-
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... Jan 2022In people with acute ischaemic stroke, platelets become activated and can cause blood clots to form and block an artery in the brain, resulting in damage to part of the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In people with acute ischaemic stroke, platelets become activated and can cause blood clots to form and block an artery in the brain, resulting in damage to part of the brain. Such damage gives rise to the symptoms of stroke. Antiplatelet therapy might reduce the volume of brain damaged by ischaemia and also reduce the risk of early recurrent ischaemic stroke, thereby reducing the risk of early death and improving long-term outcomes in survivors. However, antiplatelet therapy might also increase the risk of fatal or disabling intracranial haemorrhage.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of immediate oral antiplatelet therapy (i.e. started as soon as possible and no later than two weeks after stroke onset) in people with acute presumed ischaemic stroke.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, and two trials registers, and performed forward reference/cited reference searching in August 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral antiplatelet therapy (started within 14 days of the stroke) with control in people with definite or presumed ischaemic stroke.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria and assessed trial quality. For the included trials, they extracted and cross-checked the data. They assessed risk of bias of each study using the Risk of Bias 1 (RoB1) tool and overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 studies involving 42,226 participants. Three new trials have been added since the last update (743 participants). As per the previous version of this review, two trials testing aspirin 160 mg to 300 mg once daily, started within 48 hours of onset, contributed 96% of the data. The risk of bias was low. The maximum follow-up was six months. With treatment, there was a decrease in death or dependency at the end of follow-up (odds ratio (OR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 0.99; 7 RCTs, 42,034 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 people treated with aspirin, 13 people would avoid death or dependency (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome 79).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antiplatelet therapy with aspirin 160 mg to 300 mg daily, given orally (or by nasogastric tube or per rectum in people who cannot swallow) and started within 48 hours of onset of presumed ischaemic stroke, significantly decreased death and dependency, and reduced the risk of early recurrent ischaemic stroke without a major risk of early haemorrhagic complications; long-term outcomes were improved.
Topics: Aspirin; Brain Ischemia; Humans; Ischemic Stroke; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke
PubMed: 35028933
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000029.pub4 -
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... May 2022Dexketoprofen is an enantiomer of ketoprofen (S+) that belongs to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and has analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antipyretic properties.... (Review)
Review
Dexketoprofen is an enantiomer of ketoprofen (S+) that belongs to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and has analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antipyretic properties. Dexketoprofen has a stronger effect than ketoprofen, which makes it a readily used preparation. The review aims to find in recent original publications data about dexketoprofen and its comparison with other painkilling medications. The systematic literature review was conducted in November 2021 (2018 onwards). We selected 12 articles from PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline Complete databases. In the last 4 years, there have been many publications that shed a new light on dexketoprofen. The article is a comparative analysis of dexketoprofen's action vs other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the combination of dexketoprofen with tramadol vs paracetamol with tramadol. The findings of the review confirm that dexketoprofen is a very good pain reliever more potent than paracetamol. Dexketoprofen produces similar effects to lidocaine and dexmedetomidine. Complex preparations containing dexketoprofen and tramadol are very effective painkilling tandem and are more effective than tramadol and paracetamol therapy in the treatment of acute pain.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Ketoprofen; Tramadol; Tromethamine
PubMed: 35299123
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2022.112819 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Apr 2023To analyze the effects of several drug for pain prevention in adults undergoing craniotomy for elective brain surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis were... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To analyze the effects of several drug for pain prevention in adults undergoing craniotomy for elective brain surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. The inclusion criteria were limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for preventing post-operative pain in adults (aged 18 years or older) undergoing craniotomies. The main outcome measures were represented by the mean differences in validated pain intensity scales administered at 6 h, 12 h, 24 h and 48 h post-operatively. The pooled estimates were calculated using random forest models. The risk of bias was evaluated using the RoB2 revised tool, and the certainty of evidence was assessed according to the GRADE guidelines. In total, 3359 records were identified through databases and registers' searching. After study selection, 29 studies and 2376 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The overall risk of bias was low in 78.5% of the studies included. The pooled estimates of the following drug classes were provided: NSAIDs, acetaminophen, local anesthetics and steroids for scalp infiltration and scalp block, gabapentinoids and agonists of adrenal receptors. High-certainty evidence suggests that NSAIDs and acetaminophen may have a moderate effect on reducing post-craniotomy pain 24 h after surgery compared to control and that ropivacaine scalp block may have a bigger impact on reducing post-craniotomy pain 6 h after surgery compared to control. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that NSAIDs may have a more remarkable effect on reducing post-craniotomy pain 12 h after surgery compared to control. No moderate-to-high-certainty evidence indicates effective treatments for post-craniotomy pain prevention 48 h after surgery.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Acetaminophen; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pain, Postoperative; Brain; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal
PubMed: 37241063
DOI: 10.3390/medicina59050831 -
Critical Care Medicine May 2017This meta-analysis aimed to examine the impact of antipyretic therapy on mortality in critically ill septic adults. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This meta-analysis aimed to examine the impact of antipyretic therapy on mortality in critically ill septic adults.
DATA SOURCES
Literature searches were implemented in Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and ClinicalTrials.gov through February 2016.
STUDY SELECTION
Inclusion criteria were observational or randomized studies of septic patients, evaluation of antipyretic treatment, mortality reported, and English-language version available. Studies were excluded if they enrolled pediatric patients, patients with neurologic injury, or healthy volunteers. Criteria were applied by two independent reviewers.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated methodologic quality. Outcomes included mortality, frequency of shock reversal, acquisition of nosocomial infections, and changes in body temperature, heart rate, and minute ventilation. Randomized and observational studies were analyzed separately.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Eight randomized studies (1,507 patients) and eight observational studies (17,432 patients) were analyzed. Antipyretic therapy did not reduce 28-day/hospital mortality in the randomized studies (relative risk, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.77-1.13; I = 0.0%) or observational studies (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.54-1.51; I = 76.1%). Shock reversal (relative risk, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.68-1.90; I = 51.6%) and acquisition of nosocomial infections (relative risk, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.61-2.09; I = 61.0%) were also unchanged. Antipyretic therapy decreased body temperature (mean difference, -0.38°C; 95% CI, -0.63 to -0.13; I = 84.0%), but not heart rate or minute ventilation.
CONCLUSIONS
Antipyretic treatment does not significantly improve 28-day/hospital mortality in adult patients with sepsis.
Topics: Body Temperature; Critical Illness; Cross Infection; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Morgue; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sepsis
PubMed: 28221185
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002285 -
Medicine Sep 2022Osteoarthritis (OA) often affects the hands, knees, and hip joints, causing considerable pain and disability, and often affecting the patient's quality of life.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Osteoarthritis (OA) often affects the hands, knees, and hip joints, causing considerable pain and disability, and often affecting the patient's quality of life. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are common pain relievers often applied as first line therapies for OA. However, prolonged NSAIDs application can have unwanted side effects. Given this, this study was designed to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of topical and oral NSAIDs for the treatment of OA.
METHODS
We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for relevant papers from their inception dates to May 2021. Our study only included randomized controlled trials comparing topical and oral NSAIDs and all data were analyzed using Review Manager version 5.3 (RevMan version 5.3).
RESULTS
We identified 8 RCTs (2096 patients with OA), for evaluation and revealed that, in general, topical and oral NSAIDs presented with similar efficacies for the treatment of OA. The Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index for assessing pain relief in OA patients was (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.07; 95%CI -0.02, 0.17) and visual analog scale was (SMD -0.01; 95%CI -0.02, 0.18), and improved stiffness in OA patients (SMD 0.09; 95%Cl 0.03, 0.20).
CONCLUSIONS
Topical NSAIDs are as effective as oral NSAIDs for the treatment of OA and both topical and oral NSAIDs are equally effective in reducing pain and improving physical function in OA patients. In terms of safety, a larger number of samples are still needed to determine if there are any differences in the safety profile of topical or oral NSAIDs.
REGISTRATION NUMBER
INPLASY 2021110009.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Osteoarthritis; Pain; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36086745
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000030354 -
Pharmacology Research & Perspectives Aug 2023This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of multiple or single-dosage intravenous ibuprofen (IVIB) in managing postoperative pain and fever in adults who are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of multiple or single-dosage intravenous ibuprofen (IVIB) in managing postoperative pain and fever in adults who are unable to take oral medications. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IVIB with placebo or other analgesic and antipyretic medications for postoperative pain and fever management. Data were collected from 8 main databases from the inception to June 2022. Risk of bias assessment was performed, and the GRADE methodology was used to assess the certainty of pooled evidence. Primary outcomes included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores within 24 h postoperative and reduction of temperature. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate the mean difference (MD) or risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs. As a result, a total of twenty-three RCTs with 3716 participants were included. For postoperative pain, with moderate-to-low certainty evidence, IVIB was associated with lower postoperative VAS scores than placebo, with MD ranging from -3.53 (95% CI, -4.32 to -2.75) at 0 min to -0.96 (95% CI, -1.35 to -0.57) at 24 h. Compared with intravenous acetaminophen, IVIB demonstrated lower VAS scores (MD, -1.54 at 0 min; -0.36 at 24 h). For fever, IVIB showed satisfactory antipyretic efficiency in a short period of time, but no difference was observed between IVIB and intravenous acetaminophen. IVIB was well-tolerated for both pain and fever management. In conclusion, moderate-to-low certainty evidence supports the use of IVIB for adults with postoperative pain and fever who are unable to take oral medications.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Ibuprofen; Acetaminophen; Antipyretics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Fever; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37530511
DOI: 10.1002/prp2.1123 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2018Fibromyalgia is a chronic widespread pain condition affecting millions of people worldwide. Current pharmacotherapies are often ineffective and poorly tolerated.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fibromyalgia is a chronic widespread pain condition affecting millions of people worldwide. Current pharmacotherapies are often ineffective and poorly tolerated. Combining different agents could provide superior pain relief and possibly also fewer side effects.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of combination pharmacotherapy compared to monotherapy or placebo, or both, for the treatment of fibromyalgia pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase to September 2017. We also searched reference lists of other reviews and trials registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Double-blind, randomised controlled trials comparing combinations of two or more drugs to placebo or other comparators, or both, for the treatment of fibromyalgia pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
From all studies, we extracted data on: participant-reported pain relief of 30% or 50% or greater; patient global impression of clinical change (PGIC) much or very much improved or very much improved; any other pain-related outcome of improvement; withdrawals (lack of efficacy, adverse events), participants experiencing any adverse event, serious adverse events, and specific adverse events (e.g. somnolence and dizziness). The primary comparison was between combination and one or all single-agent comparators. We also assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 16 studies with 1474 participants. Three studies combined a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) with a benzodiazepine (306 participants); two combined amitriptyline with fluoxetine (89 participants); two combined amitriptyline with a different agent (92 participants); two combined melatonin with an antidepressant (164 participants); one combined carisoprodol, paracetamol (acetaminophen), and caffeine (58 participants); one combined tramadol and paracetamol (acetaminophen) (315 participants); one combined malic acid and magnesium (24 participants); one combined a monoamine oxidase inhibitor with 5-hydroxytryptophan (200 participants); and one combined pregabalin with duloxetine (41 participants). Six studies compared the combination of multiple agents with each component alone and with inactive placebo; three studies compared combination pharmacotherapy with each individual component but did not include an inactive placebo group; two studies compared the combination of two agents with only one of the agents alone; and three studies compared the combination of two or more agents only with inactive placebo.Heterogeneity among studies in terms of class of agents evaluated, specific combinations used, outcomes reported, and doses given prevented any meta-analysis. None of the combinations of drugs found provided sufficient data for analysis compared with placebo or other comparators for our preferred outcomes. We therefore provide a narrative description of results. There was no or inadequate evidence in any comparison for primary and secondary outcomes. Two studies only reported any primary outcomes of interest (patient-reported pain relief of 30%, or 50%, or greater). For each 'Risk of bias' item, only half or fewer of studies had unequivocal low risk of bias. Small size and selective reporting were common as high risk of bias.Our GRADE assessment was therefore very low for primary outcomes of pain relief of 30% or 50% or greater, PGIC much or very much improved or very much improved, any pain-related outcome, participants experiencing any adverse event, any serious adverse event, or withdrawing because of an adverse event.Three studies found some evidence that combination pharmacotherapy reduced pain compared to monotherapy; these trials tested three different combinations: melatonin and amitriptyline, fluoxetine and amitriptyline, and pregabalin and duloxetine. Adverse events experienced by participants were not serious, and where they were reported (in 12 out of 16 studies), all participants experienced them, regardless of treatment. Common adverse events were nausea, dizziness, somnolence, and headache.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There are few, large, high-quality trials comparing combination pharmacotherapy with monotherapy for fibromyalgia, consequently limiting evidence to support or refute the use of combination pharmacotherapy for fibromyalgia.
Topics: 5-Hydroxytryptophan; Acetaminophen; Adult; Amitriptyline; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antidepressive Agents; Benzodiazepines; Carisoprodol; Drug Therapy, Combination; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Fibromyalgia; Fluoxetine; Humans; Magnesium; Malates; Melatonin; Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors; Muscle Relaxants, Central; Pregabalin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29457627
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010585.pub2 -
Acta Neurochirurgica Jan 2023Discontinuation of aspirin (ASA) prior to elective craniotomies is common practice. However, patients treated with ASA for secondary prevention bear a higher risk for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/AIM
Discontinuation of aspirin (ASA) prior to elective craniotomies is common practice. However, patients treated with ASA for secondary prevention bear a higher risk for thromboembolic complications. Aim of this systematic review is to investigate the risks and benefits of perioperative continuation and discontinuation of ASA in elective craniotomies.
METHODS
PubMed and Embase databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were retro- and prospective studies, reporting hemorrhagic and thromboembolic complications in patients in whom ASA was either continued or discontinued perioperatively in elective craniotomies. We excluded shunt operations and emergency cases. The MINORS (Methodological index for non-randomized studies) score was used to quantify the methodological quality of the eligible studies.
RESULTS
Out of 523 publications, 7 met the eligibility criteria (cumulative cohort of 646 patients). The mean MINORS score for the comparative studies was 18.7/24 (± SD 2.07, range: 17-22) and 9/16 for the unique non-comparative study, indicating an overall weak methodological quality of the included studies. 57.1% of the patients underwent craniotomy for intra- and extra-axial tumor removal, 39.0% for bypass surgery and 3.9% for neurovascular lesions (other than bypass). In 31.0% of the cases, ASA was prescribed for primary and in 69.0% for secondary prevention. ASA was continued perioperatively in 61.8% and discontinued in 38.2% of the cases. The hemorrhagic complication rate was 3% (95% CI [0.01-0.05]) in the ASA continuation group (Con-Group) and 3% (95% CI [0.01-0.09]) in the discontinuation group (Disc-Group) (p = 0.9). The rate of thromboembolic events in the Con-Group was 3% (95% CI [0.01-0.06]) in comparison to 6% (95% CI [0.02-0.14]) in the Disc-Group (p = 0.1).
CONCLUSION
Perioperative continuation of ASA in elective craniotomies does not seem to be associated with an increased hemorrhagic risk. The potential beneficial effect of ASA continuation on thromboembolic events needs to be further investigated in patients under ASA for secondary prevention.
Topics: Humans; Aspirin; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Prospective Studies; Hemorrhage; Thromboembolism; Craniotomy; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 36376767
DOI: 10.1007/s00701-022-05416-2 -
The Journal of Arthroplasty May 2024The aim of this study was to investigate the safety of early surgery in hip fracture patients who took clopidogrel and/or aspirin. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to investigate the safety of early surgery in hip fracture patients who took clopidogrel and/or aspirin.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted using databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, for studies relating to early arthroplasty or internal fixation for femoral neck fractures, intertrochanteric fractures, and subtrochanteric fractures in patients taking clopidogrel and/or aspirin. A total of 20 observational studies involving 3,077 patients were included in this meta-analysis, and analyzed in groups of early surgery versus delayed surgery, and clopidogrel and/or aspirin versus nonantiplatelet agents.
RESULTS
Patients in the clopidogrel and/or aspirin group who underwent early surgery had significantly more intraoperative blood loss than those in the non-antiplatelet group (mean difference = 17.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] [4.37, 31.55], P = .01), and patients in the clopidogrel and/or aspirin group had a lower overall incidence of complications after early surgery than those in the delayed surgery group (odds ratio = 0.26, 95% CI [0.14, 0.29], P < .001) and a shorter length of hospital stay (odds ratio = 0.26, 95% CI [0.14, 0.29], P < .001). There was no significant difference in postoperative mortality and other related indicators.
CONCLUSIONS
Early surgery in hip fracture patients taking clopidogrel and/or aspirin appears to be safe based on the available evidence and needs to be clarified by higher quality studies. However, the increased risk of cardiovascular events associated with discontinuation of clopidogrel or clopidogrel combined with aspirin dual antiplatelet therapy requires attention in the perioperative period.
Topics: Humans; Clopidogrel; Aspirin; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Hip Fractures; Femoral Neck Fractures; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37972664
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2023.11.012