-
The Journal of Antimicrobial... Aug 2022To explore the literature comparing the pharmacokinetic and clinical outcomes from adding probenecid to oral β-lactams. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To explore the literature comparing the pharmacokinetic and clinical outcomes from adding probenecid to oral β-lactams.
METHODS
Medline and EMBASE were searched from inception to December 2021 for all English language studies comparing the addition of probenecid (intervention) with an oral β-lactam [flucloxacillin, penicillin V, amoxicillin (± clavulanate), cefalexin, cefuroxime axetil] alone (comparator). ROBINS-I and ROB-2 tools were used. Data on antibiotic therapy, infection diagnosis, primary and secondary outcomes relating to pharmacokinetics and clinical outcomes, plus adverse events were extracted and reported descriptively. For a subset of studies comparing treatment failure between probenecid and control groups, meta-analysis was performed.
RESULTS
Overall, 18/295 (6%) screened abstracts were included. Populations, methodology and outcome data were heterogeneous. Common populations included healthy volunteers (9/18; 50%) and those with gonococcal infection (6/18; 33%). Most studies were crossover trials (11/18; 61%) or parallel-arm randomized trials (4/18; 22%). Where pharmacokinetic analyses were performed, addition of probenecid to oral β-lactams increased total AUC (7/7; 100%), Cmax (5/8; 63%) and serum t½ (6/8; 75%). Probenecid improved PTA (2/2; 100%). Meta-analysis of 3105 (2258 intervention, 847 control) patients treated for gonococcal disease demonstrated a relative risk of treatment failure in the random-effects model of 0.33 (95% CI 0.20-0.55; I2 = 7%), favouring probenecid.
CONCLUSIONS
Probenecid-boosted β-lactam therapy is associated with improved outcomes in gonococcal disease. Pharmacokinetic data suggest that probenecid-boosted oral β-lactam therapy may have a broader application, but appropriately powered mechanistic and efficacy studies are required.
Topics: Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Gonorrhea; Humans; Monobactams; Probenecid; beta-Lactams
PubMed: 35726853
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkac200 -
Heliyon Mar 2020The cytochrome P450 enzyme functions as the rate-limiting enzyme in changing androgens to estrogens. Inhibition of aromatase is one of the significant objectives of... (Review)
Review
The cytochrome P450 enzyme functions as the rate-limiting enzyme in changing androgens to estrogens. Inhibition of aromatase is one of the significant objectives of treatment of hormone-dependent diseases such as breast cancer, especially in post-menopausal women. Natural compounds like chrysin, as a flavor that has a high concentration in honey and propolis, are rich sources of them can be useful in inhibiting aromatase for chemoprevention following treatment or in women at risk of acquiring breast cancer. This study intended to summarize the existing evidence on the effect of chrysin on aromatase activity. We systematically searched Science Direct, PubMed and Google Scholar and hand searched the reference lists of identified relevant articles, up to 5 February, 2019. Articles with English abstracts that reported the effect of chrysin on aromatase inhibition and without publication date restriction were investigated. Twenty relevant articles were chosen from a total of 1721 articles. Only one study was performed on humans and two studies were assayed on rats, while other studies were evaluated in vitro. All the studies except one showed that chrysin had the potency of aromatase inhibition; however, only one study performed on endometrial stromal cells showed that chrysin and naringenin did not indicate aromatase inhibitory properties. Various assay methods and experimental conditions were the important aspects leading to different results between the studies. Chrysin has potency in inhibition of the aromatase enzyme and thus can be useful in preventing and treating the hormone-dependent breast cancer and as an adjuvant therapy for estrogen-dependent diseases.
PubMed: 32181408
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03557 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in premenopausal and postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. Taxanes are highly active chemotherapy agents used in...
BACKGROUND
Adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in premenopausal and postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. Taxanes are highly active chemotherapy agents used in metastatic breast cancer. Review authors examined their role in early breast cancer. This review is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of taxane-containing adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for treatment of women with operable early breast cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
For this review update, we searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (2018, Issue 6), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 16 July 2018, using key words such as 'early breast cancer' and 'taxanes'. We screened reference lists of other related literature reviews and articles, contacted trial authors, and applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials comparing taxane-containing regimens versus non-taxane-containing regimens in women with operable breast cancer were included. Studies of women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Hazard ratios (HRs) were derived for time-to-event outcomes, and meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect model. The primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS); disease-free survival (DFS) was a secondary outcome measure. Toxicity was represented as odds ratios (ORs), and quality of life (QoL) data were extracted when present.
MAIN RESULTS
This review included 29 studies (27 full-text publications and 2 abstracts or online theses). The updated analysis included 41,911 randomised women; the original review included 21,191 women. Taxane-containing regimens improved OS (HR 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 0.92; high-certainty evidence; 27 studies; 39,180 women; 6501 deaths) and DFS (HR, 0.88, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.92; high-certainty evidence; 29 studies; 41,909 women; 10,271 reported events) compared to chemotherapy without a taxane. There was moderate to substantial heterogeneity across studies for OS and DFS (respectively).When a taxane-containing regimen was compared with the same regimen without a taxane, the beneficial effects of taxanes persisted for OS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92; P < 0.001; 7 studies; 10,842 women) and for DFS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.90; P < 0.001; 7 studies; 10,842 women). When a taxane-containing regimen was compared with the same regimen with another drug or drugs that were substituted for the taxane, a beneficial effect was observed for OS and DFS with the taxane-containing regimen (OS: HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.86; P < 0.001; 13 studies; 16,196 women; DFS: HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.88; P < 0.001; 14 studies; 16,823 women). Preliminary subgroup analysis by lymph node status showed a survival benefit with taxane-containing regimens in studies of women with lymph node-positive disease only (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.88; P < 0.001; 17 studies; 22,055 women) but less benefit in studies of women both with and without lymph node metastases or with no lymph node metastases. Taxane-containing regimens also improved DFS in women with lymph node-positive disease (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.88; P < 0.001; 17 studies; 22,055 women), although the benefit was marginal in studies of women both with and without lymph node-positive disease (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.02; 9 studies; 12,998 women) and was not apparent in studies of women with lymph node-negative disease (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.14; 3 studies; 6856 women).Taxanes probably result in a small increase in risk of febrile neutropenia (odds ratio (OR) 1.55, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.49; moderate-certainty evidence; 24 studies; 33,763 women) and likely lead to a large increase in grade 3/4 neuropathy (OR 6.89, 95% CI 3.23 to 14.71; P < 0.001; moderate-certainty evidence; 22 studies; 31,033 women). Taxanes probably cause little or no difference in cardiotoxicity compared to regimens without a taxane (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.33; moderate-certainty evidence; 23 studies; 32,894 women). Seven studies reported low-quality evidence for QoL; overall, taxanes may make little or no difference in QoL compared to chemotherapy without a taxane during the follow-up period; however, the duration of follow-up differed across studies. Only one study, which was conducted in Europe, provided cost-effectiveness data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review of studies supports the use of taxane-containing adjuvant chemotherapy regimens, with improvement in overall survival and disease-free survival for women with operable early breast cancer. This benefit persisted when analyses strictly compared a taxane-containing regimen versus the same regimen without a taxane or the same regimen with another drug that was substituted for the taxane. Preliminary evidence suggests that taxanes are more effective for women with lymph node-positive disease than for those with lymph node-negative disease. Considerable heterogeneity across studies probably reflects the varying efficacy of the chemotherapy backbones of the comparator regimens used in these studies. This review update reports results that are remarkably consistent with those of the original review, and it is highly unlikely that this review will be updated, as new trials are assessing treatments based on more detailed breast cancer biology.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Phytogenic; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Female; Humans; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Paclitaxel; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Taxoids
PubMed: 31476253
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004421.pub3 -
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Feb 2024Extension of adjuvant endocrine therapy beyond five years confers only modest survival benefit in breast cancer patients and carries risk of toxicities. This systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Extension of adjuvant endocrine therapy beyond five years confers only modest survival benefit in breast cancer patients and carries risk of toxicities. This systematic review investigates the role of biomarker tests in predicting the clinical response to an extension of endocrine therapy.
METHODS
We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Global Index Medicus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using an iterative approach to identify full-text articles related to breast cancer, endocrine therapy, and biomarkers.
RESULTS
Of the 1,217 unique reports identified, five studies were deemed eligible. Four investigated the Breast Cancer Index (BCI) assay in three distinct study populations. These studies consistently showed that BCI score was predictive of response to extended endocrine therapy among 1,946 combined patients, who were predominately non-Hispanic white and postmenopausal.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence in the setting of predictive tests for extended endocrine therapy is sparse. Most relevant studies investigated the use of BCI, but these study populations were largely restricted to a single age, race, and ethnicity group. Future studies should evaluate a variety of biomarkers in diverse populations. Without sufficient evidence, physicians and patients face a difficult decision in balancing the benefits and risks of endocrine therapy extension.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Biomarkers
PubMed: 37878151
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-023-07149-x -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is one of the top causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The review aimed to discuss and summarize the current evidence on the...
Effects of early adjunctive pharmacotherapy on serum levels of brain injury biomarkers in patients with traumatic brain injury: a systematic review of randomized controlled studies.
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is one of the top causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The review aimed to discuss and summarize the current evidence on the effectiveness of adjuvant neuroprotective treatments in terms of their effect on brain injury biomarkers in TBI patients. To identify relevant studies, four scholarly databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Google Scholar, were systematically searched using predefined search terms. English-language randomized controlled clinical trials reporting changes in brain injury biomarkers, namely, neuron-specific enolase (NSE), glial fibrillary acid protein (GFAP), ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal esterase L1 (UCHL) and/or S100 beta (S100 ß), were included. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. A total of eleven studies with eight different therapeutic options were investigated; of them, tetracyclines, metformin, and memantine were discovered to be promising choices that could improve neurological outcomes in TBI patients. The most utilized serum biomarkers were NSE and S100 ß followed by GFAP, while none of the included studies quantified UCHL. The heterogeneity in injury severity categories and measurement timing may affect the overall evaluation of the clinical efficacy of potential therapies. Therefore, unified measurement protocols are highly warranted to inform clinical decisions. Few therapeutic options showed promising results as an adjuvant to standard care in patients with TBI. Several considerations for future work must be directed towards standardizing monitoring biomarkers. Investigating the pharmacotherapy effectiveness using a multimodal biomarker panel is needed. Finally, employing stratified randomization in future clinical trials concerning potential confounders, including age, trauma severity levels, and type, is crucial to inform clinical decisions. [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/dis], identifier [CRD42022316327].
PubMed: 37214454
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1185277 -
Medicine Feb 2024Adjuvants may enhance the efficacy of vaccines. however, the efficacy of adjuvant-associated COVID-19 vaccines (ACVs) remains unclear since the emergence of the COVID-19... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Adjuvants may enhance the efficacy of vaccines. however, the efficacy of adjuvant-associated COVID-19 vaccines (ACVs) remains unclear since the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to address this gap by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of ACVs against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 CoV (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern (VOC).
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the vaccine efficacy (VE) of ACVs against VOC (alpha, beta, gamma, delta, or Omicron), up to May 27, 2023. The DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model was used to assess VE with 95% confidence intervals (CI) through meta-analysis. Cochrane Risk of Bias tools were used to assess the risk of bias in RCTs.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs with 113,202 participants were included in the analysis, which incorporated 4 ACVs [Matrix-M (NVX-CoV2373), Alum (BBV152), CpG-1018/Alum (SCB-2019), and AS03 (CoVLP]). The pooled efficacy of full vaccination with ACVs against VOC was 88.0% (95% CI: 83.0-91.5). Full vaccination was effective against Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Gamma variants, with VE values of 93.66% (95% CI: 86.5-100.74), 64.70% (95% CI: 41.87-87.54), 75.95% (95% CI: 67.9-83.99), and 91.26% (95% CI: 84.35-98.17), respectively. Currently, there is a lack of RCT evidence regarding the efficacy of ACVs against the Omicron variant.
CONCLUSION
In this meta-analysis, it should be that full vaccination with ACVs has high efficacy against Alpha or Gamma variants and moderate efficacy against Beta and Delta variants. Notably, with the exception of the aluminum-adjuvanted vaccine, the other ACVs had moderate to high efficacy against the SARS-CoV-2 variant. This raises concerns about the effectiveness of ACVs booster vaccinations against Omicron.
Topics: Humans; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Adjuvants, Immunologic; Adjuvants, Pharmaceutic; COVID-19 Vaccines; Alum Compounds
PubMed: 38363919
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000035201 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Shufeng Jiedu (SFJD) capsules can be used as adjunctive treatment for patients with community-acquired pneumonia, but the effectiveness and safety of SFJD are not...
Chinese Patent Medicine Shufeng Jiedu Capsules as an Adjuvant Therapy for Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.
Shufeng Jiedu (SFJD) capsules can be used as adjunctive treatment for patients with community-acquired pneumonia, but the effectiveness and safety of SFJD are not clear. This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of SFJD based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CENTRAL, CNKI, VIP, CBM, Wanfang and trial registry platforms from their inception to March 2022. Two reviewers screened studies, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias independently. The data were pooled for meta-analysis or presented narratively. Seventeen RCTs involving 1840 participants were included. All trials compared SFJD plus antibiotics to antibiotics, or combined with symptomatic treatment in both groups. The overall certainty of evidence was assessed as moderate to very low certainty. Compared with routine treatment (antibiotics alone or antibiotics plus symptomatic treatment), SFJD plus routine treatment showed beneficial effects in resolution of fever (MD -1.20 days, 95%CI -1.73 to -0.67; 10 RCTs; very low certainty), cough (MD -1.02 days, 95%CI -1.23 to -0.81; 9 RCTs; moderate certainty), phlegm (MD -1.46 days, 95%CI -2.84 to -0.08; 6 RCTs; very low certainty), pulmonary crepitations (MD -1.61 days, 95%CI -2.64 to -0.59; 8 RCTs; low certainty), shortness of breath (MD -2.80 days, 95%CI -2.88 to -2.72; 2 RCTs; low certainty) and chest pain (MD -2.85 days, 95%CI -3.01 to -2.69; 1 RCT; low certainty). There was no significant difference in pathogen clearance (1 RCT). No serious adverse events were reported, but 2.60% (5/192) patients reported nausea in the SFJD groups, 1.04% (2/192) participants in routine group, and no significant difference was identified. Current evidence suggests that adding SFJD may shorten the duration of symptom relief in community-acquired pneumonia for 1-2 days. The adverse events were minor and controllable, and no serious adverse events were reported. Well-reported trials and potential of reducing antibiotics were expected in the future studies.
PubMed: 35860018
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.923395 -
BMC Pharmacology & Toxicology Nov 2023Aluminum phosphide toxicity is a serious problem in many countries. Unfortunately, there is no specific antidote. N-acetylcysteine has been used in some studies as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Aluminum phosphide toxicity is a serious problem in many countries. Unfortunately, there is no specific antidote. N-acetylcysteine has been used in some studies as adjuvant therapy depending on to its antioxidant properties. We hypothesized that IV N-acetylcysteine is effective in reducing mortality rate compared to supportive treatment alone.
METHODS
We searched in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. We only included randomized controlled trials that assessed the efficacy of IV N-acetylcysteine and supportive treatment versus supportive treatment alone in acute aluminum phosphide poisoning. Four investigators independently screened the studies' results and designed the data extraction sheet. The primary and secondary outcomes were mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation rates. Random effects estimators with weights were used to result in the pooled risk ratios.
RESULTS
We included four randomized controlled trials with 177 patients. 91 patients were distributed in N-acetylcysteine group and 86 patients in the control group. Mortality rates in N-acetylcysteine group and in the control group were 43.95% 66.27% respectively. There was a statistically significant reduction in mortality rate after leave out test (pooled risk ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.77). Regarding the need for mechanical ventilation, it was measured only in three RCTs. It was assessed in 67 patients in N-acetylcysteine group and 60 patients in the control group. 24 patients were ventilated in N-acetylcysteine group (35.8%) and 29 patients in the control group (48.3%). But it was statistically nonsignificant (pooled risk ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-1.04).
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis revealed that IV N-acetylcysteine may be effective in reducing mortality of severe aluminum phosphide poisoning cases.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Registration number in Prospero CRD42022375344 on 25 NOVEMBER 2022, retrospectively registered.
Topics: Humans; Acetylcysteine; Antioxidants; Aluminum Compounds; Phosphines
PubMed: 37924139
DOI: 10.1186/s40360-023-00699-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2010; it includes one additional study. Primary generalised tonic-clonic seizures are a type of generalised... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2010; it includes one additional study. Primary generalised tonic-clonic seizures are a type of generalised seizure. Other types of seizures include: absence, myoclonic, and atonic seizures. Effective control of tonic-clonic seizures reduces the risk of injury and death, and improves quality of life. While most people achieve seizure control with one antiepileptic drug, around 30% do not, and require a combination of antiepileptic drugs.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of add-on lamotrigine for drug-resistant primary generalised tonic-clonic seizures.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update, we searched these databases on 19 March 2019: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) Web, MEDLINE Ovid, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The CRS includes records from the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturers of lamotrigine.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled parallel or cross-over trials of add-on lamotrigine for people of any age with drug-resistant primary generalised tonic-clonic seizures.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology; two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, evaluated risk of bias, extracted relevant data, and GRADE-assessed evidence. We investigated these outcomes: (1) 50% or greater reduction in primary generalised tonic-clonic seizure frequency; (2) seizure freedom; (3) treatment withdrawal; (4) adverse effects; (5) cognitive effects; and (6) quality of life. We used an intention-to-treat (ITT) population for all analyses, and presented results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); for adverse effects, we used 99% CIs to compensate for multiple hypothesis testing.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three studies (total 300 participants): two parallel-group studies and one cross-over study. We assessed varied risks of bias across studies; most limitations arose from the poor reporting of methodological details. We meta-analysed data extracted from the two parallel-group studies, and conducted a narrative synthesis for data from the cross-over study. Both parallel-group studies (270 participants) reported all dichotomous outcomes. Participants taking lamotrigine were almost twice as likely to attain a 50% or greater reduction in primary generalised tonic-clonic seizure frequency than those taking a placebo (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.45; low-certainty evidence). The results between groups were inconclusive for the likelihood of seizure freedom (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.72; very low-certainty evidence); treatment withdrawal (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.99; very low-certainty evidence); and individual adverse effects: ataxia (RR 3.05, 99% CI 0.05 to 199.36); dizziness (RR 0.91, 99% CI 0.29 to 2.86; very low-certainty evidence); fatigue (RR 1.02, 99% CI 0.13 to 8.14; very low-certainty evidence); nausea (RR 1.60, 99% CI 0.48 to 5.32; very low-certainty evidence); and somnolence (RR 3.73, 99% CI 0.36 to 38.90; low-certainty evidence). The cross-over trial (26 participants) reported that 7/14 participants with generalised tonic-clonic seizures experienced a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency with add-on lamotrigine compared to placebo. The authors reported four treatment withdrawals, but did not specify during which treatment allocation they occurred. Rash (seven lamotrigine participants; zero placebo participants) and fatigue (five lamotrigine participants; zero placebo participants) were the most frequently reported adverse effects. None of the included studies measured cognition. One parallel-group study (N = 153) evaluated quality of life. They reported inconclusive results for the overall quality of life score between groups (P = 0.74).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review provides insufficient information to inform clinical practice. Low-certainty evidence suggests that lamotrigine reduces the rate of generalised tonic-clonic seizures by 50% or more. Very low-certainty evidence found inconclusive results between groups for all other outcomes. Therefore, we are uncertain to very uncertain that the results reported are accurate, and suggest that the true effect could be grossly different. More trials, recruiting larger populations, over longer periods, are necessary to determine lamotrigine's clinical use.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Dizziness; Drug Eruptions; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Epilepsy, Tonic-Clonic; Exanthema; Fatigue; Humans; Lamotrigine; Nausea; Patient Dropouts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleepiness
PubMed: 32609387
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007783.pub3 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Jul 2021For most procedures, there is insufficient evidence to guide clinicians in the optimal timing of advanced analgesic methods, which should be based on the expected time...
BACKGROUND
For most procedures, there is insufficient evidence to guide clinicians in the optimal timing of advanced analgesic methods, which should be based on the expected time course of acute postoperative pain severity and aimed at time points where basic analgesia has proven insufficient.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search of the literature of analgesic trials for total hip arthroplasty (THA), extracting and pooling pain scores across studies, weighted for study size. Patients were grouped according to basic anaesthetic method used (general, spinal), and adjuvant analgesic interventions such as nerve blocks, local infiltration analgesia, and multimodal analgesia. Special consideration was given to high-risk populations such as chronic pain or opioid-dependent patients.
RESULTS
We identified and analysed 71 trials with 5973 patients and constructed pain trajectories from the available pain scores. In most patients undergoing THA under general anaesthesia on a basic analgesic regimen, postoperative acute pain recedes to a mild level (<4/10) by 4 h after surgery. We note substantial variability in pain intensity even in patients subjected to similar analgesic regimens. Chronic pain or opioid-dependent patients were most often actively excluded from studies, and never analysed separately.
CONCLUSIONS
We have demonstrated that it is feasible to construct procedure-specific pain curves to guide clinicians on the timing of advanced analgesic measures. Acute intense postoperative pain after THA should have resolved by 4-6 h after surgery in most patients. However, there is a substantial gap in knowledge on the management of patients with chronic pain and opioid-dependent patients.
Topics: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Clinical Trials as Topic; Data Interpretation, Statistical; Elective Surgical Procedures; Humans; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 34147158
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2021.02.036