-
Journal of Clinical Medicine May 2023Fever is extremely common in neurocritical care patients and is independently associated with a worse outcome. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) lower the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fever is extremely common in neurocritical care patients and is independently associated with a worse outcome. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) lower the hypothalamic set point temperature through the inhibition of prostaglandin E2 synthesis, and they constitute a second line of pharmacological treatment for temperature control. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of DCF in reducing body temperature and its effects on brain parameters.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of several databases was run in November 2022 in Ovid EBM (Evidence Based Medicine) Reviews, Cochrane library, Ovid Medline and Scopus (1980 onward). The outcome of interest included DCF control of body temperature and its impact on cerebral parameters.
RESULTS
A total of 113 titles were identified as potentially relevant. Six articles met eligible criteria and were reviewed. DCF induce a reduction in body temperature (MD, 1.10 [0.72, 1.49], < 0.00001), a slight decrease in ICP (MD, 2.22 [-0.25, 4.68] IC 95%; < 0.08) as well as in CPP and MAP (MD, 5.58 [0.43, 10.74] IC 95%; < 0.03). The significant heterogeneity and possibility of publication bias reduces the strength of the available evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
Diclofenac sodium is effective in reducing body temperature in patients with brain injury, but data in the literature are scarce and further studies are needed to evaluate the benefits of DCF.
PubMed: 37240549
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12103443 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic auto-immune disorder, involving persistent joint inflammation. NSAIDs are used to control the symptoms of RA, but are associated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic auto-immune disorder, involving persistent joint inflammation. NSAIDs are used to control the symptoms of RA, but are associated with significant gastro-intestinal toxicity, including a risk of potentially life threatening gastroduodenal perforations, ulcers and bleeds. The NSAIDs known as the selective Cox II inhibitors, of which celecoxib is a member, were developed in order to reduce the GI toxicity, but are more expensive.
OBJECTIVES
To establish the efficacy and safety of celecoxib in the management of RA by systematic review of available evidence.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to August 2002: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, National Research Register, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment Database. The bibliographies of retrieved papers and content experts were consulted for additional references.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. No unpublished RCTs were included in this edition of the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers. Data was analysed using a fixed effects model. A validated checklist was used to score the quality of the RCTs. The planned analysis was to pool, where appropriate continuous outcomes using mean differences and dichotomous outcomes using relative risk ratios. This was not however possible due to the lack of data.
MAIN RESULTS
Five RCTs were included (4465 participants); three of the studies also enrolled individuals with OA. The comparators were placebo, naproxen, diclofenac and ibuprofen. The evidence reviewed suggests that celecoxib controls the symptoms of RA to a similar degree to that of the active comparators examined (naproxen, diclofenac and ibuprofen). When compared to placebo, the percentage of patients showing improvement according to ACR 20 criteria at week 4 were 42/82 (51%) in the twice daily celecoxib 200mg group and 43/82 (52%) in the twice daily celecoxib 400mg group; these were significantly different from the placebo group in which 25/85 (29%) improved. The six month data reviewed support a reduced rate of UGI complications with celecoxib but there is also evidence to suggest that these benefits may not be evident in the long-term and that celecoxib offers no additional benefit in patients who are also receiving cardio-prophylactic low dose aspirin.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For an individual with RA the potential benefits of celecoxib need to be balanced against the uncertainty that the short-term reduced incidence of upper GI complications are maintained in the long-term and its increased cost in comparison to traditional NSAIDs.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Celecoxib; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfonamides
PubMed: 28598564
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003831.pub2 -
BMC Pediatrics Aug 2023Children in acute pain often receive inadequate pain relief, partly from difficulties administering injectable analgesics. A rapid-acting, intranasal (IN) analgesic may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Children in acute pain often receive inadequate pain relief, partly from difficulties administering injectable analgesics. A rapid-acting, intranasal (IN) analgesic may be an alternative to other parenteral routes of administration. Our review compares the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of intranasal analgesia to intravenous (IV) and intramuscular (IM) administration; and to compare different intranasal agents.
METHODS
We searched Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge, Clinicaltrials.gov, Controlled-trials.com/mrcr, Clinicaltrialsregister.eu, Apps.who.int/trialsearch. We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant systematic reviews. Studies in English from any year were included. Two authors independently assessed all studies. We included randomised trials (RCTs) of children 0-16, with moderate to severe pain; comparing intranasal analgesia to intravenous or intramuscular analgesia, or to other intranasal agents. We excluded studies of procedural sedation or analgesia. We extracted study characteristics and outcome data and assessed risk of bias with the ROB 2.0-tool. We conducted meta-analysis and narrative review, evaluating the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Outcomes included pain reduction, adverse events, acceptability, rescue medication, ease of and time to administration.
RESULTS
We included 12 RCTs with a total of 1163 children aged 3 to 20, most below 10 years old, with a variety of conditions. Our review shows that: - There may be little or no difference in pain relief (single dose IN vs IV fentanyl MD 4 mm, 95% CI -8 to 16 at 30 min by 100 mm VAS; multiple doses IN vs IV fentanyl MD 0, 95%CI -0.35 to 0.35 at 15 min by Hannallah score; single dose IN vs IV ketorolac MD 0.8, 95% CI -0.4 to 1.9 by Faces Pain Scale-Revised), adverse events (single dose IN vs IV fentanyl RR 3.09, 95% CI 0.34 to 28.28; multiple doses IN vs IV fentanyl RR 1.50, 95%CI 0.29 to 7.81); single dose IN vs IV ketorolac RR 0.716, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.26), or acceptability (single dose IN vs IV ketorolac RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.04) between intranasal and intravenous analgesia (low certainty evidence). - Intranasal diamorphine or fentanyl probably give similar pain relief to intramuscular morphine (narrative review), and are probably more acceptable (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.81) and tolerated better (RR 0.061, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.13 for uncooperative/negative reaction) (moderate certainty); adverse events may be similar (narrative review) (low certainty). - Intranasal ketamine gives similar pain relief to intranasal fentanyl (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.29 at 30 min), while having a higher risk of light sedation (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.35) and mild side effects (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.72 to 2.71) (high certainty). Need for rescue analgesia is probably similar (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.17) (moderate certainty), and acceptability may be similar (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.48) (low certainty).
CONCLUSIONS
Our review suggests that intranasal analgesics are probably a good alternative to intramuscular analgesics in children with acute moderate to severe pain; and may be an alternative to intravenous administration. Intranasal ketamine gives similar pain relief to fentanyl, but causes more sedation, which should inform the choice of intranasal agent.
Topics: Child; Humans; Ketorolac; Ketamine; Pain; Analgesia; Fentanyl
PubMed: 37596559
DOI: 10.1186/s12887-023-04203-x -
European Review For Medical and... Nov 2021This systematic review with network meta-analysis was performed to compare the effectiveness of oral anti-inflammatory drugs used in Brazil for osteoarthritis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review with network meta-analysis was performed to compare the effectiveness of oral anti-inflammatory drugs used in Brazil for osteoarthritis.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Randomized clinical trials evaluating ultramicronised diclofenac, diclofenac, celecoxib, etodolac and placebo in patients with osteoarthritis were identified. A search was conducted in May 2021 through PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases. A network meta-analysis was developed for efficacy outcome related to analgesia measured by the pain subscale of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities tool. In addition, surface under the cumulative ranking was performed to rank the drugs in relation to this outcome.
RESULTS
Twelve randomized clinical trials were included. Overall, ultramicronised diclofenac 105 mg/day (UD105) was better than all the others, including ultramicronised diclofenac 70 mg/day (UD70). In addition, surface under the cumulative ranking resulted in the following order: 1) ultramicronised diclofenac 105 mg/day (100%), 2) ultramicronised diclofenac 70 mg/day (80%), 3) celecoxib 200 mg/day (49%), 4) diclofenac 100 mg/day (48%), 5) placebo (19%) and 6) diclofenac 150 mg/day (6%).
CONCLUSIONS
Ultramicronised diclofenac demonstrated superior efficacy compared to other conventional anti-inflammatory drugs and placebo in relieving osteoarthritis pain.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Celecoxib; Diclofenac; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Osteoarthritis; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34859865
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202111_27252 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Dec 2017A systematic review on pain reduction, side effects, and quality of life for various treatments. (Review)
Review
CYCLIC AND NON-CYCLIC BREAST-PAIN
A systematic review on pain reduction, side effects, and quality of life for various treatments.
BACKGROUND
No clear systematic-review on all the various treatment regimen for (Non-) cyclical-breast-pain currently exists.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to assess the various forms of therapy for treatment of breast-pain and the evidence for their effectiveness.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Search-terms included 'mastalgia' and 'therapy' or 'hormones' or 'nsaid' or 'psychotherapy' or 'analgesia' or 'surgery', and synonyms.
SELECTION CRITERIA
The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic-reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. RCT's and pro-/retrospective studies reporting on treatment of breast-pain were considered eligible. Minimal follow-up and sample-size criteria were 6 months and 10 patients respectively.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data was extracted using standardized tables and encompassed number of subjects, type of breast-pain and treatment, efficacy of treatment and clinical complications/side-effects. No pooling of data could be achieved due to heterogeneity amongst studies.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-three studies were included, that reported on 2100 patients in total. Topical-Diclofenac was found to reduce pain by 58.7 and 63.3 on a Visual-Analogue-Scale (VAS) in cyclical and non-cyclical-breast-pain respectively. Persistent cyclical-breast-pain can be treated with short courses (2-6 months) of either Bromocryptine (VAS↓=25.4) or Danazol (VAS↓=33.6) as long as benefits outweigh the side-effects. Last-resort options for unresponsive and severe debilitating breast-pain include surgery in the form of bilateral mastectomy with reconstruction.
CONCLUSIONS
Pain reduction in patients with breast-pain can be achieved with analgesics, hormonal-regimen and possibly surgery as a last resort. Additional studies are needed with well-described patient-characteristics, robust study set-up, and longer follow-up times.
Topics: Hormone Antagonists; Humans; Mastodynia
PubMed: 29059585
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.10.018 -
The Journal of Pain Jan 2014This systematic review evaluated evidence from randomized controlled trials investigating interventions available over the counter and advice that could be provided to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
UNLABELLED
This systematic review evaluated evidence from randomized controlled trials investigating interventions available over the counter and advice that could be provided to people with acute low back pain. Searches were conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, AMED, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO for eligible randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome measure was pain. Eligible controls included placebo, no treatment, or usual care. Two reviewers extracted data and rated study quality. A random effects model was used to pool trial effects with the overall strength of evidence described using the GRADE criteria. Thirteen randomized controlled trials (2,847 participants) evaluating advice, bed rest, simple analgesics (paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), heat application, and a topical rubefacient were included. There was low-quality evidence that bed rest is ineffective and very-low-quality evidence that advice is ineffective in the short, intermediate, and long terms. There was very-low-quality evidence that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ibuprofen and diclofenac "when required" dosing) provide an immediate analgesic effect (mean differences -10.9 [95% confidence interval = -17.6 to -4.2] and -11.3 [95% confidence interval = -17.8 to -4.9], respectively). There is very-low-quality evidence that heat wrap and a capsicum-based rubefacient provide an immediate analgesic effect (mean differences -13.5 [95% confidence interval = -21.3 to -5.7] and 17.5, P < .001, respectively), but there was no information on longer-term outcomes.
PERSPECTIVE
There is limited evidence that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, heat wrap, and rubefacients provide immediate pain relief for acute back pain and that bed rest and advice are both ineffective. Future research is needed to provide evidence to support rational use of over-the-counter remedies and advice for people with acute low back pain.
Topics: Acute Disease; Behind-the-Counter Drugs; Humans; Low Back Pain; Referral and Consultation
PubMed: 24373568
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2013.09.016 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2000Ibuprofen and diclofenac are two widely used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) analgesics. It is therefore important to know which drug should be recommended for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ibuprofen and diclofenac are two widely used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) analgesics. It is therefore important to know which drug should be recommended for postoperative pain relief. This review seeks to compare the relative efficacy of the two drugs, and also considers the issues of safety and cost.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy of ibuprofen and diclofenac in single oral doses for moderate to severe postoperative pain.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Randomised trials were identified by searching Medline (1966 to December 1996), Embase (1980 to January 1997), the Cochrane Library (Issue 3 1996), Biological Abstracts (January 1985 to December 1996) and the Oxford Pain Relief Database (1950 to 1994). Date of the most recent searches: July 1998.
SELECTION CRITERIA
The inclusion criteria used were: full journal publication, postoperative pain, postoperative oral administration, adult patients, baseline pain of moderate to severe intensity, double-blind design, and random allocation to treatment groups which compared either ibuprofen or diclofenac with placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted by two independent reviewers, and trials were quality scored. Summed pain relief or pain intensity difference over four to six hours was extracted, and converted into dichotomous information yielding the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief. This was then used to calculate the relative benefit and the number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for one patient to achieve at least 50% pain relief.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-four trials compared ibuprofen and placebo (3,591 patients), six compared diclofenac with placebo (840 patients) and there were two direct comparisons of diclofenac 50 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg (130 patients). In postoperative pain the NNTs for ibuprofen 200 mg were 3.3 (95% confidence interval 2.8 to 4.0) compared with placebo, for ibuprofen 400 mg 2.7 (2.5 to 3.0), for ibuprofen 600 mg 2.4 (1.9 to 3.3), for diclofenac 50 mg 2.3 (2.0 to 2.7) and for diclofenac 100 mg 1.8 (1.5 to 2.1). Direct comparisons of diclofenac 50 mg with ibuprofen 400 mg showed no significant difference between the two.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
Both drugs work well. Choosing between them is an issue of dose, safety and cost.
Topics: Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Diclofenac; Humans; Ibuprofen; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 10796811
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001548 -
European Journal of Gastroenterology &... Dec 2016Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (post-ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication following ERCP. We carried out a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (post-ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication following ERCP. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of the global literature on PEP prevention to provide clinical guidance and a framework for future research in this important field.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, Ovid, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched by two independent reviewers to identify full-length, prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up until March 2016 investigating the use of pancreatic duct stents and pharmacological agents to prevent PEP.
RESULTS
Twelve RCTs comparing the risk of PEP after pancreatic duct stent placement (1369 patients) and 30 RCTs comparing pharmacological agents over placebo (10251 patients) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were selected for final review and analysis. Meta-analysis showed that prophylactic pancreatic stents significantly decreased the odds of post-ERCP pancreatitis [odds ratio (OR), 0.28; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.18-0.42]. Significant OR reduction of PEP was also observed in relation to rectal administration of diclofenac (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.48) and rectal administration of indometacin (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.79) compared with placebo. Subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction with bolus-administered somatostatin (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.49). Subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction with bolus-administered somatostatin (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.49).
CONCLUSION
Pancreatic stent placement, rectal diclofenac, and bolus administration of somatostatin appear to be most effective in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Administration, Rectal; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Diclofenac; Hormones; Humans; Indomethacin; Odds Ratio; Pancreatic Ducts; Pancreatitis; Postoperative Complications; Somatostatin; Stents
PubMed: 27580214
DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000000734 -
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Mar 2006To examine whether the increased risk of cardiovascular events with rofecoxib represents a class effect of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) specific inhibitors. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To examine whether the increased risk of cardiovascular events with rofecoxib represents a class effect of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) specific inhibitors.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized double-blind clinical trials of celecoxib of at least 6 weeks' duration and presented data on serious cardiovascular thromboembolic events. Data sources included six bibliographic databases, the relevant files of the United States Food and Drug Administration, and pharmaceutical company websites.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Pooled fixed effects estimates of the odds ratios for risk of cardiovascular events with celecoxib compared with comparator treatment were calculated using the inverse variance weight method. The main outcome measure was myocardial infarction.
RESULTS
Four placebo-controlled trials with 4422 patients were included in the primary meta-analysis comparing celecoxib with placebo. The odds ratio of myocardial infarction with celecoxib compared to placebo was 2.26 (95%confidence interval 1.0 to 5.1). For composite cardiovascular events [odd ratio 1.38 (95% CI 0.91 to 2.10)], cardiovascular deaths [OR 1.06 (95% CI 0.38 to 2.95)] and stroke [OR 1.0(95% CI 0.51 to 1.84)] there was no significant increase in risk with celecoxib. The secondary meta-analysis which included a total of six studies (with placebo, diclofenac, ibuprofen, and paracetamol as comparators) of 12 780 patients, showed similar findings with a significant increased risk with celecoxib for myocardial infarction [OR 1.88 (95% CI 1.15 to 3.08)] but not other outcome measures.
CONCLUSION
The available data indicate an increased risk of myocardial infarction with celecoxib therapy, consistent with a class effect for COX-2 specific inhibitors.
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Celecoxib; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Humans; Prognosis; Pyrazoles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Sulfonamides
PubMed: 16508052
DOI: 10.1177/014107680609900315 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Oct 2019Physiologic studies show that tissue perfusion increases during moderate amounts of tissue compression. This is attributed to sensory nerves initiating a vasodilatory... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Physiologic studies show that tissue perfusion increases during moderate amounts of tissue compression. This is attributed to sensory nerves initiating a vasodilatory cascade referred to as pressure-induced vasodilation.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies investigating perfusion during pressure exposure longer than 10 minutes. Retrieved studies were assessed using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation Risk of Bias Rating Tool for Human and Animal Studies. Results were pooled with random effects models. The body of evidence was rated using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation approach.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine articles were included, of which 19 articles were included in meta-analyses. The evidence indicates that moderate amounts of tissue compression have the capacity to increase perfusion in healthy humans by 46 percent (95 percent CI, 30 to 62 percent). Using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation approach, the authors found a high level of confidence in the body of evidence. Pressure-induced vasodilation blockade was associated with increased pressure ulcer formation. Pressure-induced vasodilation was impaired by neuropathy and by the drugs diclofenac and amiloride.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis indicates that healthy humans have the capacity to increase local perfusion in response to mechanical stress resulting from tissue compression. Because pressure-induced vasodilation is mediated by sensory nerves, pressure-induced vasodilation emphasizes the importance of sensory innervation for durable tissue integrity. Pressure-induced vasodilation impairment seems to provide a complementary explanation for the susceptibility of neuropathic tissues to pressure-induced lesions.
Topics: Humans; Pressure; Pressure Ulcer; Vasodilation
PubMed: 31568315
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000006090