-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Maternal hypotension is the most frequent complication of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. It can be associated with nausea or vomiting and may pose serious... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Maternal hypotension is the most frequent complication of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. It can be associated with nausea or vomiting and may pose serious risks to the mother (unconsciousness, pulmonary aspiration) and baby (hypoxia, acidosis, neurological injury).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of prophylactic interventions for hypotension following spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 August 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials, including full texts and abstracts, comparing interventions to prevent hypotension with placebo or alternative treatment in women having spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. We excluded studies if hypotension was not an outcome measure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data from eligible studies. We report 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 125 studies involving 9469 women. Interventions were to prevent maternal hypotension following spinal anaesthesia only, and we excluded any interventions considered active treatment. All the included studies reported the review's primary outcome. Across 49 comparisons, we identified three intervention groups: intravenous fluids, pharmacological interventions, and physical interventions. Authors reported no serious adverse effects with any of the interventions investigated. Most trials reported hypotension requiring intervention and Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes as the only outcomes. None of the trials included in the comparisons we describe reported admission to neonatal intensive care unit. Crystalloid versus control (no fluids) Fewer women experienced hypotension in the crystalloid group compared with no fluids (average risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.98; 370 women; 5 studies; low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between groups in numbers of women with nausea and vomiting (average RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.91; 1 study; 69 women; very low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (60 babies, low-quality evidence). Colloid versus crystalloid Fewer women experienced hypotension in the colloid group compared with the crystalloid group (average RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.81; 2009 women; 27 studies; very low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for maternal hypertension requiring intervention (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.46, 3 studies, 327 women; very low-quality evidence), maternal bradycardia requiring intervention (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.78, 5 studies, 413 women; very low-quality evidence), nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.19, 14 studies, 1058 women, I² = 29%; very low-quality evidence), neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.52, 6 studies, 678 babies; very low-quality evidence), or Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes (average RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.05, 10 studies, 730 babies; very low-quality evidence). Ephedrine versus phenylephrine There were no clear differences between ephedrine and phenylephrine groups for preventing maternal hypotension (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.18; 401 women; 8 studies; very low-quality evidence) or hypertension (average RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.16, 2 studies, 118 women, low-quality evidence). Rates of bradycardia were lower in the ephedrine group (average RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.64, 5 studies, 304 women, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the number of women with nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.49, 4 studies, 204 women, I² = 37%, very low-quality evidence), or babies with neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.07 to 12.00, 3 studies, 175 babies, low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (321 babies; low-quality evidence). Ondansetron versus control Ondansetron administration was more effective than control (placebo saline) for preventing hypotension requiring treatment (average RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), bradycardia requiring treatment (average RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), and nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.51; 653 women, 7 studies, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.09; 134 babies; 2 studies, low-quality evidence) or Apgar scores of less than 8 at five minutes (284 babies, low-quality evidence). Lower limb compression versus control Lower limb compression was more effective than control for preventing hypotension (average RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.78, 11 studies, 705 women, I² = 65%, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of bradycardia (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.56, 1 study, 74 women, very low-quality evidence) or nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.27, 4 studies, 276 women, I² = 32%, very-low quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (130 babies, very low-quality evidence). Walking versus lying There was no clear difference between the groups for women with hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.21, 1 study, 37 women, very low-quality evidence). Many included studies reported little to no information that would allow an assessment of their risk of bias, limiting our ability to draw meaningful conclusions. GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. We downgraded evidence for limitations in study design, imprecision, and indirectness; most studies assessed only women scheduled for elective caesarean sections. External validity also needs consideration. Readers should question the use of colloids in this context given the serious potential side effects such as allergy and renal failure associated with their administration.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
While interventions such as crystalloids, colloids, ephedrine, phenylephrine, ondansetron, or lower leg compression can reduce the incidence of hypotension, none have been shown to eliminate the need to treat maternal hypotension in some women. We cannot draw any conclusions regarding rare adverse effects associated with use of the interventions (for example colloids) due to the relatively small numbers of women studied.
Topics: Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Anesthesia, Spinal; Antiemetics; Cesarean Section; Colloids; Crystalloid Solutions; Ephedrine; Female; Humans; Hypotension; Intraoperative Complications; Isotonic Solutions; Ondansetron; Phenylephrine; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Walking
PubMed: 32619039
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002251.pub4 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jun 2008Each year, children suffer up to 5 colds and adults have 2-3 infections, leading to time off school or work, and considerable discomfort. Most symptoms resolve within a... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Each year, children suffer up to 5 colds and adults have 2-3 infections, leading to time off school or work, and considerable discomfort. Most symptoms resolve within a week, but coughs often persist for longer.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for common cold? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to May 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 19 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: analgesics or anti-inflammatory drugs, antibiotics, antihistamines, decongestants (norephedrine, oxymetazoline, or pseudoephedrine), decongestants plus antihistamine, echinacea, steam inhalation, vitamin C, and zinc (intranasal gel or lozenges).
Topics: Acute Disease; Common Cold; Cough; Echinacea; Humans; Nasal Decongestants; Phenylpropanolamine
PubMed: 19450292
DOI: No ID Found -
Climacteric : the Journal of the... Apr 2021A systematic literature search revealed 35 clinical studies and one meta-analysis comprising 43,759 women, of which 13,096 were treated with isopropanolic extract... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic literature search revealed 35 clinical studies and one meta-analysis comprising 43,759 women, of which 13,096 were treated with isopropanolic extract (iCR). Compared to placebo, iCR was significantly superior for treating neurovegetative and psychological menopausal symptoms, with a standardized mean difference of -0.694 in favor of iCR ( < 0.0001). Effect sizes were larger when higher dosages of iCR as monotherapy or in combination with St. John's wort ( [HP]) were given (-1.020 and -0.999, respectively), suggesting a dose-dependency. For psychological symptoms, the iCR+HP combination was superior to iCR monotherapy. Efficacy of iCR was comparable to low-dose transdermal estradiol or tibolone. Yet, due to its better tolerability, iCR had a significantly better benefit-risk profile than tibolone. Treatment with iCR/iCR+HP was well tolerated with few minor adverse events, with a frequency comparable to placebo. The clinical data did not reveal any evidence of hepatotoxicity. Hormone levels remained unchanged and estrogen-sensitive tissues (e.g. breast, endometrium) were unaffected by iCR treatment. As benefits clearly outweigh risks, iCR/iCR+HP should be recommended as an evidence-based treatment option for natural climacteric symptoms. With its good safety profile in general and at estrogen-sensitive organs, iCR as a non-hormonal herbal therapy can also be used in patients with hormone-dependent diseases who suffer from iatrogenic climacteric symptoms.
Topics: 2-Propanol; Cimicifuga; Female; Hot Flashes; Humans; Menopause; Middle Aged; Phytotherapy; Plant Extracts; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33021111
DOI: 10.1080/13697137.2020.1820477 -
World Journal of Emergency Surgery :... 2017The objective of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness and safety of propranolol compared to placebo or usual care for improving clinical relevant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The objective of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness and safety of propranolol compared to placebo or usual care for improving clinical relevant outcomes in severely burned patients (TBSA >20%).
METHODS
Relevant articles from randomized controlled trials were identified by a literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. We included trials involving patients with a severe burn (>20% of total body surface area affected). Trials were eligible if they evaluated propranolol and compared to usual care or placebo. Two investigators independently assessed articles for inclusion and exclusion criteria and selected studies for the final analysis. We conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
We included ten studies in our systematic review. These studies randomized a total of 1236 participants. There were no significant differences between propranolol and placebo with respect to mortality (RD -0.02 [95% CI -0.06 to 0.02]), sepsis (RD -0.03 [95% CI -0.09 to 0.04]), and the overall hospital stay (MD -0.37 [-4.52 to 3.78]). Propranolol-treated adults had a decrease in requirements of blood transfusions (MD -185.64 [95% CI -331.06 to -40.43]) and a decreased heart rate (MD -26.85 [95% CI -39.95 to -13.75]).
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis indicates that there were no differences in mortality or sepsis in severely burned patients treated with propranolol compared with those who had usual care or placebo. However, the use of propranolol in these patients resulted in lower requirements of blood transfusion and lower values of heart rate. The evidence synthesized in this systematic review is limited to conclude that propranolol reduces the length of hospital stay among severely burned patients. Future trials should assess the impact of propranolol on clinically relevant outcomes such as mortality and adverse events.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Burns; Humans; Patient Safety; Propranolol
PubMed: 28265298
DOI: 10.1186/s13017-017-0124-7 -
Drugs in R&D Sep 2023At present, the therapies of dilated cardiomyopathy concentrated on the symptoms of heart failure and related complications. The study is to evaluate the clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
At present, the therapies of dilated cardiomyopathy concentrated on the symptoms of heart failure and related complications. The study is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of a combination of various conventional and adjuvant drugs in treating dilated cardiomyopathy via network meta-analysis.
METHODS
The study was reported according to the PRISMA 2020 statement. From inception through 27 June 2022, the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Web of Science databases were searched for randomized controlled trials on medicines for treating dilated cardiomyopathy. The quality of the included studies was evaluated according to the Cochrane risk of bias assessment. R4.1.3 and Revman5.3 software were used for analysis.
RESULTS
There were 52 randomized controlled trials in this study, with a total of 25 medications and a sample size of 3048 cases. The network meta-analysis found that carvedilol, verapamil, and trimetazidine were the top three medicines for improving left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Ivabradine, bucindolol, and verapamil were the top 3 drugs for improving left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD). Ivabradine, L-thyroxine, and atorvastatin were the top 3 drugs for improving left ventricular end-systolic dimension (LVESD). Trimetazidine, pentoxifylline, and bucindolol were the top 3 drugs for improving the New York Heart Association classification (NYHA) cardiac function score. Ivabradine, carvedilol, and bucindolol were the top 3 drugs for reducing heart rate (HR).
CONCLUSION
A combination of different medications and conventional therapy may increase the clinical effectiveness of treating dilated cardiomyopathy. Beta-blockers, especially carvedilol, can improve ventricular remodeling, cardiac function, and clinical efficacy in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). Hence, they can be used if patients tolerate them. If LVEF and HR do not meet the standard, ivabradine can also be used in combination with other treatments. However, since the quality and number of studies in our research were limited, large sample size, multi-center, and high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to corroborate our findings.
Topics: Humans; Cardiomyopathy, Dilated; Carvedilol; Ivabradine; Stroke Volume; Trimetazidine; Network Meta-Analysis; Ventricular Function, Left; Verapamil; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37556093
DOI: 10.1007/s40268-023-00435-5 -
European Journal of Clinical... Jun 2022Catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) is a common complication of intraoperative urinary catheterization. Various studies have evaluated the efficacy of different... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) is a common complication of intraoperative urinary catheterization. Various studies have evaluated the efficacy of different interventions in postoperative CRBD. The present review was performed to assess the efficacy of these interventions.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of different drugs for the prevention of postoperative CRBD. This review evaluated the incidence and severity of CRBD after different interventions at 0, 1, 2, and 6 h postoperatively.
RESULTS
Forty-five studies including 31 different drugs were analyzed. Eleven drugs were investigated in more than two RCTs, of which dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, tolterodine, tramadol, ketamine, nefopam, oxybutynin, pregabalin, and pudendal nerve block (PNB) generally showed significantly higher efficacy than controls postoperatively. Solifenacin only showed significant efficacy compared with the control at 0 h, and intravenous lidocaine only showed significant efficacy compared with the control at 6 h. There were insufficient trials to draw conclusions regarding atropine, butylscopolamine, chlorpheniramine, clonidine, darifenacin, diphenhydramine, glycopyrrolate, intravesical bupivacaine, ketamine-haloperidol, pethidine-haloperidol, ketorolac, lidocaine-prilocaine cream, magnesium, hyoscine n-butyl bromide, oxycodone, paracetamol, parecoxib, trospium, resiniferatoxin, or amikacin. However, all but pethidine-haloperidol and chlorpheniramine showed some efficacy at various time points compared with controls.
CONCLUSION
This review suggests that dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, tolterodine, tramadol, ketamine, nefopam, oxybutynin, pregabalin, and PNB are effective in preventing postoperative CRBD. Considering the efficacy and adverse effects of all drugs, dexmedetomidine and gabapentin were ranked best.
Topics: Chlorpheniramine; Dexmedetomidine; Gabapentin; Haloperidol; Humans; Ketamine; Lidocaine; Meperidine; Nefopam; Pain, Postoperative; Pregabalin; Tolterodine Tartrate; Tramadol; Urinary Bladder; Urinary Catheters
PubMed: 35218404
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-021-03251-5 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence May 2007Essential tremor is one of the most common movement disorders throughout the world, with prevalence in the general population of 0.4-3.9%. Although most people with... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Essential tremor is one of the most common movement disorders throughout the world, with prevalence in the general population of 0.4-3.9%. Although most people with essential tremor are only mildly affected, those who seek medical care are disabled to some extent, and most are socially handicapped by the tremor.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of drug treatments in people with essential tremor of the hand? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to December 2006 (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 41 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: adding mirtazepine to other antitremor drugs; benzodiazepines; beta-blockers other than propranolol; botulinum A toxin-haemagglutinin complex; calcium channel blockers; carbonic anhydrase inhibitors; clonidine; flunarizine; gabapentin; isoniazid; Phenobarbital; primidone; propranolol; and topiramate.
Topics: Double-Blind Method; Essential Tremor; Humans; Primidone; Propranolol; Tremor
PubMed: 19454072
DOI: No ID Found -
Cephalalgia : An International Journal... Jun 2023Currently, only a few specific blood pressure-lowering medications are recommended for migraine prevention. Whether benefits extend to other classes or drugs is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Currently, only a few specific blood pressure-lowering medications are recommended for migraine prevention. Whether benefits extend to other classes or drugs is uncertain.
METHODS
Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized control trials on the effect of blood pressure-lowering medications compared with placebo in participants with episodic migraine. Data were collected on four outcomes - monthly headache or migraine days, and monthly headache or migraine attacks, with a standardised mean difference calculated for overall. Random effect meta-analysis was performed.
RESULTS
In total, 50 trials (70% of which were crossover) were included, comprising 60 comparisons. Overall mean age was 39 years, and 79% were female. Monthly headache days were fewer in all classes compared to placebo, and this was statistically significant for all but one class: alpha-blockers -0.7 (95% CI: -1.2, -0.1), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors -1.3 (95% CI: -2.9, 0.2), angiotensin II receptor blockers -0.9 (-1.6, -0.1), beta-blocker -0.4 (-0.8, -0.0) and calcium channel blockers -1.8 (-3.4, -0.2). Standardised mean difference was significantly reduced for all drug classes and was separately significant for numerous specific drugs: clonidine, candesartan, atenolol, bisoprolol, metoprolol, propranolol, timolol, nicardipine and verapamil.
CONCLUSION
Among people with episodic migraine, a broader number of blood pressure-lowering medication classes and drugs reduce headache frequency than those currently included in treatment guidelines. The study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42017079176).
Topics: Humans; Female; Adult; Male; Blood Pressure; Migraine Disorders; Calcium Channel Blockers; Propranolol; Headache
PubMed: 37350141
DOI: 10.1177/03331024231183166 -
Pain Practice : the Official Journal of... Nov 2022To investigate and analyze the available data on the prophylactic effectiveness of cinnarizine in migraine disorder. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate and analyze the available data on the prophylactic effectiveness of cinnarizine in migraine disorder.
BACKGROUND
Cinnarizine has demonstrated encouraging potential in preventing the attacks of migraine. Therefore, we opted to evaluate whether its sole administration leads to positive outcomes.
METHODS
The PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched for English-only original interventional studies published until April 2022, then screened for relevancy and eligibility. The resulting data from the included studies, including the primary (ie, headache episode frequency, intensity, duration, monthly timing, and analgesic intake frequency) and secondary (ie, reported adverse events, quality of life, and activities of daily living) outcome changes compared to placebo and active controls (e.g., sodium valproate and propranolol) were then recorded by two independent assessors. Ultimately, these data were synthesized qualitatively and quantitatively (achieved by determining the mean difference via the random-effects model).
RESULTS
A total of 10 studies comprising seven randomized controlled trials and three quasi-experimental studies were included. Compared to placebo, cinnarizine demonstrated significant improvements in migraine episode frequency (Mean difference = -3.10; Confidence interval = [-3.33, -2.88]; p-value < 0.001; I < 0.001%), and intensity (Mean difference = -1.54; Confidence interval = [-2.08, -0.99]; p-value < 0.001; I < 37.97%). Moreover, cinnarizine led to similar or better results when compared to active controls, including sodium valproate, topiramate, and propranolol.
CONCLUSIONS
Cinnarizine can be considered a safe and effective medication for migraine prophylaxis. However, the relatively small sample size made reaching a definite conclusion impossible. Therefore, a higher number of randomized controlled trials are recommended to be taken place to clarify the situation further.
Topics: Humans; Cinnarizine; Valproic Acid; Propranolol; Quality of Life; Activities of Daily Living; Migraine Disorders
PubMed: 36148684
DOI: 10.1111/papr.13164 -
Current Medical Research and Opinion Jun 2015Prostaglandin-timolol fixed combinations (PG-timolol FCs) are now widely used to reduce intraocular pressure in patients with glaucoma. The efficacy and tolerability of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Prostaglandin-timolol fixed combinations (PG-timolol FCs) are now widely used to reduce intraocular pressure in patients with glaucoma. The efficacy and tolerability of these drugs are worthy of further exploration. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the clinical efficacy and tolerability of the three PG-timolol FCs.
METHODS
Pertinent randomized, controlled trials were identified through systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials and the Chinese Biomedicine Database. The main efficacy measures were the weighted mean differences (WMDs) for the reduction from baseline to end of treatment in IOP at 9 am, 12 pm and 4 pm and diurnal curve. The main tolerability measures were the odds ratios (ORs) for the incidence of conjunctival hyperemia.
RESULTS
Nine studies involving 991 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Latanoprost-timolol FC (LTFC) and travoprost-timolol FC (TTFC) were not significantly different in lowering IOP at diurnal mean, 9 am, 12 pm and 4 pm. Bimatoprost-timolol FC (BTFC) provided significantly greater efficacy in lowering IOP at the three measurement time points and over the mean diurnal curve than LTFC (diurnal curve: WMD = 0.88 mmHg [95% CI, 0.42 to 1.33]; 9 am: WMD = 1.27 mmHg [0.68 to 1.86]; 12 pm: WMD = 1.16 mmHg [0.85 to 1.46]; 4 pm: WMD = 0.61 mmHg [0.51 to 0.70]) and TTFC (diurnal curve: WMD = 1.94 mmHg [0.19 to 3.68]; 9 am: WMD = 0.68 mmHg [0.15 to 1.21]; 12 pm: WMD = 0.90 mmHg [0.41 to 1.39]; 4 pm: WMD = 1.06 mmHg [0.61 to 1.51]). The incidence of hyperemia was significantly higher with BTFC than LTFC (pooled ORs: 1.85 [1.09 to 3.13]). The incidence of hyperemia was not significantly higher with TTFC than LTFC (pooled ORs: 2.52 [0.85 to 7.46]), and was not significantly higher with BTFC than TTFC (pooled OR: 1.65 [0.48 to 5.70]).
CONCLUSIONS
BTFC provided significantly greater efficacy in lowering IOP at diurnal mean, 9 am, 12 pm and 4 pm than LTFC and TTFC. LTFC was as effective as TTFC in lowering IOP at the four measurement time points and BTFC caused conjunctival hyperemia in more patients than LTFC. Further clinical trials are needed because of the limited number of studies.
Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Bimatoprost; Drug Combinations; Glaucoma; Humans; Hyperemia; Intraocular Pressure; Latanoprost; Prostaglandins F, Synthetic; Timolol; Travoprost
PubMed: 25867658
DOI: 10.1185/03007995.2015.1039504