-
Pain Reports 2022Pain is highly prevalent in patients with cancer-nearly 40% report moderate-severe pain, which is commonly treated with opioids. Increasing cancer survivorship, opioid... (Review)
Review
Pain is highly prevalent in patients with cancer-nearly 40% report moderate-severe pain, which is commonly treated with opioids. Increasing cancer survivorship, opioid epidemics in some regions of the world, and limited opioid access in other regions have focused attention on nonopioid treatments. Given the limitations of monotherapy, combining nonopioids-such as antiepileptics and antidepressants-have shown promise in noncancer pain. This review seeks to evaluate efficacy of nonopioid combinations for cancer-related pain. Systematic searches of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were conducted for double-blind, randomized, controlled trials comparing a nonopioid combination with at least one of its components and/or placebo. This search yielded 4 randomized controlled trials, published between 1998 and 2019 involving studies of (1) imipramine + diclofenac; (2) mitoxantrone + prednisone + clodronate; (3) pentoxifylline + tocopherol + clodronate; and (4) duloxetine + pregabalin + opioid. In the first 3 of these trials, trends favouring combination efficacy failed to reach statistical significance. However, in the fourth trial, duloxetine + pregabalin + opioid was superior to pregabalin + opioid. This review illustrates recognition for the need to evaluate nonopioid drug combinations in cancer pain, although few trials have been published to date. Given the growing practice of prescribing more than 1 nonopioid for cancer pain and the need to expand the evidence base for rational combination therapy, more high-quality trials in this area are needed.
PubMed: 35261931
DOI: 10.1097/PR9.0000000000000995 -
International Journal of Environmental... Oct 2022There are several techniques for the removal of pharmaceuticals (drugs) from wastewater; however, strengths and weaknesses have been observed in their elimination... (Review)
Review
There are several techniques for the removal of pharmaceuticals (drugs) from wastewater; however, strengths and weaknesses have been observed in their elimination processes that limit their applicability. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the best techniques for the removal of pharmaceuticals from municipal and hospital wastewater. For this, a non-experimental, descriptive, qualitative-quantitative design was used, corresponding to a systematic review without meta-analysis. Based on established inclusion and exclusion criteria, 31 open-access articles were selected from the Scopus, ProQuest, EBSCOhost, and ScienceDirect databases. The results showed that high concentrations of analgesics such as naproxen (1.37 mg/L) and antibiotics such as norfloxacin (0.561 mg/L) are frequently found in wastewater and that techniques such as reverse osmosis, ozonation, and activated sludge have the best removal efficiency, achieving values of 99%. It was concluded that reverse osmosis is one of the most efficient techniques for eliminating ofloxacin, sulfamethoxazole, carbamazepine, and diclofenac from municipal wastewater, with removal rates ranging from 96 to 99.9%, while for hospital wastewater the activated sludge technique proved to be efficient, eliminating analgesics and antibiotics in the range of 41-99%.
Topics: Wastewater; Sewage; Diclofenac; Naproxen; Norfloxacin; Water Pollutants, Chemical; Carbamazepine; Hospitals; Ozone; Sulfamethoxazole; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Ofloxacin; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Waste Disposal, Fluid
PubMed: 36293682
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192013105 -
European Review For Medical and... Nov 2021This systematic review with network meta-analysis was performed to compare the effectiveness of oral anti-inflammatory drugs used in Brazil for osteoarthritis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review with network meta-analysis was performed to compare the effectiveness of oral anti-inflammatory drugs used in Brazil for osteoarthritis.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Randomized clinical trials evaluating ultramicronised diclofenac, diclofenac, celecoxib, etodolac and placebo in patients with osteoarthritis were identified. A search was conducted in May 2021 through PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases. A network meta-analysis was developed for efficacy outcome related to analgesia measured by the pain subscale of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities tool. In addition, surface under the cumulative ranking was performed to rank the drugs in relation to this outcome.
RESULTS
Twelve randomized clinical trials were included. Overall, ultramicronised diclofenac 105 mg/day (UD105) was better than all the others, including ultramicronised diclofenac 70 mg/day (UD70). In addition, surface under the cumulative ranking resulted in the following order: 1) ultramicronised diclofenac 105 mg/day (100%), 2) ultramicronised diclofenac 70 mg/day (80%), 3) celecoxib 200 mg/day (49%), 4) diclofenac 100 mg/day (48%), 5) placebo (19%) and 6) diclofenac 150 mg/day (6%).
CONCLUSIONS
Ultramicronised diclofenac demonstrated superior efficacy compared to other conventional anti-inflammatory drugs and placebo in relieving osteoarthritis pain.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Celecoxib; Diclofenac; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Osteoarthritis; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34859865
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202111_27252 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Feb 2024To map the literature on oral ciprofloxacin's pharmacokinetics and its implications for dose adjustments in specific populations. (Review)
Review
AIMS
To map the literature on oral ciprofloxacin's pharmacokinetics and its implications for dose adjustments in specific populations.
METHODS
A scoping review was performed according to the Cochrane Collaboration and JBI and reported following the PRISMA-ScR. Systematic searches on electronic databases were conducted to integrate the current evidence on ciprofloxacin's pharmacokinetics. The quality of the included studies was assessed using ClinPK's checklist.
RESULTS
The search yielded 55 relevant studies. Within the traditional pharmacokinetics studies (n = 46), 86 profiles were examined (72 involving healthy patients and 14 with various clinical conditions). Oral ciprofloxacin's pharmacokinetics were influenced by covariates such as drug interactions (ferrous ions, calcium carbonate, diclofenac and itraconazole), food interactions (calcium-rich foods), elderly populations and renal impairment. Notably, variability in pharmacokinetic parameters existed among subjects, regardless of their health status, underscoring the need for comprehensive population descriptions. Population pharmacokinetic studies (n = 9) identified significant covariates for hospitalized patients, such as creatinine clearance, plasma bicarbonate, estimated glomerular filtration rate, renal replacement therapy, age, sex, total bilirubin, fat-free mass, dietary factors in renal disease, rifampicin for clearance models and body weight for volume of distribution models. Most pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic assessments concluded that 1200 mg/day provides a high probability of target attainment for bacteria with minimum inhibitory concentration <0.5 mg L , aiming for an area under the curve for 24 h/minimum inhibitory concentration >125 h.
CONCLUSIONS
This study offers a comprehensive overview regarding oral ciprofloxacin's pharmacokinetics across various health conditions. It highlights the complexities of ciprofloxacin's pharmacokinetics, emphasizing the importance of considering multiple factors in dose adjustments.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Aged; Ciprofloxacin; Renal Replacement Therapy
PubMed: 37850318
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15933 -
PloS One 2021Evidence on the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and corticoids for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is inconclusive and is not up to date. This systematic...
Evidence on the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and corticoids for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is inconclusive and is not up to date. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness and safety of these anti-inflammatories (AI) in the treatment of RA. COCHRANE (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and Virtual Health Library were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) with adults which used AI (dose represented in mg/day) compared with placebo or active controls and was carried out up to December of 2019. Reviewers, in pairs and independently, selected studies, performed the data extraction and assessed the risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed by GRADE. Network meta-analyses were performed using the Stata v.14.2. Twenty-six articles were selected (NSAIDs = 21 and corticoids = 5). Naproxen 1,000 improved physical function, reduced pain and the number of painful joints compared to placebo. Etoricoxib 90 reduced the number of painful joints compared to placebo. Naproxen 750 reduced the number of swollen joints, except for etoricoxib 90. Naproxen 1,000, etoricoxib 90 and diclofenac 150 were better than placebo regarding patient assessment. Assessment physician showed that NSAIDs were better than placebo. Meta-analyses were not performed for prednisolone and prednisone. Naproxen 1,000 was the most effective drug and celecoxib 200 showed fewer adverse events. However, the low quality of the evidence observed for the outcomes with NSAIDs, the absence of meta-analyses to assess the outcomes with corticoids, as well as the risk of bias observed, indicate that future RCT can confirm such findings.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 33826610
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248866 -
Biomedicines Dec 2022Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint disease. The administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) by phonophoresis is a therapeutic... (Review)
Review
Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint disease. The administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) by phonophoresis is a therapeutic alternative to relieve pain in inflammatory pathologies. The main aim was to analyze the efficacy of the application of NSAIDs by phonophoresis in knee OA. A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials were performed between January and March 2021 in the following databases: Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Cinahl, SciELO, and PEDro. The PEDro scale was used to evaluate the level of evidence of the selected studies. The RevMan 5.4 statistical software was used to obtain the meta-analysis. Eight studies were included, of which five were included in the meta-analysis, involving 195 participants. The NSAIDs used through phonophoresis were ibuprofen, piroxicam, diclofenac sodium, diclofenac diethylammonium, ketoprofen, and methyl salicylate. The overall result for pain showed not-conclusive results, but a trend toward significance was found in favor of the phonophoresis group compared to the control group (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.92; 95% confidence interval: -1.87-0.02). Favorable results were obtained for physical function (SMD = -1.34; 95% CI: -2.00-0.68). Based on the selected studies, the application of NSAIDs by phonophoresis is effective in relieving the symptoms of knee OA. Future long-term studies are recommended.
PubMed: 36552010
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10123254 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022Heavy menstrual bleeding and pain are common reasons women discontinue intrauterine device (IUD) use. Copper IUD (Cu IUD) users tend to experience increased menstrual... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Heavy menstrual bleeding and pain are common reasons women discontinue intrauterine device (IUD) use. Copper IUD (Cu IUD) users tend to experience increased menstrual bleeding, whereas levonorgestrel IUD (LNG IUD) users tend to have irregular menstruation. Medical therapies used to reduce heavy menstrual bleeding or pain associated with Cu and LNG IUD use include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), anti-fibrinolytics and paracetamol. We analysed treatment and prevention interventions separately because the expected outcomes for treatment and prevention interventions differ. We did not combine different drug classes in the analysis as they have different mechanisms of action. This is an update of a review originally on NSAIDs. The review scope has been widened to include all interventions for treatment or prevention of heavy menstrual bleeding or pain associated with IUD use.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have assessed strategies for treatment and prevention of heavy menstrual bleeding or pain associated with IUD use, for example, pharmacotherapy and alternative therapies.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to January 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs in any language that tested strategies for treatment or prevention of heavy menstrual bleeding or pain associated with IUD (Cu IUD, LNG IUD or other IUD) use. The comparison could be no intervention, placebo or another active intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. Primary outcomes were volume of menstrual blood loss, duration of menstruation and painful menstruation. We used a random-effects model in all meta-analyses. Review authors assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
This review includes 21 trials involving 3689 participants from middle- and high-income countries. Women were 18 to 45 years old and either already using an IUD or had just had one placed for contraception. The included trials examined NSAIDs and other interventions. Eleven were treatment trials, of these seven were on users of the Cu IUD, one on LNG IUD and three on an unknown type. Ten were prevention trials, six focused on Cu IUD users, and four on LNG IUD users. Sixteen trials had high risk of detection bias due to subjective assessment of pain and bleeding. Treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding Cu IUD Vitamin B1 resulted in fewer pads used per day (mean difference (MD) -7.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.50 to -5.50) and fewer bleeding days (MD -2.00, 95% CI -2.38 to -1.62; 1 trial; 110 women; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of naproxen on the volume of menstruation compared to placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.09, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.78; 1 trial, 40 women; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment with mefenamic acid resulted in less volume of blood loss compared to tranexamic acid (MD -64.26, 95% CI -105.65 to -22.87; 1 trial, 94 women; low-certainty evidence). However, there was no difference in duration of bleeding with treatment of mefenamic acid or tranexamic acid (MD 0.08 days, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.42, 2 trials, 152 women; low-certainty evidence). LNG IUD The use of ulipristal acetate in LNG IUD may not reduce the number of bleeding days in 90 days in comparison to placebo (MD -9.30 days, 95% CI -26.76 to 8.16; 1 trial, 24 women; low-certainty evidence). Unknown IUD type Mefenamic acid may not reduce volume of bleeding compared to Vitex agnus measured by pictorial blood assessment chart (MD -2.40, 95% CI -13.77 to 8.97; 1 trial; 84 women; low-certainty evidence). Treatment of pain Cu IUD Treatment with tranexamic acid and sodium diclofenac may result in little or no difference in the occurrence of pain (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 17.25; 1 trial, 38 women; very low-certainty evidence). Unknown IUD type Naproxen may reduce pain (MD 4.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 7.29; 1 trial, 33 women; low-certainty evidence). Prevention of heavy menstrual bleeding Cu IUD We found very low-certainty evidence that tolfenamic acid may prevent heavy bleeding compared to placebo (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.85; 1 trial, 310 women). There was no difference between ibuprofen and placebo in blood volume reduction (MD -14.11, 95% CI -36.04 to 7.82) and duration of bleeding (MD -0.2 days, 95% CI -1.40 to 1.0; 1 trial, 28 women, low-certainty evidence). Aspirin may not prevent heavy bleeding in comparison to paracetamol (MD -0.30, 95% CI -26.16 to 25.56; 1 trial, 20 women; very low-certainty evidence). LNG IUD Ulipristal acetate may increase the percentage of bleeding days compared to placebo (MD 9.50, 95% CI 1.48 to 17.52; 1 trial, 118 women; low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data for analysis in a single trial comparing mifepristone and vitamin B. There were insufficient data for analysis in the single trial comparing tranexamic acid and mefenamic acid and in another trial comparing naproxen with estradiol. Prevention of pain Cu IUD There was low-certainty evidence that tolfenamic acid may not be effective to prevent painful menstruation compared to placebo (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.14; 1 trial, 310 women). Ibuprofen may not reduce menstrual cramps compared to placebo (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.11 to 8.95; 1 trial, 20 women, low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Findings from this review should be interpreted with caution due to low- and very low-certainty evidence. Included trials were limited; the majority of the evidence was derived from single trials with few participants. Further research requires larger trials and improved trial reporting. The use of vitamin B1 and mefenamic acid to treat heavy menstruation and tolfenamic acid to prevent heavy menstruation associated with Cu IUD should be investigated. More trials are needed to generate evidence for the treatment and prevention of heavy and painful menstruation associated with LNG IUD.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Dysmenorrhea; Female; Humans; Ibuprofen; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Mefenamic Acid; Menorrhagia; Middle Aged; Naproxen; Thiamine; Tranexamic Acid; Young Adult
PubMed: 36017945
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006034.pub3 -
European Journal of Ophthalmology Nov 2023To systematically review the published manuscripts on the non-steroidal intravitreal injection for treatment of noninfectious uveitic cystoid macular edema (CME). (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To systematically review the published manuscripts on the non-steroidal intravitreal injection for treatment of noninfectious uveitic cystoid macular edema (CME).
METHODS
The PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, Science Direct, ProQuest, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, Embase, Clinical Key, and Springer were searched for relevant articles published until May 2022. The random-effects models were used to estimate the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for postoperative central macular thickness (CMT) and visual acuity (VA) changes. VA was transformed into the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (LogMAR). Meta-regression was conducted for adjusting the effects of potential confounders.
RESULTS
A total of 17 relevant studies (258 eyes) were included in this meta-analysis. A significant improvement was observed in CMT in the last follow up (350.89 ± 108.43) compared to the baseline (452.3 ± 112.67) (Log MD = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.62, 2.02; I2 = 57.7%; P = 0.002). Additionally, VA also significantly improved in the last follow up (0.56 ± 0.29) compared to the baseline (0.75 ± 0.3) (Exponential MD = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.69, 0.95; I = 0.0%; P = 0.98). The subgroups analyzed included ten studies on anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF), three studies on infliximab, two studies on methotrexate (MTX), and two studies on diclofenac. All subgroups showed a significant improvement in both CMT and VA at the last follow-up (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Non-steroidal intravitreal injection including bevacizumab, ranibizumab, infliximab, MTX and diclofenac appears to be an effective treatment option for noninfectious uveitic CME.
PubMed: 37933173
DOI: 10.1177/11206721231212777 -
Pancreatology : Official Journal of the... Feb 2024Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most studied chemoprophylaxis for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). While... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most studied chemoprophylaxis for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). While previous systematic reviews have shown NSAIDs reduce PEP, their impact on moderate to severe PEP (MSPEP) is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to understand the impact of NSAIDs on MSPEP among patients who developed PEP. We later surveyed physicians' understanding of that impact.
DESIGN
A systematic search for randomized trials using NSAIDs for PEP prevention was conducted. Pooled-prevalence and Odds-ratio of PEP, MSPEP were compared between treated vs. control groups. Analysis was performed using R software. Random-effects model was used for all variables. Physicians were surveyed via email before and after reviewing our results.
RESULTS
7688 patients in 25 trials were included. PEP was significantly reduced to 0.598 (95%CI, 0.47-0.76) in the NSAIDs group. Overall burden of MSPEP was reduced among all patients undergoing ERCP: OR 0.59 (95%CI, 0.42-0.83). However, NSAIDs didn't affect the proportion of MSPEP among those who developed PEP (p = 0.658). Rectal Indomethacin and diclofenac reduced PEP but not MSPEP. Efficacy didn't vary by risk, timing of administration, or bias-risk. Survey revealed a change in the impression of the effect of NSAIDs on MSPEP after reviewing our results.
CONCLUSIONS
Rectal diclofenac or indomethacin before or after ERCP reduce the overall burden of MSPEP by reducing the pool of PEP from which it can arise. However, the proportion of MSPEP among patients who developed PEP is unaffected. Therefore, NSAIDs prevent initiation of PEP, but do not affect severity among those that develop PEP. Alternative modalities are needed to reduce MSPEP among patients who develop PEP.
Topics: Humans; Diclofenac; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Administration, Rectal; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Indomethacin; Pancreatitis
PubMed: 37981523
DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2023.11.003 -
Acta Ophthalmologica May 2024Central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC) is a prevalent exudative maculopathy and the ongoing verteporfin shortage restricts current treatment possibilities. Topical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC) is a prevalent exudative maculopathy and the ongoing verteporfin shortage restricts current treatment possibilities. Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) have previously been proposed as a treatment for CSC, although its exact efficacy remains unclear. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we outlined the efficacy of topical NSAIDs for the treatment of CSC. We searched 11 literature databases on 13 December 2022, for any study describing topical NSAID treatment for CSC. Thirteen eligible studies were included with a total of 1001 eyes of 994 patients with CSC. Six studies were case reports, two were cohort studies and five were non-randomized comparative studies. Where specified, topical NSAIDs used were bromfenac 0.09%, diclofenac 0.1%, ketorolac 0.4% and 0.5%, pranoprofen 0.1%, and nepafenac 0.1% and 0.3%. Studies were predominantly of cases with acute CSC and several case studies reported treatment outcomes simultaneously with discontinuation of corticosteroid use, which complicated treatment evaluation. Meta-analyses of comparative studies revealed a statistically significant but clinically irrelevant best-corrected visual acuity improvement of -0.04 logMAR (95% CI: -0.07 to -0.01 logMAR; p = 0.01) at 1-month follow-up, which became statistically insignificant at 3-month follow-up (-0.03 logMAR; 95% CI: -0.06 to 0.003 logMAR; p = 0.08). Further, we found no benefit in complete subretinal fluid resolution at 1-month follow-up (OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.81-1.76; p = 0.37) or 3-month follow-up (OR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.59; p = 0.33). Taken together, available evidence does not support the use of topical NSAIDs for the treatment of CSC.
Topics: Humans; Central Serous Chorioretinopathy; Treatment Outcome; Verteporfin; Photochemotherapy; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Tomography, Optical Coherence; Fluorescein Angiography
PubMed: 37551858
DOI: 10.1111/aos.15743