-
Current Neuropharmacology 2020To systematically review the literature on the therapeutic use of amphetamine, lisdexamfetamine and methylphenidate in elderly population with and without dementia.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the literature on the therapeutic use of amphetamine, lisdexamfetamine and methylphenidate in elderly population with and without dementia.
METHODS
We conducted two researches on the PubMed, Scopus and Embase using the keywords ("elderly") AND ("amphetamine" OR "methylphenidate" OR "lisdexamfetamine") and then ("Alzheimer" OR "dementia") AND ("amphetamine" OR "methylphenidate" OR "lisdexamfetamine").
RESULTS
Twenty-nine papers met all the eligibility criteria. The results are encouraging as 81.5% of the studies showed clinical improvement of the investigated condition.
CONCLUSION
Amphetamines and methylphenidate are probably effective strategies for different conditions in the elderly population. However, further studies are needed to provide more robust evidence on efficacy, dosage and safety for this population.
Topics: Aged; Amphetamine; Dementia; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Methylphenidate
PubMed: 31660835
DOI: 10.2174/1570159X17666191010093021 -
Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience :... Jan 2021Depression is a common morbidity after traumatic brain injury. This network meta-analysis investigated the efficacy and tolerability of pharmacologic and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Depression is a common morbidity after traumatic brain injury. This network meta-analysis investigated the efficacy and tolerability of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions for depression after traumatic brain injury.
METHODS
We extracted randomized controlled trials examining pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic interventions with placebo- or active-controlled designs from PubMed, the Cochrane Library and ScienceDirect, from inception to October 30, 2018. We based study selection and extraction of a predefined list of variables on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and conducted meta-analysis procedures using random effects modelling. Primary outcomes were changes in depressive symptom severity after pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic treatment; the secondary outcome was tolerability, reflected in overall patient dropout rates.
RESULTS
Our analysis of 27 randomized controlled trials (10 pharmacologic, total n = 483, mean age = 37.9 yr; 17 nonpharmacologic, total n = 1083, mean age = 38.0 yr) showed that methylphenidate had significantly superior efficacy compared to placebo or control (standardized mean difference -0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.49 to -0.33). Sertraline was associated with significantly lower tolerability (i.e., a higher dropout rate) compared to placebo or control (odds ratio 2.65, 95% CI 1.27 to 5.54). No nonpharmacologic treatment was more effective than the others, and we found no significant differences in tolerability (i.e., dropout rates) among the nonpharmacologic treatments.
LIMITATIONS
Heterogeneity in participant characteristics (e.g., comorbidities), study designs (e.g., trial duration) and psychopathology assessment tools, as well as small trial numbers for some treatment arms, could have been confounders.
CONCLUSION
The present network meta-analysis suggests that methylphenidate might be the best pharmacologic intervention for depressive symptoms related to traumatic brain injury. None of the nonpharmacologic interventions was associated with better improvement in depressive symptoms than the others or than control conditions. None of the pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic treatments had inferior tolerability compared to placebo or controls except for sertraline, which had significantly lower tolerability than placebo.
Topics: Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Methylphenidate; Network Meta-Analysis; Neurotransmitter Uptake Inhibitors; Psychotherapy
PubMed: 33497170
DOI: 10.1503/jpn.190122 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Postoperative pain is common and may be severe. Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postoperative pain is common and may be severe. Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, may reduce the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous ketorolac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases without language restrictions: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS on 20 April 2020. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized double-blind trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous ketorolac with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a four- and six-hour period. Our secondary outcomes were time to and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and for any other cause; and number of participants experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and NSAID-related or opioid-related AEs. For subgroup analysis, we planned to analyze different doses of parenteral ketorolac separately and to analyze results based on the type of surgery performed. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 studies, involving 1905 participants undergoing various surgeries (pelvic/abdominal, dental, and orthopedic), with 17 to 83 participants receiving intravenous ketorolac in each study. Mean study population ages ranged from 22.5 years to 67.4 years. Most studies administered a dose of ketorolac of 30 mg; one study assessed 15 mg, and another administered 60 mg. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias for some domains, particularly allocation concealment and blinding, and a high risk of bias due to small sample size. The overall certainty of evidence for each outcome ranged from very low to moderate. Reasons for downgrading certainty included serious study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision. Ketorolac versus placebo Very low-certainty evidence from eight studies (658 participants) suggests that ketorolac results in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over four hours compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 2.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 4.37). The number needed to treat for one additional participant to benefit (NNTB) was 2.4 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.7). Low-certainty evidence from 10 studies (914 participants) demonstrates that ketorolac may result in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over six hours compared to placebo (RR 3.26, 95% CI 1.93 to 5.51). The NNTB was 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.7). Among secondary outcomes, for time to rescue medication, moderate-certainty evidence comparing intravenous ketorolac versus placebo demonstrated a mean median of 271 minutes for ketorolac versus 104 minutes for placebo (6 studies, 633 participants). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from five studies (417 participants) compared ketorolac with placebo. The RR was 0.60 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.00), that is, it did not demonstrate a difference between groups. Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with placebo (74% versus 65%; 8 studies, 810 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.19; number needed to treat for an additional harmful event (NNTH) 16.7, 95% CI 8.3 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from eight studies (703 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and placebo (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.03). Ketorolac versus NSAIDs Ketorolac was compared to parecoxib in four studies and diclofenac in two studies. For our primary outcome, over both four and six hours there was no evidence of a difference between intravenous ketorolac and another NSAID (low-certainty and moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). Over four hours, four studies (337 participants) produced an RR of 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.21) and over six hours, six studies (603 participants) produced an RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.19). For time to rescue medication, low-certainty evidence from four studies (427 participants) suggested that participants receiving ketorolac waited an extra 35 minutes (mean median 331 minutes versus 296 minutes). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from three studies (260 participants) compared ketorolac with another NSAID. The RR was 0.90 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.40), that is, there may be little or no difference between groups. Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with another NSAID (76% versus 68%, 5 studies, 516 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.23; NNTH 12.5, 95% CI 6.7 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from five studies (530 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and another NSAID (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.13 to 76.99). Only one of the five studies reported a single serious AE.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The amount and certainty of evidence for the use of intravenous ketorolac as a treatment for postoperative pain varies across efficacy and safety outcomes and amongst comparators, from very low to moderate. The available evidence indicates that postoperative intravenous ketorolac administration may offer substantial pain relief for most patients, but further research may impact this estimate. Adverse events appear to occur at a slightly higher rate in comparison to placebo and to other NSAIDs. Insufficient information is available to assess whether intravenous ketorolac has a different rate of gastrointestinal or surgical-site bleeding, renal dysfunction, or cardiovascular events versus other NSAIDs. There was a lack of studies in cardiovascular surgeries and in elderly populations who may be at increased risk for adverse events.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Bias; Diclofenac; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Isoxazoles; Ketorolac; Middle Aged; Numbers Needed To Treat; Pain, Postoperative; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 33998669
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013263.pub2 -
International Wound Journal Feb 2023Pain and wound after haemorrhoidectomy constantly bothered the patient's convenience. Recurrently, topical sucralfate is used to treat excoriations and burns. It is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficacy of topical sucralfate in improving pain and wound healing after haemorrhoidectomy procedure: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of randomised clinical trials.
Pain and wound after haemorrhoidectomy constantly bothered the patient's convenience. Recurrently, topical sucralfate is used to treat excoriations and burns. It is considered to enhance epidermal growth and tissue granulation, thus, alleviating patients' problems. This study evaluated topical sucralfate's feasibility, safety, and superiority after haemorrhoidectomy. We searched randomised controlled trial (RCT) studies in PubMed, Google Scholar, Europe PMC, and ClinicalTrials.gov until March 29th, 2022. We investigated the influence of topical sucralfate on pain score postoperatively (24 hours, 7 days, and 14 days), pethidine usage, diclofenac usage, and wound healing rate compared to placebo. This study was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. This study sorted the final six studies with 439 patients underwent haemorrhoidectomy. Topical sucralfate demonstrated significant outcomes on VAS 24 hours post-operative [Std. Mean Difference -1.00 (95% CI -1.70, -0.31), P = .005], VAS 7 days post-operative [Std. Mean Difference -2.29 (95% CI -3.34, -1.25), P < .0001], VAS 14 days post-operative [Std. Mean Difference -1.88 (95% CI -2.74, -1.01), P < .0001], pethidine usage within 24 hours post-operative [Std. Mean Difference -0.62 (95% CI -0.96, -0.27), P = .0004], diclofenac usage 7 days post-operative [Std. Mean Difference -1.76 (95% CI -2.61, -0.92), P < .0001], diclofenac usage 14 days post-operative [Std. Mean Difference -1.64 (95% CI -2.38, -0.91), P < .0001], and wound healing rate at 28-day post-operative [RR 1.45 (95% CI 1.25-1.68), P < .00001]. Topical sucralfate alleviated pain, improved wound healing, and minimised the usage of pethidine and diclofenac compared to placebo.
Topics: Humans; Diclofenac; Hemorrhoidectomy; Meperidine; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sucralfate; Wound Healing
PubMed: 35864080
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13901 -
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 -
Daru : Journal of Faculty of Pharmacy,... Dec 2019The study systematically reviewed the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments alone or combined with brief cognitive-behavioural therapy (BCBT) for treating Iranian... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
OBJECTIVES
The study systematically reviewed the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments alone or combined with brief cognitive-behavioural therapy (BCBT) for treating Iranian amphetamine abusers. The secondary aim was to review the efficacy of BCBT alone or combined with pharmacological treatments for treating amphetamine abusers in the world.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Published trials were considered for inclusion. The review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Web of Science, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group's Specialised Register of Trials, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, PsychINFO, Iran Medex, Magiran and the Scientific Information Database were searched (January 2001 to March 2019). The reference lists of included studies were hand searched for more information. A systematic literature search in eight databases produced 10 trials.
RESULTS
Risperidone reduced positive psychotic symptoms while aripiprazole reduced negative psychotic symptoms. Methylphenidate reduced craving and depression compared with placebo. Topiramate reduced addiction severity and craving for methamphetamine abuse compared with placebo. Buprenorphine reduced methamphetamine craving more than methadone. Haloperidol and risperidone reduced psychosis. Riluzole reduced craving, withdrawal, and depression compared with placebo. Abstinence from amphetamine or reduction in amphetamine abuse was confirmed in four BCBT studies and one study which applied BCBT with a pharmacological treatment which were stable between two and 12-months. Other changes in BCBT studies were as follows: reduced polydrug use; drug injection, criminality and severity of amphetamine dependence at six-month follow-up; improved general functioning; mental health; stage of change as well as improved motivation to change in a pharmacological + BCBT study.
CONCLUSION
A review of trials indicates that pharmacological treatments and BCBT in a research setting outperform control conditions in treating amphetamines abuse and associated harms. Large-scale studies should determine if both treatments can be effective in clinical settings.
Topics: Amphetamine-Related Disorders; Aripiprazole; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Iran; Methylphenidate; Risperidone
PubMed: 31228128
DOI: 10.1007/s40199-019-00282-3 -
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Apr 2018Our objective was to determine whether, compared with control interventions, pharmacologic interventions reduce the severity of fatigue in patients with cancer or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Our objective was to determine whether, compared with control interventions, pharmacologic interventions reduce the severity of fatigue in patients with cancer or recipients of hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (hsct).
METHODS
For a systematic review, we searched medline, embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, cinahl, and Psychinfo for randomized trials of systemic pharmacologic interventions for the management of fatigue in patients with cancer or recipients of hsct. Two authors independently identified studies and abstracted data. Methodologic quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The primary outcome was fatigue severity measured using various fatigue scales. Data were synthesized using random-effects models.
RESULTS
In the 117 included trials (19,819 patients), the pharmacologic agents used were erythropoietins ( = 31), stimulants ( = 19), l-carnitine ( = 6), corticosteroids ( = 5), antidepressants ( = 5), appetite stimulants ( = 3), and other agents ( = 48). Fatigue was significantly reduced with erythropoietin [standardized mean difference (smd): -0.52; 95% confidence interval (ci): -0.89 to -0.14] and with methylphenidate (smd: -0.36; 95% ci: -0.56 to -0.15); modafinil (or armodafinil) and corticosteroids were not effective.
CONCLUSIONS
Erythropoietin and methylphenidate significantly reduced fatigue severity in patients with cancer and in recipients of hsct. Concerns about the safety of those agents might limit their usefulness. Future research should identify effective interventions for fatigue that have minimal adverse effects.
Topics: Central Nervous System Stimulants; Erythropoietin; Fatigue; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Methylphenidate; Neoplasms; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 29719440
DOI: 10.3747/co.25.3883 -
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 -
Lakartidningen May 2023A well-conducted systematic review requires a scrupulous assessment of the design of included studies. This may unveil major issues in how studies were planned,...
A well-conducted systematic review requires a scrupulous assessment of the design of included studies. This may unveil major issues in how studies were planned, conducted and reported. This section presents a few examples. 1) A Cochrane review on pain and sedation management in the newborn identified a study described as a randomized trial, which later, following communication with authors and the editor-in-chief, turned out to be observational. 2) Poor evaluation of heterogeneity and active placebo when pooling studies on inhalation of saline solution for bronchiolitis led to clinical implementation of treatments later shown not to be effective. 3) A Cochrane review on methylphenidate for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults did not identify problems with blinding and a »wash-out« period, resulting in erroneous conclusions. The review was therefore retracted. Although as important as benefits, harms of interventions are often given less attention in trials and systematic reviews.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Biomedical Research; Methylphenidate; Pain
PubMed: 37191391
DOI: No ID Found