 1.62; 71 RCTs, 14,759 participants) were more effective than control, resulting in two (95% CrI 1 to 3), three (95% CrI 2 to 3) and three (95% CrI 2 to 4) additional quitters per 100 respectively. Nortriptyline is probably associated with higher quit rates than control (OR 1.35, 95% CrI 1.02 to 1.81; 10 RCTs, 1290 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), resulting in two (CrI 0 to 5) additional quitters per 100. Non-nicotine/placebo e-cigarettes (OR 1.16, 95% CrI 0.74 to 1.80; 8 RCTs, 1094 participants; low-certainty evidence), equating to one additional quitter (95% CrI -2 to 5), had point estimates favouring the intervention over control, but CrIs encompassed the potential for no difference and harm. There was low-certainty evidence that tapering the dose of NRT prior to stopping treatment may improve effectiveness; however, 95% CrIs also incorporated the null (OR 1.14, 95% CrI 1.00 to 1.29; 111 RCTs, 33,156 participants). This might lead to an additional one quitter per 100 (95% CrI 0 to 2). Harms There were insufficient data to include nortriptyline and non-nicotine EC in the final SAE model. Overall rates of SAEs for the remaining treatments were low (average 3%). Low-certainty evidence did not show a clear difference in the number of people reporting SAEs for nicotine e-cigarettes, varenicline, cytisine or NRT when compared to no pharmacotherapy/e-cigarettes or placebo. Bupropion may slightly increase rates of SAEs, although the CrI also incorporated no difference (moderate certainty). In absolute terms bupropion may cause one more person in 100 to experience an SAE (95% CrI 0 to 2).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The most effective interventions were nicotine e-cigarettes, varenicline and cytisine (all high certainty), as well as combination NRT (additive effect, certainty not rated). There was also high-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of nicotine patch, fast-acting NRT and bupropion. Less certain evidence of benefit was present for nortriptyline (moderate certainty), non-nicotine e-cigarettes and tapering of nicotine dose (both low certainty). There was moderate-certainty evidence that bupropion may slightly increase the frequency of SAEs, although there was also the possibility of no increased risk. There was no clear evidence that any other tested interventions increased SAEs. Overall, SAE data were sparse with very low numbers of SAEs, and so further evidence may change our interpretation and certainty. Future studies should report SAEs to strengthen certainty in this outcome. More head-to-head comparisons of the most effective interventions are needed, as are tests of combinations of these. Future work should unify data from behavioural and pharmacological interventions to inform approaches to combined support for smoking cessation.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Bupropion; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Network Meta-Analysis; Nicotine; Nortriptyline; Smoking Cessation; Varenicline
PubMed: 37696529
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015226.pub2 -
Pain Physician Sep 2020Myofascial mobilization has been used as an intervention for patients with fibromyalgia (FM) for acting on ascending nociceptive pathways possibly involved in the...
BACKGROUND
Myofascial mobilization has been used as an intervention for patients with fibromyalgia (FM) for acting on ascending nociceptive pathways possibly involved in the central sensitization process, modulating the pain experience. However, there is still a gap in its efficacy compared with another hands-on approach because manual therapy has nonspecific effects, such as placebo.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review aims to review the scientific literature for an overview of the efficacy of manual therapy in pain, disease impact, and quality of life in patients with FM compared with control or other treatments through randomized clinical trials.
STUDY DESIGN
This study involved systematic review of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
SETTING
This study examined all RCTs evaluating the effect of manual therapy on pain, impact of disease, and quality of life for patients with FM.
METHODS
Systematic review. The research was performed in 9 databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Lilacs, SciELO, PEDro, and Cochrane. Searches were carried out from the end of the project until September 2019, with no language and year restrictions. Randomized controlled clinical trials that used the following outcome measures were included: Visual Analog Scale, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, and SF-36 Quality of Life Questionnaire. The risk of bias and quality of studies was assessed using the PEDro scale; the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool; and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation System.
RESULTS
Seven studies were included (368 patients). The quantitative analysis was performed on 4 studies because of the lack of data in the others. Myofascial release was the most used modality. The level of evidence ranged from very low to moderate, mainly because of the inconsistency and inaccuracy of results.
LIMITATIONS
The present systematic review presented limitations because of the heterogeneity of the included studies and only a short-term analysis of the intervention results. It was observed that other information, such as pressure, repetition, and/or sustaining manual therapy techniques, could be better described in future protocols, aiming at a better comparison between the techniques and their subsequent reproducibility.
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence of manual therapy in patients with FM, based on a very low to moderate quality of evidence, was inconclusive and insufficient to support and recommend the use of manual therapy in this population. To date, only general osteopathic treatment has achieved clinically relevant pain improvement when compared with control.
Topics: Fibromyalgia; Humans; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Pain; Pain Management; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32967389
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Asthma affects 350 million people worldwide including 45% to 70% with mild disease. Treatment is mainly with inhalers containing beta₂-agonists, typically taken as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Asthma affects 350 million people worldwide including 45% to 70% with mild disease. Treatment is mainly with inhalers containing beta₂-agonists, typically taken as required to relieve bronchospasm, and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as regular preventive therapy. Poor adherence to regular therapy is common and increases the risk of exacerbations, morbidity and mortality. Fixed-dose combination inhalers containing both a steroid and a fast-acting beta₂-agonist (FABA) in the same device simplify inhalers regimens and ensure symptomatic relief is accompanied by preventative therapy. Their use is established in moderate asthma, but they may also have potential utility in mild asthma.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of single combined (fast-onset beta₂-agonist plus an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)) inhaler only used as needed in people with mild asthma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal. We contacted trial authors for further information and requested details regarding the possibility of unpublished trials. The most recent search was conducted on 19 March 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials with at least one week washout period. We included studies of a single fixed-dose FABA/ICS inhaler used as required compared with no treatment, placebo, short-acting beta agonist (SABA) as required, regular ICS with SABA as required, regular fixed-dose combination ICS/long-acting beta agonist (LABA), or regular fixed-dose combination ICS/FABA with as required ICS/FABA. We planned to include cluster-randomised trials if the data had been or could be adjusted for clustering. We excluded trials shorter than 12 weeks. We included full texts, abstracts and unpublished data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (OR) or rate ratios (RR) and continuous data as mean difference (MD). We reported 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures of meta-analysis. We applied the GRADE approach to summarise results and to assess the overall certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, hospital admissions/emergency department or urgent care visits for asthma, and measures of asthma control.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six studies of which five contributed results to the meta-analyses. All five used budesonide 200 μg and formoterol 6 μg in a dry powder formulation as the combination inhaler. Comparator fast-acting bronchodilators included terbutaline and formoterol. Two studies included children aged 12+ and adults; two studies were open-label. A total of 9657 participants were included, with a mean age of 36 to 43 years. 2.3% to 11% were current smokers. FABA / ICS as required versus FABA as required Compared with as-required FABA alone, as-required FABA/ICS reduced exacerbations requiring systemic steroids (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, high-certainty evidence), equivalent to 109 people out of 1000 in the FABA alone group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared to 52 (95% CI 40 to 68) out of 1000 in the FABA/ICS as-required group. FABA/ICS as required may also reduce the odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, low-certainty evidence). Compared with as-required FABA alone, any changes in asthma control or spirometry, though favouring as-required FABA/ICS, were small and less than the minimal clinically-important differences. We did not find evidence of differences in asthma-associated quality of life or mortality. For other secondary outcomes FABA/ICS as required was associated with reductions in fractional exhaled nitric oxide, probably reduces the odds of an adverse event (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95, 2 RCTs, 3002 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce total systemic steroid dose (MD -9.90, 95% CI -19.38 to -0.42, 1 RCT, 443 participants, low-certainty evidence), and with an increase in the daily inhaled steroid dose (MD 77 μg beclomethasone equiv./day, 95% CI 69 to 84, 2 RCTs, 2554 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). FABA/ICS as required versus regular ICS plus FABA as required There may be little or no difference in the number of people with asthma exacerbations requiring systemic steroid with FABA/ICS as required compared with regular ICS (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.07, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence), equivalent to 81 people out of 1000 in the regular ICS plus FABA group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared to 65 (95% CI 49 to 86) out of 1000 FABA/ICS as required group. The odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit may be reduced in those taking FABA/ICS as required (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.91, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence). Compared with regular ICS, any changes in asthma control, spirometry, peak flow rates (PFR), or asthma-associated quality of life, though favouring regular ICS, were small and less than the minimal clinically important differences (MCID). Adverse events, serious adverse events, total systemic corticosteroid dose and mortality were similar between groups, although deaths were rare, so confidence intervals for this analysis were wide. We found moderate-certainty evidence from four trials involving 7180 participants that FABA/ICS as required was likely associated with less average daily exposure to inhaled corticosteroids than those on regular ICS (MD -154.51 μg/day, 95% CI -207.94 to -101.09).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found FABA/ICS as required is clinically effective in adults and adolescents with mild asthma. Their use instead of FABA as required alone reduced exacerbations, hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits and exposure to systemic corticosteroids and probably reduces adverse events. FABA/ICS as required is as effective as regular ICS and reduced asthma-related hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits, and average exposure to ICS, and is unlikely to be associated with an increase in adverse events. Further research is needed to explore use of FABA/ICS as required in children under 12 years of age, use of other FABA/ICS preparations, and long-term outcomes beyond 52 weeks.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Adult; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Beclomethasone; Budesonide; Child; Disease Progression; Drug Combinations; Formoterol Fumarate; Hospitalization; Humans; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Prednisolone; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Terbutaline
PubMed: 33945639
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013518.pub2 -
Biomedicines Feb 2022(1) Background: Over the last decade, misuse and diversion of medications has appeared to be increasingly concerning phenomena, including a range of different molecules.... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: Over the last decade, misuse and diversion of medications has appeared to be increasingly concerning phenomena, including a range of different molecules. As current knowledge on the abuse of centrally acting anticholinergics is limited, the aim of the present study is to review the relevant published data, focusing on the following molecules: benztropine, biperiden, scopolamine, orphenadrine, and benzhexol/trihexyphenidyl (THP). (2) Methods: A systematic literature review was carried out using Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Research methods were registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021257293). (3) Results: A total of 48 articles, including case reports, surveys, and retrospective case series analyses, were included. Most articles focused on benzhexol/THP ( = 25), and benztropine ( = 4). The routes of administration were mostly oral, and macrodoses together concomitant illicit drugs, e.g., cocaine, have been recorded. Toxidromes included both physical (e.g., tachycardia, tachypnoea, dilatated pupils, dry skin, urinary retention, ataxia, etc.) and psychiatric symptoms (e.g., anxiety, agitation, delirium, etc.). Fatal outcomes were very rare but reported. (4) Conclusion: Results from the present study show that anticholinergic misusing issues are both widespread worldwide and popular. Considering the potential adverse effects associated, healthcare professionals should be vigilant and monitor eventual misusing issues.
PubMed: 35203563
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10020355 -
Cells Feb 2022Ketamine is a rapid-acting antidepressant with proven efficacy as an add-on agent in unipolar and bipolar treatment-resistant depression. Although many studies have been... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Ketamine is a rapid-acting antidepressant with proven efficacy as an add-on agent in unipolar and bipolar treatment-resistant depression. Although many studies have been published, there is still not enough data on the effect of ketamine in combination with other medications. Particularly interesting is the combination of ketamine and lamotrigine, and its potential role in bipolar depression. The aim of this review was to identify animal and human studies in which ketamine and lamotrigine were used together in order to find out if there is scientific ground for combining ketamine and lamotrigine in the treatment of mood disorders. Directions for future studies are presented.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed and Web of Science were searched. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses PRISMA 2020 methodology was applied.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies were included for review. Animal studies using models of depression suggested a synergistic effect of ketamine and lamotrigine in combination. Studies on healthy humans showed a reduction in ketamine-induced dissociative symptoms with lamotrigine pretreatment. In a study on patients with depression, ketamine and lamotrigine did not have a stronger antidepressant effect than ketamine alone, but in this study only one ketamine infusion was administered. One case series described the antidepressant and anti-suicidal effect of the combination in two bipolar patients. Available clinical studies on patients with mood disorders did not support the hypothesis that lamotrigine reduces ketamine-induced dissociative symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of the analyzed studies were not sufficient to answer any of the stated questions; however, they allowed us to delineate future research directions. The identified animal studies suggested a possible synergistic antidepressant effect of ketamine and lamotrigine. The available clinical studies were not conclusive. No controlled studies on large groups of bipolar patients with multiple ketamine infusions combined with lamotrigine treatment have been published so far. There is some evidence for the reduction of ketamine's side effects by lamotrigine, and there are reports suggesting that lamotrigine can reduce ketamine craving. More studies with follow-up are needed in order to investigate the ketamine-lamotrigine combination in bipolar patients.
Topics: Animals; Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Humans; Ketamine; Lamotrigine; Psychopharmacology
PubMed: 35203296
DOI: 10.3390/cells11040645 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Apr 2023Autism spectrum disorders (hereafter autism) are prevalent and often associated with elevated rates of substance use disorders. A subset of people who gamble develop... (Review)
Review
Autism spectrum disorders (hereafter autism) are prevalent and often associated with elevated rates of substance use disorders. A subset of people who gamble develop gambling disorder, which is functionally impairing. Characterization of relationships between autism and gambling, particularly as relates to cognition, may have important implications. We conducted a systematic review of the literature. Nine out of 343 publications were found eligible for inclusion. Most studies examined decision-making using cognitive tasks, showing mixed results (less, equivalent or superior performance in autistic people compared to non-autistic people). The most consistent cognitive finding was relatively slower responses in autistic people on gambling tasks, compared to non-autistic people. One study reported a link between problem gambling and autism scores, in people who gamble at least occasionally. This systematic review highlights a profound lack of research on the potential neurocognitive overlap between autism and gambling. Future work should address the link between autism and behavioral addictions in adequately powered samples, using validated tools.
Topics: Humans; Gambling; Autistic Disorder; Cognition; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Behavior, Addictive
PubMed: 36738812
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105071 -
Brazilian Oral Research Dec 2017The process involved in periapical lesions, which occur as an outcome of pulpal necrosis, is regulated by the immune system including regulatory T cells (Treg) and T... (Review)
Review
The process involved in periapical lesions, which occur as an outcome of pulpal necrosis, is regulated by the immune system including regulatory T cells (Treg) and T helper 17 cell (Th17) responses. The objective of this study was to conduct a frequency systematic review to determine the presence of Treg/Th17 responses and the influence of these cells in the progression of chronic inflammatory periapical lesions in humans. A systematic computerized search was carried out in Pubmed, Medline, Web of Science and Scopus electronic databases from their date of inception through the first week of May 2017. In addition, the reference lists of the included articles and the grey literature were hand-searched. Articles that evaluated the presence and influence of Treg/Th17 in the progression of human periapical lesions were included. Study selection and the quality assessment of the included articles (using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale) were carried out by two authors. Fifty-seven titles/abstracts were screened and eight studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in this systematic review. The included studies showed large variation in the type of periapical lesion assessed, mean age, age range, type of experiment and findings regarding the participation of Th17 and Treg in the status of inflammatory periapical lesions. The studies showed the involvement of Treg in the modulation of the inflammatory response in radicular cysts and periapical granulomas. This systematic review highlights the relationship between Treg and Th17 acting in a subtle balance inhibiting or promoting the progression of human periapical lesions.
Topics: Chronic Disease; Cytokines; Disease Progression; Forkhead Transcription Factors; Humans; Periapical Periodontitis; Publication Bias; T-Lymphocytes, Regulatory; Th17 Cells
PubMed: 29267664
DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2017.vol31.0103