-
International Journal of Environmental... Nov 2022Despite the restoration of the mechanical stability of the knee joint after ACL reconstruction (ACLR), patients often experience postoperative limitations. To our... (Review)
Review
Despite the restoration of the mechanical stability of the knee joint after ACL reconstruction (ACLR), patients often experience postoperative limitations. To our knowledge, there are no systematic reviews analyzing additional physiotherapy interventions implementing standard rehabilitation programs in the early postoperative phase after ACLR. The objective of this study was to analyze the additional physiotherapy interventions implemented in standard rehabilitation programs that improve early-stage ACLR rehabilitation. For this systematic review, we followed the PRISMA guidelines. In March 2022 we conducted a literature review using electronic databases. Primary outcomes were pain, edema, muscle strength, ROM, and knee function. The risk of bias and scientific quality of included studies were assessed with the RoB 2, ROBINS-I and PEDro scale. For the review, we included 10 studies that met the inclusion criteria (total = 3271). The included studies evaluated the effectiveness of Kinesio Taping, Whole-body vibration, Local Vibration Training, Trigger Point Dry Needling, High Tone Power Therapy, alternating magnetic field, and App-Based Active Muscle Training Program. Most of the additional physiotherapy interventions improved pain, edema, ROM, knee muscle strength, or knee function in early-stage postoperative ACL rehabilitation. Except for one study, no adverse events occurred in the included studies, which demonstrates the safety of the discussed physiotherapy interventions. Further in-depth research is needed in this area.
Topics: Humans; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; Anterior Cruciate Ligament; Knee Joint; Pain
PubMed: 36497965
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192315893 -
European Journal of Dermatology : EJD Oct 2016Taxanes (docetaxel and paclitaxel) are among the most commonly prescribed anticancer drugs approved for the treatment of metastatic or locally advanced breast, non-small... (Review)
Review
Taxanes (docetaxel and paclitaxel) are among the most commonly prescribed anticancer drugs approved for the treatment of metastatic or locally advanced breast, non-small cell lung, prostate, gastric, head and neck, and ovarian cancers, as well as in the adjuvant setting for operable node-positive breast cancers. Although the true incidence of dermatological adverse events (AEs) in patients receiving taxanes is not known, and has never been prospectively analysed, they clearly represent one of the major AEs associated with these agents. With an increase in the occurrence of cutaneous AEs during treatment with novel targeted and immunological therapies when used in combination with taxanes, a thorough understanding of reactions attributable to this class is imperative. Moreover, identification and management of dermatological AEs is critical for maintaining the quality of life in cancer patients and for minimizing dose modifications of their antineoplastic regimen. This analysis represents a systematic review of the dermatological conditions reported with the use of these drugs, complemented by experience at comprehensive cancer centres. The conditions reported herein include skin, hair, and nail toxicities. Lastly, we describe the dermatological data available for the new, recently FDA-and EMA- approved, solvent-free nab-paclitaxel.
Topics: Alopecia; Antineoplastic Agents; Docetaxel; Drug Eruptions; Edema; Humans; Lupus Erythematosus, Cutaneous; Nail Diseases; Paclitaxel; Pigmentation Disorders; Radiodermatitis; Taxoids
PubMed: 27550571
DOI: 10.1684/ejd.2016.2833 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Acne is a common, economically burdensome condition that can cause psychological harm and, potentially, scarring. Topical benzoyl peroxide (BPO) is a widely used acne... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acne is a common, economically burdensome condition that can cause psychological harm and, potentially, scarring. Topical benzoyl peroxide (BPO) is a widely used acne treatment; however, its efficacy and safety have not been clearly evaluated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of BPO for acne.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to February 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that compared topical BPO used alone (including different formulations and concentrations of BPO) or as part of combination treatment against placebo, no treatment, or other active topical medications for clinically diagnosed acne (used alone or in combination with other topical drugs not containing BPO) on the face or trunk.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. Primary outcome measures were 'participant global self-assessment of acne improvement' and 'withdrawal due to adverse events in the whole course of a trial'. 'Percentage of participants experiencing any adverse event in the whole course of a trial' was a key secondary outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 120 trials (29,592 participants randomised in 116 trials; in four trials the number of randomised participants was unclear). Ninety-one studies included males and females. When reported, 72 trials included participants with mild to moderate acne, 26 included participants with severe acne, and the mean age of participants ranged from 18 to 30 years. Our included trials assessed BPO as monotherapy, as add-on treatment, or combined with other active treatments, as well as BPO of different concentrations and BPO delivered through different vehicles. Comparators included different concentrations or formulations of BPO, placebo, no treatment, or other active treatments given alone or combined. Treatment duration in 80 trials was longer than eight weeks and was only up to 12 weeks in 108 trials. Industry funded 50 trials; 63 trials did not report funding. We commonly found high or unclear risk of performance, detection, or attrition bias. Trial setting was under-reported but included hospitals, medical centres/departments, clinics, general practices, and student health centres. We reported on outcomes assessed at the end of treatment, and we classified treatment periods as short-term (two to four weeks), medium-term (five to eight weeks), or long-term (longer than eight weeks). For 'participant-reported acne improvement', BPO may be more effective than placebo or no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 1.45; 3 RCTs; 2234 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks; low-certainty evidence). Based on low-certainty evidence, there may be little to no difference between BPO and adapalene (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.10; 5 RCTs; 1472 participants; treatment for 11 to 12 weeks) or between BPO and clindamycin (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.34; 1 RCT; 240 participants; treatment for 10 weeks) (outcome not reported for BPO versus erythromycin or salicylic acid). For 'withdrawal due to adverse effects', risk of treatment discontinuation may be higher with BPO compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.55 to 2.93; 24 RCTs; 13,744 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks; low-certainty evidence); the most common causes of withdrawal were erythema, pruritus, and skin burning. Only very low-certainty evidence was available for the following comparisons: BPO versus adapalene (RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.94 to 3.64; 11 RCTs; 3295 participants; treatment for 11 to 24 weeks; causes of withdrawal not clear), BPO versus clindamycin (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.90 to 4.11; 8 RCTs; 3330 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks; causes of withdrawal included local hypersensitivity, pruritus, erythema, face oedema, rash, and skin burning), erythromycin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.26; 1 RCT; 60 participants; treatment for 8 weeks; withdrawal due to dermatitis), and salicylic acid (no participants had adverse event-related withdrawal; 1 RCT; 59 participants; treatment for 12 weeks). There may be little to no difference between these groups in terms of withdrawal; however, we are unsure of the results because the evidence is of very low certainty. For 'proportion of participants experiencing any adverse event', very low-certainty evidence leaves us uncertain about whether BPO increased adverse events when compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.70; 21 RCTs; 11,028 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks), with adapalene (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.00; 7 RCTs; 2120 participants; treatment for 11 to 24 weeks), with erythromycin (no participants reported any adverse events; 1 RCT; 89 participants; treatment for 10 weeks), or with salicylic acid (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 93.67; 1 RCT; 41 participants; treatment for 6 weeks). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that the risk of adverse events may be increased for BPO versus clindamycin (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.58; 6 RCTs; 3018 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks); however, the 95% CI indicates that BPO might make little to no difference. Most reported adverse events were mild to moderate, and local dryness, irritation, dermatitis, erythema, application site pain, and pruritus were the most common.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence suggests that BPO as monotherapy or add-on treatment may be more effective than placebo or no treatment for improving acne, and there may be little to no difference between BPO and either adapalene or clindamycin. Our key efficacy evidence is based on participant self-assessment; trials of BPO versus erythromycin or salicylic acid did not report this outcome. For adverse effects, the evidence is very uncertain regarding BPO compared with adapalene, erythromycin, or salicylic acid. However, risk of treatment discontinuation may be higher with BPO compared with placebo or no treatment. Withdrawal may be linked to tolerability rather than to safety. Risk of mild to moderate adverse events may be higher with BPO compared with clindamycin. Further trials should assess the comparative effects of different preparations or concentrations of BPO and combination BPO versus monotherapy. These trials should fully assess and report adverse effects and patient-reported outcomes measured on a standardised scale.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Adolescent; Adult; Benzoyl Peroxide; Cicatrix; Dermatologic Agents; Female; Humans; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 32175593
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011154.pub2 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.... Oct 2021A variety of complications after injection of nonpermanent fillers for facial rejuvenation have been reported so far. However, to date, the overall complication rate is...
BACKGROUND
A variety of complications after injection of nonpermanent fillers for facial rejuvenation have been reported so far. However, to date, the overall complication rate is still a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of literature to assess the type and severity of associated complications following injections in different anatomical regions of the face.
METHODS
The entire PubMed/Medline database was screened to identify case reports and clinical studies describing complications that have occurred after injection of nonpermanent fillers in the face. These complications have been reviewed and analyzed according to their occurrence in different anatomical regions of the face.
RESULTS
Forty-six articles including a total of 164 patients reported on a total of 436 complications during the time period between January 2003 and February 2020. The majority of the complications were reported after injections to the nose and the nasolabial fold (n = 230), the forehead and the eyebrows (n = 53), and the glabellar region (n = 36). Out of 436 complications, 163 have been classified as severe or permanent including skin necrosis (n = 46), loss of vision (n = 35), or encephalitis (n = 1), whereas 273 complications were classified as mild or transient, such as local edema (n = 74), skin erythema (n = 69), and filler migration (n = 2). The most severe complications were observed in treatments of nose, glabella, and forehead.
CONCLUSIONS
Nonpermanent facial fillers are associated with rare but potentially severe complications. Severity and impact of complications depend on the anatomical region of the face and eventually require profound knowledge of facial anatomy.
PubMed: 34703713
DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003851 -
Current Pediatric Reviews 2018Melkersson Rosenthal syndrome (MRS) is a rare disorder of unknown etiology and comprises the triad: orofacial edema, recurrent facial paralysis and lingua plicata. In... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Melkersson Rosenthal syndrome (MRS) is a rare disorder of unknown etiology and comprises the triad: orofacial edema, recurrent facial paralysis and lingua plicata. In the current literature confusing heterogeneity exists, mixing together the historically grown terms cheilitis granulomatosa or granulomatous cheilitis, Melkersson Rosenthal syndrome and the umbrella term Orofacial Granulomatosis (OFG).
METHODS
We provide a systematic review comprising all three disease entities of orofacial granulomatosis using the computerized database "Pubmed Medline" entering the keywords "orofacial granulomatosis" (141 references), "Melkersson-Rosenthal syndrome" (207 references), "granulomatous cheilitis" or "cheilitis granulomatosa" (102 references) back to 1956. Full-text journals and case studies were included, and data synthesis was performed individually.
RESULTS
Etiology remains unclear for all three disease entities. Etiological relatedness to chronic inflammatory bowel disease is under discussion and effectiveness was found for different treatments, e.g. local triamcinolone injections, antibiotics, surgical interventions, TNF alpha blockers or exclusive enteral nutrition. No randomized controlled trial concerning the therapy of orofacial granulomatosis was found. As a consequence, the therapeutic conclusion is drawn mainly from small case series, thus limiting the evidence of therapeutic interventions.
CONCLUSION
OFG with the sub-entities MRS and cheilitis granulomatosa is an etiological obscure disease process with various possible therapeutic interventions potentially alleviating the disease course but to broaden treatment knowledge further study in randomized controlled trials is needed.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Granulomatosis, Orofacial; Humans; Male; Melkersson-Rosenthal Syndrome; Middle Aged; Young Adult
PubMed: 29766816
DOI: 10.2174/1573396314666180515113941 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2022To date, various treatments for cystoid macular edema (CME) in retinitis pigmentosa (RP) have been reported. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to...
BACKGROUND
To date, various treatments for cystoid macular edema (CME) in retinitis pigmentosa (RP) have been reported. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of current treatments for RP-CME.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library were searched from inception to August 2021. ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and ISRCTN were also searched for relevant studies. Only studies published in English were included. The RoB 2 tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and the MINORS scale was used to assess the methodological quality of non-RCTs. Review manager (Revman) was used to pool the data. The primary outcomes included the change of central macular thickness (CMT) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline. The secondary outcomes included fluorescein angiography (FA) leakage, rebound of CME and adverse effects.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies were included in the current systematic review and 7 studies were used for meta-analysis. Treatments for RP-CME included oral and topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (CAIs), systematic and local steroids, anti-VEGF therapy, NSAIDS, grid LASER photocoagulation, subliminal micropulse LASER, vitrectomy, lutein supplement and oral minocycline. CAIs and local steroids were proved to be effective in reducing CMT. The effects of anti-VEGF reagents varied among studies. Regarding other treatments, only one study for each method fitted the inclusion criteria, so the evidence was very limited.
CONCLUSION
Topical CAIs, oral CAIs and local steroids are effective in treating RP-CME. However, due to the overall inferior design and small patient number of the included studies, the quality of evidence was poor. Systematic steroids, LASER, NSAIDS and vitrectomy may also be effective, nevertheless, considering the limited number of studies, no conclusion could be drawn regarding these treatments. More well-designed and conducted studies are needed in this field.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021273979, identifier CRD42021273979.
PubMed: 35652079
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.895208 -
Journal of Burn Care & Research :... 2011Burn injury is a complex trauma that results in local and generalized edema. Edema fluid limits the exchange of vital nutrients in healing the burn wound and will... (Review)
Review
Burn injury is a complex trauma that results in local and generalized edema. Edema fluid limits the exchange of vital nutrients in healing the burn wound and will compromise vulnerable tissues. Although the importance of edema control in tissue salvage is recognized, treatments targeted at edema control have not been critically reviewed. Thus, the objective was to assess the evidence for the effectiveness of local and systemic treatments for edema management immediately after burn injury. Searches for randomized controlled trials were conducted of online databases, research and thesis registers, and grey literature repositories. Handsearches included journals, bibliographies, and proceedings. Authors were contacted to clarify and submit extra study details. Eight studies were included. Management of acute major burn resuscitation including colloid increases lung edema (mean difference [MD], 0.04 ml/ml alv vol; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03-0.04; P < .00001) and mortality (risk ratio, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.16-11.58; P = .03). Continuous administration of vitamin C in acute burn resuscitation reduces local wound edema (MD, -3.50 ml/g; 95% CI, -4.63 to -2.37; P < .00001) and systemic fluid retention (MD, -8.60 kg; 95% CI, -13.47 to -3.73; P = .0005). Local acute hand burn edema is reduced (MD, -29.00 ml; 95% CI, -53.14 to -4.86; P = .02), and active hand motion increased (MD, 10.00°; 95% CI, 4.58-15.42; P = .0003), using electrical stimulation with usual physiotherapy. Each review outcome was based on a small single-facility study. Thus, future research in intervention for acute burn edema must focus on multicentre trials and validation of outcome measures in the burn population.
Topics: Acute Disease; Burn Units; Burns; Confidence Intervals; Edema; Electric Stimulation; Fluid Therapy; Health Status Indicators; Humans; Resuscitation
PubMed: 21252688
DOI: 10.1097/BCR.0b013e31820ab019 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence May 2011Diabetic retinopathy is the most common cause of blindness in the UK, with older people and those with worse diabetes control, hypertension, and hyperlipidaemia being... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Diabetic retinopathy is the most common cause of blindness in the UK, with older people and those with worse diabetes control, hypertension, and hyperlipidaemia being most at risk. Diabetic retinopathy can cause microaneurysms, haemorrhages, exudates, changes to blood vessels, and retinal thickening.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments in people with diabetic retinopathy? What are the effects of treatments for vitreous haemorrhage? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 58 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: peripheral retinal laser photocoagulation, focal and grid laser photocoagulation for maculopathy, corticosteroids for macular oedema, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, and vitrectomy for vitreous haemorrhage.
Topics: Diabetic Retinopathy; Humans; Injections; Macular Edema; Treatment Outcome; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 21609511
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Nov 2007Diabetic retinopathy is the most common cause of blindness in the UK, with older people and those with worse diabetic control, hypertension, and hyperlipidaemia being... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Diabetic retinopathy is the most common cause of blindness in the UK, with older people and those with worse diabetic control, hypertension, and hyperlipidaemia being most at risk. Diabetic retinopathy can cause microaneurysms, haemorrhages, exudates, changes to blood vessels, and retinal thickening.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments in people with diabetic retinopathy? What are the effects of treatments for vitreous haemorrhage? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to November March 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 29 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: peripheral retinal laser photocoagulation, focal and grid laser photocoagulation for maculopathy, corticosteroids for macular oedema, and vitrectomy for vitreous haemorrhage.
Topics: Diabetic Retinopathy; Humans; Laser Coagulation; Macular Edema; Visual Acuity; Vitreous Body
PubMed: 19450351
DOI: No ID Found -
Current Pharmaceutical Design 2022Recent evidence on the role of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in the pathogenesis of ischemia and microvascular hyperpermeability leading to macular edema has...
BACKGROUND
Recent evidence on the role of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in the pathogenesis of ischemia and microvascular hyperpermeability leading to macular edema has brought anti-VEGF intravitreal therapy into the limelight.
OBJECTIVE
We performed a systematic literature review focusing on the outcomes and safety of the intravitreal use of aflibercept in diabetic macular edema.
METHODS
The studies documented cases with at least three consecutive intravitreal injections of aflibercept (IVA) repeated monthly with a follow-up period of at least one year. The outcomes were evaluated in terms of reported functional and anatomical improvement of the macula, as reflected by changes in visual acuity and macular thickness measured by Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT). In addition, for safety assessment, all reported local and general adverse effects were analyzed.
RESULTS
All studies showed an overall significant anatomical and functional improvement. In patients with the 5 IVA monthly at the beginning of the therapy, the visual gain at 52 weeks varied widely between 5 and 18.9 EDRS letters, with a mean value of 9.48 letters. The higher gain was obtained in treatment naïve patients, with worse VA and increased CST at baseline. The lower gain was obtained in patients previously treated with anti- VEGF. Anti-Platelet Trialists' Collaboration-defined arterial thromboembolic events were not statistically different between the aflibercept group and the laser group.
CONCLUSION
Intravitreal aflibercept therapy provides significant improvement in visual acuity and a good safety profile. Randomized studies are needed to document the optimal frequency of intravitreal injections for optimal treatment.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetic Retinopathy; Humans; Intravitreal Injections; Macular Edema; Ranibizumab; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 35469564
DOI: 10.2174/1381612828666220425101030