-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2016Macular oedema (MO) is the accumulation of extracellular fluid in the central retina (the macula). It may occur after cataract surgery and may give rise to poor visual... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Macular oedema (MO) is the accumulation of extracellular fluid in the central retina (the macula). It may occur after cataract surgery and may give rise to poor visual outcome, with reduced visual acuity and distortion of the central vision. MO is often self-limiting with spontaneous resolution, but a small proportion of people with chronic persistent MO may be difficult to treat. Chronic oedema may lead to the formation of cystic spaces in the retina termed 'cystoid macular oedema' (CMO). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used in cataract surgery and may reduce the chances of developing MO.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review is to answer the question: is there evidence to support the prophylactic use of topical NSAIDs either in addition to, or instead of, topical steroids postoperatively to reduce the incidence of macular oedema (MO) and associated visual morbidity.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched a number of electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase. Date last searched 2 September 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which adult participants had undergone surgery for age-related cataract. We included participants irrespective of their baseline risk of MO, in particular we included people with diabetes and uveitis. We included trials of preoperative and/or postoperative topical NSAIDs in conjunction with postoperative topical steroids. The comparator was postoperative topical steroids alone. A secondary comparison was preoperative and/or postoperative topical NSAIDs alone versus postoperative topical steroids alone.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data using standard methods expected by Cochrane. We pooled data using a random-effects model. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE and considered the following: risk of bias of included studies, precision of the effect estimate, consistency of effects between studies, directness of the outcome measure and publication bias.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 34 studies that were conducted in the Americas, Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean region and South-East Asia. Over 5000 people were randomised in these trials. The majority of studies enrolled one eye per participant; a small subset (4 trials) enrolled a proportion of people with bilateral surgery. Twenty-eight studies compared NSAIDs plus steroids with steroids alone. Six studies compared NSAIDs with steroids. A variety of NSAIDs were used, including ketorolac, diclofenac, nepafenac, indomethacin, bromfenac, flurbiprofen and pranopfen. Follow-up ranged from one to 12 months. In general, the studies were poorly reported. We did not judge any of the studies at low risk of bias in all domains. Six studies were funded by industry, seven studies were funded from non-industry sources, and the rest of the studies did not report the source of funding.There was low-certainty evidence that people receiving topical NSAIDs in combination with steroids may have a lower risk of poor vision due to MO at three months after cataract surgery compared with people receiving steroids alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.76; eyes = 1360; studies = 5; I = 5%). We judged this to be low-certainty evidence because of risk of bias in the included studies and indirectness, as the extent of visual loss was not always clear. Only one study reported poor vision due to MO at 12 months and we judged this to be very low-certainty evidence as there were only two events. Quality of life was only reported in one of the 34 studies comparing NSAIDs plus steroids versus steroids alone, and it was not fully reported, other than to comment on lack of differences between groups. There was evidence of a reduced risk of MO with NSAIDs at three months after surgery, but we judged this to be low-certainty due to risk of bias and publication bias (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.49; eyes = 3638; studies = 21). There was inconsistent evidence on central retinal thickness at three months (I = 87%). Results ranged from -30.9 µm in favour of NSAIDs plus steroids to 7.44 µm in favour of steroids alone. Similarly, data on best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were inconsistent, but nine out of 10 trials reporting this outcome found between-group differences in visual acuity of less than 0.1 logMAR.None of the six studies comparing NSAIDs alone with steroids reported on poor vision due to MO at three or 12 months. There was low-certainty evidence that central retinal thickness was lower in the NSAIDs group at three months (mean difference (MD) -22.64 µm, 95% CI -38.86 to -6.43; eyes = 121; studies = 2). Five studies reported on MO and showed a reduced risk with NSAIDs, but we judged this evidence to be of low-certainty (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.41; eyes = 520). Three studies reported BCVA at three months and the results of these trials were inconsistent, but all three studies found differences of less than 0.1 logMAR between groups.We did not note any major adverse events - the main consistent observation was burning or stinging sensation with the use of NSAIDs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Using topical NSAIDs may reduce the risk of developing macular oedema after cataract surgery, although it is possible that current estimates as to the size of this reduction are exaggerated. It is unclear the extent to which this reduction has an impact on the visual function and quality of life of patients. There is little evidence to suggest any important effect on vision after surgery. The value of adding topical NSAIDs to steroids, or using them as an alternative to topical steroids, with a view to reducing the risk of poor visual outcome after cataract surgery is therefore uncertain. Future trials should address the remaining clinical uncertainty of whether prophylactic topical NSAIDs are of benefit, particularly with respect to longer-term follow-up (at least to 12 months), and should be large enough to detect reduction in the risk of the outcome of most interest to patients, which is chronic macular oedema leading to visual loss.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Aged; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cataract Extraction; Humans; Macular Edema; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Steroids
PubMed: 27801522
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006683.pub3 -
The Pharmacogenomics Journal Dec 2021Variable responses to medications complicates perioperative care. As a potential solution, we evaluated and synthesized pharmacogenomic evidence that may inform...
Variable responses to medications complicates perioperative care. As a potential solution, we evaluated and synthesized pharmacogenomic evidence that may inform anesthesia and pain prescribing to identify clinically actionable drug/gene pairs. Clinical decision-support (CDS) summaries were developed and were evaluated using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. We found that 93/180 (51%) of commonly-used perioperative medications had some published pharmacogenomic information, with 18 having actionable evidence: celecoxib/diclofenac/flurbiprofen/ibuprofen/piroxicam/CYP2C9, codeine/oxycodone/tramadol CYP2D6, desflurane/enflurane/halothane/isoflurane/sevoflurane/succinylcholine/RYR1/CACNA1S, diazepam/CYP2C19, phenytoin/CYP2C9, succinylcholine/mivacurium/BCHE, and morphine/OPRM1. Novel CDS summaries were developed for these 18 medications. AGREE II mean ± standard deviation scores were high for Scope and Purpose (95.0 ± 2.8), Rigor of Development (93.2 ± 2.8), Clarity of Presentation (87.3 ± 3.0), and Applicability (86.5 ± 3.7) (maximum score = 100). Overall mean guideline quality score was 6.7 ± 0.2 (maximum score = 7). All summaries were recommended for clinical implementation. A critical mass of pharmacogenomic evidence exists for select medications commonly used in the perioperative setting, warranting prospective examination for clinical utility.
Topics: Analgesics; Anesthetics; Clinical Decision-Making; Decision Support Techniques; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Perioperative Care; Pharmacogenetics; Pharmacogenomic Testing; Pharmacogenomic Variants; Predictive Value of Tests; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34376788
DOI: 10.1038/s41397-021-00248-2 -
Drugs & Aging Apr 2019We aimed to assess the safety of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the management of osteoarthritis (OA) in a systematic review and meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to assess the safety of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the management of osteoarthritis (OA) in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Scopus electronic databases. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials that assessed adverse events (AEs) with topical NSAIDs in patients with OA were eligible for inclusion. Authors and/or study sponsors were contacted to obtain the full report of AEs. The primary outcomes were overall severe and serious AEs, as well as the following MedDRA System Organ Class (SOC)-related AEs: gastrointestinal, vascular, cardiac, nervous system, skin and subcutaneous tissue, musculoskeletal and connective tissue.
RESULTS
The search strategy identified 1209 records, from which 25 papers were included in the qualitative synthesis and 19 were included in the meta-analysis, after exclusions. Overall, more total AEs (odds ratio [OR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.29; I = 0.0%) and more withdrawals due to AEs (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.15-1.92; I = 0.0%) were observed with topical NSAIDs compared with placebo. The same results were achieved with topical diclofenac, largely driven by an increase in skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (OR 1.73, 95% CI 0.96-3.10), although the difference was not statistically significant compared with placebo. No significant difference in the odds for gastrointestinal disorders was observed between topical NSAIDs and placebo (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.73-1.27).
CONCLUSIONS
Topical NSAIDs may be considered safe in the management of OA, especially with regard to low gastrointestinal toxicity. The use of topical NSAIDs in OA should be considered, taking into account their risk: benefit profile in comparison with other anti-OA treatments.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Diclofenac; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Osteoarthritis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31073923
DOI: 10.1007/s40266-019-00661-0 -
Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain... Feb 2021This study aimed to evaluate and compare the pre-emptive analgesic efficacy of injected ketorolac to that of other agents for impacted third molar surgical removal in a... (Review)
Review
This study aimed to evaluate and compare the pre-emptive analgesic efficacy of injected ketorolac to that of other agents for impacted third molar surgical removal in a healthy population. PubMed, Ovid SP, Cochrane databases were filtered from 1980 to July 2020 for potential papers using relevant MeSH terms and pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria independently by reviewers. Studies that compared pre-emptive intramuscular or intravenous administration of ketorolac to other agents were evaluated. The outcomes sought were self-reported postoperative pain (patient-perceived pain), median duration for rescue analgesic medication, total number of analgesics consumed in the recovery period, and global assessment (overall patient satisfaction) after the recovery period. Six studies were included in the final evaluation. The outcome of pain perception and the number of analgesics taken were significantly lower in the ketorolac group (intramuscular or intravenous) in most of the studies (n=5) than in the group of other drugs. The mean time for rescue analgesia intake was higher for the ketorolac group, and global assessment scores were also better in the ketorolac group. Although the included studies show significantly better outcomes such as postoperative pain, median time taken for rescue medication, total number of analgesics taken, and overall patient satisfaction with injected ketorolac group in comparison to injected diclofenac, dexamethasone, and tramadol, definitive conclusions cannot be made regarding the superiority of injected Ketorolac as a pre-emptive agent. A greater number of randomized control trials with a proper protocol are needed to make definitive conclusions.
PubMed: 33585680
DOI: 10.17245/jdapm.2021.21.1.1 -
Turkish Journal of Urology Jul 2021Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) is one of the treatment options for patients with renal and ureteral calculi. Even though the procedure is less invasive...
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) is one of the treatment options for patients with renal and ureteral calculi. Even though the procedure is less invasive compared to others, pain caused by the procedure is a major concern. Several studies recommended the use of either local or systemic analgesia with varying results. We aimed to compare the use of local anesthetics and systemic analgesics from randomized controlled trials evaluating pain management during ESWL. A systematic search adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis protocol was performed in theMedline, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane library databases. The bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Mean difference (MD) was used to analyze continuous outcomes. A total of seven studies were obtained. The topical anesthesia used was eutectic mixture of local anesthetic cream and xylocaine gel. In contrast, the local injection anesthesia used was subcutaneous prilocaine and intracutaneous sterile water injection. The systemic analgesics used were intramuscular and oral forms of sodium diclofenac. There is no significant difference between the visual analogue scale results between the local and systemic groups (P> .05). The differences in ESWL frequency were also insignificant (P > .05). Additional analgesics supplementation (MD 8.44, 95% CI 2.28-14.61, P¼ .007) and the duration of the procedure (MD 1.39, 95% CI 0.21-2.56, P¼ .02) were significantly lower in the local group. Local anesthesia in ESWL shows a similar degree of pain and frequency but has a shorter duration and fewer analgesics supplementation than systemic analgesics.
PubMed: 35118950
DOI: 10.5152/tju.2021.21143 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery (Hong... 2018Current guidelines on the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) do not compare safety of treatment modalities. We therefore systematically reviewed 20 studies... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Current guidelines on the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) do not compare safety of treatment modalities. We therefore systematically reviewed 20 studies investigating mortality and serious complications of both medical and surgical treatments for hip and knee OA using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar. Mortality was the highest for naproxen (hazard ratio (HR) = 3 (1.9, 4.6)) and lowest for total hip replacement (relative risk (RR) = 0.7 (0.7, 0.7)). Highest gastrointestinal complications were reported for diclofenac (odds ratio (OR) = 4.77 (3.94, 5.76)) and lowest for total knee replacement (HR = 0.6 (0.49, 0.75)). Ibuprofen had the highest renal complications (OR = 2.32 (1.45, 3.71)), whereas celecoxib had the highest cardiovascular risk (OR = 2.26 (1, 5.1)) and lowest was for tramadol (RR = 1.1 (0.87, 1.4)). Results show that medical management of hip and knee OA, particularly with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, may carry higher mortality compared to surgery. Careful consideration should be given to medical management taking into account known co-morbidities.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Disease Management; Humans; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee
PubMed: 30415598
DOI: 10.1177/2309499018808669 -
PloS One 2020This study aimed to review previous articles and evaluate the influence of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on intraocular pressure (IOP) in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The influence of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on the intraocular pressure lowering effect of topical prostaglandin analogues-A systemic review and meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
This study aimed to review previous articles and evaluate the influence of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on intraocular pressure (IOP) in glaucoma patients who were treated with prostaglandin analogues (PGs).
METHOD
The presenting study was designed as a meta-analysis of previous research. Databases include PubMed, Web of science, Cochrane library, and Embase were searched with keywords of "intraocular pressure, prostaglandin analogues, NSAIDs, latanoprost, travoprost, bimatoprost, tafluprost, unoprostone, latanoprostene bunod, ketorolac, diclofenac, nepafenac, bromfenac, flurbiprofen". Inclusion criteria were: 1. Study population were glaucoma patients; 2. Comparison between PGs monotherapy and PGs in combination with topical NSAIDs; 3. Changes of IOP as final outcomes. Studies with non-randomized design, treatments combining other anti-glaucomatous drugs, or unavailable absolute IOP were excluded from the analysis. Estimated difference in IOP were calculated using STATA 14.0.
RESULT
Seven studies were retrieved for this meta-analysis. Since there is a significant heterogeneity (I2 = 94%) in these studies, random-effect model was used to calculate pooled standardized mean differences (SMD). Our results showed a significantly favorable IOP lowering effect in glaucoma patients treated with combination of topical NSAIDs and PGEs (SMD: 1.3 and -0.03, 95% CI: 0.29 to 2.38 and -0.32 to 0.26, Z = 2.50 and 0.23, p = 0.013 and 0.820, respectively).
CONCLUSION
Results of our meta-analysis suggested that topical NSAIDs may enhance the IOP lowering effect of topical PGs in glaucoma patients.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Glaucoma; Humans; Intraocular Pressure; Prostaglandins, Synthetic; Tonometry, Ocular
PubMed: 32925955
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239233 -
Indian Journal of Critical Care... Dec 2014Epidemiological data on drug-induced anaphylactic reactions are limited in India and are largely depending on studies from developed countries.
BACKGROUND
Epidemiological data on drug-induced anaphylactic reactions are limited in India and are largely depending on studies from developed countries.
AIM
The aim was to analyze the published studies of drug-induced anaphylaxis reported from India in relation with causative drugs and other clinical characteristics.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The electronic databases were searched for Indian publications from 1998 to 2013 describing anaphylactic reactions. The information was collected for demographics, set up in which anaphylaxis occurred, causative drugs, incubation period, clinical features, associated allergic conditions, past reactions, co-morbid conditions, skin testing, IgE assays, therapeutic intervention and mortality. Reactions were analyzed for severity, causality, and preventability. Data were extracted and summarized by absolute numbers, mean (95% confidence interval [CI]), percentages and odds ratio (OR) (95% CI).
RESULTS
From 3839 retrieved references, 52 references describing 54 reactions were included. The mean age was 35.31 (95% CI: 30.52-40.10) years. Total female patients were 61.11%. Majority reactions were developed in perioperative conditions (53.70%), ward (20.37%) and home (11.11%). The major incriminated groups were antimicrobials (18.52%), nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs-(NSAIDs) (12.96%) and neuromuscular blockers (12.96%). Common causative drugs were diclofenac (11.11%), atracurium (7.41%) and β-lactams (5.96%). Cardiovascular (98.15%) and respiratory (81.48%) symptoms dominated the presentation. Skin tests and IgE assays were performed in 37.03% and 18.52% cases, respectively. The fatal cases were associated with complications (OR =5.04; 95% CI: 1.41-17.92), cerebral hypoxic damage (OR =6.80; 95% CI: 2.14-21.58) and preventable reactions (OR =14.33; 95% CI: 2.33-87.97).
CONCLUSION
Antimicrobials, NSAIDs, and neuromuscular blockers are common causative groups. The most fatal cases can be prevented by avoiding allergen drugs.
PubMed: 25538414
DOI: 10.4103/0972-5229.146313 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used to reduce inflammatory pain and swelling in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients with rheumatological... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used to reduce inflammatory pain and swelling in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients with rheumatological manifestations. While these drugs effectively reduce musculoskeletal pain and stiffness, long-term use is limited by gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects (AEs) and disease exacerbation. As an alternative to NSAIDs, selective cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) inhibitors were developed to improve GI safety and tolerability. COX-2 inhibitors include drugs such as celecoxib, rofecoxib, valdecoxib, etoricoxib, and lumiracoxib. Rofecoxib and valdecoxib have been withdrawn from the market worldwide due to safety concerns (most importantly for cardiovascular adverse events) and lumiracoxib has been withdrawn in many countries due to liver toxicity. However, celecoxib and etoricoxib continue to be available for use in many countries. Several studies have examined whether COX-2 inhibitors can be safely used for the treatment of rheumatological manifestations of IBD with inconsistent results. Some investigators report acceptable safety profiles associated with these drugs while others found that COX-2 inhibitors are associated with high rates of disease exacerbation.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the tolerability and safety of COX-2 inhibitors used for the treatment of rheumatological manifestations of IBD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases from inception to 19 September 2013: PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL. The search was not limited by language. Additional trials were identified by manually searching the reference lists of relevant papers and conference proceedings and through correspondence with experts and pharmaceutical companies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared COX-2 inhibitors to placebo were considered for inclusion. Participants were adult patients with IBD presenting with rheumatological manifestations of at least two weeks duration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and extracted data. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with disease exacerbation as defined by the included studies. Secondary outcomes included GI adverse effects, renal toxicity, cardiovascular and thrombotic events. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis where patients with missing final outcomes were assumed to have had an exacerbation of IBD. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
There were no RCTs that assessed the tolerability or safety of the withdrawn COX-2 inhibitors rofecoxib, valdecoxib, or lumiracoxib. Two RCTs (n = 381 IBD patients with rheumatological manifestations) were included in the review. One study (n = 159) compared etoricoxib (60 to 120 mg/day) to placebo in IBD patients with quiescent or active ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease. The other study (n = 222) compared celecoxib (200 mg twice daily) to placebo in patients with quiescent ulcerative colitis. Both studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. The two included studies were not pooled for meta-analysis due to differences in patient populations and treatment duration. There was no statistically significant difference in exacerbation of IBD between etoricoxib and placebo. After 12 weeks of treatment the IBD exacerbation rate was 17% (14/82) in the etoricoxib group compared to 19% (15/77) in the placebo group (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.69). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to very sparse data (29 events). There was no statistically significant difference in exacerbation of ulcerative colitis between celecoxib and placebo. After two weeks of treatment 4% (5/112) of celecoxib patients experienced an exacerbation of ulcerative colitis compared to 6% (7/110) of patients in the placebo group (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.14). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to very sparse data (12 events). The study comparing etoricoxib to placebo documented but did not report on AEs. The proportion of patients who experienced AEs was similar in the celecoxib and placebo groups (21% and 17%, respectively, P > 0.20). No patients in either group died or experienced serious adverse events. Eleven percent of patients in the celecoxib and placebo groups experienced GI AEs (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.07). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to very sparse data (24 events). GI AEs led to premature withdrawal from the study in 3% of patients in celecoxib and placebo groups respectively. GI AEs included increased stool frequency, rectal bleeding, and inflamed mucosa. No patients experienced any cardiovascular adverse events. Renal toxicity or thrombotic AEs were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The results for disease exacerbation and AEs between the COX-2 inhibitors celecoxib and etoricoxib and placebo were uncertain. Thus no definitive conclusions regarding the tolerability and safety of the short term use of celecoxib and etoricoxib in patients with IBD can be drawn. The two included studies suggest that celecoxib and etoricoxib do not exacerbate IBD symptoms. However, it should be noted that both studies had relatively small sample sizes and short follow-up durations. Clinicians need to continue to weigh the risks and benefits of these drugs when treating patients IBD patients with rheumatological manifestations in order to avoid disease exacerbation and other adverse effects. Further RCTs are needed to determine the tolerability and safety of celecoxib and etoricoxib in these patients.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Celecoxib; Colitis, Ulcerative; Crohn Disease; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Diclofenac; Etoricoxib; Humans; Isoxazoles; Lactones; Pyrazoles; Pyridines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Safety-Based Drug Withdrawals; Sulfonamides; Sulfones
PubMed: 25340915
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007744.pub2 -
Pancreas Aug 2015To identify the factors affecting the efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Factors Affecting the Efficacy of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs in Preventing Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
To identify the factors affecting the efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).
METHODS
We systematically searched databases for relevant studies published from inception to November 2013.
RESULTS
A meta-analysis of 11 randomized trials (n = 2497) revealed a significant reduction in PEP in patients who received NSAIDs compared with that in patients who received placebo (relative risk [RR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.85; P = 0.005). In subgroup analysis by treatment type, indomethacin had no significant effect (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.38-1.15; P = 0.14), whereas other NSAIDs showed significant benefit (RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29-0.91; P = 0.02). Only rectal administration significantly reduced the incidence of PEP (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.32-0.58; P < 0.00001). The risk for PEP was the lowest among patients who received NSAIDs before ERCP (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.29-0.78; P = 0.003). NSAIDs did not significantly reduce the risk of PEP in men (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.34-1.09), patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.38-2.54), or patients with pancreatic duct injection (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.35-1.18).
CONCLUSIONS
Rectal administration of NSAIDs (especially diclofenac), before ERCP, seemed to be the most effective strategy for preventing PEP.
Topics: Administration, Rectal; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Chi-Square Distribution; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Diclofenac; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Odds Ratio; Pancreatitis; Protective Factors; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26168316
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000326