-
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Jun 2021Intra-articular (IA) corticosteroid (CS) injections are the mainstay of treatment for symptomatic management in knee osteoarthritis (OA), particularly in the UK. IA... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Intra-articular platelet-rich plasma injections versus intra-articular corticosteroid injections for symptomatic management of knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Intra-articular (IA) corticosteroid (CS) injections are the mainstay of treatment for symptomatic management in knee osteoarthritis (OA), particularly in the UK. IA platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are a promising alternative, but no systematic reviews to date have compared them to the current standard of care, IA CS injections. We aim to investigate the effect of IA PRP injections versus IA corticosteroid injections for the symptomatic management of knee OA.
METHODS
All published trials comparing IA PRP and CS injections for knee OA were included. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science were searched through June 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A random effects model was used to calculate standardized mean difference with 95% confidence interval in WOMAC/VAS score (or subscores), comparing IA PRP to CS injections across studies.
RESULTS
Included were eight studies and 648 patients, 443 (68%) were female, mean age 59 years, with a mean BMI of 28.4. Overall, the studies were considered at low risk of bias. Compared with CS injections, PRP was significantly better in reducing OA symptoms (pain, stiffness, functionality) at 3, 6 and 9 months post-intervention (P < 0.01). The greatest effect was observed at 6 and 9 months (- 0.78 (- 1.34 to - 0.23) standard mean deviations (SMD) and - 1.63 (- 2.14 to - 1.12) SMD respectively). At 6 months, this equates to an additional reduction of 9.51 in WOMAC or 0.97 on the VAS pain scales. At 6 months PRP allowed greater return to sporting activities than CS, measured by the KOOS subscale for sporting activity, of magnitude 9.7 (- 0.45 to 19.85) (P = 0.06). Triple injections of PRP, generally separated by a week, were superior to single injections over 12 months follow-up (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
IA-PRP injections produce superior outcomes when compared with CS injections for symptomatic management of knee OA, including improved pain management, less joint stiffness and better participation in exercise/sporting activity at 12 months follow-up. Giving three IA-PRP, with injections separated by a week, appears more effective than 1 IA-PRP injection.
PROSPERO TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020181928 .
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Female; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Injections, Intra-Articular; Male; Middle Aged; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34134679
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-021-04308-3 -
Advances in Clinical and Experimental... Aug 2020The antibiotic meropenem is commonly administered to patients with sepsis and septic shock. The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The antibiotic meropenem is commonly administered to patients with sepsis and septic shock. The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of continuous compared to intermittent meropenem infusion for the treatment of sepsis. Electronic databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were researched to collect clinical trials comparing continuous and intermittent infusion of meropenem in patients with sepsis. After data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies, Stata v. 12.0 software (Stata Corporation LLC, College Station, USA) was used for a meta-analysis of mortality, clinical cure, microbiological eradication, and safety. Seven studies with a total of 1,191 participants met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that continuous meropenem infusion was superior to intermittent infusion in terms of mortality (combined risk ratio (RR) = 0.66, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 0.46-0.98, p = 0.03), clinical cure rate (combined RR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.02-1.30, p = 0.026) and microbiological eradication (combined RR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.01-1.42, p = 0.04), although it may increase the incidence of some adverse events (AEs). Compared with intermittent dosing, administration of meropenem antibiotics through continuous infusion in patients with sepsis is associated with decreased hospital mortality, increased clinical cure rates and greater microbiological eradication. Further high-quality studies should be conducted to confirm our findings.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; China; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Meropenem; Sepsis
PubMed: 32783408
DOI: 10.17219/acem/121934 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Nov 2020Patients and clinicians can choose from several treatment options to address acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients and clinicians can choose from several treatment options to address acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries.
PURPOSE
To assess the comparative effectiveness of outpatient treatments for acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries by performing a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to 2 January 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Pairs of reviewers independently identified interventional RCTs that enrolled patients presenting with pain of up to 4 weeks' duration from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries.
DATA EXTRACTION
Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data. Certainty of evidence was evaluated by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The 207 eligible studies included 32 959 participants and evaluated 45 therapies. Ninety-nine trials (48%) enrolled populations with diverse musculoskeletal injuries, 59 (29%) included patients with sprains, 13 (6%) with whiplash, and 11 (5%) with muscle strains; the remaining trials included various injuries ranging from nonsurgical fractures to contusions. Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) proved to have the greatest net benefit, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac. Effects of these agents on pain were modest (around 1 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale, approximating the minimal important difference). Regarding opioids, compared with placebo, acetaminophen plus an opioid improved intermediate pain (1 to 7 days) but not immediate pain (≤2 hours), tramadol was ineffective, and opioids increased the risk for gastrointestinal and neurologic harms (all moderate-certainty evidence).
LIMITATIONS
Only English-language studies were included. The number of head-to-head comparisons was limited.
CONCLUSION
Topical NSAIDs, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac, showed the most convincing and attractive benefit-harm ratio for patients with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. No opioid achieved benefit greater than that of NSAIDs, and opioids caused the most harms.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
National Safety Council. (PROSPERO: CRD42018094412).
Topics: Acetaminophen; Acute Pain; Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Diclofenac; Drug Eruptions; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Musculoskeletal System; Nervous System Diseases; Network Meta-Analysis; Patient Satisfaction; Physical Functional Performance; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32805127
DOI: 10.7326/M19-3601 -
Critical Care (London, England) Jul 2021While recommended by international societal guidelines in the paediatric population, the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) as mechanical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as mechanical circulatory support in adult septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis with individual participant data meta-regression analysis.
BACKGROUND
While recommended by international societal guidelines in the paediatric population, the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) as mechanical circulatory support for refractory septic shock in adults is controversial. We aimed to characterise the outcomes of adults with septic shock requiring VA ECMO, and identify factors associated with survival.
METHODS
We searched Pubmed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane databases from inception until 1st June 2021, and included all relevant publications reporting on > 5 adult patients requiring VA ECMO for septic shock. Study quality and certainty in evidence were assessed using the appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute checklist, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, respectively. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge, and secondary outcomes included intensive care unit length of stay, duration of ECMO support, complications while on ECMO, and sources of sepsis. Random-effects meta-analysis (DerSimonian and Laird) were conducted.
DATA SYNTHESIS
We included 14 observational studies with 468 patients in the meta-analysis. Pooled survival was 36.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 23.6%-50.1%). Survival among patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 20% (62.0%, 95%-CI: 51.6%-72.0%) was significantly higher than those with LVEF > 35% (32.1%, 95%-CI: 8.69%-60.7%, p = 0.05). Survival reported in studies from Asia (19.5%, 95%-CI: 13.0%-26.8%) was notably lower than those from Europe (61.0%, 95%-CI: 48.4%-73.0%) and North America (45.5%, 95%-CI: 16.7%-75.8%). GRADE assessment indicated high certainty of evidence for pooled survival.
CONCLUSIONS
When treated with VA ECMO, the majority of patients with septic shock and severe sepsis-induced myocardial depression survive. However, VA ECMO has poor outcomes in adults with septic shock without severe left ventricular depression. VA ECMO may be a viable treatment option in carefully selected adult patients with refractory septic shock.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Cardiovascular System; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Fluid Therapy; Humans; Regression Analysis; Shock, Septic
PubMed: 34261492
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-021-03668-5 -
Pain Physician Oct 2022Epidural injections are among the most commonly performed procedures for managing low back and lower extremity pain. Pinto et al and Chou et al previously performed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Epidural injections are among the most commonly performed procedures for managing low back and lower extremity pain. Pinto et al and Chou et al previously performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which, along with a recent update from Oliveira et al showing the lack of effectiveness of epidural steroid injections in managing lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and radiculopathy. In contrast to these papers, multiple other systematic reviews and meta-analyses have supported the effectiveness and use of epidural injections utilizing fluoroscopically guided techniques. A major flaw in the review can be related to attributing active-controlled trials to placebo-controlled trials. The assumption that local anesthetics do not provide sustained benefit, despite extensive evidence that local anesthetics provide long-term relief, similar to a combination of local anesthetic with steroids is flawed.
STUDY DESIGN
The Cochrane Review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy were reanalyzed using systematic methodology and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
To re-evaluate Cochrane data on RCTs of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy utilizing qualitative and quantitative techniques with dual-arm and single-arm analysis.
METHODS
In this systematic review, we have used the same RCTs from the Cochrane Review of a minimum of 20% change in pain scale or significant pain relief of >= 50%. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement. Significant improvement was defined as 50% or greater pain relief and functional status improvement. Our review was performed utilizing the Cochrane Review methodologic quality assessment and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB). Evidence was summarized utilizing the principles of best evidence synthesis and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system. Clinical relevance of the pragmatic nature of each study was assessed.
RESULTS
In evaluating the RCTs in the Cochrane Review, 10 trials were performed with fluoroscopic guidance. Utilizing conventional dual-arm and single-arm meta-analysis, the evidence is vastly different from the interpretation of the data within the Cochrane Review. The overall combined evidence is Level I, or strong evidence, at one and 3 months, and Level II, or moderate evidence, at 6 and 12 months.
LIMITATIONS
The limitation of this study is that only data contained in the Cochrane Review were analyzed.
CONCLUSION
A comparative systematic review and meta-analysis of the Cochrane Review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy yielded different results. This review, based on the evidence derived from placebo-controlled trials and active-controlled trials showed Level I, or strong evidence, at one and 3 months and Level II at 6 and 12 months. This review once again emphasizes the importance of the allocation of studies to placebo-control and active-control groups, utilizing standards of practice with inclusion of only the studies performed under fluoroscopic guidance.
Topics: Humans; Radiculopathy; Anesthetics, Local; Sciatica; Low Back Pain; Injections, Epidural; Steroids
PubMed: 36288577
DOI: No ID Found -
Farmacia Hospitalaria : Organo Oficial... 2024The off-label use in clinical practice of non-approved syringes for intravitreal drug administration has resulted in the detection of silicone oil drops in the vitreous... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The off-label use in clinical practice of non-approved syringes for intravitreal drug administration has resulted in the detection of silicone oil drops in the vitreous of some patients. This situation derives from the lack of approved syringes for intraocular use in the Spanish market. The aim of this work is to review the use of syringes for intraocular administration, as well as to search for alternatives that meet the legal requirements for these unmet needs.
METHOD
A systematic review was performed following the PRISMA 2020 Guidelines by searching PubMed with the descriptors: "silicone" AND "syringes" AND ("intraocular" OR "intravitreal") and filtering all existing publications from January 2006 to December 2023, including all those articles dealing with silicone oil release in intravitreal injections and analysing the possible consequences.
RESULTS
Sixty-eight results were found, 23 of which were excluded because they did not deal with the subject under study, leaving a total of 45 articles for the systematic review. These were classified according to the conclusions obtained in 4 groups: the adverse reactions produced by silicone, the administration technique, the physicochemical aspects of silicone release, and the characteristics of the medical device. After reviewing the current manufacturers and technical data sheets of commercialized syringes, the existing syringes for this use have been collected, finding two that will probably be commercialized in Spain at the beginning of 2024: Zero Residual™ 0.2 ml SiO-free and VitreJect® Ophthalmic.
CONCLUSIONS
From the results obtained, it can be interpreted that the use of syringes and needles with silicone for intravitreal use is a concern for health professionals due to the implications and consequences that may arise in patients, the most important being adverse reactions, so it is necessary to have silicone-free syringes on the market that are specific for intraocular use. Safety and legality in the use of intraocular syringes and needles is essential to guarantee ocular integrity and patient health.
Topics: Syringes; Humans; Silicone Oils; Intravitreal Injections; Off-Label Use; Spain
PubMed: 38556370
DOI: 10.1016/j.farma.2024.01.008 -
Sports Health 2023To determine optimal treatment strategies for shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
To determine optimal treatment strategies for shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS).
OBJECTIVE
To compare subacromial nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory injections (SNIs) and subacromial corticosteroid injections (SCIs) on pain relief and functional improvement in individuals with SIS. Second, to perform a cost analysis of the 2 injections.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases were searched for randomized controlled trials using several keywords.
STUDY SELECTION
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were utilized, and 10 studies comparing changes in pain or function in humans with SIS receiving SNIs or SCIs were included. Quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 scale and the Cochrane Collaboration tool.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level 1.
DATA EXTRACTION
Baseline and follow-up scores of the visual analog, Constant-Murley, and University of California Los Angeles shoulder scales were extracted to calculate effect sizes (ESs), represented as Cohen . Metaregression and publication bias analyses were performed. Procedural and medication costs were extracted from Medicare guidelines.
RESULTS
A total of 7 high and 3 good quality studies were included, with a mean score of 21.1. Only 1 study had a high risk of bias. The meta-analyses produced pooled ESs of 0.05 ( = 0.83), 0.12 ( = 0.71), and 0.07 ( = 0.79) for each scale, respectively, with CIs crossing 0. Procedural costs were equal between groups, whereas ketorolac was the least costly medication ($0.47). There was no significant difference in side effects between the 2 injections.
CONCLUSION
SNIs are as effective as SCIs for short-term pain relief and improving function in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome. In addition, they are less expensive and cause no major difference in complications, providing a viable, cost-effective alternative for injection therapy in patients with SIS.
Topics: Aged; United States; Humans; Shoulder Impingement Syndrome; Injections, Intra-Articular; Medicare; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Pain
PubMed: 35897160
DOI: 10.1177/19417381221108726 -
Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2021Overactive bladder syndrome (OAB) is characterised by urgency symptoms, with or without urgency incontinence, usually with frequency and nocturia and severely affects... (Review)
Review
Overactive bladder syndrome (OAB) is characterised by urgency symptoms, with or without urgency incontinence, usually with frequency and nocturia and severely affects the quality of life. This systematic review evaluates the various drug delivery strategies used in practice to manage OAB. Advanced drug delivery strategies alongside traditional strategies were comprehensively analysed and comparatively evaluated. The present review was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. A total of 24 studies reporting the development of novel formulations for the treatment of OAB were considered eligible and were further categorised according to the route of drug administration. The review found that various drug delivery routes (transdermal, intravesicular, oral, vaginal and intramuscular) are used for the administration of drugs for managing OAB, however, the outcomes illustrated the marked potential of transdermal drug delivery route. The findings of the current review are expected to be helpful for pharmaceutical scientists to better comprehend the existing literature and challenges and is anticipated to provide a basis for designing and fabricating novel drug delivery systems to manage OAB.
PubMed: 33925860
DOI: 10.3390/ph14050409 -
Science Progress 2021All cancers can increase the risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), and anticoagulants should be considered as an optimal treatment for patients suffering from... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
All cancers can increase the risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), and anticoagulants should be considered as an optimal treatment for patients suffering from cancer-associated VTE. However, there is still a debate about whether the new oral anticoagulant, rivaroxaban, can bring better efficacy and safety outcomes globally. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure for relevant published papers before 1 September 2019, with no language restrictions. The primary outcomes are defined as the recurrence of VTE. The secondary outcomes are defined as clinically relevant non-major bleeding, adverse major bleeding events, and all-cause of death. The data were analyzed by Stata with risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Four trials encompassing 1996 patients were included. Rivaroxaban reduced recurrent VTE with no significant difference (RR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.43-1.07). Similarly, there were no significant differences in adverse major bleeding events (RR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.37-2.00), clinically relevant non-major bleeding (RR = 1.24, 95% CI = 0.73-2.12) and all-cause mortality (RR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.40-1.44). In a selected study population of cancer patients with VTE, rivaroxaban is as good as other anticoagulants. Further, carefully designed randomized controlled trials should be performed to confirm these results.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Hemorrhage; Humans; Neoplasms; Rivaroxaban; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 33913387
DOI: 10.1177/00368504211012160 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Medical abortion became an alternative method of pregnancy termination following the development of prostaglandins and antiprogesterone in the 1970s and 1980s. Recently,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Medical abortion became an alternative method of pregnancy termination following the development of prostaglandins and antiprogesterone in the 1970s and 1980s. Recently, synthesis inhibitors of oestrogen (such as letrozole) have also been used to enhance efficacy. The most widely researched drugs are prostaglandins (such as misoprostol, which has a strong uterotonic effect), mifepristone, mifepristone with prostaglandins, and letrozole with prostaglandins. More evidence is needed to identify the best dosage, regimen, and route of administration to optimise patient outcomes. This is an update of a review last published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness and side effects of different medical methods for first trimester abortion.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, and LILACs on 28 February 2021. We also searched Clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and reference lists of retrieved papers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different medical methods for abortion before the 12th week of gestation. The primary outcome is failure to achieve complete abortion. Secondary outcomes are mortality, surgical evacuation, ongoing pregnancy at follow-up, time until passing of conceptus, blood transfusion, side effects and women's dissatisfaction with the method.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected and evaluated studies for inclusion, and assessed the risk of bias. We processed data using Review Manager 5 software. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 99 studies in the review (58 from the original review and 41 new studies). 1. Combined regimen mifepristone/prostaglandin Mifepristone dose: high-dose (600 mg) compared to low-dose (200 mg) mifepristone probably has similar effectiveness in achieving complete abortion (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.33; I = 0%; 4 RCTs, 3494 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Prostaglandin dose: 800 µg misoprostol probably reduces abortion failure compared to 400 µg (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.78; I= 0%; 3 RCTs, 4424 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Prostaglandin timing: misoprostol administered on day one probably achieves more success on complete abortion than on day three (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.58; 1489 women; 1 RCT; moderate-certainty evidence). Administration strategy: there may be no difference in failure of complete abortion with self-administration at home compared with hospital administration (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.68 to 3.94; I = 84%; 2263 women; 4 RCTs; low-certainty evidence), but failure may be higher when administered by nurses in hospital compared to by doctors in hospital (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.39 to 5.22; I = 66%; 3 RCTs, 3056 women; low-certainty evidence). Administration route: oral misoprostol probably leads to more failures than the vaginal route (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.87; I = 39%; 3 RCTs, 1704 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and may be associated with more frequent side effects such as nausea (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.26; I = 0%; 2 RCTs, 1380 women; low-certainty evidence) and diarrhoea (RR 1.80 95% CI 1.49 to 2.17; I = 0%; 2 RCTs, 1379 women). Compared with the vaginal route, complete abortion failure is probably lower with sublingual (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.11; I = 59%; 2 RCTs, 3229 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and may be lower with buccal administration (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.46; I = 0%; 2 RCTs, 479 women; low-certainty evidence), but sublingual or buccal routes may lead to more side effects. Women may experience more vomiting with sublingual compared to buccal administration (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.77; low-certainty evidence). 2. Mifepristone alone versus combined regimen The efficacy of mifepristone alone in achieving complete abortion compared to combined mifepristone/prostaglandin up to 12 weeks is unclear (RR of failure 3.25, 95% CI 0.81 to 13.09; I = 83%; 3 RCTs, 273 women; very low-certainty evidence). 3. Prostaglandin alone versus combined regimen Nineteen studies compared prostaglandin alone to a combined regimen (prostaglandin combined with mifepristone, letrozole, estradiol valerate, tamoxifen, or methotrexate). Compared to any of the combination regimens, misoprostol alone may increase the risk for failure to achieve complete abortion (RR of failure 2.39, 95% CI 1.89 to 3.02; I = 64%; 18 RCTs, 3471 women; low-certainty evidence), and with more diarrhoea. 4. Prostaglandin alone (route of administration) Oral misoprostol alone may lead to more failures in complete abortion than the vaginal route (RR 3.68, 95% CI 1.56 to 8.71, 2 RCTs, 216 women; low-certainty evidence). Failure to achieve complete abortion may be slightly reduced with sublingual compared with vaginal (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.28; I = 87%; 5 RCTs, 2705 women; low-certainty evidence) and oral administration (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.99; I = 66%; 2 RCTs, 173 women). Failure to achieve complete abortion may be similar or slightly higher with sublingual administration compared to buccal administration (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.74; 1 study, 401 women).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Safe and effective medical abortion methods are available. Combined regimens (prostaglandin combined with mifepristone, letrozole, estradiol valerate, tamoxifen, or methotrexate) may be more effective than single agents (prostaglandin alone or mifepristone alone). In the combined regimen, the dose of mifepristone can probably be lowered to 200 mg without significantly decreasing effectiveness. Vaginal misoprostol is probably more effective than oral administration, and may have fewer side effects than sublingual or buccal. Some results are limited by the small numbers of participants on which they are based. Almost all studies were conducted in settings with good access to emergency services, which may limit the generalisability of these results.
Topics: Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal; Abortion, Spontaneous; Diarrhea; Drug Therapy, Combination; Estradiol; Female; Humans; Letrozole; Methotrexate; Mifepristone; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Prostaglandins; Tamoxifen
PubMed: 35608608
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002855.pub5