-
Annales Pharmaceutiques Francaises Sep 2022Beta-blockers have long been successfully used for the treatment of both supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias. However, differences exist between their chemical... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Beta-blockers have long been successfully used for the treatment of both supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias. However, differences exist between their chemical structure, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties (absorption, bioavailability, metabolism, hydrophilic or lipophilic character, selective or non-selective nature, the presence or absence of intrinsic sympathomimetic activity), which may confer different antiarrhythmic properties to different beta-blockers. The aim of this study was to analyze the current existing evidence for bisoprolol for the treatment of both supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Using the keywords "bisoprolol" and "arrhythmias" or "atrial fibrillation" or "ventricular tachycardia" or "premature ventricular complexes" or "ventricular fibrillation", the Medline database was searched for articles in English or French until April 2020 assessing the role of bisoprolol in the treatment of arrhythmias. Data was then analyzed according to the type of arrhythmia treated and the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
A total of 325 studies were identified, of which 28 were considered relevant to the current topic. Among these studies, 19 assessed the role of bisoprolol for the treatment of supraventricular arrhythmias, 8 its role in treating ventricular arrhythmias and 1 its role in supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias. The quality of evidence varied from low (7 studies) to high (5 studies).
CONCLUSION
Current evidence exists supporting the use of bisoprolol for the treatment of supraventricular arrhythmias, especially for rate control during atrial fibrillation. Evidence also exists for its efficacy in the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias, both in primary and in secondary prevention.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Atrial Fibrillation; Bisoprolol; Humans
PubMed: 35093388
DOI: 10.1016/j.pharma.2022.01.007 -
Journal of Hepatology Oct 2022Whether non-selective β-blockers can prevent decompensation of cirrhosis warrants clarification. Carvedilol might be particularly effective since its intrinsic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Whether non-selective β-blockers can prevent decompensation of cirrhosis warrants clarification. Carvedilol might be particularly effective since its intrinsic vasodilatory activity may ameliorate hepatic vascular resistance, a major mechanism of portal hypertension in early cirrhosis. We assessed whether carvedilol may prevent decompensation and improve survival in patients with compensated cirrhosis and clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH).
METHODS
By systematic review we identified randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing carvedilol vs. control therapy (no-active treatment or endoscopic variceal ligation [EVL]) in patients with cirrhosis and CSPH without previous bleeding. We performed a competing-risk time-to-event meta-analysis using individual patient data (IPD) obtained from principal investigators of RCTs. Only compensated patients were included. Primary outcomes were prevention of decompensation (liver transplantation and death were competing events) and death (liver transplantation was a competing event). Models were adjusted using propensity scores for baseline covariates with the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach.
RESULTS
Among 125 full-text studies evaluated, 4 RCTs were eligible. The 4 provided IPD and were included, comprising 352 patients with compensated cirrhosis, 181 treated with carvedilol and 171 controls (79 received EVL and 92 placebo). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Standardized differences were <10% by IPTW. The risk of developing decompensation of cirrhosis was lower with carvedilol than in controls (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 0.506; 95% CI 0.289-0.887; p = 0.017; I = 0.0%, Q-statistic-p = 0.880), mainly due to a reduced risk of ascites (SHR 0.491; 95% CI 0.247-0.974; p = 0.042; I = 0.0%, Q-statistic-p = 0.384). The risk of death was also lower with carvedilol (SHR 0.417; 95% CI 0.194-0.896; p = 0.025; I = 0.0%, Q-statistic-p = 0.989).
CONCLUSIONS
Long-term carvedilol therapy reduced decompensation of cirrhosis and significantly improved survival in compensated patients with CSPH. This suggests that screening patients with compensated cirrhosis for CSPH to enable the prompt initiation of carvedilol could improve outcomes.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42019144786.
LAY SUMMARY
The transition from compensated cirrhosis to decompensated cirrhosis is associated with markedly reduced life expectancy. Therefore, preventing decompensation in patients with compensated cirrhosis would be associated with greatly improved patient outcomes. There has been controversy regarding the use of non-selective β-blockers (portal pressure-lowering medications) in patients with cirrhosis and elevated portal blood pressure (portal hypertension). Herein, using a competing-risk meta-analysis to optimize sample size and properly investigate cirrhosis as a multistate disease and outcomes as time-dependent events, we show that carvedilol (a non-selective β-blocker) is associated with a reduced risk of decompensating events and improved survival in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Ascites; Carvedilol; Esophageal and Gastric Varices; Humans; Hypertension, Portal; Liver Cirrhosis; Portal Pressure; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35661713
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2022.05.021 -
The American Journal of Gastroenterology Jun 2021Constipation is commonly treated with over-the-counter (OTC) products whose efficacy and safety remain unclear. We performed a systematic review of OTC therapies for...
INTRODUCTION
Constipation is commonly treated with over-the-counter (OTC) products whose efficacy and safety remain unclear. We performed a systematic review of OTC therapies for chronic constipation and provide evidence-based recommendations.
METHODS
We searched PubMed and Embase for randomized controlled trials of ≥4-week duration that evaluated OTC preparations between 2004 and 2020. Studies were scored using the US Preventive Services Task Force criteria (0-5 scale) including randomization, blinding, and withdrawals. The strengths of evidence were adjudicated within each therapeutic category, and recommendations were graded (A, B, C, D, and I) based on the level of evidence (level I, good; II, fair; or III, poor).
RESULTS
Of 1,297 studies identified, 41 met the inclusion criteria. There was good evidence (grade A recommendation) for the use of the osmotic laxative polyethylene glycol (PEG) and the stimulant senna; moderate evidence (grade B) for psyllium, SupraFiber, magnesium salts, stimulants (bisacodyl and sodium picosulfate), fruit-based laxatives (kiwi, mango, prunes, and ficus), and yogurt with galacto-oligosaccharide/prunes/linseed oil; and insufficient evidence (grade I) for polydextrose, inulin, and fructo-oligosaccharide. Diarrhea, nausea, bloating, and abdominal pain were common adverse events, but no serious adverse events were reported.
DISCUSSION
The spectrum of OTC products has increased and quality of evidence has improved, but methodological issues including variability in study design, primary outcome measures, trial duration, and small sample sizes remain. We found good evidence to recommend polyethylene glycol or senna as first-line laxatives and moderate evidence supporting fiber supplements, fruits, stimulant laxatives, and magnesium-based products. For others, further validation with more rigorously designed studies is warranted.
Topics: Bisacodyl; Cathartics; Chronic Disease; Citrates; Constipation; Defecation; Fruit; Gastrointestinal Agents; Glucans; Humans; Inulin; Laxatives; Magnesium; Nonprescription Drugs; Oligosaccharides; Organometallic Compounds; Picolines; Polyethylene Glycols; Psyllium; Senna Extract; Yogurt
PubMed: 33767108
DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001222 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Major depressive disorders have a significant impact on children and adolescents, including on educational and vocational outcomes, interpersonal relationships, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Major depressive disorders have a significant impact on children and adolescents, including on educational and vocational outcomes, interpersonal relationships, and physical and mental health and well-being. There is an association between major depressive disorder and suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide. Antidepressant medication is used in moderate to severe depression; there is now a range of newer generations of these medications.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate, via network meta-analysis (NMA), the comparative effectiveness and safety of different newer generation antidepressants in children and adolescents with a diagnosed major depressive disorder (MDD) in terms of depression, functioning, suicide-related outcomes and other adverse outcomes. The impact of age, treatment duration, baseline severity, and pharmaceutical industry funding was investigated on clinician-rated depression (CDRS-R) and suicide-related outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, the Cochrane Library (Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR)), together with Ovid Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO till March 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials of six to 18 year olds of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed major depressive disorder were included. Trials that compared the effectiveness of newer generation antidepressants with each other or with a placebo were included. Newer generation antidepressants included: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs); norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors; norepinephrine dopamine reuptake inhibitors; norepinephrine dopamine disinhibitors (NDDIs); and tetracyclic antidepressants (TeCAs).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data as Odds Ratios (ORs), and continuous data as Mean Difference (MD) for the following outcomes: depression symptom severity (clinician rated), response or remission of depression symptoms, depression symptom severity (self-rated), functioning, suicide related outcomes and overall adverse outcomes. Random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted in a frequentist framework using multivariate meta-analysis. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA). We used "informative statements" to standardise the interpretation and description of the results.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-six studies were included. There were no data for the two primary outcomes (depressive disorder established via clinical diagnostic interview and suicide), therefore, the results comprise only secondary outcomes. Most antidepressants may be associated with a "small and unimportant" reduction in depression symptoms on the CDRS-R scale (range 17 to 113) compared with placebo (high certainty evidence: paroxetine: MD -1.43, 95% CI -3.90, 1.04; vilazodone: MD -0.84, 95% CI -3.03, 1.35; desvenlafaxine MD -0.07, 95% CI -3.51, 3.36; moderate certainty evidence: sertraline: MD -3.51, 95% CI -6.99, -0.04; fluoxetine: MD -2.84, 95% CI -4.12, -1.56; escitalopram: MD -2.62, 95% CI -5.29, 0.04; low certainty evidence: duloxetine: MD -2.70, 95% CI -5.03, -0.37; vortioxetine: MD 0.60, 95% CI -2.52, 3.72; very low certainty evidence for comparisons between other antidepressants and placebo). There were "small and unimportant" differences between most antidepressants in reduction of depression symptoms (high- or moderate-certainty evidence). Results were similar across other outcomes of benefit. In most studies risk of self-harm or suicide was an exclusion criterion for the study. Proportions of suicide-related outcomes were low for most included studies and 95% confidence intervals were wide for all comparisons. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of mirtazapine (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.03, 8.04), duloxetine (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.72, 1.82), vilazodone (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.68, 1.48), desvenlafaxine (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59, 1.52), citalopram (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.76, 3.87) or vortioxetine (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.29, 8.60) on suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo. There is low certainty evidence that escitalopram may "at least slightly" reduce odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.43, 1.84). There is low certainty evidence that fluoxetine (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87, 1.86), paroxetine (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.85, 3.86), sertraline (OR 3.03, 95% CI 0.60, 15.22), and venlafaxine (OR 13.84, 95% CI 1.79, 106.90) may "at least slightly" increase odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo. There is moderate certainty evidence that venlafaxine probably results in an "at least slightly" increased odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with desvenlafaxine (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01, 0.56) and escitalopram (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01, 0.56). There was very low certainty evidence regarding other comparisons between antidepressants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, methodological shortcomings of the randomised trials make it difficult to interpret the findings with regard to the efficacy and safety of newer antidepressant medications. Findings suggest that most newer antidepressants may reduce depression symptoms in a small and unimportant way compared with placebo. Furthermore, there are likely to be small and unimportant differences in the reduction of depression symptoms between the majority of antidepressants. However, our findings reflect the average effects of the antidepressants, and given depression is a heterogeneous condition, some individuals may experience a greater response. Guideline developers and others making recommendations might therefore consider whether a recommendation for the use of newer generation antidepressants is warranted for some individuals in some circumstances. Our findings suggest sertraline, escitalopram, duloxetine, as well as fluoxetine (which is currently the only treatment recommended for first-line prescribing) could be considered as a first option. Children and adolescents considered at risk of suicide were frequently excluded from trials, so that we cannot be confident about the effects of these medications for these individuals. If an antidepressant is being considered for an individual, this should be done in consultation with the child/adolescent and their family/caregivers and it remains critical to ensure close monitoring of treatment effects and suicide-related outcomes (combined suicidal ideation and suicide attempt) in those treated with newer generation antidepressants, given findings that some of these medications may be associated with greater odds of these events. Consideration of psychotherapy, particularly cognitive behavioural therapy, as per guideline recommendations, remains important.
Topics: Adolescent; Antidepressive Agents; Bias; Child; Citalopram; Depressive Disorder, Major; Desvenlafaxine Succinate; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Female; Fluoxetine; Humans; Male; Mirtazapine; Network Meta-Analysis; Paroxetine; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Sertraline; Suicidal Ideation; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Vilazodone Hydrochloride; Vortioxetine
PubMed: 34029378
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013674.pub2 -
Medicine Aug 2020To compare the effects of 3% hypertonic saline solution and 20% mannitol solution on intracranial hypertension. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To compare the effects of 3% hypertonic saline solution and 20% mannitol solution on intracranial hypertension.
METHODS
WAN-FANGDATA, CNKI, and CQVIP databases were searched, and relevant literatures of randomized controlled trials comparing 3% hypertonic saline solution with mannitol in reducing intracranial hypertension from 2010 to October 2019 were collected. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software.
RESULTS
As a result, 10 articles that met the inclusion criteria were finally included. A total of 544 patients were enrolled in the study, 270 in the hypertonic saline group and 274 in the mannitol group. There was no significant difference in the decrease of intracranial pressure and the onset time of drug between the 2 groups after intervention (all P > .05). There was a statistically significant difference between the hypertonic saline group and the mannitol group in terms of duration of effect in reducing intracranial pressure (95% confidence interval: 0.64-1.05, Z = 8.09, P < .00001) and cerebral perfusion pressure after intervention (95% confidence interval: 0.15-0.92, Z = 2.72, P = .007).
CONCLUSION
Both 3% hypertonic saline and mannitol can effectively reduce intracranial pressure, but 3% hypertonic saline has a more sustained effect on intracranial pressure and can effectively increase cerebral perfusion pressure.
Topics: Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Diuretics, Osmotic; Humans; Intracranial Hypertension; Intracranial Pressure; Mannitol; Saline Solution, Hypertonic
PubMed: 32871879
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000021655 -
Nursing Open Mar 2023To systematically evaluate the efficacy of different topical treatments for PVC-related phlebitis in hospital in-patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To systematically evaluate the efficacy of different topical treatments for PVC-related phlebitis in hospital in-patients.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A selection was made of experimental and quasi-experimental studies published in English or Spanish. These should provide data on the degree of phlebitis, pain and infiltration (means and standard deviations, mainly) of hospitalized patients with phlebitis secondary to peripheral venous catheter. All those studies that reflected systemic or exclusive prevention treatments were excluded. Searches were from inception to April 2020. The date of data collection was from December 2020 to May 2021. The selection criteria were based on the PICOS model. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool.
RESULTS
Twelve studies (726 patients) met the inclusion criteria. With respect to the decrease in the degree of phlebitis, was found ichthammol glycerine, followed by heparinoids. As for degree of pain, sesame oil obtained the most marked reduction. In terms of degree of infiltration, heparinoids and ichthammol glycerine were the only products to achieve a statistically significant reduction. The most important limitations are the low quantity and quality of the trials included. Insufficient data are available to draw valid conclusions about the efficacy of any treatment.
Topics: Humans; Heparinoids; Glycerol; Catheters; Phlebitis
PubMed: 36335576
DOI: 10.1002/nop2.1449 -
Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental... Aug 2019To systematically review and critically evaluate studies reporting alcohol exposure during pregnancy and miscarriage. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ProQuest... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
To systematically review and critically evaluate studies reporting alcohol exposure during pregnancy and miscarriage. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Theses for publications from January 1970 to January 2019. We identified studies about alcohol exposure during pregnancy and miscarriage. Information about study population, alcohol exposure assessment, outcome definition, covariates, and measures of association was collected. We assessed study quality using an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were abstracted by 2 investigators independently. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to calculate the association between alcohol exposure and miscarriage risk and performed subgroup analyses to determine robustness of results to study differences. For studies reporting dose-specific effects, a pooled dose-response association was estimated using generalized least squares regression with and without restricted cubic spline terms for number of drinks consumed per week. Of 2,164 articles identified, 24 were eligible for inclusion. Meta-analysis of data from 231,808 pregnant women finds those exposed to alcohol during pregnancy have a greater risk of miscarriage compared to those who abstained (odds ratio [OR] 1.19, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.12, 1.28). Estimates did not vary by study design, study country, or method of alcohol ascertainment. For alcohol use of 5 or fewer drinks per week, each additional drink per week was associated with a 6% increase in miscarriage risk (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01, 1.10). Common study limitations reflect challenges inherent to this research, including difficulty recruiting participants early enough in pregnancy to observe miscarriage and collecting and quantifying information about alcohol consumption during pregnancy that accurately reflects use. This review provides evidence that alcohol consumption during pregnancy is associated with a dose-mediated increase in miscarriage risk. Future studies evaluating change in alcohol use in pregnancy are needed to provide insight into how alcohol consumption prior to pregnancy recognition impacts risk.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Alcohol Drinking; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Female; Humans; Pregnancy
PubMed: 31194258
DOI: 10.1111/acer.14124 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological interventions for LBP published in the Cochrane Library, is limited by lack of a comprehensive overview.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP.
METHODS
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched from inception to 3 June 2021, to identify reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools. The review focused on placebo comparisons and the main outcomes were pain intensity, function, and safety.
MAIN RESULTS
Seven Cochrane Reviews that included 103 studies (22,238 participants) were included. There is high confidence in the findings of five reviews, moderate confidence in one, and low confidence in the findings of another. The reviews reported data on six medicines or medicine classes: paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), muscle relaxants, benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants. Three reviews included participants with acute or sub-acute LBP and five reviews included participants with chronic LBP. Acute LBP Paracetamol There was high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD 0.49 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.99 to 2.97), reducing disability (MD 0.05 on a 0 to 24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -0.50 to 0.60), and increasing the risk of adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33). NSAIDs There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -7.29 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.98 to -3.61), high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for reducing disability (MD -2.02 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15), and very low-certainty evidence for no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0. 63 to 1.18). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring muscle relaxants compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76), and higher chance of improving physical function (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77), and increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1. 14 to 1.98). Opioids None of the included Cochrane Reviews aimed to identify evidence for acute LBP. Antidepressants No evidence was identified by the included reviews for acute LBP. Chronic LBP Paracetamol No evidence was identified by the included reviews for chronic LBP. NSAIDs There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD -6.97 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.74 to -3.19), reducing disability (MD -0.85 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -1.30 to -0.40), and no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.17), all at intermediate-term follow-up (> 3 months and ≤ 12 months postintervention). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring benzodiazepines compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93), and low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between muscle relaxants and placebo in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.57). Opioids There was high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tapentadol compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -8.00 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.22 to -0.38), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.33), low-certainty evidence for a medium between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.44) and very low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.26). There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids compared to placebo for reducing disability (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.15), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing disability (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07), and low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing disability (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.25). There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for an increased risk of adverse events for opioids (all types) compared to placebo; nausea (RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14), headaches (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05), constipation (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), and dizziness (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11). Antidepressants There was low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference for antidepressants (all types) compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.17) and reducing disability (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.29).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no high- or moderate-certainty evidence that any investigated pharmacological intervention provided a large or medium effect on pain intensity for acute or chronic LBP compared to placebo. For acute LBP, we found moderate-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and muscle relaxants may provide a small effect on pain, and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo. For safety, we found very low- and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference with NSAIDs and paracetamol compared to placebo for the risk of adverse events, and moderate-certainty evidence that muscle relaxants may increase the risk of adverse events. For chronic LBP, we found low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and very low- to high-certainty evidence that opioids may provide a small effect on pain. For safety, we found low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between NSAIDs and placebo for the risk of adverse events, and low-certainty evidence that opioids may increase the risk of adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Acetaminophen; Low Back Pain; Tramadol; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Acute Pain; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine
PubMed: 37014979
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013815.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Glucocorticoids are the mainstay for the treatment of croup. The existing evidence demonstrates that glucocorticoids are effective in the treatment of croup in children.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Glucocorticoids are the mainstay for the treatment of croup. The existing evidence demonstrates that glucocorticoids are effective in the treatment of croup in children. However, updating the evidence on their clinical relevance in croup is imperative. This is an update to a review first published in 1999, and updated in 2004, 2011, and 2018.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the effects and safety of glucocorticoids in the treatment of croup in children aged 18 years and below.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Library, which includes the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2022 Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 4 March 2022), Embase (Ovid) (1974 to 4 March 2022). We also searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov on 4 March 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children (aged 18 years and below) with croup. We assessed the effect of glucocorticoids compared to the following: placebo, any other pharmacologic agents, any other glucocorticoids, any combination of other glucocorticoids, given by different modes of administration, or given in different doses. The included studies must have assessed at least one of our primary outcomes (defined as the change in croup score or return visits, (re)admissions to the hospital or both) or secondary outcomes (defined as the length of stay in hospital or emergency departments, patient improvement, use of additional treatments, or adverse events).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors independently extracted data, with another review author verified. We entered the data into Review Manager 5 for meta-analysis. Two review authors independently assessed studies for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Two review authors assessed the certainty of the evidence for the primary outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
This updated review includes 45 RCTs with a total of 5888 children, an increase of two RCTs with 1323 children since the last update. We also identified one ongoing study and one study awaiting classification. We assessed most studies (98%) as at high or unclear risk of bias. Any glucocorticoid compared to placebo Compared to placebo, glucocorticoids may result in greater reductions in croup score after two hours (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.13 to -0.18; 7 RCTs, 426 children; low-certainty evidence); six hours (SMD -0.76, 95% CI -1.12 to -0.40; 11 RCTs, 959 children; low-certainty evidence); and 12 hours (SMD -1.03, 95% CI -1.53 to -0.53; 8 RCTs, 571 children; low-certainty evidence). The evidence for change in croup score after 24 hours is very uncertain (SMD -0.86, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.31; 8 RCTs, 351 children; very low-certainty evidence). One glucocorticoid compared to another glucocorticoid There was little to no difference between prednisolone and dexamethasone for reduction in croup score at two-hour post-baseline score (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.18; 1 RCT, 1231 children; high-certainty evidence). There was likely little to no difference between prednisolone and dexamethasone for reduction in croup score at six-hour post-baseline score (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.62; 1 RCT, 99 children; moderate-certainty evidence). However, dexamethasone probably reduced the return visits or (re)admissions for croup by almost half (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.11; 4 RCTs, 1537 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and showed a 28% reduction in the use of supplemental glucocorticoids as an additional treatment (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.97; 2 RCTs, 926 children). Dexamethasone given in different doses Compared to 0.15 mg/kg, 0.60 mg/kg dexamethasone probably reduced the severity of croup as assessed by the croup scoring scale at 24-hour postbaseline score (SMD 0.63, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.10; 1 RCT, 72 children; moderate-certainty evidence); however, this was not the case at two hours (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.76 to 0.22; 2 RCTs, 861 children; high-certainty evidence). There was probably no reduction at six hours (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.35; 3 RCTs, 178 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and the evidence at 12 hours is very uncertain (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -4.39 to 3.19; 2 RCTs, 113 children; very low-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference between doses of dexamethasone in return visits or (re)admissions of children or both (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.17; 3 RCTs, 949 children; high-certainty evidence) or length of stay in the hospital or emergency department (mean difference 0.12, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.56; 2 RCTs, 892 children). The need for additional treatments, such as epinephrine (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.75; 2 RCTs, 885 children); intubation (risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.00; 2 RCTs, 861 children); or use of supplemental glucocorticoids (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.15; 2 RCTs, 617 children), also did not differ between doses of dexamethasone. There were moderate to high levels of heterogeneity in the analyses for most comparisons. Adverse events were observed for some of the comparisons reported in the review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence that glucocorticoids reduce symptoms of croup at two hours, shorten hospital stays, and reduce the rate of return visits or (re)admissions has not changed in this update. A smaller dose of 0.15 mg/kg of dexamethasone may be as effective as the standard dose of 0.60 mg/kg. More RCTs are needed to strengthen the evidence for effectiveness of low-dose dexamethasone at 0.15 mg/kg to treat croup.
Topics: Child; Humans; Croup; Dexamethasone; Epinephrine; Glucocorticoids; Prednisolone; Respiratory Tract Infections; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Adolescent
PubMed: 36626194
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001955.pub5 -
Journal of Neurology Dec 2019The primary aim of this systematic review was to establish the prevalence, character, and risk factors of peripheral neuropathy amongst chronic alcohol abusers and to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The primary aim of this systematic review was to establish the prevalence, character, and risk factors of peripheral neuropathy amongst chronic alcohol abusers and to identify the most appropriate management strategies. In this review, possible pathogenetic mechanisms are also discussed. A systematic, computer-based search was conducted using the PubMed database. Data regarding the above parameters were extracted. 87 articles were included in this review, 29 case-control studies, 52 prospective/retrospective cohort studies and 2 randomised control trials, 1 cross sectional study, and 3 population-based studies. The prevalence of peripheral neuropathy amongst chronic alcohol abusers is 46.3% (CI 35.7- 57.3%) when confirmed via nerve conduction studies. Alcohol-related peripheral neuropathy generally presents as a progressive, predominantly sensory axonal length-dependent neuropathy. The most important risk factor for alcohol-related peripheral neuropathy is the total lifetime dose of ethanol, although other risk factors have been identified including genetic, male gender, and type of alcohol consumed. At present, it is unclear what the pathogenetic mechanisms for the development of neuropathy amongst those who chronically abuse alcohol are, and therefore, it is unknown whether it is attributed to the direct toxic effects of ethanol or another currently unidentified factor. There is presently sparse data to support a particular management strategy in alcohol-related peripheral neuropathy, but the limited data available appears to support the use of vitamin supplementation, particularly of B-vitamin regimens inclusive of thiamine.
Topics: Alcoholic Neuropathy; Humans; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases
PubMed: 30467601
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-018-9123-1