-
Phytomedicine : International Journal... Dec 2019Anxiety is one of the uprising psychiatric disorders of the last decades and lavender administration has been traditionally suggested as a possible treatment. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Anxiety is one of the uprising psychiatric disorders of the last decades and lavender administration has been traditionally suggested as a possible treatment. The objective of this review is to assess the efficacy of lavender, in any form and way of administration, on anxiety and anxiety-related conditions.
METHODS
The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Retrieved data were qualitatively and quantitatively synthesized. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and Non-Randomized Studies (NRSs) which investigated the efficacy of lavender, in any form and way of administration, on patients with anxiety, involved in anxiety-inducing settings or undergoing anxiety-inducing activities, compared to any type of control, without language restrictions, were identified through electronic database searches. Medline via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were systematically searched. All databases were screened up to November 2018. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the following domains were considered: randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases.
RESULTS
65 RCTs (7993 participants) and 25 NRSs (1200 participants) were included in the qualitative synthesis and 37 RCTs (3964 participants) were included in the quantitative synthesis. Overall, the qualitative synthesis indicated that 54 RCTs and 17 NRSs reported at least a significant result in favor of lavender use for anxiety. The quantitative synthesis showed that lavender inhalation can significantly reduce anxiety levels measured with any validated scale (Hedges' g = -0.73 [95% CI -1.00 to -0.46], p < 0.00001, 1682 participants), as well as state anxiety (Spielberger's state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI)-State mean difference = -5.99 [95% CI -9.39 to -2.59], p < 0.001, 901 participants) and trait anxiety (STAI-Trait mean difference = -8.14 [95% CI -14.44 to -1.84], p < 0.05, 196 participants). Lavender inhalation did not show a significant effect in reducing systolic blood pressure as a physiological parameter of anxiety. A significant effect in diminishing anxiety levels was also found in favor of the use of oral Silexan® 80 mg/die for at least 6 weeks (Hamilton Anxiety Scale mean difference = -2.90 [95% CI -4.86 to -0.95], p = 0.004, 1173 participants; Zung Self-rating Anxiety Scale mean difference = -2.62 [95% CI -4.84 to -0.39], p < 0.05, 451 participants) or of the administration of massage with lavender oil (Hedges' g = -0.66 [95% CI -0.97 to -0.35], p < 0.0001, 448 participants).
DISCUSSION
The most important limitation of this review is the low average quality of available studies on the topic. The majority of included RCTs were characterized by a high overall risk of bias. Another limitation regards the heterogeneity of study designs, especially with regard to non-oral ways of administration. Overall, oral administration of lavender essential oil proves to be effective in the treatment of anxiety, whereas for inhalation there is only an indication of an effect of reasonable size, due to the heterogeneity of available studies. Lavender essential oil administered through massage appears effective, but available studies are not sufficient to determine whether the benefit is due to a specific effect of lavender. Further high-quality RCTs with more homogeneous study designs are needed to confirm these findings. Available information outlines a safe profile for lavender-based interventions, although more attention should be paid to the collection and reporting of safety data in future studies. Considering these findings, since treatments with lavender essential oil generally seem safe, and, in the case of inhalation, also simple and inexpensive, they are a therapeutic option which may be considered in some clinical contexts.
OTHER
The present systematic review was not funded and was registered in PROSPERO under the following number: CRD42019130126.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Oral; Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Blood Pressure; Humans; Lavandula; Oils, Volatile; Plant Oils; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31655395
DOI: 10.1016/j.phymed.2019.153099 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Jun 2023To summarize available evidence comparing the transdermal and the oral administration routes of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in postmenopausal women. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To summarize available evidence comparing the transdermal and the oral administration routes of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in postmenopausal women.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the literature on multiple databases between January 1990 and December 2021. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing the transdermal and oral administration routes of estrogens for HRT in postmenopausal women regarding at least one of the outcomes of interest: cardiovascular risk, venous thromboembolism (VTE), lipid metabolism, carbohydrate metabolism, bone mineral density (BMD), and risk of pre-malignant and malignant endometrial lesions, or breast cancer.
RESULTS
The systematic literature search identified a total of 1369 manuscripts, of which 51 were included. Most studies were observational and of good quality, whereas the majority of randomized controlled trials presented a high or medium risk of bias. Oral and transdermal administration routes are similar regarding BMD, glucose metabolism, and lipid profile improvements, as well as do not appear different regarding breast cancer, endometrial disease, and cardiovascular risk. Identified literature provides clear evidence only for the VTE risk, which is higher with the oral administration route.
CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence comparing the transdermal and oral administration routes for HRT is limited and of low quality, recommending further investigations. VTE risk can be considered the clearest and strongest clinical difference between the two administration routes, supporting the transdermal HRT as safer than the oral administration route.
Topics: Female; Humans; Postmenopause; Estrogen Replacement Therapy; Venous Thromboembolism; Administration, Cutaneous; Estrogens; Hormone Replacement Therapy; Breast Neoplasms; Administration, Oral; Lipids
PubMed: 35713694
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-022-06647-5 -
World Journal of Emergency Surgery :... Mar 2023During medical emergencies, intraosseous (IO) access and intravenous (IV) access are methods of administering therapies and medications to patients. Treating patients in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
During medical emergencies, intraosseous (IO) access and intravenous (IV) access are methods of administering therapies and medications to patients. Treating patients in emergency medical situations is a highly time sensitive practice; however, research into the optimal access method is limited and existing systematic reviews have only considered out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients. We focused on severe trauma patients and conducted a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and efficiency of intraosseous (IO) access compared to intravenous (IV) access for trauma resuscitation in prehospital care.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, banque de données en santé publique and CNKI databases were searched for articles published between January 1, 2000, and January 31, 2023. Adult trauma patients were included, regardless of race, nationality, and region. OHCA patients and other types of patients were excluded. The experimental and control groups received IO and IV access, respectively, in the pre-hospital and emergency departments for salvage. The primary outcome was success rate on first attempt, which was defined as secure needle position in the marrow cavity or a peripheral vein, with normal fluid flow. Secondary outcomes included mean time to resuscitation, mean procedure time, and complications.
RESULTS
Three reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies; meta-analyses were then performed using Review Manager (Version 5.4; Cochrane, Oxford, UK). The success rate on first attempt was significant higher for IO access than for IV access (RR = 1.46, 95% CI [1.16, 1.85], P = 0.001). The mean procedure time was significantly reduced (MD = - 5.67, 95% CI [- 9.26, - 2.07], P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in mean time to resuscitation (MD = - 1.00, 95% CI [- 3.18, 1.17], P = 0.37) and complications (RR = 1.22, 95% CI [0.14, 10.62], P = 0.86) between the IO and IV groups.
CONCLUSION
The success rate on first attempt of IO access was much higher than that of IV access for trauma patients, and the mean procedure time of IO access was significantly less when compared to IV access. Therefore, IO access should be suggested as an urgent vascular access for hypotensive trauma patients, especially those who are under severe shock.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Emergency Medical Services; Emergency Service, Hospital; Resuscitation; Infusions, Intraosseous
PubMed: 36918947
DOI: 10.1186/s13017-023-00487-7 -
PloS One 2020To synthesize the current evidence for subcutaneous hydration and medication infusions from systematic reviews and to assess their methodological quality.
OBJECTIVE
To synthesize the current evidence for subcutaneous hydration and medication infusions from systematic reviews and to assess their methodological quality.
INTRODUCTION
Peripheral intravascular cannula/catheter insertion is a common invasive procedure for administering fluids and medications. Venous depletion is a growing concern for several patient populations. Subcutaneous access for the administration of isotonic solutions and medications is an alternative; however, vascular access assessment and planning guidelines rarely consider this route.
METHODS
Systematic review of systematic reviews (PROSPERO CRD42018046504). We searched 6 databases published in English language from 1990 to June 2020, identifying subcutaneous infusions an alternate route for fluids or medication. Methodological quality was evaluated using AMSTAR 2 criteria and data for mechanisms of infusion and outcomes related to effectiveness, safety, efficiency and acceptability extracted. The Johanna Briggs Institute's grades of recommendation informed the strength of recommendation.
RESULTS
The search yielded 1042 potential systematic reviews; 922 were excluded through abstract and duplicate screen. Of the remaining articles, 94 were excluded, and 26 were included. Overall, evidence is strong for recommending subcutaneous hydration infusions for older adults, weak for pediatric patients and inconclusive for palliative patients. There is strong evidence for 10 medications; weak evidence supporting 28 medications; however, there are eight medications with inconclusive evidence to make a recommendation and four medications not appropriate for subcutaneous delivery.
CONCLUSION
Subcutaneous access should be considered alongside intravenous therapy for hydration in older adults, and several medications. There are additional benefits in terms of ease of use and cost-effectiveness of this mode. Inclusion of subcutaneous access in clinical guidelines may promote uptake of this route to help preserve vessel health of vulnerable patients. Further high-quality research is needed to inform subcutaneous infusion therapy in a variety of populations (including pediatrics and palliative care) and medications and clarifying the mechanism of delivery.
Topics: Dehydration; Fluid Therapy; Humans; Hypodermoclysis; Infusions, Subcutaneous
PubMed: 32833979
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237572 -
Lancet (London, England) Mar 2021Preterm birth is a global health priority. Using a progestogen during high-risk pregnancy could reduce preterm birth and adverse neonatal outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Preterm birth is a global health priority. Using a progestogen during high-risk pregnancy could reduce preterm birth and adverse neonatal outcomes.
METHODS
We did a systematic review of randomised trials comparing vaginal progesterone, intramuscular 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC), or oral progesterone with control, or with each other, in asymptomatic women at risk of preterm birth. We identified published and unpublished trials that completed primary data collection before July 30, 2016, (12 months before data collection began), by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Maternity and Infant Care Database, and relevant trial registers between inception and July 30, 2019. Trials of progestogen to prevent early miscarriage or immediately-threatened preterm birth were excluded. Individual participant data were requested from investigators of eligible trials. Outcomes included preterm birth, early preterm birth, and mid-trimester birth. Adverse neonatal sequelae associated with early births were assessed using a composite of serious neonatal complications, and individually. Adverse maternal outcomes were investigated as a composite and individually. Individual participant data were checked and risk of bias assessed independently by two researchers. Primary meta-analyses used one-stage generalised linear mixed models that incorporated random effects to allow for heterogeneity across trials. This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42017068299.
FINDINGS
Initial searches identified 47 eligible trials. Individual participant data were available for 30 of these trials. An additional trial was later included in a targeted update. Data were therefore available from a total of 31 trials (11 644 women and 16185 offspring). Trials in singleton pregnancies included mostly women with previous spontaneous preterm birth or short cervix. Preterm birth before 34 weeks was reduced in such women who received vaginal progesterone (nine trials, 3769 women; relative risk [RR] 0·78, 95% CI 0·68-0·90), 17-OHPC (five trials, 3053 women; 0·83, 0·68-1·01), and oral progesterone (two trials, 181 women; 0·60, 0·40-0·90). Results for other birth and neonatal outcomes were consistently favourable, but less certain. A possible increase in maternal complications was suggested, but this was uncertain. We identified no consistent evidence of treatment interaction with any participant characteristics examined, although analyses within subpopulations questioned efficacy in women who did not have a short cervix. Trials in multifetal pregnancies mostly included women without additional risk factors. For twins, vaginal progesterone did not reduce preterm birth before 34 weeks (eight trials, 2046 women: RR 1·01, 95% CI 0·84-1·20) nor did 17-OHPC for twins or triplets (eight trials, 2253 women: 1·04, 0·92-1·18). Preterm premature rupture of membranes was increased with 17-OHPC exposure in multifetal gestations (rupture <34 weeks RR 1·59, 95% CI 1·15-2·22), but we found no consistent evidence of benefit or harm for other outcomes with either vaginal progesterone or 17-OHPC.
INTERPRETATION
Vaginal progesterone and 17-OHPC both reduced birth before 34 weeks' gestation in high-risk singleton pregnancies. Given increased underlying risk, absolute risk reduction is greater for women with a short cervix, hence treatment might be most useful for these women. Evidence for oral progesterone is insufficient to support its use. Shared decision making with woman with high-risk singleton pregnancies should discuss an individual's risk, potential benefits, harms and practicalities of intervention. Treatment of unselected multifetal pregnancies with a progestogen is not supported by the evidence.
FUNDING
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
Topics: 17-alpha-Hydroxyprogesterone; Administration, Intravaginal; Decision Making, Shared; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Injections, Intramuscular; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Pregnancy, High-Risk; Premature Birth; Progesterone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 33773630
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00217-8 -
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology... Feb 2022Injections with intramuscular (IM) testosterone esters have been available for almost 8 decades and not only result in predictable serum testosterone levels but are also...
CONTEXT
Injections with intramuscular (IM) testosterone esters have been available for almost 8 decades and not only result in predictable serum testosterone levels but are also the most inexpensive modality. However, they are difficult to self-administer and associated with some discomfort. Recently, subcutaneous (SC) administration of testosterone esters has gained popularity, as self-administration is easier with this route. Available data, though limited, support the feasibility of this route. Here we review the pharmacokinetics and safety of SC testosterone therapy with both long- and ultralong-acting testosterone esters. In addition, we provide guidance for clinicians on how to counsel and manage their patients who opt for the SC route.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Systematic review of available literature on SC testosterone administration including clinical trials, case series, and case reports. We also review the pharmacology of testosterone absorption after SC administration.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Available evidence, though limited, suggests that SC testosterone therapy in doses similar to those given via IM route results in comparable pharmacokinetics and mean serum testosterone levels. With appropriate training, patients should be able to safely self-administer testosterone esters SC with relative ease and less discomfort compared with the IM route.
CONCLUSION
Although studies directly comparing the safety of SC vs IM administration of testosterone esters are desirable, clinicians should consider discussing the SC route with their patients because it is easier to self-administer and has the potential to improve patient adherence.
Topics: Feasibility Studies; Female; Humans; Hypogonadism; Injections, Intramuscular; Injections, Subcutaneous; Male; Self Administration; Sex Reassignment Procedures; Testosterone; Transgender Persons
PubMed: 34698352
DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgab772 -
Nutrients Aug 2021Astaxanthin (ASX), a xanthophyll carotenoid derived from microalgae , mitigating skin photoaging and age-related skin diseases by its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CONTEXT
Astaxanthin (ASX), a xanthophyll carotenoid derived from microalgae , mitigating skin photoaging and age-related skin diseases by its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects in animal studies.
OBJECTIVE
The aim was to systematically evaluate if ASX applications have anti-ageing effects in humans.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science found a total of eleven studies. Nine randomised, controlled human studies assessed oral ASX effects and two open-label, prospective studies evaluated topical, oral-topical ASX effects on skin ageing. was used to extract mean values and standard deviations of baseline and endpoint, and Cochrane Collaboration's tool assessed RoB for all included studies. Review Manager 5.4 was used to conduct meta-analysis of RCTs; the results were reported as effect size ± 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS
Oral ASX supplementation significantly restored moisture content (SMD = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.05, 1.01; I = 52%; = 0.03) and improved elasticity (SMD = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.19, 1.35; I = 75%; = 0.009) but did not significantly decrease wrinkle depth (SMD = -0.26; 95% CI = -0.58, 0.06; I = 0%; = 0.11) compared to placebo. Open-label, prospective studies suggested slightly protective effects of topical and oral-topical ASX applications on skin ageing.
CONCLUSIONS
Ingestion and/or topical usages of ASX may be effective in reducing skin ageing and have promising cosmetical potential, as it improves moisture content and elasticity and reduces wrinkles.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Adult; Aged; Aging; Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antioxidants; Chlorophyta; Cosmetics; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin; Skin Aging; Xanthophylls; Young Adult
PubMed: 34578794
DOI: 10.3390/nu13092917 -
The Lancet. Psychiatry Apr 2020Approximately 188 million people use cannabis yearly worldwide, and it has recently been legalised in 11 US states, Canada, and Uruguay for recreational use. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Approximately 188 million people use cannabis yearly worldwide, and it has recently been legalised in 11 US states, Canada, and Uruguay for recreational use. The potential for increased cannabis use highlights the need to better understand its risks, including the acute induction of psychotic and other psychiatric symptoms. We aimed to investigate the effect of the cannabis constituent Δ-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) alone and in combination with cannabidiol (CBD) compared with placebo on psychiatric symptoms in healthy people.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO for studies published in English between database inception and May 21, 2019, with a within-person, crossover design. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting symptoms using psychiatric scales (the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale [BPRS] and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS]) following the acute administration of intravenous, oral, or nasal THC, CBD, and placebo in healthy participants, and presenting data that allowed calculation of standardised mean change (SMC) scores for positive (including delusions and hallucinations), negative (such as blunted affect and amotivation), and general (including depression and anxiety) symptoms. We did a random-effects meta-analysis to assess the main outcomes of the effect sizes for total, positive, and negative PANSS and BPRS scores measured in healthy participants following THC administration versus placebo. Because the number of studies to do a meta-analysis on CBD's moderating effects was insufficient, this outcome was only systematically reviewed. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019136674.
FINDINGS
15 eligible studies involving the acute administration of THC and four studies on CBD plus THC administration were identified. Compared with placebo, THC significantly increased total symptom severity with a large effect size (assessed in nine studies, with ten independent samples, involving 196 participants: SMC 1·10 [95% CI 0·92-1·28], p<0·0001); positive symptom severity (assessed in 14 studies, with 15 independent samples, involving 324 participants: SMC 0·91 [95% CI 0·68-1·14], p<0·0001); and negative symptom severity with a large effect size (assessed in 12 studies, with 13 independent samples, involving 267 participants: SMC 0·78 [95% CI 0·59-0·97], p<0·0001). In the systematic review, of the four studies evaluating CBD's effects on THC-induced symptoms, only one identified a significant reduction in symptoms.
INTERPRETATION
A single THC administration induces psychotic, negative, and other psychiatric symptoms with large effect sizes. There is no consistent evidence that CBD induces symptoms or moderates the effects of THC. These findings highlight the potential risks associated with the use of cannabis and other cannabinoids that contain THC for recreational or therapeutic purposes.
FUNDING
UK Medical Research Council, Maudsley Charity, Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, Wellcome Trust, and the UK National Institute for Health Research.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Cannabidiol; Dronabinol; Drug Combinations; Drug Interactions; Hallucinogens; Humans; Marijuana Smoking; Psychoses, Substance-Induced
PubMed: 32197092
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30074-2 -
Journal of Patient Safety Dec 2021Delivery of intravenous medications in hospitals is a complex process posing to systemic risks for errors. The aim of this study was to identify systemic causes of...
OBJECTIVES
Delivery of intravenous medications in hospitals is a complex process posing to systemic risks for errors. The aim of this study was to identify systemic causes of in-hospital intravenous medication errors.
METHODS
A systematic review adhering to PRISMA guidelines was conducted. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, CINAHL, and EMB reviews for articles published between January 2005 and June 2016. Peer-reviewed journal articles published in English were included. Two reviewers independently selected articles according to a predetermined PICO tool. The quality of studies was assessed using the GRADE system and the evidence analyzed using qualitative content analysis.
RESULTS
Eleven studies from six countries were included in the analysis. We identified systemic causes related to prescribing (n = 6 studies), preparation (n = 6), administration (n = 6), dispensing and storage (n = 5), and treatment monitoring (n = 2). Administration, prescribing, and preparation were the process phases most prone to systemic errors. Insufficient actions to secure safe use of high-alert medications, lack of knowledge of the drug, calculation tasks, failure in double-checking procedures, and confusion between look-alike, sound-alike medications were the leading causes of intravenous medication errors. The number of the included studies was limited, all of them being observational studies and graded as low quality.
CONCLUSIONS
Current intravenous medication systems remain vulnerable, which can result in patient harm. Our findings suggest further focus on medication safety activities related to administration, prescribing, and preparation of intravenous medications. This study provides healthcare organizations with preliminary knowledge about systemic causes of intravenous medication errors, but more rigorous evidence is needed.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Hospitals; Humans; Medication Errors; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 32011427
DOI: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000632 -
European Radiology May 2022Guidelines for management and prevention of contrast media extravasation have not been updated recently. In view of emerging research and changing working practices,...
NEED FOR A REVIEW
Guidelines for management and prevention of contrast media extravasation have not been updated recently. In view of emerging research and changing working practices, this review aims to inform update on the current guidelines.
AREAS COVERED
In this paper, we review the literature pertaining to the pathophysiology, diagnosis, risk factors and treatments of contrast media extravasation. A suggested protocol and guidelines are recommended based upon the available literature.
KEY POINTS
• Risk of extravasation is dependent on scanning technique and patient risk factors. • Diagnosis is mostly clinical, and outcomes are mostly favourable. • Referral to surgery should be based on clinical severity rather than extravasated volume.
Topics: Humans; Administration, Intravenous; Contrast Media; Extravasation of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Materials; Risk Factors
PubMed: 35175378
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-08433-4