-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017Traumatic corneal abrasions are relatively common and there is a lack of consensus about analgesia in their management. It is therefore important to document the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Traumatic corneal abrasions are relatively common and there is a lack of consensus about analgesia in their management. It is therefore important to document the clinical efficacy and safety profile of topical ophthalmic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the management of traumatic corneal abrasions.
OBJECTIVES
To identify and evaluate all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of topical NSAIDs with placebo or any alternative analgesic interventions in adults with traumatic corneal abrasions (including corneal abrasions arising from foreign body removal), to reduce pain, and its effects on healing time.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 30 March 2017), Embase Ovid (1947 to 30 March 2017), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (1982 to 30 March 2017), OpenGrey (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) (www.opengrey.eu/); searched 30 March 2017, ZETOC (1993 to 30 March 2017), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch); searched 30 March 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 30 March 2017 and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 30 March 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.We checked the reference lists of identified trials to search for further potentially relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs comparing topical NSAIDs to placebo or any alternative analgesic interventions in adults with traumatic corneal abrasions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed data extraction and assessed risks of bias in the included studies. We rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine studies that met the inclusion criteria, reporting data on 637 participants.The studies took place in the UK, USA, Israel, Italy, France and Portugal. These studies compared five types of topical NSAIDs (0.1% indomethacin, 0.03% flurbiprofen, 0.5% ketorolac, 1% indomethacin, 0.1% diclofenac) to control (consisting of standard care and in four studies used placebo eye drops). Overall, the studies were at an unclear or high risk of bias (particularly selection and reporting bias). None of the included studies reported the primary outcome measures of this review, namely participant-reported pain intensity reduction of 30% or more or 50% or more at 24 hours. Four trials, that included data on 481 participants receiving NSAIDs or control (placebo/standard care), reported on the use of 'rescue' analgesia at 24 hours as a proxy measure of pain control. Topical NSAIDs were associated with a reduction in the need for oral analgesia compared with control (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.61; low-certainty evidence). Approximately 4 out of 10 people in the control group used rescue analgesia at 24 hours. No data were available on the use of analgesia at 48 or 72 hours.One trial (28 participants) reported on the proportion of abrasions healed after 24 and 48 hours. These outcomes were similar in both arms of the trial. (at 24 hours RR 1.00 (0.81 to 1.23); at 48 hours RR 1.00 (0.88 to 1.14); low-certainty evidence). In the control group nine out of 10 abrasions were healed within 24 hours and all were healed by 48 hours. Complications of corneal abrasions were reported in 6 studies (609 participants) and were infrequently reported (4 complications, 1 in NSAID groups (recurrent corneal erosion) and 3 in control groups (2 recurrent corneal erosions and 1 corneal abscess), very low-certainty evidence). Possible drug-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in two trials (163 participants), with the number of adverse events low (4 AEs, 3 in NSAID group, including discomfort/photophobia on instillation, conjunctival hyperaemia and urticaria, and 1 in the control group, corneal abscess) very low-certainty evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The findings of the included studies do not provide strong evidence to support the use of topical NSAIDs in traumatic corneal abrasions. This is important, since NSAIDs are associated with a higher cost compared to oral analgesics. None of the trials addressed our primary outcome measure of participant-reported pain intensity reduction of 30% or more or 50% or more at 24 hours.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Corneal Injuries; Diclofenac; Flurbiprofen; Humans; Indomethacin; Ketorolac; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Wound Healing
PubMed: 28516471
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009781.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2015Seasonal/perennial allergic conjunctivitis is the most common allergic conjunctivitis, usually with acute manifestations when a person is exposed to allergens and with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Seasonal/perennial allergic conjunctivitis is the most common allergic conjunctivitis, usually with acute manifestations when a person is exposed to allergens and with typical signs and symptoms including itching, redness, and tearing. The clinical signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis are mediated by the release of histamine by mast cells. Histamine antagonists (also called antihistamines) inhibit the action of histamine by blocking histamine H1 receptors, antagonising the vasoconstrictor, and to a lesser extent, the vasodilator effects of histamine. Mast cell stabilisers inhibit degranulation and consequently the release of histamine by interrupting the normal chain of intracellular signals. Topical treatments include eye drops with antihistamines, mast cell stabilisers, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, combinations of the previous treatments, and corticosteroids. Standard treatment is based on topical antihistamines alone or topical mast cell stabilisers alone or a combination of treatments. There is clinical uncertainty about the relative efficacy and safety of topical treatment.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the effects of topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers, alone or in combination, for use in treating seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2014, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to July 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 17 July 2014. We also searched the reference lists of review articles and relevant trial reports for details of further relevant publications.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical antihistamine and mast cell stabilisers, alone or in combination, with placebo, no treatment or to any other antihistamine or mast cell stabiliser, or both, that examined people with seasonal or perennial allergic conjunctivitis, or both. The primary outcome was any participant-reported evaluation (by questionnaire) of severity of four main ocular symptoms: itching, irritation, watering eye (tearing), and photophobia (dislike of light), both separately and, if possible, by an overall symptom score. We considered any follow-up time between one week and one year.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Disagreements were resolved by discussion among review authors and the involvement of a third review author. We followed standard methodological approaches used by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 30 trials with a total of 4344 participants randomised, with 17 different drugs or treatment comparisons. The following antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers were evaluated in at least one RCT: nedocromil sodium or sodium cromoglycate, olopatadine, ketotifen, azelastine, emedastine, levocabastine (or levocabastine), mequitazine, bepotastine besilate, combination of antazoline and tetryzoline, combination of levocabastine and pemirolast potassium. The most common comparison was azelastine versus placebo (nine studies).We observed a large variability in reporting outcomes. The quality of the studies and reporting was variable, but overall the risk of bias was low. Trials evaluated only short-term effects, with a range of treatment of one to eight weeks. Meta-analysis was only possible in one comparison (olopatadine versus ketotifen). There was some evidence to support that topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers reduce symptoms and signs of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis when compared with placebo. There were no reported serious adverse events related to the use of topical antihistamine and mast cell stabilisers treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It seems that all reported topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers reduce symptoms and signs of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis when compared with placebo in the short term. However, there is no long-term data on their efficacy. Direct comparisons of different antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers need to be interpreted with caution. Overall, topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers appear to be safe and well tolerated. We observed a large variability in outcomes reported. Poor quality of reporting challenged the synthesis of evidence.
Topics: Anti-Allergic Agents; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Histamine; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Mast Cells; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seasons
PubMed: 26028608
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009566.pub2 -
Headache Jun 2024Hemicrania continua is a primary unilateral headache characterized by ipsilateral parasympathetic and sympathetic autonomic features. A key diagnostic criterion is its... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hemicrania continua is a primary unilateral headache characterized by ipsilateral parasympathetic and sympathetic autonomic features. A key diagnostic criterion is its dramatic response to indomethacin treatment; however, various vascular or structural abnormalities have been reported to cause secondary hemicrania continua, presenting with clinical features similar to those of the primary headache presentation.
OBJECTIVE
We reviewed the literature to compile secondary hemicrania continua cases, highlighting the importance of imaging during the evaluation. Additionally, we also contributed our three cases to the existing studies.
METHODS
We conducted a review of articles from the PubMed and EMBASE databases that described reported cases of secondary hemicrania continua, covering the period from 1993 to 2021. Our review included detailed patient information, signs, and symptoms of hemicrania continua, as well as information on indomethacin usage and headache resolution (if pertinent).
RESULTS
Secondary hemicrania continua can result from a remarkably diverse range of structural and vascular lesions, yet clinical reports on long-term follow-up are lacking. Notably, cases may exhibit a classical response to indomethacin, emphasizing the importance of neuroimaging in excluding secondary cases. Our search yielded 41 cases meeting our criteria. We excluded six cases that were not treated with indomethacin or were unresponsive to it. Additionally, we present three cases that highlight the necessity of neuroimaging in evaluating hemicrania continua, along with short- and long-term clinical outcomes following indomethacin and lesion-directed treatments. Case 1 presented with daily right-sided headaches and cranial autonomic symptoms. Her pain completely resolved with indomethacin use. Neuroimaging of the brain revealed a laterally directed saccular aneurysm of the right internal carotid artery. Case 2 presented with continuous left-sided unilateral headaches with superimposed exacerbations. She complained of left-sided photophobia with a dull sensation in the left ear. Her symptoms decreased after 2 weeks of indomethacin use. Neuroimaging of the head indicated a benign tumor with mass effect into the left lateral medulla and inferior cerebellar peduncle. Case 3 presented with a right side-locked headache with daily, severe superimposed exacerbations. She had photophobia in the right eye and a right-sided Horner's syndrome, along with tearing during her exacerbations. Neuroimaging of the brain revealed a pituitary tumor and her pain completely resolved with indomethacin.
CONCLUSION
Hemicrania continua is a rare headache disorder that can be either primary or secondary. Importantly, response to indomethacin can still occur in secondary hemicrania continua. Thus, neuroimaging should be considered to rule out underlying structural etiology in all cases, regardless of their clinical responsiveness to indomethacin therapy.
Topics: Female; Humans; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Indomethacin; Neuroimaging
PubMed: 38780233
DOI: 10.1111/head.14728 -
European Journal of Ophthalmology Feb 2024To estimate the effect of atropine eyedrops at different concentrations for myopia control in children. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To estimate the effect of atropine eyedrops at different concentrations for myopia control in children.
METHODS
We conducted a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials (RCT). Primary outcomes include changes in spherical equivalent error (SER) and changes in axial length (AL), mean difference (MD) together with 95% credible interval (CrI) were used to evaluate the efficacy.
RESULTS
28 RCTs (6608 children) were included in this review. Comparing ten atropine eyedrops (0.0025%, 0.005%, 0.01%, 0.02%, 0.025%, 0.05%, 0.1%, 0.25%, 0.5% and 1% concentrations) with the placebo, the MDs and 95%CrIs of changes in SER are -0.006 (-0.269, 0.256) D, 0.216 (-0.078, 0.508) D, 0.146 (0.094, 0.199) D, 0.167 (0.039, 0.297) D, 0.201 (0.064, 0.341) D, 0.344 (0.251, 0.440) D, 0.255 (0.114, 0.396) D, 0.296 (0.140, 0.452) D, 0.331 (0.215, 0.447) D, and 0.286 (0.195, 0.337) D, respectively. The MDs and 95%CrIs of changes in AL are -0.048 (-0.182, 0.085) mm, -0.078 (-0.222, 0.066) mm, -0.095 (-0.130, -0.060) mm, -0.096 (-0.183, -0.009) mm, -0.083 (-0.164, -0.004) mm, -0.114 (-0.176, -0.056) mm, -0.134 (-0.198, -0.032) mm, -0.174 (-0.315, -0.061) mm, -0.184 (-0.291, -0.073) mm, and -0.171 (-0.203, -0.097) mm, respectively.Whether evaluated by SER or AL, 1% concentration ranks first in efficacy, but the risk of photophobia is 17 times higher than 0.01% concentration.
CONCLUSIONS
0.01% or higher concentration atropine eyedrops are effective for myopia control, while 0.0025% and 0.005% concentrations may not. As the concentration increases, the effect tends to increase, 1% concentration may have the strongest effect.
PubMed: 38377951
DOI: 10.1177/11206721241229317 -
Ophthalmic Epidemiology 2007To assess the effect of topical Non-Steroidal Anti Inflammatory drugs in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To assess the effect of topical Non-Steroidal Anti Inflammatory drugs in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis.
METHOD
Systematic Review.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION
Reports of comparative randomized trials of topical NSAIDs and placebo identified by searches of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers assessed trials for eligibility and quality and extracted data independently. Data were synthesized (random effects model) and results expressed results for dichotomous outcomes as relative risk and continuous outcomes as weighted mean difference. Sensitivity analysis was used to examine potential heterogeneity by differences in study quality.
RESULTS
Eight studies incorporating 712 patients were included. The difference between the decrease in allergic sign and symptom score for NSAID treatment compared to placebo was between 4 and 19 percentage points. Topical NSAIDs produced significantly greater relief for conjunctival itching (cardinal symptom) than did placebo (combined standardized mean difference -0.54 (p < 0.001; 95% confidence interval -0.84 to -0.24). The results for the other allergic symptoms: ocular burning/pain, eyelid swelling, photophobia and foreign sensation were not significant. Topical NSAIDs produced significantly greater reduction of conjunctival injection than did placebo (combined standardized mean difference -0.51 (p = 0.03; 95% confidence interval -0.97 to -0.05). Topical NSAIDs did not reduce the allergic signs of conjunctival chemosis, conjunctival mucus, eyelid swelling and corneal disturbance. Topical NSAIDs had a significantly higher rate of burning/stinging on application of medication compared to placebo (P < 0.0001; odds ratio 3.97 (95% CI 2.67 to 5.89).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis confirms that topical NSAID are significantly more effective at relieving the cardinal symptom: conjunctival itching and improving the cardinal sign: conjunctival injection than placebo treatment. A systematic review comparing topical NSAIDs to topical antihistamines/mast cell stabilizers in treatment of allergic conjunctivitis is warranted as this will compare the topical NSAIDs to current therapeutic guidelines.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Child; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Humans; Pruritus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 17994441
DOI: 10.1080/09286580701299411 -
The International Journal of... Jun 2024The efficacy of ubrogepant 50 mg versus 100 mg daily for migraine remained controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficacy of ubrogepant 50 mg versus 100 mg daily for migraine remained controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of ubrogepant 50 mg versus 100 mg daily on treatment in migraine patients. We have searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, Cochrane library databases and SCOPUS through 21 March 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of ubrogepant 50 mg versus 100 mg on treatment efficacy in migraine patients. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model. Three RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with ubrogepant 100 mg in migraine patients, ubrogepant 50 mg obtained comparable pain freedom at 2 h (OR = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.64-1.15; = 0.310), sustained pain freedom 2-24 h (OR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.54-1.07; = 0.110), photophobia absence at 2 h (OR = 0.80; 95% CI = 0.63-1.02; = 0.070), phonophobia absence at 2 h (OR = 1.07; 95% CI = 0.82-1.40; = 0.620) and nausea absence at 2 h (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.79-1.32; = 0.880). In terms of safety, adverse events were found to be increased in ubrogepant 100 mg as compared to ubrogepant 50 mg (OR = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.67-0.99; = 0.040), and there was no statistical difference of serious adverse events between two groups (OR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.40-1.91; = 0.720). Ubrogepant 50 mg and 100 mg may be equally effective to alleviate migraine, but ubrogepant 100 mg led to increase incidence of adverse events.
Topics: Humans; Migraine Disorders; Nausea; Pain; Pyridines; Pyrroles; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35999672
DOI: 10.1080/00207454.2022.2090351 -
CNS Drugs May 2020Ubrogepant is a small molecular calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist that is used for the acute treatment of migraine. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ubrogepant is a small molecular calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist that is used for the acute treatment of migraine.
OBJECTIVE
The aim was to conduct a meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of ubrogepant for the treatment of episodic migraine compared with placebo in the adult population.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant randomized clinical trials, from the earliest available date to November 10, 2019, to evaluate the efficacy and safety of short-term ubrogepant use. Inclusion criteria were (1) randomized clinical trial; (2) enrolled adult participants diagnosed with episodic migraine; (3) compared ubrogepant with placebo at doses that were evaluated in phase III clinical trials; (4) enrolled more than 100 patients in each group; and (5) provided any information on primary or secondary outcomes. Trials were excluded if their participants were diagnosed with chronic migraine.
RESULTS
A total of three multicenter, randomized clinical trials with 3326 patients were included. Ubrogepant use was associated with a significantly higher percentage of patients with pain freedom (ubrogepant 20.8%; placebo 12.6%; relative risk [RR] 1.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.38-1.98) and absence of the most bothersome migraine-associated symptoms (ubrogepant 37.3%; placebo 27.6%; RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.20-1.53) at 2 h post-dose compared with placebo. Ubrogepant increased the rate of absence of migraine-associated symptoms at 2 h post-dose compared with placebo (photophobia: RR 1.30 [95% CI 1.18-1.44], I = 49%; phonophobia: RR 1.20 [95% CI 1.11-1.29]; nausea: RR 1.07 [95% CI 1.02-1.13]), and patients were more likely to function normally at 2 h post-dose compared with placebo (RR 1.30 [95% CI 1.16-1.45]). No significant difference was found for treatment-related adverse events within 48 h or 30 days for ubrogepant compared with placebo (48 h: RR 1.07 [95% CI 0.85-1.35]; 30 days: RR 1.03 [95% CI 0.79-1.34]). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that compared to placebo, ubrogepant led to greater rates of freedom from pain at 2 h with 25-mg, 50-mg, and 100-mg doses and absence of the most bothersome symptoms with 50-mg and 100-mg doses.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of ubrogepant as an acute treatment of episodic migraine in adults led to a greater percentage of freedom from pain and absence of the most bothersome symptoms at 2 h post-dose. Short-term use of ubrogepant was not related to an increased risk for adverse events. Further studies are needed to evaluate efficacy and safety for long-term use and in specific subgroups of patients.
Topics: Adult; Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor Antagonists; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Pyridines; Pyrroles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32193827
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-020-00715-7 -
Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia Sep 2019This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of using preservative-free artificial tears versus preserved lubricants for the treatment of dry eyes in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of using preservative-free artificial tears versus preserved lubricants for the treatment of dry eyes in Universidade Federal de Alagoas (PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018089933). Online databases were searched (LILACS, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL) from inception to April 2018; references from included papers were also searched. The following keywords were used: lubricants OR artificial tears OR artificial tears, lubricants AND dry eye OR dry eye syndrome OR syndromes, dry eye OR dry eyes. Among the 2028 electronic search results, 29 full papers were retrieved and four were considered relevant. The number of participants from these studies ranged from 15 to 76. Meta-analysis was possible for the following outcomes: score of symptoms according to the Ocular Surface Disease Index - Allergan (OSDI), tear secretion rate using the Schirmer test, tear evaporation rate using the tear film breakup time test, burning, foreign body sensation, and photophobia. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups, and no side effects were attributed to the interventions. Evidence proving that preservative-free artificial tears are more effective than preserved artificial tears is lacking.
Topics: Bias; Dry Eye Syndromes; Female; Humans; Lubricant Eye Drops; Male; Ophthalmic Solutions; Preservatives, Pharmaceutical; Tears
PubMed: 31508669
DOI: 10.5935/0004-2749.20190097