-
The Medical Journal of Australia Apr 2023To review and synthesise the global evidence regarding the health effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes, vapes). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To review and synthesise the global evidence regarding the health effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes, vapes).
STUDY DESIGN
Umbrella review (based on major independent reviews, including the 2018 United States National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM] report) and top-up systematic review of published, peer-reviewed studies in humans examining the relationship of e-cigarette use to health outcomes published since the NASEM report.
DATA SOURCES
Umbrella review: eight major independent reviews published 2017-2021. Systematic review: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO (articles published July 2017 - July 2020 and not included in NASEM review).
DATA SYNTHESIS
Four hundred eligible publications were included in our synthesis: 112 from the NASEM review, 189 from our top-up review search, and 99 further publications cited by other reviews. There is conclusive evidence linking e-cigarette use with poisoning, immediate inhalation toxicity (including seizures), and e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI; largely but not exclusively for e-liquids containing tetrahydrocannabinol and vitamin E acetate), as well as for malfunctioning devices causing injuries and burns. Environmental effects include waste, fires, and generation of indoor airborne particulate matter (substantial to conclusive evidence). There is substantial evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes can cause dependence or addiction in non-smokers, and strong evidence that young non-smokers who use e-cigarettes are more likely than non-users to initiate smoking and to become regular smokers. There is limited evidence that freebase nicotine e-cigarettes used with clinical support are efficacious aids for smoking cessation. Evidence regarding effects on other clinical outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, development, and mental and reproductive health, is insufficient or unavailable.
CONCLUSION
E-cigarettes can be harmful to health, particularly for non-smokers and children, adolescents, and young adults. Their effects on many important health outcomes are uncertain. E-cigarettes may be beneficial for smokers who use them to completely and promptly quit smoking, but they are not currently approved smoking cessation aids. Better quality evidence is needed regarding the health impact of e-cigarette use, their safety and efficacy for smoking cessation, and effective regulation.
REGISTRATION
Systematic review: PROSPERO, CRD42020200673 (prospective).
Topics: Young Adult; Adolescent; Child; Humans; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Nicotine; Prospective Studies; Smoking; Smoking Cessation
PubMed: 36939271
DOI: 10.5694/mja2.51890 -
Pain Research & Management 2022Migraine is one of the most common types of headache, and it is the second most common cause of neurological disorders, with an annual prevalence of about 15% of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Migraine is one of the most common types of headache, and it is the second most common cause of neurological disorders, with an annual prevalence of about 15% of the population. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of BoNT-A on the duration and intensity of migraine attacks. In addition, we investigated the effective injection sites.
METHODS
According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched online databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar from 2011 to 2021.
RESULTS
A total of 24 articles were included in the study. The use of BoNT-A in individuals suffering from chronic migraine (CM) decreases the frequency of migraine attacks per month, pain intensity, medication use, emergency visits, and migraine-related disabilities. The BoNT-A was well tolerated and leads to improved performance and better quality of life (QoL). Overall, treatment with BoNT-A in adults with CM is beneficial. In addition, the use of BoNT-A in individuals with vestibular migraine (VM) reduces the frequency of migraines and brings about the improvement of disability status caused by migraine headaches. Meanwhile, the use of BoNT-A reduces the frequency of migraine attacks per month among individuals with chronic refractory migraine (CRM).
CONCLUSIONS
The use of BoNT-A is a low-cost option for the treatment of various kinds of migraines, including chronic, episodic, unilateral, and vestibular types. BoNT-A can reduce the frequency of migraine attacks per month and diminish the severity of pain.
Topics: Adult; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Headache; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35401888
DOI: 10.1155/2022/3284446 -
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases Feb 2019Congenital myasthenic syndromes (CMSs) are a genotypically and phenotypically heterogeneous group of neuromuscular disorders, which have in common an impaired...
OBJECTIVES
Congenital myasthenic syndromes (CMSs) are a genotypically and phenotypically heterogeneous group of neuromuscular disorders, which have in common an impaired neuromuscular transmission. Since the field of CMSs is steadily expanding, the present review aimed at summarizing and discussing current knowledge and recent advances concerning the etiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of CMSs.
METHODS
Systematic literature review.
RESULTS
Currently, mutations in 32 genes are made responsible for autosomal dominant or autosomal recessive CMSs. These mutations concern 8 presynaptic, 4 synaptic, 15 post-synaptic, and 5 glycosilation proteins. These proteins function as ion-channels, enzymes, or structural, signalling, sensor, or transporter proteins. The most common causative genes are CHAT, COLQ, RAPSN, CHRNE, DOK7, and GFPT1. Phenotypically, these mutations manifest as abnormal fatigability or permanent or fluctuating weakness of extra-ocular, facial, bulbar, axial, respiratory, or limb muscles, hypotonia, or developmental delay. Cognitive disability, dysmorphism, neuropathy, or epilepsy are rare. Low- or high-frequency repetitive nerve stimulation may show an abnormal increment or decrement, and SF-EMG an increased jitter or blockings. Most CMSs respond favourably to acetylcholine-esterase inhibitors, 3,4-diamino-pyridine, salbutamol, albuterol, ephedrine, fluoxetine, or atracurium.
CONCLUSIONS
CMSs are an increasingly recognised group of genetically transmitted defects, which usually respond favorably to drugs enhancing the neuromuscular transmission. CMSs need to be differentiated from neuromuscular disorders due to muscle or nerve dysfunction.
Topics: Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Humans; Mutation; Myasthenic Syndromes, Congenital; Neuromuscular Agents; Proteins
PubMed: 30808424
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-019-1025-5 -
The Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology... Dec 2017Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), which is common in many communities, is associated with structural factors, eating habits, and the use of certain drugs. The use... (Review)
Review
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), which is common in many communities, is associated with structural factors, eating habits, and the use of certain drugs. The use of such drugs can lead to the emergence of GERD and can also exacerbate existing reflux symptoms. These drugs can contribute to GERD by directly causing mucosal damage, by reducing lower esophageal sphincter pressure (LESP), or by affecting esophagogastric motility. In this article, we report our investigation of the relationships between GERD and medications within the scope of the "Turkish GERD Consensus Group." For the medication groups for which sufficient data were obtained (Figure 1), a systematic literature review in English was conducted using the keywords "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms] and "anti-inflammatory agents, non-steroidal" [MeSH Terms], "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms] and "acetylsalicylic acid" [MeSH Terms], "gastroesophageal reflux" [All Fields] and "estrogenic agents" [All Fields], "gastroesophageal reflux" [All Fields] and "progesterones" [All Fields], "gastroesophageal reflux" [All Fields] and "hormone replacement therapy" [All Fields], "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms] and "diphosphonates" [MeSH Terms] OR "diphosphonates" [All Fields], "calcium channel blockers" [MeSH Terms] and "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms], "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms] and "nitrates" [MeSH Terms], "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms] and "antidepressive agents" [MeSH Terms], "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms] and "benzodiazepines" [MeSH Terms] and "hypnotic drugs" [MeSH Terms], "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms] and "cholinergic antagonists" [MeSH Terms], "gastroesophageal reflux" [MeSH Terms] and "theophylline" [MeSH Terms], and "gastroesophageal reflux [MeSH Terms] AND "anti-asthmatic agents" [MeSH Terms]. The studies were analyzed and the results are presented here.
Topics: Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Esophagus; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Risk Factors
PubMed: 29199166
DOI: 10.5152/tjg.2017.11 -
Advances in Therapy Sep 2022Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple therapies (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS], long-acting β-agonist [LABA], and long-acting muscarinic antagonist... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple therapies (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS], long-acting β-agonist [LABA], and long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) investigated the comparative efficacy of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus any triple (ICS/LABA/LAMA) combinations and dual therapies in patients with COPD.
METHODS
This NMA was conducted on the basis of a systematic literature review (SLR), which identified RCTs in adults aged at least 40 years with COPD. The RCTs compared different ICS/LABA/LAMA combinations or an ICS/LABA/LAMA combination with any dual therapy (ICS/LABA or LAMA/LABA). Outcomes of interest included forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV), annualized rate of combined moderate and severe exacerbations, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and SGRQ responders, transition dyspnea index focal score, and rescue medication use (RMU). Analyses were conducted at 24 weeks (primary endpoint), and 12 and 52 weeks (if feasible).
RESULTS
The NMA was informed by five trials reporting FEV at 24 weeks. FF/UMEC/VI was statistically significantly more effective at increasing trough FEV (based on change from baseline) than all triple comparators in the network apart from UMEC + FF/VI. The NMA was informed by 17 trials reporting moderate or severe exacerbation endpoints. FF/UMEC/VI demonstrated statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus single-inhaler budesonide/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FOR). At 24 weeks, the NMA was informed by five trials. FF/UMEC/VI showed statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus UMEC + FF/VI and BUD/GLY/FOR. FF/UMEC/VI also demonstrated improvements in mean SGRQ score versus other triple therapy comparators at 24 weeks, and a significant reduction in RMU compared with BUD/GLY/FOR (160/18/9.6).
CONCLUSION
The findings of this NMA suggest favorable efficacy with single-inhaler triple therapy comprising FF/UMEC/VI. Further analysis is required as additional evidence becomes available.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Androstadienes; Benzyl Alcohols; Bronchodilator Agents; Budesonide, Formoterol Fumarate Drug Combination; Chlorobenzenes; Drug Combinations; Fluticasone; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quinuclidines
PubMed: 35849317
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-022-02231-0 -
JAMA Jun 2021The benefits and harms of adding long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) for moderate to severe... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The benefits and harms of adding long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) for moderate to severe asthma remain unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically synthesize the outcomes and adverse events associated with triple therapy (ICS, LABA, and LAMA) vs dual therapy (ICS plus LABA) in children and adults with persistent uncontrolled asthma.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ICTRP, FDA, and EMA databases from November 2017, to December 8, 2020, without language restriction.
STUDY SELECTION
Two investigators independently selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing triple vs dual therapy in patients with moderate to severe asthma.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses, including individual patient-level exacerbation data, were used. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess certainty (quality) of the evidence.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Severe exacerbations, asthma control (measured using the Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ-7], a 7-item list with each item ranging from 0 [totally controlled] to 6 [severely uncontrolled]; minimal important difference, 0.5), quality of life (measured using the Asthma-related Quality of Life [AQLQ] tool; score range, 1 [severely impaired] to 7 [no impairment]; minimal important difference, 0.5), mortality, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Twenty RCTs using 3 LAMA types that enrolled 11 894 children and adults (mean age, 52 years [range, 9-71 years]; 57.7% female) were included. High-certainty evidence showed that triple therapy vs dual therapy was significantly associated with a reduction in severe exacerbation risk (9 trials [9932 patients]; 22.7% vs 27.4%; risk ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.77 to 0.90]) and an improvement in asthma control (14 trials [11 230 patients]; standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.06 [95% CI, -0.10 to -0.02]; mean difference in ACQ-7 scale, -0.04 [95% CI, -0.07 to -0.01]). There were no significant differences in asthma-related quality of life (7 trials [5247 patients]; SMD, 0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.13]; mean difference in AQLQ score, 0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.13]; moderate-certainty evidence) or mortality (17 trials [11 595 patients]; 0.12% vs 0.12%; risk ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.33 to 2.75]; high-certainty evidence) between dual and triple therapy. Triple therapy was significantly associated with increased dry mouth and dysphonia (10 trials [7395 patients]; 3.0% vs 1.8%; risk ratio, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.14 to 2.38]; high-certainty evidence), but treatment-related and serious adverse events were not significantly different between groups (moderate-certainty evidence).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Among children (aged 6 to 18 years) and adults with moderate to severe asthma, triple therapy, compared with dual therapy, was significantly associated with fewer severe asthma exacerbations and modest improvements in asthma control without significant differences in quality of life or mortality.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Adult; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Child; Drug Therapy, Combination; Forced Expiratory Volume; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Quality of Life; Severity of Illness Index; Symptom Flare Up; Xerostomia
PubMed: 34009257
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.7872 -
Journal of the American Medical... Jan 2021To investigate the association between anticholinergic drug burden (ADB), measured with anticholinergic drug scales, and delirium and delirium severity. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the association between anticholinergic drug burden (ADB), measured with anticholinergic drug scales, and delirium and delirium severity.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS
All available studies.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar. Studies evaluating the association between ADB (measured as a total score) and delirium or delirium severity, published in English, were eligible for inclusion.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies, including 148,756 persons, were included. Fifteen studies investigated delirium. ADB was measured with the Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS, n = 5), the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale (ACB, n = 6), the list of Chew (n = 1), the Anticholinergic Drug Scale (ADS, n = 5), a modified version of the ARS (n = 1), and a modified version of the ACB (n = 1). A high ADB, measured with the ARS, was associated with delirium (5/5). Also with the modified version of the ARS and ACB, an association was found between a high ADB and delirium during 3-month (1/1) and 1-year follow-up (1/1), respectively. When ADB was assessed with other scales, the results were inconclusive, with only 1 positive association for the ACB (1/6) and ADS (1/5) each. The possible association between ADB and delirium severity has also been investigated (ADS n = 2, Summers Drug Risk Number n = 1). One study found an association between a high ADB, measured with the ADS, and an increase in severity of delirium.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
ADB assessed with the ARS is consistently associated with delirium. The association found between the modified versions of the ARS and ACB and delirium needs confirmation. When ADB was assessed with other scales, the findings were inconclusive. The current findings suggest that the ARS might be a useful tool to identify patients at increased risk for delirium.
Topics: Cholinergic Antagonists; Delirium; Humans; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 32703688
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2020.04.019 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, although some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2022, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants, or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 78 completed studies, representing 22,052 participants, of which 40 were RCTs. Seventeen of the 78 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 50 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was high certainty that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.04; I = 10%; 6 studies, 2378 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6). There was moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.19; I = 0%; 4 studies, 1702 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.52; I = 34%; 5 studies, 2411 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I = 0%; 8 studies, 1272 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.65; I = 0%; 7 studies, 3126 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional two quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 3). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97; I = 38%; 9 studies, 1993 participants). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.
Topics: Humans; Smoking Cessation; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Nicotinic Agonists; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Nicotine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36384212
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub7 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... Jul 2019Currently it has been shown that botulinum toxin is effective for a wide variety of medical conditions, and can be applied for therapeutic purposes as cosmetic. In...
BACKGROUND
Currently it has been shown that botulinum toxin is effective for a wide variety of medical conditions, and can be applied for therapeutic purposes as cosmetic. In recent years, there has been a growing trend in the use of this drug substance to control the muscular overactivity of bruxism. The objective of this study was the use of botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) than traditional methods, by conducting a systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in the health sciences literature.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic search was made in the databases of the PubMed, Cochrane Library and Scopus data between March and October 2017, ECA, which will analyze the effect of botulinum toxin in the treatment of bruxism. We included studies of bruxist patients older than 18 years where BTX-A tests were performed on the masseter and / or temporal muscles and the control systems were injections of placebo (saline) or the use of traditional methods for the treatment of bruxism. such as occlusal splints, other medications or cognitive-behavioral therapy.
RESULTS
Of the 68 studies identified, 4 RCTs that fit our inclusion criteria were selected. These studies show that BTX-A injections can reduce the frequency of bruxism episodes, decrease pain levels and maximum occlusal force generated by this pathology, offer superior efficacy in the treatment of bruxism compared to control groups who were treated with placebo or with traditional methods for the treatment of bruxism.
CONCLUSION
Infiltrations with BTX-A are a safe and effective treatment for patients with bruxism, so its use is justified in daily clinical practice, especially in patients diagnosed with severe bruxism.
Topics: Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Bruxism; Humans; Injections, Intramuscular; Masseter Muscle; Neuromuscular Agents
PubMed: 31246937
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.22923 -
European Journal of Physical and... Aug 2022The complexity of spasticity requires a continuous effort in terms of more adapted treatments for patients, and accurate management. Through this systematic review, we...
INTRODUCTION
The complexity of spasticity requires a continuous effort in terms of more adapted treatments for patients, and accurate management. Through this systematic review, we aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) with botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) on reducing spasticity both in children and adults.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
An electronic search of PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Ovid Medline(R), and search engine of Google Scholar was performed. Publications ranging from January 2010 to January 2021, published in the English language and available as full-texts were eligible for inclusion and they were searched without any country restriction. The study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of five studies were included in the present systematic review. Screening of the references, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent authors. The methodological quality and risk of bias were conducted using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) Scale. The primary outcome was spasticity grade assessed by the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) and/or Modified Tardieu Scale (MTS). Additional outcomes were active range of motion (AROM), passive range of motion (PROM), upper extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment (UE-FMA), pain intensity assessed through Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), spasm frequency scale (SFS), sonographic parameters, between-group comparison, and treatment response rate.
CONCLUSIONS
A beneficial effect on spasticity was found for both treatments: evidence showed that ESWT and BoNT-A can ameliorate spasticity considering parameters such as MAS, MTS, AROM, PROM, UE-FMA, VAS and SFS in post-stroke, multiple sclerosis, and cerebral palsy patients. Further research is required to strengthen the evidence, and more suitable study protocols are highly needed.
Topics: Adult; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Child; Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy; Humans; Muscle Spasticity; Stroke; Stroke Rehabilitation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35412036
DOI: 10.23736/S1973-9087.22.07136-2