-
Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy Jan 2012Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) is a key feature of asthma and can be assessed by the use of bronchial provocation tests. A test using inhaled dry powder mannitol for... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) is a key feature of asthma and can be assessed by the use of bronchial provocation tests. A test using inhaled dry powder mannitol for diagnosing asthma is now regulatory approved in 20 countries.
AREAS COVERED
This paper reviews the literature on inhaled mannitol from the first publication in 1997 until present (October 2011). It discusses the current knowledge on the clinical usefulness as a tool for diagnosing and managing asthma.
EXPERT OPINION
Inhaled mannitol can be regarded as a safe, standardized, specific, but less sensitive, tool for the diagnosis of asthma in both children and adults. Discomfort, in terms of cough, during the test occurs in 85.3% of subjects, but rarely (1.3%) leads to discontinuation. Headache (6.1%), pharyngolaryngeal pain (2.6%) and cough (1.3%) are the most frequent adverse events that occur on the day of the test. The test holds several advantages compared with existing tests; there is no need for additional equipment (i.e., a nebulizer) besides a spirometer; it requires no cleaning and has only one standard operating protocol. In a new study using mannitol for monitoring mild and moderate persistent asthma in primary care, the number of mild exacerbations was reduced.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Asthma; Bronchial Provocation Tests; Humans; Mannitol
PubMed: 22118547
DOI: 10.1517/14656566.2012.638917 -
Journal of Acute Medicine Dec 2022Dentures dislodged into throat on bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) ventilation can be overlooked and potentially compromise airway patency. An 81-year-old man...
Dentures dislodged into throat on bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) ventilation can be overlooked and potentially compromise airway patency. An 81-year-old man with a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) presented with increased shortness of breath and productive cough for 1 week. Inhaled bronchodilators, parenteral steroids, and BiPAP ventilation were administered for acute exacerbation of COPD complicated with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. Fifty minutes after receiving BiPAP ventilation, his respiratory condition improved; however, he started to complain of neck pain. The patient remained intolerant to the device 3 hours later, despite receiving assurance that the discomfort might be caused by air pressure through mask ventilation. His throat did not exhibit any abnormality during visual examination. Neck radiographs were subsequently obtained and demonstrated a denture impacted in the hypopharynx. His neck pain resolved after the removal of the dislodged maxillary denture. Denture dislodgement can occur in mask ventilation and compromise airway patency if stuck in the hypopharynx or respiratory tract. Such adverse events may be overlooked on the coexistence of respiratory and pulmonary diseases. A precisely pharyngolaryngeal inspection and complete imaging studies must be performed to facilitate early identification and further retrieval intervention.
PubMed: 36761857
DOI: 10.6705/j.jacme.202212_12(4).0004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2018Several agents are used to clear secretions from the airways of people with cystic fibrosis. Mannitol increases mucociliary clearance, but its exact mechanism of action... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Several agents are used to clear secretions from the airways of people with cystic fibrosis. Mannitol increases mucociliary clearance, but its exact mechanism of action is unknown. The dry powder formulation of mannitol may be more convenient and easier to use compared with established agents which require delivery via a nebuliser. Phase III trials of inhaled dry powder mannitol for the treatment of cystic fibrosis have been completed and it is now available in Australia and some countries in Europe. This is an update of a previous review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether inhaled dry powder mannitol is well tolerated, whether it improves the quality of life and respiratory function in people with cystic fibrosis and which adverse events are associated with the treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic databases, handsearching relevant journals and abstracts from conferences.Date of last search: 28 September 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled studies comparing mannitol with placebo, active inhaled comparators (for example, hypertonic saline or dornase alfa) or with no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, carried out data extraction and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
Six studies (reported in 50 publications) were included with a total of 784 participants.Duration of treatment in the included studies ranged from 12 days to six months, with open-label treatment for an additional six months in two of the studies. Five studies compared mannitol with control (a very low dose of mannitol or non-respirable mannitol) and the final study compared mannitol to dornase alfa alone and to mannitol plus dornase alfa. Two large studies had a similar parallel design and provided data for 600 participants, which could be pooled where data for a particular outcome and time point were available. The remaining studies had much smaller sample sizes (ranging from 22 to 95) and data could not be pooled due to differences in design, interventions and population.Pooled evidence from the two large parallel studies was judged to be of low to moderate quality and from the smaller studies was judged to be of low to very low quality. In all studies, there was an initial test to see if participants tolerated mannitol, with only those who could tolerate the drug being randomised; therefore, the study results are not applicable to the cystic fibrosis population as a whole.While the published papers did not provide all the data required for our analysis, additional unpublished data were provided by the drug's manufacturer and the author of one of the studies.Pooling the large parallel studies comparing mannitol to control, up to and including six months, lung function (forced expiratory volume at one second) measured in both mL and % predicted was significantly improved in the mannitol group compared to the control group (moderate-quality evidence). Beneficial results were observed in these studies in adults and in both concomitant dornase alfa users and non-users in these studies. In the smaller studies, statistically significant improvements in lung function were also observed in the mannitol groups compared to the non-respirable mannitol groups; however, we judged this evidence to be of low to very low quality.For the comparisons of mannitol and control, we found no consistent differences in health-related quality of life in any of the domains except for burden of treatment, which was less for mannitol up to four months in the two pooled studies of a similar design; this difference was not maintained at six months. It should be noted that the tool used to measure health-related quality of life was not designed to assess mucolytics and pooling of the age-appropriate tools (as done in some of the included studies) may not be valid so results were judged to be low to very low quality and should be interpreted with caution. Cough, haemoptysis, bronchospasm, pharyngolaryngeal pain and post-tussive vomiting were the most commonly reported side effects in both treatment groups. Where rates of adverse events could be compared, statistically no significant differences were found between mannitol and control groups; although some of these events may have clinical relevance for people with CF.For the comparisons of mannitol to dornase alfa alone and to mannitol plus dornase alfa, very low-quality evidence from a 12-week cross-over study of 28 participants showed no statistically significant differences in the recorded domains of health-related quality of life or measures of lung function. Cough was the most common side effect in the mannitol alone arm but there was no occurrence of cough in the dornase alfa alone arm and the most commonly reported reason of withdrawal from the mannitol plus dornase alfa arm was pulmonary exacerbations.In terms of secondary outcomes of the review (pulmonary exacerbations, hospitalisations, symptoms, sputum microbiology), evidence provided by the included studies was more limited. For all comparisons, no consistent statistically significant and clinically meaningful differences were observed between mannitol and control treatments (including dornase alfa).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-quality evidence to show that treatment with mannitol over a six-month period is associated with an improvement in some measures of lung function in people with cystic fibrosis compared to control. There is low to very low-quality evidence suggesting no difference in quality of life for participants taking mannitol compared to control. This review provides very low-quality evidence suggesting no difference in lung function or quality of life comparing mannitol to dornase alfa alone and to mannitol plus dornase alfa.The clinical implications from this review suggest that mannitol could be considered as a treatment in cystic fibrosis; but further research is required in order to establish who may benefit most and whether this benefit is sustained in the longer term. Furthermore, studies comparing its efficacy against other (established) mucolytic therapies need to be undertaken before it can be considered for mainstream practice.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adult; Child; Cystic Fibrosis; Deoxyribonuclease I; Humans; Mannitol; Mucociliary Clearance; Powders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Proteins; Respiratory Function Tests
PubMed: 29424930
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008649.pub3 -
European Journal of Translational... Oct 2023Choking (or foreign body airway obstruction) is a widespread phenomenon with serious consequences of morbidity and mortality. Choking (often also called suffocation) can...
Choking (or foreign body airway obstruction) is a widespread phenomenon with serious consequences of morbidity and mortality. Choking (often also called suffocation) can be caused by food or inedible objects and leads to various degrees of asphyxiation or lack of oxygen in the blood stream. The incidence is very high in both young children and adults, especially seniors. However, since not all choking episodes end up in the emergency room or become fatalities, they often escape statistics. Although episodes of choking from non-edible bodies are infrequent, they affect mostly young children. Three of the most common risks for choking in general are neurological disorders, dysphagia and dental issues (few or no teeth, unstable or unsuitable prosthesis or orthodontic appliances). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk factors of choking and ways to reduce/avoid this event. We reported data on a series of 138 patients admitted to the emergency department following a choking event, at a hospital in Rome, Italy. The age group of the analyzed population ranged from 1 to 88 years, with the most represented age group of these between 40 and 59, with a similar distribution between males and females. The types of foods on which people choked reflected the seasonal, traditional and local foods: 67% of patients reported choking on fish bones followed by meat bones (9%) and artichokes (3%). Three relevant non-food choking elements reported were: orthodontic items, toothpicks and pins (one occurrence each). We also reported on two clinical cases of patients choking on meat and a chicken bone. In conclusion, choking awareness and prevention are essential for implementing potential life-saving precautions. Prevention is the first tool to reduce the occurrence of this event, therefore it is necessary to analyze the risk factors and educate the population to eliminate them. Proper chewing and oral manipulation are paramount functions in preventing choking, along with meal-time supervision if little children and elderly. Then, it behooves the healthcare professionals to disseminate knowledge.
PubMed: 37905785
DOI: 10.4081/ejtm.2023.11471 -
Annales D'oto-laryngologie Et de... Oct 2007The standards of pharyngolaryngeal tumor treatment have changed over the years in an attempt to prevent laryngeal mutilation (partial surgery, endoscopic surgery,... (Review)
Review
The standards of pharyngolaryngeal tumor treatment have changed over the years in an attempt to prevent laryngeal mutilation (partial surgery, endoscopic surgery, sequential radiotherapy, and chemotherapy). Pain induced by these treatments is frequent and varies from one treatment to another. Chemoradiotherapy induces less pain but often more severe pain, since 20% of these situations are not controlled by strong opioids. Pain from mucositis, although nonspecific to otolaryngic cancer, is more frequent and more severe, and prevention and treatment remain poorly defined. Pain from postradiotherapeutic necrosis (mandibula, laryngeal cartilage, etc.) is less frequent, delayed, and extremely severe. Cervical and shoulder pain is present in more than one-third of patients and stems from a number of mechanisms (myofascial and articulatory). It is secondary to radiotherapy or surgery (XIth cranial nerve lesions during curage or flap reconstruction). Finally, pain coexists with disturbances of basic functions (speech, swallowing, etc.) and the disability generated by treatments. Management of pain, suffering, and the psychosocial impact is essential.
Topics: Humans; Laryngeal Neoplasms; Otorhinolaryngologic Diseases; Pain; Pharyngeal Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Radiotherapy; Time Factors
PubMed: 18047863
DOI: 10.1016/s0003-438x(07)80009-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2013This is an update of the Cochrane review "Rituximab for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis" (first published in The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 12).More than 80% of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of the Cochrane review "Rituximab for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis" (first published in The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 12).More than 80% of individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS) experience a relapsing-remitting disease course. Approximately 10 years after disease onset, an estimated 50% of individuals with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) convert to secondary progressive MS. MS causes a major socioeconomic burden for the individual patient and for society. Effective treatment that reduces relapse frequency and prevents progression could impact both costs and quality of life and help to reduce the socioeconomic burden of MS. Alternative and more effective MS treatments with new modes of action and good safety are needed to expand the current treatment repertoire. It has been shown that B lymphocytes are involved in the pathophysiology of MS and rituximab lyses B-cells via complement-dependent cytotoxicity and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. Current clinical trials are evaluating the role of rituximab as a B-cell depletion therapy in the treatment of RRMS.
OBJECTIVES
The safety and effectiveness of rituximab, as monotherapy or combination therapy, versus placebo or approved disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) (interferon-β (IFN-β), glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, alemtuzumab) to reduce disease activity for people with RRMS were assessed.
SEARCH METHODS
The Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Specialised Register (9 August 2013). We checked the references in identified trials and manually searched the reports (2004 to August 2013) from neurological associations and MS societies in Europe and America. We also communicated with researchers who were participating in trials on rituximab and contacted Genentech, BiogenIdec and Roche.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised, double-blind, controlled parallel group clinical trials with a length of follow-up equal to or greater than one year evaluating rituximab, as monotherapy or combination therapy, versus placebo or approved DMDs for patients with RRMS without restrictions regarding dosage, administration frequency and duration of treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures of The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by consensus among the review authors. Principal investigators of included studies were contacted for additional data or confirmation of data.
MAIN RESULTS
One trial involving 104 adult RRMS patients with an entry score ≤ 5.0 on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and at least one relapse during the preceding year was included. This trial evaluated rituximab as monotherapy versus placebo, with a single course of 1000 mg intravenous rituximab (on day 1 and day 15). A significant attrition bias was found at week 48 (24.0%). Patients receiving rituximab had a significant reduction in total number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at week 24 (mean number 0.5 versus 5.5; relative reduction 91%) and in annualised rate of relapse at week 24 (0.37 versus 0.84) but not at week 48 (0.37 versus 0.72). Disability progression was not included as an outcome in this trial. More patients in the rituximab group had adverse events within the 24 hours after the first infusion (78.3% versus 40.0%), such as chills, headache, nausea, pyrexia, pruritus, fatigue, throat irritation, pharyngolaryngeal pain, and most were mild-to-moderate events (92.6%). The most common infection-associated adverse events (> 10% in the rituximab group) were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections and sinusitis. Among them, only urinary tract infections (14.5% versus 8.6%) and sinusitis (13.0% versus 8.6%) were more common in the rituximab group. One ongoing trial was identified.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is not sufficient evidence to support the use of rituximab as a disease-modifying therapy for RRMS because only one RCT was included. The quality of the study was limited due to high attrition bias, the small number of participants, and short follow-up. The beneficial effects of rituximab for RRMS remain inconclusive. However, short-term treatment with a single course of rituximab was safe for most patients with RRMS. Mild-to-moderate infusion-associated adverse events were common, as well as nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections and sinusitis. The potential benefits of rituximab for treating RRMS need to be evaluated in large-scale studies that are of high quality along with long-term safety.
Topics: Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Murine-Derived; Humans; Immunologic Factors; Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rituximab
PubMed: 24310855
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009130.pub3 -
Annales Francaises D'anesthesie Et de... 1993Cervical epidural anaesthesia (CEA) results in an effective sensory blockade of the superficial cervical (C1/C4) and brachial plexus (C5/T1-T2). It is used both... (Review)
Review
Cervical epidural anaesthesia (CEA) results in an effective sensory blockade of the superficial cervical (C1/C4) and brachial plexus (C5/T1-T2). It is used both intraoperatively and in the treatment of postoperative or chronic pain. The approach to the epidural space at the C7-T1 interspace is not technically difficult. Patients are placed in the sitting position, increasing the negative pressure in the epidural space, with the head flexed on the thorax, in order to open the lowest cervical interspace. A 18-gauge Tuohy needle is inserted by a midline approach into the C6-C7 or C7-T1 interspace. A catheter may be inserted and left in place for postoperative analgesia. Local anaesthetics are administered either alone, or in combination with opiates. The CEA blocks the cardiac sympathetic fibers and consequently decreases heart rate, cardiac output and contractility. The mean blood pressure is unchanged or decreased, depending on peripheral systemic vascular resistance changes. The baroreflex activity is also partly impaired. Sympathetic blockade also decreases myocardial ischaemia. The cardiovascular changes induced by CEA are also partly due to the systemic effect of the local anaesthetic. The respiratory effects are minimal and depend on the extent of the blockade and the concentration of the local anaesthetic. A moderate restrictive syndrome occurs. Since the phrenic nerves originate from C3 to C5, ventilation may be impaired by CEA. Extension of the block may also impair intercostal muscle function, with a risk of respiratory failure when a CEA is used in patients with compromised respiratory function. The potential specific complications, mainly cardiovascular and respiratory, are the exacerbation of the effects of CEA. Side effects such as bradycardia, hypotension and acute ventilatory failure in relation to respiratory muscle paralysis, may be observed. Close monitoring of haemodynamics, respiratory rate and level blockade is required. Cervical epidural anaesthesia may be used either alone, or in combination with general anaesthesia depending on the surgical procedure. This technique seems to be effective in carotid artery surgery since sensitive and reliable information on cerebral function may be obtained. It is also for shoulder and upper limb surgery as well as for pharyngolaryngeal surgery, providing efficient operative anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia. CEA is used for relief of chronic pain in the head and neck or cancer pain due to Pancoast-Tobias syndrome. It seems to be effective for treating pain in patients with unstable angina pectoris or acute myocardial infarction.
Topics: Anesthesia, Epidural; Anesthetics, Local; Arm; Carotid Artery Diseases; Coronary Circulation; Hemodynamics; Humans; Neck; Otorhinolaryngologic Neoplasms; Pain, Postoperative; Respiration; Shoulder
PubMed: 8311355
DOI: 10.1016/s0750-7658(05)80996-7 -
Respiratory Medicine May 2022Pulmonary hypertension (PH), as a consequence of lung disease or hypoxia, has been classified as Group 3 PH by the World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension. The most... (Review)
Review
Pulmonary hypertension (PH), as a consequence of lung disease or hypoxia, has been classified as Group 3 PH by the World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension. The most common lung diseases associated with Group 3 PH are chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and interstitial lung disease (ILD). PH in ILD (PH-ILD) is associated with reduced exercise capacity, greater supplemental oxygen needs, decreased quality of life, and earlier death compared to ILD alone. Several agents have been evaluated in clinical trials for the treatment of Group 3 PH, but only one treatment has been recently approved by the FDA as conclusively demonstrating efficacy for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension in this group. In the INCREASE study, treprostinil inhalation solution (Tyvaso) demonstrated significant clinical benefit for patients with PH-ILD. The inhaled route of administration may be associated with cough, throat irritation, pharyngolaryngeal pain and risk of bronchospasm and are important considerations upon initiation of therapy. Here we provide a practical review of inhaled prostacyclin therapy and suggestions for healthcare professionals to optimize the management and outcomes for the treatment of WHO Group 3, PH-ILD patients. Recommendations include up-to-date practical considerations pertaining to the entire care team and encompass patient education and communication, monitoring, titration methods and mitigation of side effects.
Topics: Epoprostenol; Humans; Hypertension, Pulmonary; Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Prostaglandins I; Quality of Life; World Health Organization
PubMed: 35334313
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2022.106806 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015Several agents are used to clear secretions from the airways of people with cystic fibrosis. Inhaled dry powder mannitol is now available in Australia and some countries... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Several agents are used to clear secretions from the airways of people with cystic fibrosis. Inhaled dry powder mannitol is now available in Australia and some countries in Europe. The exact mechanism of action of mannitol is unknown, but it increases mucociliary clearance. Phase III trials of inhaled dry powder mannitol for the treatment of cystic fibrosis have been completed. The dry powder formulation of mannitol may be more convenient and easier to use compared with established agents which require delivery via a nebuliser.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether inhaled dry powder mannitol is well tolerated, whether it improves the quality of life and respiratory function in people with cystic fibrosis and which adverse events are associated with the treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic databases, handsearching relevant journals and abstracts from conferences.Date of last search: 16 April 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled studies comparing mannitol with placebo, active inhaled comparators (for example, hypertonic saline or dornase alfa) or with no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, carried out data extraction and assessed the risk of bias in included studies.
MAIN RESULTS
The searches identified nine separate studies (45 publications), of which four studies (36 publications) were included with a total of 667 participants, one study (only available as an abstract) is awaiting assessment and two studies are ongoing. Duration of treatment in the included studies ranged from two weeks to six months with open-label treatment for an additional six months in two of the studies. Three studies compared mannitol with control (a very low dose of mannitol or non-respirable mannitol); two of these were parallel studies with a similar design and data could be pooled, where data for a particular outcome and time point were available; also, one short-term cross-over study supplied additional results. The fourth study compared mannitol to dornase alfa alone and to mannitol plus dornase alfa. There was generally a low risk of bias in relation to randomisation and blinding; evidence from the parallel studies was judged to be of low to moderate quality and from the cross-over studies was judged to be of low to very low quality. While the published papers did not provide all the data required for our analysis, additional unpublished data were provided by the drug's manufacturer and the author of one of the studies. There was an initial test to see if participants tolerated mannitol, with only those who could tolerate the drug being randomised to the studies; therefore the study results are not applicable to the cystic fibrosis population as a whole.For the comparison of mannitol and control, we found no consistent differences in health-related quality of life in any of the domains, except for burden of treatment, which was less for mannitol up to four months in the two pooled studies of a similar design; this difference was not maintained at six months. Up to and including six months, lung function in terms of forced expiratory volume at one second (millilitres) and per cent predicted were significantly improved in all three studies comparing mannitol to control. Beneficial results were observed in these studies in adults and in both concomitant dornase alfa users and non users. A significant reduction was shown in the incidence of pulmonary exacerbations in favour of mannitol at six months; however, the estimate of this effect was imprecise so it is unclear whether the effect is clinically meaningful. Cough, haemoptysis, bronchospasm, pharyngolaryngeal pain and post-tussive vomiting were the most commonly reported side effects on both treatments. Mannitol was not associated with any increase in isolation of bacteria over a six-month period.In the 12-week cross-over study (28 participants), no significant differences were found in the recorded domains of health-related quality of life or measures of lung function between mannitol versus dornase alfa alone and versus mannitol plus dornase alfa. There seemed to be a higher rate of pulmonary exacerbations in the mannitol plus dornase alfa arm compared with dornase alfa alone; although not statistically significant, this was the most common reason for stopping treatment in this arm. Cough was the most common side effect in the mannitol alone arm but there was no occurrence of cough in the dornase alfa alone arm and the most commonly reported reason of withdrawal from the mannitol plus dornase alfa arm was pulmonary exacerbations. Mannitol (with or without dornase alfa) was not associated with any increase in isolation of bacteria over the 12-week period.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence to show that treatment with mannitol over a six-month period is associated with an improvement in some measures of lung function in people with cystic fibrosis compared to control. There is no evidence that quality of life is improved for participants taking mannitol compared to control; a decrease in burden of treatment was observed up to four months on mannitol compared to control but this difference was not maintained to six months. Randomised information regarding the burden of adding mannitol to an existing treatment is limited. There is no randomised evidence of improvement in lung function or quality of life comparing mannitol to dornase alfa alone and to mannitol plus dornase alfa.Mannitol as a single or concomitant treatment to dornase alfa may be of benefit to people with cystic fibrosis, but further research is required in order to establish who may benefit most and whether this benefit is sustained in the longer term.The clinical implications from this review suggest that mannitol could be considered as a treatment in cystic fibrosis; however, studies comparing its efficacy against other (established) mucolytic therapies need to be undertaken before it can be considered for mainstream practice.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adult; Cystic Fibrosis; Deoxyribonuclease I; Humans; Mannitol; Mucociliary Clearance; Powders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Proteins
PubMed: 26451533
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008649.pub2 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Apr 2006Analgesia after pharyngolaryngeal surgery is commonly provided through the i.v. route. The aim of the study was to compare cervical epidural administration of fentanyl... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Analgesia after pharyngolaryngeal surgery is commonly provided through the i.v. route. The aim of the study was to compare cervical epidural administration of fentanyl with the i.v. route for postoperative analgesia after pharyngolaryngeal surgery.
METHODS
In a randomized double-blind study 42 patients received fentanyl via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) either through the i.v. route (PCA-IV group, n=22) or through the cervical epidural route (PCA-Epid group, n=20). Identical PCA settings were used in the two groups (bolus dose: 1.5 microg kg(-1), bolus: 25 microg, lockout interval: 10 min, maximum cumulative dose: 400 microg per 4 h). Analgesia at rest and during swallowing was evaluated using a visual analogue scale.
RESULTS
Analgesia at rest was better in the PCA-Epid group than in the PCA-IV group but only 2 and 6 h after surgery (P<0.02). There was no difference in analgesia during swallowing. Cumulative doses of fentanyl were similar {PCA-Epid group: 1412 microg (912), PCA-IV group: 1287 microg (1200) [median (IQR)]}. The Pa(o(2)) showed a significant decrease between the preoperative and postoperative period, but this decrease was identical in the two groups [PCA-IV-group: 11.47 (2.4) kPa vs 8.27 (0.9) kPa; PCA-Epid group: 11.33 (1.9) kPa vs 9.20 (2.4) kPa for preoperative and postoperative period respectively].
CONCLUSIONS
The study results show that cervical epidural analgesia provides marginally better pain relief at rest with no decrease in the fentanyl consumption. The use of the cervical epidural administration of fentanyl is questionable because of the possible complications of the technique.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Carbon Dioxide; Deglutition; Double-Blind Method; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Fentanyl; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Laryngeal Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Oxygen; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Partial Pressure
PubMed: 16476697
DOI: 10.1093/bja/ael025