-
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Oct 2023Pain after craniotomy can be intense and its management is often suboptimal.
BACKGROUND
Pain after craniotomy can be intense and its management is often suboptimal.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after craniotomy.
DESIGN
A systematic review using procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology was undertaken.
DATA SOURCES
Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in English from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2021 assessing pain after craniotomy using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Databases.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Each randomised controlled trial (RCT) and systematic review was critically evaluated and included only if met the PROSPECT requirements. Included studies were evaluated for clinically relevant differences in pain scores, use of nonopioid analgesics, such as paracetamol and NSAIDs, and current clinical relevance.
RESULTS
Out of 126 eligible studies identified, 53 RCTs and seven systematic review or meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria. Pre-operative and intra-operative interventions that improved postoperative pain were paracetamol, NSAIDs, intravenous dexmedetomidine infusion, regional analgesia techniques, including incision-site infiltration, scalp nerve block and acupuncture. Limited evidence was found for flupirtine, intra-operative magnesium sulphate infusion, intra-operative lidocaine infusion, infiltration adjuvants (hyaluronidase, dexamethasone and α-adrenergic agonist added to local anaesthetic solution). No evidence was found for metamizole, postoperative subcutaneous sumatriptan, pre-operative oral vitamin D, bilateral maxillary block or superficial cervical plexus block.
CONCLUSIONS
The analgesic regimen for craniotomy should include paracetamol, NSAIDs, intravenous dexmedetomidine infusion and a regional analgesic technique (either incision-site infiltration or scalp nerve block), with opioids as rescue analgesics. Further RCTs are required to confirm the influence of the recommended analgesic regimen on postoperative pain relief.
Topics: Humans; Pain Management; Dexmedetomidine; Acetaminophen; Analgesics; Pain, Postoperative; Craniotomy; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal
PubMed: 37417808
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001877 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Sep 2014Acute otitis media (AOM) is a common reason for primary care visits in children. Yet, there is considerable debate on the most effective treatment. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acute otitis media (AOM) is a common reason for primary care visits in children. Yet, there is considerable debate on the most effective treatment.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments (analgesics, antibiotics, and myringotomy) in children with AOM? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to October 2013 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 17 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: analgesics, antibiotics, delayed antibiotics, immediate antibiotics, longer courses of antibiotics, and myringotomy.
Topics: Analgesics; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Humans; Middle Ear Ventilation; Otitis Media
PubMed: 25229555
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017This is an updated review originally published in 2004 and first updated in 2007. This version includes substantial changes to bring it in line with current... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated review originally published in 2004 and first updated in 2007. This version includes substantial changes to bring it in line with current methodological requirements. Methadone is a synthetic opioid that presents some challenges in dose titration and is recognised to cause potentially fatal arrhythmias in some patients. It does have a place in therapy for people who cannot tolerate other opioids but should be initiated only by experienced practitioners. This review is one of a suite of reviews on opioids for cancer pain.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and tolerability of methadone as an analgesic in adults and children with cancer pain.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and clinicaltrials.gov, to May 2016, without language restriction. We also checked reference lists in relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought randomised controlled trials comparing methadone (any formulation and by any route) with active or placebo comparators in people with cancer pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All authors agreed on studies for inclusion. We retrieved full texts whenever there was any uncertainty about eligibility. One review author extracted data, which were checked by another review author. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis. We extracted information on the effect of methadone on pain intensity or pain relief, the number or proportion of participants with 'no worse than mild pain'. We looked for data on withdrawal and adverse events. We looked specifically for information about adverse events relating to appetite, thirst, and somnolence. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
We revisited decisions made in the earlier version of this review and excluded five studies that were previously included. We identified one new study for this update. This review includes six studies with 388 participants. We did not identify any studies in children.The included studies differed so much in their methods and comparisons that no synthesis of results was feasible. Only one study (103 participants) specifically reported the number of participants with a given level of pain relief, in this case a reduction of at least 20% - similar in both the methadone and morphine groups. Using an outcome of 'no worse than mild pain', methadone was similar to morphine in effectiveness, and most participants who could tolerate methadone achieved 'no worse than mild pain'. Adverse event withdrawals with methadone were uncommon (12/202) and similar in other groups. Deaths were uncommon except in one study where the majority of participants died, irrespective of treatment group. For specific adverse events, somnolence was more common with methadone than with morphine, while dry mouth was more common with morphine than with methadone. None of the studies reported effects on appetite.We judged the quality of evidence to be low, downgraded due to risk of bias and sparse data. For specific adverse events, we considered the quality of evidence to be very low, downgraded due to risk of bias, sparse data, and indirectness, as surrogates for appetite, thirst and somnolence were used.There were no data on the use of methadone in children.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on low-quality evidence, methadone is a drug that has similar analgesic benefits to morphine and has a role in the management of cancer pain in adults. Other opioids such as morphine and fentanyl are easier to manage but may be more expensive than methadone in many economies.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Methadone; Middle Aged; Morphine; Neoplasms; Pain; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28177515
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003971.pub4 -
Deutsches Arzteblatt International Nov 2017Suitable analgesic drugs and techniques are needed for the acute care of the approximately 18 200-18 400 seriously injured patients in Germany each year. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Suitable analgesic drugs and techniques are needed for the acute care of the approximately 18 200-18 400 seriously injured patients in Germany each year.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis of analgesia in trauma patients was carried out on the basis of randomized, controlled trials and observational studies. A systematic search of the literature over the 10-year period ending in February 2016 was carried out in the PubMed, Google Scholar, and Springer Link Library databases. Some of the considered trials and studies were included in a meta-analysis. Mean differences (MD) of pain reduction or pain outcome as measured on the Numeric Rating Scale were taken as a summarizing measure of treatment efficacy.
RESULTS
Out of 685 studies, 41 studies were considered and 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Among the drugs and drug combinations studied, none was clearly superior to another with respect to pain relief. Neither fentanyl versus morphine (MD -0.10 with a 95% confidence interval of [-0.58; 0.39], p = 0.70) nor ketamine versus morphine (MD -1.27 [-3.71; 1.16], p = 0.31), or the combination of ketamine and morphine versus morphine alone (MD -1.23 [-2.29; -0.18], p = 0.02) showed clear superiority regarding analgesia.
CONCLUSION
Ketamine, fentanyl, and morphine are suitable for analgesia in spontaneously breathing trauma patients. Fentanyl and ketamine have a rapid onset of action and a strong analgesic effect. Our quantitative meta-analysis revealed no evidence for the superiority of any of the three substances over the others. Suitable monitoring equipment, and expertise in emergency procedures are prerequisites for safe and effective analgesia by healthcare professionals..
Topics: Analgesia; Analgesics, Opioid; Emergency Medicine; Germany; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Pain Management; Pain Measurement
PubMed: 29229039
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2017.0785 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2015Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s; some have shown efficacy in treating different neuropathic pain conditions. The efficacy of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Antiepileptic drugs have been used in pain management since the 1960s; some have shown efficacy in treating different neuropathic pain conditions. The efficacy of zonisamide for the relief of neuropathic pain has not previously been reviewed.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of zonisamide for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via CRSO), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and two clinical trials databases (ClinicalTrials.gov. and the World Health Organisation Clinical Trials Registry Platform) to 1 August 2014, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing zonisamide with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Participants were adults aged 18 and over. We included only full journal publication articles and clinical trial summaries.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We considered the evidence using three tiers. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design); second tier evidence derived from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison; and third tier evidence derived from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.We planned to calculate risk ratio (RR) and numbers needed to treat (NNT) and harm (NNH) for one additional event using standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a single study treating 25 participants (13 zonisamide, 12 placebo) with painful diabetic neuropathy over 12 weeks. No first or second tier evidence was available for any outcome. The small size of the study and potential major bias due to a high proportion of early study withdrawals with zonisamide precluded any conclusions being drawn. There were two serious adverse events (one death) in zonisamide-treated participants, which were apparently not related to treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The review found a lack of evidence suggesting that zonisamide provides pain relief in any neuropathic pain condition. Effective medicines with much greater supportive evidence are available.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics; Anticonvulsants; Diabetic Neuropathies; Female; Humans; Isoxazoles; Male; Middle Aged; Neuralgia; Zonisamide
PubMed: 25879104
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011241.pub2 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023Cancer is a major global health concern, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) offer a promising treatment option for cancer patients. However, the efficacy of ICIs...
INTRODUCTION
Cancer is a major global health concern, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) offer a promising treatment option for cancer patients. However, the efficacy of ICIs can be influenced by various factors, including the use of concomitant medications.
METHODS
We searched databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the impact of concomitant medications on ICIs efficacy, published from inception to January 1, 2023. We evaluated the methodological quality of the included meta-analyses, and re-synthesized data using a random-effects model and evidence stratification.
RESULTS
We included 23 publications, comprising 11 concomitant medications and 112 associations. Class II-IV evidence suggested that antibiotics have a negative impact on ICIs efficacy. However, ICIs efficacy against melanoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma was not affected, this effect was related to the exposure window (class IV). Class III evidence suggested that proton pump inhibitors have a negative impact on ICIs efficacy; nevertheless, the efficacy against melanoma and renal cell carcinoma was not affected, and the effect was related to exposure before the initiation of ICIs therapy (class II). Although class II/III evidence suggested that steroids have a negative impact, this effect was not observed when used for non-cancer indications and immune-related adverse events (class IV). Class IV evidence suggested that opioids reduce ICIs efficacy, whereas statins and probiotics may improve ICIs efficacy. ICIs efficacy was not affected by histamine 2 receptor antagonists, aspirin, metformin, β-blockers, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents.
CONCLUSION
Current evidence suggests that the use of antibiotics, PPIs, steroids, and opioids has a negative impact on the efficacy of ICIs. However, this effect may vary depending on the type of tumor, the timing of exposure, and the intended application. Weak evidence suggests that statins and probiotics may enhance the efficacy of ICIs. Aspirin, metformin, β-blockers, and NSAIDs do not appear to affect the efficacy of ICIs. However, caution is advised in interpreting these results due to methodological limitations.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO,identifier, CRD42022328681.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Aspirin; Esophageal Neoplasms; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Kidney Neoplasms; Liver Neoplasms; Melanoma; Metformin; Steroids; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Meta-Analysis as Topic
PubMed: 37841249
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1218386 -
Deutsches Arzteblatt International Mar 2023Consumption of medication to alleviate pain is widespread in Germany. Around 1.9 million men and women take analgesics every day; some 1.6 million persons are addicted...
BACKGROUND
Consumption of medication to alleviate pain is widespread in Germany. Around 1.9 million men and women take analgesics every day; some 1.6 million persons are addicted to painkillers. Analgesic use is thought also to be common in sports, even in the absence of pain. The aim of this study was to assess the extent of painkiller use among athletes.
METHODS
In line with the PRISMA criteria and the modified PICO(S) criteria, a systematic literature review was registered (Openscienceframework, https://doi. org/10.17605/OSF.IO/VQ94D) and carried out in PubMed and SURF. The publications identified (25 survey studies, 12 analyses of doping control forms, 18 reviews) were evaluated in standardized manner using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews).
RESULTS
Analgesic use is widespread in elite sports. The prevalence varies between 2.8% (professional tennis) and 54.2% (professional soccer). Pain medication is also taken prophylactically in the absence of symptoms in some non-elite competitive sports. In the heterogeneous field of amateur sports the data are sparse and there is no reliable evidence of wide-reaching consumption of painkillers. Among endurance athletes, 2.1% of over 50 000 persons stated that they used analgesics at least once each month in connection with sports.
CONCLUSION
Analgesic use has become a problem in many areas of professional/ competitive sports, while the consumption of pain medication apparently remains rare in amateur sports. In view of the increasing harmful use of or even addiction to painkillers in society as a whole, there is a need for better education and, above all, restrictions on advertising.
Topics: Male; Humans; Female; Sports; Athletes; Soccer; Analgesics; Pain
PubMed: 36655316
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.m2023.0003 -
JAMA Network Open Aug 2023Patients undergoing spine surgery often experience severe pain. The optimal dosage of pregabalin and gabapentin for pain control and safety in these patients has not... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Patients undergoing spine surgery often experience severe pain. The optimal dosage of pregabalin and gabapentin for pain control and safety in these patients has not been well established.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the associations of pain, opioid consumption, and adverse events with different dosages of pregabalin and gabapentin in patients undergoing spine surgery.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and Scopus databases were searched for articles until August 7, 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials conducted among patients who received pregabalin or gabapentin while undergoing spine surgery were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two investigators independently performed data extraction following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) reporting guideline. The network meta-analysis was conducted from August 2022 to February 2023 using a random-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was pain intensity measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and secondary outcomes included opioid consumption and adverse events.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven randomized clinical trials with 1861 patients (median age, 45.99 years [range, 20.00-70.00 years]; 759 women [40.8%]) were included in the systematic review and network meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, the VAS pain score was lowest with gabapentin 900 mg per day, followed by gabapentin 1200 mg per day, gabapentin 600 mg per day, gabapentin 300 mg per day, pregabalin 300 mg per day, pregabalin 150 mg per day, and pregabalin 75 mg per day. Additionally, gabapentin 900 mg per day was found to be associated with the lowest opioid consumption among all dosages of gabapentin and pregabalin, with a mean difference of -22.07% (95% CI, -33.22% to -10.92%) for the surface under the cumulative ranking curve compared with placebo. There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events (nausea, vomiting, and dizziness) among all treatments. No substantial inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence was detected for all outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These findings suggest that gabapentin 900 mg per day before spine surgery is associated with the lowest VAS pain score among all dosages. In addition, no differences in adverse events were noted among all treatments.
Topics: Humans; Female; Middle Aged; Gabapentin; Pregabalin; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37556139
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.28121 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2016Analgesic medication is the most frequently prescribed treatment for low back pain (LBP), of which paracetamol (acetaminophen) is recommended as the first choice... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Analgesic medication is the most frequently prescribed treatment for low back pain (LBP), of which paracetamol (acetaminophen) is recommended as the first choice medication. However, there is uncertainty about the efficacy of paracetamol for LBP.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol for non-specific LBP.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted searches on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which includes the Back and Neck Review Group trials register), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science, LILACS, and IPA from their inception to 7 August 2015. We also searched the reference lists of eligible papers and trial registry websites (WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We only considered randomised trials comparing the efficacy of paracetamol with placebo for non-specific LBP. The primary outcomes were pain and disability. We also investigated quality of life, function, adverse effects, global impression of recovery, sleep quality, patient adherence, and use of rescue medication as secondary outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed the data extraction and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. We also evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We converted scales for pain intensity to a common 0 to 100 scale. We quantified treatment effects using mean difference for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes. We used effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals as a measure of treatment effect for the primary outcomes. When the treatment effects were smaller than 9 points on a 0 to 100 scale, we considered the effect as small and not clinically important.
MAIN RESULTS
Our searches retrieved 4449 records, of which three trials were included in the review (n = 1825 participants), and two trials were included in the meta-analysis. For acute LBP, there is high-quality evidence for no difference between paracetamol (4 g per day) and placebo at 1 week (immediate term), 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 12 weeks (short term) for the primary outcomes. There is high-quality evidence that paracetamol has no effect on quality of life, function, global impression of recovery, and sleep quality for all included time periods. There were also no significant differences between paracetamol and placebo for adverse events, patient adherence, or use of rescue medication. For chronic LBP, there is very low-quality evidence (based on a trial that has been retracted) for no effect of paracetamol (1 g single intravenous dose) on immediate pain reduction. Finally, no trials were identified evaluating patients with subacute LBP.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found that paracetamol does not produce better outcomes than placebo for people with acute LBP, and it is uncertain if it has any effect on chronic LBP.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Humans; Low Back Pain; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27271789
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012230 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015Milnacipran is a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) that is sometimes used to treat chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia. This is an update of an... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Milnacipran is a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) that is sometimes used to treat chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia. This is an update of an earlier review of milnacipran for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults originally published in The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2012. We split that review so that this one looked only at neuropathic pain, and a separate review looks at fibromyalgia.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of milnacipran for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE to 23 February 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind studies of eight weeks' duration or longer, comparing milnacipran with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a single study of 40 participants with chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component. It found no difference in pain scores between milnacipran 100 mg to 200 mg daily or placebo after six weeks (very low quality evidence). Adverse event rates were similar between treatments, with too few data to draw conclusions (very low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was no evidence to support the use of milnacipran to treat neuropathic pain conditions.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics; Back Pain; Chronic Pain; Cyclopropanes; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Milnacipran; Neuralgia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 26148202
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011789