-
Journal of Clinical Medicine Mar 2022Actinic keratosis (AK) is a chronic skin condition that may progress to cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. We conducted a systematic review of efficacy and safety for...
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Tirbanibulin for Actinic Keratosis of the Face and Scalp in Europe: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Actinic keratosis (AK) is a chronic skin condition that may progress to cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. We conducted a systematic review of efficacy and safety for key treatments for AK of the face and scalp, including the novel 5-day tirbanibulin 1% ointment. MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries and regulatory body websites were searched. The review included 46 studies, of which 35 studies included interventions commonly used in Europe and were sufficiently homogenous to inform a Bayesian network meta-analysis of complete clearance against topical placebo or vehicle. The network meta-analysis revealed the following odds ratios and 95% credible intervals: cryosurgery 13.4 (6.2-30.3); diclofenac 3% 2.9 (1.9-4.3); fluorouracil 0.5% + salicylic acid 7.6 (4.6-13.5); fluorouracil 4% 30.3 (9.1-144.7); fluorouracil 5% 35.0 (10.2-164.4); imiquimod 3.75% 8.5 (3.5-22.4); imiquimod 5% 17.9 (9.1-36.6); ingenol mebutate 0.015% 12.5 (8.1-19.9); photodynamic therapy with aminolevulinic acid 24.1 (10.9-52.8); photodynamic therapy with methyl aminolevulinate 11.7 (6.0-21.9); tirbanibulin 1% 11.1 (6.2-20.9). Four sensitivity analyses, from studies assessing efficacy after one treatment cycle only, for ≤25 cm treatment area, after 8 weeks post-treatment, and with single placebo/vehicle node confirmed the findings from the base case. Safety outcomes were assessed qualitatively. These results suggest that tirbanibulin 1% offers a novel treatment for AK, with a single short treatment period, favourable safety profile and efficacy, in line with existing topical treatments available in Europe.
PubMed: 35329979
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11061654 -
Pharmacology Research & Perspectives Apr 2022In this systematic review, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in treating respiratory tract infections in adults...
In this systematic review, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in treating respiratory tract infections in adults and children. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched. A total of 34 randomized clinical trials were included in this systematic review. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies using the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment. The evidence on ibuprofen, naproxen, aspirin, diclofenac, and other NSAIDs were rated for degree of uncertainty for each of the study outcomes and summarized using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. Our findings suggest that high-quality evidence supports the use of NSAIDs to reduce fever in both adults and children. However, the evidence was uncertain for the use of NSAIDs to reduce cough. Most studies showed that NSAIDs significantly relieved sore throat. The evidence for mortality and oxygenation is limited. Regarding the adverse events, gastrointestinal discomfort was more frequently reported in children. For adults, our overall certainty in effect estimates was low and the increase in gastrointestinal adverse events was not clinically significant. In conclusion, NSAIDs seem to be beneficial in the outpatient management of fever and sore throat in adults and children. Although the evidence does not support their use to decrease mortality nor improve oxygenation in inpatient settings, the use of NSAIDs did not increase the rate of death or the need for ventilation in patients with respiratory tract infections. Further studies with a robust methodology and larger sample sizes are recommended.
Topics: Ambulatory Care; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Hospitalization; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Tract Infections; SARS-CoV-2; Virus Diseases; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35218614
DOI: 10.1002/prp2.925 -
Pain Medicine (Malden, Mass.) Apr 2020Cumulative evidence suggests an analgesic effect of thiamine, pyridoxine, and cyanocobalamin (TPC) in monotherapy, and also when combined with nonsteroidal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cumulative evidence suggests an analgesic effect of thiamine, pyridoxine, and cyanocobalamin (TPC) in monotherapy, and also when combined with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), particularly diclofenac, in a synergistic manner. The aim of this review was to determine the effects of diclofenac combined with TPC compared with diclofenac monotherapy for low back pain (LBP) management.
METHODS
We searched for randomized clinical trials on the MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and Cochrane databases of records of clinical trials, among other sources. We evaluated the risk of bias regarding randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other biases. A random-effects meta-analysis to examine patients with acute LBP (N = 1,108 adults) was performed, along with a subsequent sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS
Five studies in patients with LBP were included in the qualitative synthesis. Four of these studies in acute LBP were included in the first meta-analysis. A sensitivity test based on risk of bias (three moderate- to high-quality studies) found that the combination therapy of diclofenac plus TPC was associated with a significant reduction in the duration of treatment (around 50%) compared with diclofenac monotherapy (odds ratio = 2.23, 95% confidence interval = 1.59 to 3.13, P < 0.00001). We found no differences in the safety profile and patient satisfaction.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis demonstrated that combination therapy of diclofenac with TPC might have an analgesic superiority compared with diclofenac monotherapy in acute LBP. However, there is not enough evidence to recommend this therapy in other types of pain due to the scarcity of high-quality studies.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Diclofenac; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Low Back Pain; Pain Measurement; Pyridoxine; Thiamine; Vitamin B 12; Vitamin B Complex
PubMed: 31529101
DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnz216 -
Contraception Dec 2016Potential barriers to intrauterine device (IUD) use include provider concern about difficult insertion, particularly for nulliparous women. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Potential barriers to intrauterine device (IUD) use include provider concern about difficult insertion, particularly for nulliparous women.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to evaluate the evidence on the effectiveness of medications to ease IUD insertion on provider outcomes (i.e., ease of insertion, need for adjunctive insertion measures, insertion success).
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the PubMed database for peer-reviewed articles published in any language from database inception through February 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined medications to ease interval insertion of levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs and copper T IUDs.
RESULTS
From 1855 articles, we identified 15 RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. Most evidence suggested that misoprostol did not improve provider ease of insertion, reduce the need for adjunctive insertion measures or improve insertion success among general samples of women seeking an IUD (evidence Level I, good to fair). However, one RCT found significantly higher insertion success among women receiving misoprostol prior to a second IUD insertion attempt after failed attempt versus placebo (evidence Level I, good). Two RCTs on 2% intracervical lidocaine as a topical gel or injection suggested no positive effect on provider ease of insertion (evidence Level I, good to poor), and one RCT on diclofenac plus 2% intracervical lidocaine as a topical gel suggested no positive effect on provider ease of insertion (evidence Level I, good). Limited evidence from two RCTs on nitric oxide donors, specifically nitroprusside or nitroglycerin gel, suggested no positive effect on provider ease of insertion or need for adjunctive insertion measures (evidence Level I, fair).
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, most studies found no significant differences between women receiving interventions to ease IUD insertion versus controls. Among women with a recent failed insertion who underwent a second insertion attempt, one RCT found improved insertion success among women using misoprostol versus placebo.
Topics: Equipment Safety; Female; Humans; Intrauterine Devices; Misoprostol; Nitroglycerin; Nitroprusside; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27373540
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.06.014 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2014This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 3, 2012. Caffeine has been added to common analgesics such as paracetamol, ibuprofen, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 3, 2012. Caffeine has been added to common analgesics such as paracetamol, ibuprofen, and aspirin, in the belief that it enhances analgesic efficacy. Evidence to support this belief is limited and often based on invalid comparisons.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the relative efficacy of a single dose of an analgesic plus caffeine against the same dose of the analgesic alone, without restriction on the analgesic used or the pain condition studied. We also assessed serious adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 28 August 2014, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, and also carried out Internet searches and contacted pharmaceutical companies known to have carried out trials that have not been published.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind studies that compared a single dose of analgesic plus caffeine with the same dose of the analgesic alone in the treatment of acute pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and quality of studies, and extracted data. Any disagreements or uncertainties were settled by discussion with a third review author. We sought any validated measure of analgesic efficacy, but particularly the number of participants experiencing at least 50% of the maximum possible pain relief over four to six hours, participants reporting a global evaluation of treatment of very good or excellent, or headache relief after two hours. We pooled comparable data to look for a statistically significant difference, and calculated numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) with caffeine. We also looked for any numerical superiority associated with the addition of caffeine, and information about any serious adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified no new studies with available results for this update. The earlier review included 20 studies (7238 participants) in valid comparisons, but because we used different outcomes for some headache studies, the number of participants in the analyses of the effects of caffeine is now 4262 when previously it was 5243. The studies were generally of good methodological quality, using standard designs and mostly standard scales of pain measurement, although many of those treating postoperative pain were small.Most studies used paracetamol or ibuprofen, with 100 mg to 130 mg caffeine, and the most common pain conditions studied were postoperative dental pain, postpartum pain, and headache. There was a small but statistically significant benefit with caffeine used at doses of 100 mg or more, which was not dependent on the pain condition or type of analgesic. About 5% to 10% more participants achieve a good level of pain relief (at least 50% of the maximum over four to six hours) with the addition of caffeine, giving a NNT of about 14 (high quality evidence).Most comparisons individually demonstrated numerical superiority with caffeine, but not statistical superiority. One serious adverse event was reported with caffeine, but was considered unrelated to any study medication.We know of the existence of around 25 additional studies with almost 12,500 participants for which data for analysis were not obtainable. The additional analgesic effect of caffeine remained statistically significant but clinically less important even if all the known missing data had no effect; the bulk of the unobtainable data are reported to have similar results as this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The addition of caffeine (≥ 100 mg) to a standard dose of commonly used analgesics provides a small but important increase in the proportion of participants who experience a good level of pain relief.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Acute Pain; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Analgesics; Caffeine; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Diclofenac; Drug Synergism; Dysmenorrhea; Female; Headache; Humans; Ibuprofen; Male; Middle Aged; Pain, Postoperative; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; ortho-Aminobenzoates
PubMed: 25502052
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009281.pub3 -
International Braz J Urol : Official... 2017Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the first line treatment modality for a significant proportion of patients with upper urinary tracts stones. Simple analgesics, opioids... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the first line treatment modality for a significant proportion of patients with upper urinary tracts stones. Simple analgesics, opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are all suitable agents but the relative efficacy and tolerability of these agents is uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy of the different types of analgesics used for the control of pain during SWL for urinary stones.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and also hand-searched reference lists of relevant articles (Figure-1). Randomised controlled trials (RCT's) comparing the use of any opioid, simple analgesic or NSAID during SWL were included. These were compared with themselves, each-other or placebo. We included any route or form of administration (bolus, PCA). We excluded agents that were used for their sedative qualities. Data were extracted and assessed for quality independently by three reviewers. Meta-analyses have been performed where possible. When not possible, descriptive analyses of variables were performed. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as relative risk (RR) and measurements on continuous scales are reported as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
Overall, we included 9 RCTs (539 participants from 6 countries). Trial agents included 7 types of NSAIDs, 1 simple analgesic and 4 types of opioids. There were no significant differences in clinical efficacy or tolerability between a simple analgesic (paracetamol) and an NSAID (lornoxicam). When comparing the same simple analgesic with an opioid (tramadol), both agents provided safe and effective analgesia for the purpose of SWL with no significant differences. There were no significant differences in pain scores between NSAIDs or opioids in three studies. Adequate analgesia could be achieved more often for opioids than for NSAIDs (RR 0.358; 95% CI 043 to 0.77, P=0.0002) but consumed doses of rescue analgesia were similar between NSAIDs and opioids in two studies (P=0.58, >0.05). In terms of tolerability, there is no difference in post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) between the groups (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.17, P=0.55). One study compared outcomes between two types of NSAIDs (diclofenac versus dexketoprofen). There were no significant differences in any of our pre-defined outcomes measures.
CONCLUSION
Simple analgesics, NSAIDs and opioids can all reduce the pain associated with shock wave lithotripsy to a level where the procedure is tolerated. Whilst there are no compelling differences in safety or efficacy of simple analgesics and NSAIDs, analgesia is described as adequate more often for opioids than NSAIDs.
Topics: Analgesia; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Lithotripsy; Pain, Postoperative; Urinary Calculi
PubMed: 28338301
DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2016.0078 -
Critical Care Explorations Jul 2020This systematic review and meta-analysis addresses the efficacy and safety of nonopioid adjunctive analgesics for patients in the ICU.
UNLABELLED
This systematic review and meta-analysis addresses the efficacy and safety of nonopioid adjunctive analgesics for patients in the ICU.
DATA SOURCES
We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus, and Web of Science.
STUDY SELECTION
Two independent reviewers screened citations. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials comparing efficacy and safety of an adjuvant-plus-opioid regimen to opioids alone in adult ICU patients.
DATA EXTRACTION
We conducted duplicate screening of citations and data abstraction.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Of 10,949 initial citations, we identified 34 eligible trials. These trials examined acetaminophen, carbamazepine, clonidine, dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, ketamine, magnesium sulfate, nefopam, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (including diclofenac, indomethacin, and ketoprofen), pregabalin, and tramadol as adjunctive analgesics. Use of any adjuvant in addition to an opioid as compared to an opioid alone led to reductions in patient-reported pain scores at 24 hours (standard mean difference, -0.88; 95% CI, -1.29 to -0.47; low certainty) and decreased opioid consumption (in oral morphine equivalents over 24 hr; mean difference, 25.89 mg less; 95% CI, 19.97-31.81 mg less; low certainty). In terms of individual medications, reductions in opioid use were demonstrated with acetaminophen (mean difference, 36.17 mg less; 95% CI, 7.86-64.47 mg less; low certainty), carbamazepine (mean difference, 54.69 mg less; 95% CI, 40.39-to 68.99 mg less; moderate certainty), dexmedetomidine (mean difference, 10.21 mg less; 95% CI, 1.06-19.37 mg less; low certainty), ketamine (mean difference, 36.81 mg less; 95% CI, 27.32-46.30 mg less; low certainty), nefopam (mean difference, 70.89 mg less; 95% CI, 64.46-77.32 mg less; low certainty), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (mean difference, 11.07 mg less; 95% CI, 2.7-19.44 mg less; low certainty), and tramadol (mean difference, 22.14 mg less; 95% CI, 6.67-37.61 mg less; moderate certainty).
CONCLUSIONS
Clinicians should consider using adjunct agents to limit opioid exposure and improve pain scores in critically ill patients.
PubMed: 32696016
DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000157 -
Global Spine Journal May 2023Systematic review.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the efficacy of nonsurgical interventional treatments for chronic low back pain (LBP) caused by facet joint syndrome (FJS).
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify studies that compared interventional treatments for LBP due to FJS among them, with usual care or sham procedures. Studies were evaluated for pain, physical function, disability, quality of life and employment status. The RoB-2 and MINORS tools were utilized to assess the risk of bias in included studies.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies published between January 2000 and December 2021 were included (1496 patients, mean age: 54.31 years old). Intraarticular (IA) facet joint (FJ) injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) did not show significant difference compared to IA corticosteroids (CCS) in terms of pain and satisfaction. FJ denervation using radiofrequency (RF) displayed slightly superior or similar outcomes compared to IA CCS, physical therapy, or sham procedure. IA CCS showed better outcomes when combined with oral diclofenac compared to IA CCS or oral diclofenac alone but was not superior to IA local anesthetic and Sarapin. IA platelet-rich plasma (PRP) led to an improvement of pain, disability and satisfaction in the long term compared to IA CCS.
CONCLUSION
FJS is a common cause of LBP that can be managed with several different strategies, including nonsurgical minimally invasive approaches such as IA HA, CCS, PRP and FJ denervation. However, available evidence showed mixed results, with overall little short-term or no benefits on pain, disability, and other investigated outcomes.
PubMed: 36458366
DOI: 10.1177/21925682221142264 -
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics Oct 2015Orthodontic anchorage is one of the most challenging aspects of Orthodontics. Preventing undesired movement of teeth could result in safer and less complicated... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Orthodontic anchorage is one of the most challenging aspects of Orthodontics. Preventing undesired movement of teeth could result in safer and less complicated orthodontic treatment. Recently, several reviews have been published about the effects of different molecules on bone physiology and the clinical side effects in Orthodontics. However, the effects of local application of these substances on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement have not been assessed.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this research was to analyze the scientific evidence published in the literature about the effects of different molecules on orthodontic anchorage.
METHODS
The literature was systematically reviewed using PubMed/Medline, Scopus and Cochrane databases from 2000 up to July 31st, 2014. Articles were independently selected by two different researchers based on previously established inclusion and exclusion criteria, with a concordance Kappa index of 0.86. The methodological quality of the reviewed papers was performed.
RESULTS
Search strategy identified 270 articles. Twenty-five of them were selected after application of inclusion/exclusion criteria, and only 11 qualified for final analysis. Molecules involved in orthodontic anchorage were divided into three main groups: osteoprotegerin (OPG), bisphosphonates (BPs) and other molecules (OMs).
CONCLUSIONS
Different drugs are able to alter the bone remodeling cycle, influencing osteoclast function and, therefore, tooth movement. Thus, they could be used in order to provide maximal anchorage while preventing undesired movements. OPG was found the most effective molecule in blocking the action of osteoclasts, thereby reducing undesired movements.
Topics: Acetylcysteine; Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antioxidants; Bone Remodeling; Celecoxib; Clodronic Acid; Diclofenac; Diphosphonates; Humans; Imidazoles; Interferon-gamma; Isoxazoles; Lactones; Mice; Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures; Osteoclasts; Osteoprotegerin; Pamidronate; Rats; Resveratrol; Stilbenes; Sulfones; Tooth Mobility; Tooth Movement Techniques; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 26560822
DOI: 10.1590/2177-6709.20.5.058-065.oar -
Pain and Therapy Dec 2020Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are, in general, the cornerstone of musculoskeletal pain management; however, systemic adverse events with oral... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are, in general, the cornerstone of musculoskeletal pain management; however, systemic adverse events with oral formulations of NSAIDs are common. To address this problem and limit systemic exposure, topical formulations of some NSAIDs have been developed. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of the topical formulations of the NSAID etofenamate in patients with musculoskeletal disorders.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed and Web of Science was conducted using the key words "topical etofenamate efficacy" OR "topical etofenamate safety" OR "topical etofenamate effectiveness" to identify studies of etofenamate published from inception to November 2018. Some published manuscripts of interest known by the authors but not identified in the PubMed search were also included to ensure the review article was as comprehensive as possible.
RESULTS
Overall, 12 studies were identified. These studies demonstrate that topical etofenamate [administered either in gel (5 or 10%), cream (10%) or lotion (10%) formulations)] can improve pain and reduce inflammation in patients with musculoskeletal disorders, including blunt injuries and rheumatic diseases. Etofenamate was shown to have an overall efficacy that was superior to other topical NSAIDs, such as 1% indomethacin and 1% diclofenac, and to be as effective as topical formulations of 2.5% ketoprofen gel and 2% ketorolac gel (although ketorolac showed better elimination of pain at some time points). Also, clinical evidence indicates that etofenamate is generally well tolerated in these indications.
CONCLUSIONS
The clinical evidence currently available suggests that etofenamate is an effective therapeutic option for the management of musculoskeletal disorders, such as blunt traumas, lumbago or osteoarthrosis. However, larger and well-controlled clinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety of etofenamate with other newer topical NSAIDs are warranted.
PubMed: 32562238
DOI: 10.1007/s40122-020-00177-1