-
Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology... Feb 2014Anaphylaxis is a serious allergic or hypersensitivity reaction, which is rapid in onset and sometimes can prove fatal. Although H2-antihistamines are often administered... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Anaphylaxis is a serious allergic or hypersensitivity reaction, which is rapid in onset and sometimes can prove fatal. Although H2-antihistamines are often administered for emergency treatment in anaphylaxis, there is uncertainty about their effectiveness in this disease.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the benefits and harms of H2-antihistamines in the treatment of anaphylaxis.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed of randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing H2-antihistamines with placebo or no intervention in patients with anaphylaxis.
RESULTS
The authors failed to identify any eligible studies for inclusion in this systematic review.
CONCLUSION
When H2-antihistamines are recommended for anaphylaxis treatment, the status of the evidence base supporting their use should be described. Well-designed randomized controlled trials investigating the role of H2-antihistamines in anaphylaxis treatment are urgently needed.
Topics: Anaphylaxis; Anti-Allergic Agents; Epinephrine; Evidence-Based Medicine; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Shock
PubMed: 24468252
DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2013.11.010 -
Journal of Alternative and... Dec 2004Ephedrine and guaifenesin are herbal supplements that have experienced increased use over the past decade. Ephedrine has been used as a stimulant and weight-loss... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Ephedrine and guaifenesin are herbal supplements that have experienced increased use over the past decade. Ephedrine has been used as a stimulant and weight-loss product, guaifenesin as an expectorant and cough suppressant; both are found in combination in many antitussives and expectorants. This paper reviews the reported cases of ephedrine- and guaifenesin-induced nephrolithiasis, as well as the diagnostic techniques and treatments that have been successfully used for these stones.
DESIGN
A systematic review of the literature pertaining to nephrolithiasis and the compounds ephedrine and guaifenesin was conducted.
RESULTS
Ephedrine and guaifenesin use results in over 35% of urinary stones that are related to pharmaceutical metabolites, and collectively are present in 0.1% of all urinary stones. These calculi are radiolucent, requiring the use of computerized tomography (CT scan) for diagnosis. Alkalinization therapy offers an alternative to surgical intervention and may have a role in prevention of recurrence.
CONCLUSIONS
Ephedrine and guaifenesin have been shown to cause nephrolithiasis in cases of abuse when taken individually or in combination. It is important for the clinician to be aware of the potential for these compounds to cause nephrolithiasis.
Topics: Antitussive Agents; Bronchodilator Agents; Ephedrine; Expectorants; Guaifenesin; Humans; Kidney; Kidney Calculi; Nonprescription Drugs
PubMed: 15673990
DOI: 10.1089/acm.2004.10.967 -
American Journal of Clinical Dermatology Feb 2016Cutaneous lichen planus (CLP) is an inflammatory dermatosis. Its chronic relapsing course and frequently spontaneous regression hamper the assessment of treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cutaneous lichen planus (CLP) is an inflammatory dermatosis. Its chronic relapsing course and frequently spontaneous regression hamper the assessment of treatment effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy of available treatment modalities for CLP.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov registry.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the current literature. All randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized case-control studies, and cohort studies with more than one treatment arm were included. The primary outcomes were complete response and time to complete response. The secondary outcomes were partial response, relapse, time to relapse, reduction of itch, the adverse event rate, and withdrawal due to adverse events.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 11 were randomized controlled trials. Most trials had a small sample size. In the rare studies in which variants other than generalized or classic lichen planus were included, they could not be analyzed separately. Body-of-evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. Acitretin, sulfasalazine, and griseofulvin were associated with increased overall response rates in comparison with placebo. Narrow-band ultraviolet B radiation (NBUVB) was more effective than 6 weeks' low-dose prednisolone in achieving a complete response, and prednisolone was more effective than enoxaparin. Hydroxychloroquine was more effective than griseofulvin in achieving an overall response. Betamethasone valerate 0.1% ointment had comparable efficacy to calcipotriol ointment. Methotrexate was effective, with a nonsignificant difference in the complete response rate in comparison with oral betamethasone. In nonrandomized controlled trials, oral psoralen plus ultraviolet A photochemotherapy (PUVA) had comparable efficacy to a PUVA bath and NBUVB. Psoralen plus sunlight exposure (PUVASOL) and betamethasone dipropionate 0.05% cream were effective relative to a short course of oral metronidazole.
CONCLUSIONS
Several effective treatment options are available for CLP. Further well-designed studies are warranted to investigate the efficacy of topical glucocorticoids-the current first-line therapy-as well as other treatment modalities, and the treatment of different variants of CLP.
Topics: Acitretin; Administration, Cutaneous; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antifungal Agents; Calcitriol; Dermatologic Agents; Enoxaparin; Female; Fibrinolytic Agents; Ficusin; Glucocorticoids; Griseofulvin; Humans; Keratolytic Agents; Lichen Planus; Male; Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; PUVA Therapy; Photochemotherapy; Photosensitizing Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfasalazine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26507510
DOI: 10.1007/s40257-015-0160-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Olfactory dysfunction is a common consequence of COVID-19 infection and persistent symptoms can have a profound impact on quality of life. At present there is little... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Olfactory dysfunction is a common consequence of COVID-19 infection and persistent symptoms can have a profound impact on quality of life. At present there is little guidance on how best to treat this condition. A variety of interventions have been suggested to promote recovery, including medication and olfactory training. However, it is uncertain whether any intervention is of benefit. This is an update of the 2021 review with one additional study added. OBJECTIVES: 1) To evaluate the benefits and harms of any intervention versus no treatment for people with persisting olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection. 2) To keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the latest search was 20 October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with COVID-19 related olfactory disturbance that had persisted for at least four weeks. We included any intervention compared to no treatment or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were the recovery of sense of smell, disease-related quality of life and serious adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were the change in sense of smell, general quality of life, prevalence of parosmia and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two studies with 30 participants. The studies evaluated the following interventions: systemic corticosteroids plus intranasal corticosteroid/mucolytic/decongestant and palmitoylethanolamide plus luteolin. Systemic corticosteroids plus intranasal corticosteroid/mucolytic/decongestant compared to no intervention We included a single RCT with 18 participants who had anosmia for at least 30 days following COVID-19 infection. Participants received a 15-day course of oral corticosteroids combined with nasal irrigation (consisting of an intranasal corticosteroid/mucolytic/decongestant solution) or no intervention. Psychophysical testing was used to assess olfactory function at 40 days. This is a single, small study and for all outcomes the certainty of evidence was very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Palmitoylethanolamide plus luteolin compared to no intervention We included a single RCT with 12 participants who had anosmia or hyposmia for at least 90 days following COVID-19 infection. Participants received a 30-day course of palmitoylethanolamide and luteolin or no intervention. Psychophysical testing was used to assess olfactory function at 30 days. This is a single, small study and for all outcomes the certainty of evidence was very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very limited evidence available on the efficacy and harms of treatments for persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified a number of ongoing trials in this area. As this is a living systematic review we will update the data regularly, as new results become available.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anosmia; COVID-19; Expectorants; Humans; Luteolin; Nasal Decongestants; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smell
PubMed: 36062970
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013876.pub3 -
Clinical Transplantation Oct 2022Liver transplant centers vary in approach to intraoperative vascular accesses, monitoring of cardiac function and temperature management. Evidence is limited regarding... (Review)
Review
What is the optimal anesthetic monitoring regarding immediate and short-term outcomes after liver transplantation?-A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations.
BACKGROUND
Liver transplant centers vary in approach to intraoperative vascular accesses, monitoring of cardiac function and temperature management. Evidence is limited regarding impact of selected modalities on postoperative outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To review the literature and provide expert panel recommendations on optimal intraoperative arterial blood pressure (BP), central venous pressure (CVP), and vascular accesses, monitoring of cardiac function and intraoperative temperature management regarding immediate and short-term outcomes after orthotopic liver transplant (OLT).
METHODS
Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel. Recommendations made for: (1) Vascular accesses, arterial BP and CVP monitoring, (2) cardiac function monitoring, and (3) Intraoperative temperature management (CRD42021239908).
RESULTS
Of 2619 articles screened 16 were included. Studies were small, retrospective, and observational. Vascular access studies demonstrated low rates of insertion complications. TEE studies demonstrated low rates of esophageal hemorrhage. One study found lower hospital-LOS and 30-day mortality in patients monitored with both PAC and TEE. Other monitoring studies were heterogenous in design and outcomes. Temperature studies showed increased blood transfusion and ventilation times in hypothermic groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Recommendations were made for; routine arterial and CVP monitoring as a minimum standard of practice, consideration of discrepancy between peripheral and central arterial BP in patients with hemodynamic instability and high vasopressor requirements, and routine use of high flow cannulae while monitoring for extravasation and hematoma formation. Availability and expertise in PAC and/or TEE monitoring is strongly recommended particularly in hemodynamic instability, portopulmonary HT and/or cardiac dysfunction. TEE use is recommended as an acceptable risk in patients with treated esophageal varices and is an effective diagnostic tool for emergency cardiovascular collapse. Maintenance of intraoperative normothermia is strongly recommended.
Topics: Humans; Liver Transplantation; Retrospective Studies; Monitoring, Intraoperative; Central Venous Pressure; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 35262975
DOI: 10.1111/ctr.14643 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2011Initial goal directed resuscitation for shock usually includes the administration of intravenous fluids, followed by initiating vasopressors. Despite obvious immediate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Initial goal directed resuscitation for shock usually includes the administration of intravenous fluids, followed by initiating vasopressors. Despite obvious immediate effects of vasopressors on haemodynamics their effect on patient relevant outcomes remains controversial. This review was originally published in 2004 and was updated in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
Our primary objective was to assess whether particular vasopressors reduce overall mortality, morbidity, and health-related quality of life.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PASCAL BioMed, CINAHL, BIOSIS, and PsycINFO (from inception to March 2010). The original search was performed in November 2003. We also asked experts in the field and searched meta-registries for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials comparing various vasopressor regimens for hypotensive shock.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors abstracted data independently. Disagreement between the authors was discussed and resolved with a third author. We used a random-effects model for combining quantitative data.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 23 randomized controlled trials involving 3212 patients, with 1629 mortality outcomes. Six different vasopressors, alone or in combination, were studied in 11 different comparisons.All 23 studies reported mortality outcomes; length of stay was reported in nine studies. Other morbidity outcomes were reported in a variable and heterogeneous way. No data were available on quality of life or anxiety and depression outcomes. We classified 10 studies as being at low risk of bias for the primary outcome mortality; only four studies fulfilled all trial quality items.In summary, there was no difference in mortality in any of the comparisons between different vasopressors or combinations. More arrhythmias were observed in patients treated with dopamine compared to norepinephrine. Norepinephrine versus dopamine, as the largest comparison in 1400 patients from six trials, yielded almost equivalence (RR 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.03). Vasopressors used as add-on therapy in comparison to placebo were not effective either. These findings were consistent among the few large studies as well as in studies with different levels of within-study bias risk.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is some evidence of no difference in mortality between norepinephrine and dopamine. Dopamine appeared to increase the risk for arrhythmia. There is not sufficient evidence of any difference between any of the six vasopressors examined. Probably the choice of vasopressors in patients with shock does not influence the outcome, rather than any vasoactive effect per se. There is not sufficient evidence that any one of the investigated vasopressors is clearly superior over others.
Topics: Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Hypotension; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Shock; Shock, Septic; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 21563137
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003709.pub3 -
Medicine Jul 2022Vascular dementia (VD) is the only type of dementia that can be prevented and treated. Compared to conventional treatment methods, moxibustion therapy is more effective... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Vascular dementia (VD) is the only type of dementia that can be prevented and treated. Compared to conventional treatment methods, moxibustion therapy is more effective for VD. This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of moxibustion in the treatment of VD through a meta-analysis, to provide a complete overview to the advantages of traditional Chinese medicine and provide guidance for clinical application.
METHODS
Clinical trials on the therapeutic effects of moxibustion or moxibustion combined with acupuncture on VD were retrieved from the VIP information database, Wanfang, CNKI, PubMed, EMBase, and other resources. The included studies were conducted from January 2000 to October 2020. Among the retrieved studies, the content met the standards upon being collated and extracted, and RevMan5.3 was used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Thirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included with 997 patients. The RevMan bias risk assessment revealed that the quality of the studies was generally low. The meta-analysis showed that compared to conventional treatments, moxibution therapy in terms of effective rate, posttreatment Hasegawa Dementia Scale, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Activity of Daily Living Scale (ADL), Somatostatin (SS), Arginine Vasopressin (AVP), and Syndrome Differentiation Scale of VD were more favorable, and the difference in efficacy was statistically significant. Furthermore, no adverse events were observed in either group. Sensitivity analysis showed strong homogeneity and stable results, whereas funnel plot analysis revealed no significant publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Moxibustion is effective and safe in the treatment of VD, but more high-quality evidence from further studies is required to support this.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Arginine Vasopressin; Dementia, Vascular; Humans; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Moxibustion
PubMed: 35777054
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000029804 -
The Journal of Laryngology and Otology Dec 2017Cauterisation techniques are commonly used and widely accepted for the management of epistaxis. This review assesses which methods of intranasal cautery should be... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
Cauterisation techniques are commonly used and widely accepted for the management of epistaxis. This review assesses which methods of intranasal cautery should be endorsed as optimum treatment on the basis of benefits, risks, patient tolerance and economic assessment.
METHOD
A systematic review of the literature was performed using a standardised methodology and search strategy.
RESULTS
Eight studies were identified: seven prospective controlled trials and one randomised controlled trial. Pooling of data was possible from 3 studies, yielding a total of 830 patients. Significantly lower re-bleed rates were identified (p < 0.01) using electrocautery (14.5 per cent) when compared to chemical cautery (35.1 per cent). No evidence suggested that electrocautery was associated with more adverse events or discomfort. Limited evidence supported the use of a vasoconstrictor agent and operating microscope during the procedure. The included studies had considerable heterogeneity in terms of design and outcome measures.
CONCLUSION
Consistent evidence suggests that electrocautery has higher success rates than chemical cautery, and is not associated with increased complications or patient discomfort. Lower quality evidence suggests that electrocautery reduces costs and duration of hospital stay.
Topics: Adult; Cautery; Electrocoagulation; Endoscopy; Epistaxis; Humans; Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care; Patient Admission; Recurrence; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29280692
DOI: 10.1017/S0022215117002043 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Nov 2011Morphea (localized scleroderma) is a skin disorder with significant morbidity. No consistent recommendations exist for therapy, impeding patient care. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Morphea (localized scleroderma) is a skin disorder with significant morbidity. No consistent recommendations exist for therapy, impeding patient care.
OBJECTIVE
We sought to create an evidence-based therapeutic algorithm.
METHODS
We reviewed English-language literature using search engines and hand searches for therapeutic interventions in morphea. Results were summarized.
RESULTS
Narrowband ultraviolet B is appropriate for progressive or widespread superficial dermal lesions; broadband ultraviolet A/ultraviolet A-1 is appropriate for widespread or progressive deeper dermal lesions. Systemic treatment with methotrexate, corticosteroids, or both is indicated for deep or function-impairing lesions and rapidly progressive or widespread (severe) disease. Topical treatment with calcipotriene or tacrolimus is supported for limited, superficial, inflammatory lesions. Use of oral calcipotriol, D-penicillamine, interferon gamma, and antimalarials is not supported.
LIMITATIONS
Limitations are publication bias; lack of adequately powered, controlled trials; and no validated outcome measures.
CONCLUSION
Phototherapy, methotrexate/systemic corticosteroids, calcipotriene, and topical tacrolimus have the most evidence for efficacy in morphea. Treatment works best in inflammatory disease. Disease activity, severity, progression, and depth should play a role in therapeutic decision making.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Algorithms; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Calcitriol; Clinical Trials as Topic; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Immunologic Factors; Immunosuppressive Agents; Methotrexate; PUVA Therapy; Scleroderma, Localized; Tacrolimus; Treatment Outcome; Ultraviolet Therapy; Vitamin D
PubMed: 21645943
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2010.09.006 -
Journal of Burn Care & Research :... Mar 2023Acute burn surgery has long been associated with significant intra-operative bleeding. Several techniques were introduced to limit hemorrhage, including tourniquets,...
Acute burn surgery has long been associated with significant intra-operative bleeding. Several techniques were introduced to limit hemorrhage, including tourniquets, tumescent infiltration, and topical agents. To date, no study has comprehensively investigated the available data regarding topical hemostatic agents in burn surgery. A systematic review was performed by two independent reviewers using electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) from first available to September 10, 2021. Articles were included if they were published in English and described or evaluated topical hemostatic agents used in burn excision and/or grafting. Data were extracted on the agent(s) used, their dosage, mode of delivery, hemostasis outcomes, and complications. The search identified 1982 nonduplicate citations, of which 134 underwent full-text review, and 49 met inclusion criteria. In total, 32 studies incorporated a vasoconstrictor agent, and 28 studies incorporated a procoagulant agent. Four studies incorporated other agents (hydrogen peroxide, tranexamic acid, collagen sheets, and TT-173). The most common vasoconstrictor used was epinephrine, with doses ranging from 1:1000 to 1:1,000,000. The most common procoagulant used was thrombin, with doses ranging from 10 to 1000 IU/ml. Among the comparative studies, outcomes of blood loss were not reported in a consistent manner, therefore meta-analysis could not be performed. The majority of studies (94%) were level of evidence III-V. Determining the optimal topical hemostatic agent is limited by low-quality data and challenges with consistent reporting of intra-operative blood loss. Given the routine use of topical hemostatic agents in burn surgery, high-quality research is essential to determine the optimal agent, dosage, and mode of delivery.
Topics: Humans; Burns; Administration, Topical; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Blood Loss, Surgical; Hemostatics; Antifibrinolytic Agents
PubMed: 36516423
DOI: 10.1093/jbcr/irac185