-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2024Oral submucous fibrosis (OSF) is a chronic disease of the oral cavity that causes progressive constriction of the cheeks and mouth accompanied by severe pain and reduced... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Oral submucous fibrosis (OSF) is a chronic disease of the oral cavity that causes progressive constriction of the cheeks and mouth accompanied by severe pain and reduced mouth opening. OSF has a significant impact on eating and swallowing, affecting quality of life. There is an increased risk of oral malignancy in people with OSF. The main risk factor for OSF is areca nut chewing, and the mainstay of treatment has been behavioural interventions to support habit cessation. This review is an update of a version last published in 2008.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of interventions for the management of oral submucous fibrosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 5 September 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with a biopsy-confirmed diagnosis of OSF treated with systemic, locally delivered or topical drugs at any dosage, duration or delivery method compared against placebo or each other. We considered surgical procedures compared against other treatments or no active intervention. We also considered other interventions such as physiotherapy, ultrasound or alternative therapies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. participant-reported resumption of normal eating, chewing and speech; 2. change or improvement in maximal mouth opening (interincisal distance); 3. improvement in range of jaw movement; 4. change in severity of oral/mucosal burning pain/sensation; 5.
ADVERSE EFFECTS
Our secondary outcomes were 6. quality of life; 7. postoperative discomfort or pain as a result of the intervention; 8. participant satisfaction; 9. hospital admission; 10. direct costs of medication, hospital bed days and any associated inpatient costs for the surgical interventions. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 30 RCTs (2176 participants) in this updated review. We assessed one study at low risk of bias, five studies at unclear risk of bias and 24 studies at high risk of bias. We found diverse interventions, which we categorised according to putative mechanism of action. We present below our main findings for the comparison 'any intervention compared with placebo or no active treatment' (though most trials included habit cessation for all participants). Results for head-to-head comparisons of active interventions are presented in full in the main review. Any intervention versus placebo or no active treatment Participant-reported resumption of normal eating, chewing and speech No studies reported this outcome. Interincisal distance Antioxidants may increase mouth opening (indicated by interincisal distance (mm)) when measured at less than three months (mean difference (MD) 3.11 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 5.77; 2 studies, 520 participants; low-certainty evidence), and probably increase mouth opening slightly at three to six months (MD 8.83 mm, 95% CI 8.22 to 9.45; 3 studies, 620 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Antioxidants may make no difference to interincisal distance at six-month follow-up or greater (MD -1.41 mm, 95% CI -5.74 to 2.92; 1 study, 90 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pentoxifylline may increase mouth opening slightly (MD 1.80 mm, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.58; 1 study, 106 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, it should be noted that these results are all less than 10 mm, which could be considered the minimal change that is meaningful to someone with oral submucous fibrosis. The evidence was very uncertain for all other interventions compared to placebo or no active treatment (intralesional dexamethasone injections, pentoxifylline, hydrocortisone plus hyaluronidase, physiotherapy). Burning sensation Antioxidants probably reduce burning sensation visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at less than three months (MD -30.92 mm, 95% CI -31.57 to -30.27; 1 study, 400 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), at three to six months (MD -70.82 mm, 95% CI -94.39 to -47.25; 2 studies, 500 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and at more than six months (MD -27.60 mm, 95% CI -36.21 to -18.99; 1 study, 90 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for the other interventions that were compared to placebo and measured burning sensation (intralesional dexamethasone, vasodilators). Adverse effects Fifteen studies reported adverse effects as an outcome. Six of these studies found no adverse effects. One study evaluating abdominal dermal fat graft reported serious adverse effects resulting in prolonged hospital stay for 3/30 participants. There were mild and transient general adverse effects to systemic drugs, such as dyspepsia, abdominal pain and bloating, gastritis and nausea, in studies evaluating vasodilators and antioxidants in particular.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found moderate-certainty evidence that antioxidants administered systemically probably improve mouth opening slightly at three to six months and improve burning sensation VAS scores up to and beyond six months. We found only low/very low-certainty evidence for all other comparisons and outcomes. There was insufficient evidence to make an informed judgement about potential adverse effects associated with any of these treatments. There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of the other interventions tested. High-quality, adequately powered intervention trials with a low risk of bias that compare biologically plausible treatments for OSF are needed. It is important that relevant participant-reported outcomes are evaluated.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Oral Submucous Fibrosis; Pentoxifylline; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Vasodilator Agents; Abdominal Pain; Antioxidants; Dexamethasone
PubMed: 38415846
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007156.pub3 -
Contact Lens & Anterior Eye : the... Oct 2023To evaluate if topical povidone iodine (alone (PI) or combined with dexamethasone (PI-DXM)) is superior to placebo for treating adenoviral conjunctivitis (AC). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate if topical povidone iodine (alone (PI) or combined with dexamethasone (PI-DXM)) is superior to placebo for treating adenoviral conjunctivitis (AC).
METHODS
A systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for the Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement. An electronic search was made on PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library. Randomized control studies that compared PI or PI-DXM with placebo were included. At least three researchers were involved in all phases. Primary outcomes were AC duration and the number of clinical resolutions during the first week. Secondary outcomes were conjunctival redness and serous discharge one week after starting treatment and the rate of AC complications.
RESULTS
Only five studies met the inclusion criteria. PI-DXM reduced the duration of the disease by 2.4 days (IC95% 4.09-0.71), however this result was based only in one study. PI and PI-DXM did not modify the probability of clinical resolution during the first week; relative risk (RR) = 1.77 (IC95% 0.63-4.96) and 1.70 (IC95% 0.67-4.36). The impact of PI on the probability of pseudomembranes could not be estimated. PI-DXM did not influence the risk of developing subepithelial infiltrates RR = 0.73 (IC95% 0.02-33.38).
CONCLUSIONS
At this time there is great uncertainty about the usefulness of PI on the course of adenoviral conjunctivitis. PI-DXM may have a small effect on AC duration. To make future reviews possible, it is important to standardize the way in which these results are reported. Futures studies should include etiological confirmation, unit of study (eyes vs patients) and report on those aspects that are more relevant for patient quality of life (duration of the disease, development of complications: pseudomembranes and subepithelial infiltrates).
Topics: Humans; Povidone-Iodine; Povidone; Quality of Life; Conjunctivitis
PubMed: 37380515
DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2023.101873 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Dec 2023Currently, some meta-analyses on COVID-19 have suggested that glucocorticoids use can reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients, utilization rate of invasive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Currently, some meta-analyses on COVID-19 have suggested that glucocorticoids use can reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients, utilization rate of invasive ventilation, and improve the prognosis of patients. However, optimal regimen and dosages of glucocorticoid remain unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this network meta-analysis is to analyze the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids in treating COVID-19 at regimens.
METHODS
This meta-analysis retrieved randomized controlled trials from the earliest records to December 30, 2022, published in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI Database and Wanfang Database, which compared glucocorticoids with placebos for their efficacy and safety in the treatment of COVID-19, Effects of different treatment regimens, types and dosages (high-dose methylprednisolone, very high-dose methylprednisolone, Pulse therapy methylprednisolone, medium-dose hydrocortisone, high-dose hydrocortisone, high-dose dexamethasone, very high-dose dexamethasone and placebo) on 28-day all-caused hospitalization mortality, hospitalization duration, mechanical ventilation requirement, ICU admission and safety outcome were compared.
RESULTS
In this network meta-analysis, a total of 10,544 patients from 19 randomized controlled trials were finally included, involving a total of 9 glucocorticoid treatment regimens of different types and dosages. According to the analysis results, the 28-day all-cause mortality rate was the lowest in the treatment with pulse therapy methylprednisolone (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02, 0.42), but the use of high-dose methylprednisolone (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59, 1.22), very high-dose dexamethasone (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.67, 1.35), high-dose hydrocortisone (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.34, 1.22), medium-dose hydrocortisone (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49, 1.31) showed no benefit in prolonging the 28-day survival of patient. Compared with placebo, the treatment with very high-dose methylprednisolone (MD = -3.09;95%CI: -4.10, -2.08) had the shortest length of hospital stay, while high-dose dexamethasone (MD = -1.55;95%CI: -3.13,0.03) and very high-dose dexamethasone (MD = -1.06;95%CI: -2.78,0.67) did not benefit patients in terms of length of stay.
CONCLUSIONS
Considering the available evidence, this network meta‑analysis suggests that the prognostic impact of glucocorticoids in patients with COVID-19 may depend on the regimens of glucocorticoids. It is suggested that pulse therapy methylprednisolone is associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality, very high-dose methylprednisolone had the shortest length of hospital stay in patients with COVID-19.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42022350407 (22/08/2022).
Topics: Humans; Glucocorticoids; COVID-19; Hydrocortisone; Network Meta-Analysis; Methylprednisolone; Dexamethasone
PubMed: 38124031
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08874-w -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Dec 2023This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine,...
PURPOSE
This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine, dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, and cyclophosphamide in doses of > 1500 mg/m and the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline (AC) in women with breast cancer.
METHODS
A systematic review report following the PRISMA guidelines of the literature from January 1, 2015, until February 1, 2023, was performed. PubMed (Ovid), Scopus (Google), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The literature search was limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Forty-six new references were determined to be relevant. The main topics identified were (1) steroid-sparing regimens, (2) olanzapine-containing regimens, and (3) other issues such as comparisons of antiemetics of the same drug class, intravenous NK receptor antagonists, and potentially new antiemetics. Five updated recommendations are presented.
CONCLUSION
There is no need to prescribe steroids (dexamethasone) beyond day 1 after AC HEC, whereas a 4-day regimen is recommended in non-AC HEC. Olanzapine is now recommended as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen in both non-AC and AC HEC. No major differences between 5-HT receptor antagonists or between NK receptor antagonists were identified. No new antiemetic agents qualified for inclusion in the updated recommendations.
Topics: Female; Humans; Emetics; Antiemetics; Consensus; Olanzapine; Nausea; Vomiting; Antineoplastic Agents; Cyclophosphamide; Anthracyclines
PubMed: 38127246
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-08221-4 -
Journal of Endocrinological... Oct 2023The clinical and hormonal overlap between neoplastic (CS) and non-neoplastic (NNH/pCS) hypercortisolism is a challenge. Various dynamic tests have been proposed to allow... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The clinical and hormonal overlap between neoplastic (CS) and non-neoplastic (NNH/pCS) hypercortisolism is a challenge. Various dynamic tests have been proposed to allow an early discrimination between these conditions, but to date there is no agreement on which of them should be used.
AIM
To provide an overview of the available tests and to obtain a quantitative synthesis of their diagnostic performance in discriminating NNH/pCS from CS.
METHODS
The included articles, published between 1990 and 2022, applied one or more second line tests to differentiate NNH/pCS from CS patients. For the NNH/pCS group, we admitted the inclusion of patients presenting clinical features and/or biochemical findings suggestive of hypercortisolism despite apparent lack of a pCS-related condition.
RESULTS
The electronic search identified 339 articles. After references analysis and study selection, we identified 9 studies on combined dexamethasone-corticotropin releasing hormone (Dex-CRH) test, 4 on Desmopressin test and 3 on CRH test; no study on Dex-Desmopressin met the inclusion criteria. Dex-CRH test provided the highest sensitivity (97%, 95 CI% [88%; 99%]). CRH tests showed excellent specificity (99%, 95% CI [0%; 100%]), with low sensitivity. Although metaregression analysis based on diagnostic odds ratio failed to provide a gold standard, CRH test (64.77, 95% CI [0.15; 27,174.73]) seemed to lack in performance compared to the others (Dex-CRH 138.83, 95% CI [49.38; 390.32] and Desmopressin 110.44, 95% CI [32.13; 379.63]).
DISCUSSION
Both Dex-CRH and Desmopressin tests can be valid tools in helping discrimination between NNH/pCS and CS. Further studies are needed on this topic, possibly focusing on mild Cushing's Disease and well-characterized NNH/pCS patients.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022359774 , identifier CRD42022359774.
Topics: Humans; Diagnosis, Differential; Cushing Syndrome; Deamino Arginine Vasopressin; Hospitalization; Odds Ratio
PubMed: 37079177
DOI: 10.1007/s40618-023-02099-z -
Pain Practice : the Official Journal of... Nov 2023Epidural analgesia is a common technique for managing perioperative and obstetric pain. Patients with cancer who cannot tolerate opioids or not responding to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Epidural analgesia is a common technique for managing perioperative and obstetric pain. Patients with cancer who cannot tolerate opioids or not responding to conventional treatment may benefit from epidural analgesia. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of epidural analgesia in patients with intractable cancer pain.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify studies on patients with cancer who received epidural analgesia. We assessed the quality of all included studies using the risk-of-bias tool or Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The primary outcome was pain relief after epidural analgesia, and the secondary outcome was quality of life, analgesic consumption, and adverse events. The studies were grouped based on the medications used for epidural analgesia. A descriptive synthesis was performed following the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis reporting guideline.
RESULTS
Our systematic review included nine randomized controlled trials (n = 340) and 15 observational studies (n = 926). Two randomized controlled trials suggested that epidural opioids were not superior to systemic opioids in relieving pain. Epidural opioids combined with local anesthetics or adjuvants, including calcitonin, clonidine, ketamine, neostigmine, methadone, and dexamethasone, offered better analgesic effects. No significant difference in pain relief between an intermittent bolus and a continuous infusion of epidural morphine was observed. Epidural opioids had more analgesic effects on nociceptive pain than neuropathic pain. The methods used to evaluate the quality of life and the corresponding results were heterogeneous among studies. Six observational studies demonstrated that some patients could have decreased opioid consumption after epidural analgesia. Adverse events, including complications and drug-related side effects, were reported in 23 studies. Five serious complications, such as epidural abscess and hematoma, required surgical management. The heterogeneity and methodological limitations of the studies hindered meta-analysis and evidence-level determination.
CONCLUSION
Coadministration of epidural opioids, local anesthetics, and adjuvants may provide better pain relief for intractable cancer pain. However, we must assess the patients to ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks before epidural analgesia. Therefore, further high-quality studies are required.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Cancer Pain; Neoplasms; Pain, Postoperative; Quality of Life
PubMed: 37455298
DOI: 10.1111/papr.13273 -
Diclofenac Versus Corticosteroids Following Strabismus Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology and... 2023The purpose of the current study was to compare outcomes of diclofenac versus corticosteroids following strabismus surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis were... (Review)
Review
The purpose of the current study was to compare outcomes of diclofenac versus corticosteroids following strabismus surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. An electronic search was performed to include comparative studies of diclofenac versus corticosteroids following strabismus surgery. The analysis was based on fixed and random effect models. Primary outcomes included discomfort, chemosis, inflammation, conjunctival gap, intraocular pressure, and conjunctival injection. Secondary outcomes were conjunctival congestion, discharge, and drop intolerance. Eight studies with a sample of 469 eyes were included. At weeks 1 and 4 postoperatively, there were no statistically significant differences between the diclofenac and corticosteroid groups, except for conjunctival injection at week 1 (mean difference [MD] = -0.21, = .04) favoring diclofenac. Interestingly, all primary outcomes significantly favored diclofenac at week 2: discomfort (MD = -0.34, = .03), conjunctival chemosis (MD = -0.16, = .04), conjunctival inflammation (MD = -0.16, = .02), conjunctival gap (MD = -0.17, = .002), intraocular pressure (MD = -2.53, < .00001), and conjunctival injection (MD = -0.30, = .03). Moreover, conjunctival congestion was significantly improved for dexamethasone, whereas discharge and drop intolerance was not statistically different. Diclofenac is comparable to various corticosteroids when used following strabismus surgery. However, it is important to note that diclofenac yielded significant improvements in discomfort, conjunctival chemosis, inflammation, conjunctival gap, intraocular pressure, and conjunctival injection, mainly at 2 weeks postoperatively. .
PubMed: 36441127
DOI: 10.3928/01913913-20221011-01 -
Hematology (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Dec 2023Multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease despite advances in treatment options. Recently, selinexor has shown promising efficacy for relapsed/refractory... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease despite advances in treatment options. Recently, selinexor has shown promising efficacy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), whereas its optimal timing and drug combination remain unclear. In order to assess the various regimens that incorporate selinexor, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted.
METHODS
Clinical trials and real-world studies involving MM patients treated with selinexor were included. Pooled risk ratio (RR) was calculated to compare the rates, along with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and concurrent -value assessment. A random-effects model was employed to provide a more conservative evaluation.
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies enrolling 817 patients were reviewed. The usage of selinexor as the fifth-line or prior therapy achieved a higher objective response rate (ORR) (65.9% versus 23.4%, < 0.01) and longer pooled progression-free survival (PFS) (median: 12.5 months versus 2.9 months, < 0.01) than those after the fifth-line usage. In addition, early usage also resulted in a consistent trend of pooled overall survival (median: 22.7 months versus 8.9 months, = 0.26), compared with post-fifth-line usage. Selinexor and dexamethasone (Xd) plus either protease inhibitors (PIs) or immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) achieved better ORRs than the Xd-only regimen for RRMM, with ORRs of 56.1%, 52.5% and 24.6%, respectively (< 0.01).
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, using selinexor as the fifth-line or prior therapy had a beneficial impact on RRMM. The regimen of Xd plus PIs or IMiDs was recommended.
Topics: Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Immunomodulating Agents; Dexamethasone; Drug Combinations; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 36920065
DOI: 10.1080/16078454.2023.2187972 -
Inflammopharmacology Oct 2023The present review critically appraised the randomized clinical trials that compared mortality outcomes between intermediate- to high-dose dexamethasone and low-dose... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Intermediate- to high-dose dexamethasone versus low-dose dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 requiring respiratory support: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
The present review critically appraised the randomized clinical trials that compared mortality outcomes between intermediate- to high-dose dexamethasone and low-dose dexamethasonein patients with COVID-19 and reported pooled mortality risk estimates associated with these two dosing regimens of dexamethasone. The systematic searching of electronic databases was limited to randomized clinical trials that compared mortality outcomes between intermediate- to high-dose dexamethasone with low-dose dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 requiring respiratory support. The primary outcome of interest in this review was all-cause mortality. A total of eight trials with 1800 patients randomized to receive intermediate to high-dose dexamethasone and 1715 patients randomized to low-dose dexamethasone were included. The meta-analysis of six trials revealed no significant difference in the risk of 28-day all-cause mortality between intermediate- to high-dose dexamethasone and low-dose dexamethasone (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.74). Similarly, the meta-analysis of five trials revealed no significant difference between the two doses regarding 60-day all-cause mortality (odds ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.74-1.26). The results suggest intermediate- to high-dose dexamethasone to be as effective as low-dose dexamethasone in reducing the risk of mortality among patients with COVID-19 requiring respiratory support. However, higher dexamethasone doses could expose patients with COVID-19 to an increased risk of adverse events, such as hyperglycemia.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Dexamethasone; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37266814
DOI: 10.1007/s10787-023-01251-8 -
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Mar 2024Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a frequently reported adverse event following orthognathic surgery. The aim of this work is to conduct a systematic review of... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a frequently reported adverse event following orthognathic surgery. The aim of this work is to conduct a systematic review of the literature on the subject, and to discuss the role of maxillofacial surgeons and the steps that can be taken to prevent or control PONV in orthognathic surgery.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines, using the search strategy: (orthognathic AND (nausea OR vomiting)). The authors searched PubMed, Embase, Dimensions, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases, without any language restrictions. RevMan 5.4 was used to create a risk of bias graph and a forest plot.
RESULTS
The included articles were classified as having a low risk of bias, despite the limited literature on the subject. Various measures have been reported to be beneficial in preventing or managing PONV, such as the use of dexamethasone, antiemetic drugs, gastric aspiration, and anesthetic blocks. Effective bleeding control and faster surgeries can also be helpful.
CONCLUSIONS
Throat packs have not been found to be effective in preventing PONV. Although no definitive protocol has been established in the literature, the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol could be a useful approach. Overall, a multimodal approach may be taken to prevent PONV, and further research is needed to establish definitive protocols.
PubMed: 38509315
DOI: 10.1007/s10006-024-01235-0