-
Journal of Palliative Medicine Mar 2019Internationally, use of lidocaine infusions to treat cancer pain varies by center. Existing systematic reviews do not adequately inform use of lidocaine in cancer pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Internationally, use of lidocaine infusions to treat cancer pain varies by center. Existing systematic reviews do not adequately inform use of lidocaine in cancer pain.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effects of systemic sodium channel blockers on cancer pain in adults, review the dose protocols for administration, and assess toxicity.
DESIGN
Databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, CareSearch, and OpenGrey were searched from inception to 2016. Conference abstracts and reference lists were handsearched, and the lead investigators of included trials and Australian manufacturers were contacted. Included studies were randomized controlled trials evaluating one or more of lidocaine via intravenous or subcutaneous route, or mexiletine, flecainide, or tocainide via oral route; delivered at a site distant to the pain locus. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the "risk of bias" domain-based evaluation by Jadad. Protocol is available on PROSPERO:CRD42016047092.
RESULTS
One positive (n = 50) and three negative (n = 10 each) crossover trials evaluated lidocaine versus placebo, and one trial (n = 16) compared lidocaine with dexmedetomidine. Meta-analysis of pooled data in 60 patients demonstrated a significant benefit of lidocaine infusion of 4-5 mg/kg over 30-80 minutes compared with placebo for >50% reduction in cancer pain. Secondary outcomes did not show a significant difference.
DISCUSSION
Based on the current available evidence, lidocaine infusion could be considered in refractory cancer pain where agents with level 1 evidence are ineffective. Further research is necessary to understand the protocol and population in which lidocaine may improve cancer pain and capitalize on the promising opportunities identified.
Topics: Adult; Anesthetics, Local; Cancer Pain; Humans; Lidocaine; Sodium Channel Blockers
PubMed: 30614748
DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2018.0257 -
Palliative Medicine Dec 2017Rectal tenesmus is a distressing symptom in patients with advanced cancer and challenging to treat. There is lack of consensus on the appropriate management of tenesmus... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Rectal tenesmus is a distressing symptom in patients with advanced cancer and challenging to treat. There is lack of consensus on the appropriate management of tenesmus in this patient population.
AIM
To identify and examine the effectiveness of interventions to palliate rectal tenesmus caused by advanced cancer when surgery, radiotherapy or chemotherapy are no longer treatment options.
DESIGN
A systematic review of the literature following standard systematic review methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance.
DATA SOURCES
A comprehensive search of the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library was conducted from date of inception to April 2016. PubMed 'related articles' search, grey literature search and hand-searches of the bibliographies of relevant papers and textbooks were also performed. Non-cancer patients were excluded. Any studies involving surgery or radiotherapy to treat tenesmus were excluded. Studies involving interventions to treat pelvic pain syndromes without specific outcome measures on severity of tenesmus were excluded. The quality of the studies was assessed using a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence-recommended quality assessment tool.
RESULTS
From 861 studies, 9 met full criteria and were selected. All were case series investigating the use of pharmacological interventions (diltiazem, nifedipine, methadone, mexiletine hydrochloride, lidocaine and bupivacaine), anaesthetic interventions (lumbar sympathectomy, neurolytic superior hypogastric plexus block), and endoscopic laser interventions. The included studies showed substantial heterogeneity, and therefore, a meta-analysis was not feasible.
CONCLUSION
From this review, we identified a significant gap in research into the palliation of rectal tenesmus. A multimodal approach may be necessary due to the complexity of the pathophysiology of tenesmus. Future research should focus on randomised controlled trials of drug therapies whose potential effectiveness is suggested by case series.
Topics: Anesthesia; Anesthetics; Calcium Channel Blockers; Humans; Laser Therapy; Neoplasms; Palliative Care; Rectal Diseases
PubMed: 28590211
DOI: 10.1177/0269216317697897 -
Complementary Therapies in Medicine Dec 2016To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the Chinese herbal extract Wenxin Keli, alone or in combination with Western medicine, for ventricular premature beats. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the Chinese herbal extract Wenxin Keli, alone or in combination with Western medicine, for ventricular premature beats.
METHODS
This systematic review was registered at PROSPERO (registration number CRD42013003200). A systematic literature search of 8 core electronic databases and 3 clinical trial registries in Chinese and English, yielded 10 trials whose randomness verified by contacting the authors. The included trials were assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
RESULTS
Wenxin Keli might be more efficacious than placebo (Change of VPBs numbers, RR, 1.61, 95%CI, 1.48-1.76, P<0.00001, I=0%;VPBs- related symptom, RR, 2.10, 95%CI, 1.91-2.30, P<0.00001, I=0%), and the dual therapy of Wenxin Keli plus amiodarone might also be more effective than the monotherapy of amiodarone (Change of VPBs numbers, RR, 1.23, 95%CI, 1.10-1.39, P=0.0005, I=0%; VPBs- related symptom, RR, 1.51., 95%CI, 1.30-1.76, P<0.00001, I=0%), whereas Wenxin Keli might be comparable to metoprolol, propafenone or mexiletine (Change of VPBs numbers: metoprolol, RR, 1.01, 95%CI, 0.91-1.11, P=0.88, I=0%; propafenone, RR, 1.05, 95%CI, 0.93-1.19, P=0.44, I=0%; mexiletine, RR, 1.06, 95%CI, 0.96-1.17, P=0.28. VPBs- related symptom: metoprolol, RR, 0.95, 95%CI, 0.87-1.04, P=0.27, I=0%, propafenone. RR, 1.10, 95%CI, 0.93-1.30, P=0.29, I=29%, mexiletine,RR, 0.94, 95%CI, 0.78-1.12, P=0.47). Participants with ventricular premature beats' numbers<360 beats/h or with coronary heart disease benefited the most of the Wenxin Keli therapy (Change of VPBs numbers:RR, 1.10, 95%CI, 1.02-1.20, P=0.02, I=44%; RR, 1.71, 95%CI, 1.18-2.49, P=0.005, I=54%, respectively). The safety analysis revealed that Wenxin Keli did not statistically significant differed from the Western medicine in respect of the incidence of total adverse drug reactions (RR, 0.59, 95%CI, 0.35-1.01, P=0.05, I=0%), but Wenxin Keli might be associated with a reduced risk of proarrhythmic reactions (P=0.007). The quality of the methodology of included trials was generally low. Several limitations existed that affected the validity of the findings, including the small sample size, insufficient randomization methods, poorly defined eligibility criteria, short duration of follow-up, absence of hard endpoints, and high risk of publication bias(P=0.013).
CONCLUSIONS
Wenxin Keli might be a promising alternative and complementary medicine for ventricular premature beats.
Topics: Aged; Complementary Therapies; Coronary Artery Disease; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Humans; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Ventricular Premature Complexes
PubMed: 27912945
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctim.2016.10.007 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015Coronary artery disease is a major public health problem affecting both developed and developing countries. Acute coronary syndromes include unstable angina and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Coronary artery disease is a major public health problem affecting both developed and developing countries. Acute coronary syndromes include unstable angina and myocardial infarction with or without ST-segment elevation (electrocardiogram sector is higher than baseline). Ventricular arrhythmia after myocardial infarction is associated with high risk of mortality. The evidence is out of date, and considerable uncertainty remains about the effects of prophylactic use of lidocaine on all-cause mortality, in particular, in patients with suspected myocardial infarction.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the clinical effectiveness and safety of prophylactic lidocaine in preventing death among people with myocardial infarction.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 13 April 2015), EMBASE (1947 to 13 April 2015) and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1986 to 13 April 2015). We also searched Web of Science (1970 to 13 April 2013) and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restriction in the search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of prophylactic lidocaine for myocardial infarction. We considered all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality and overall survival at 30 days after myocardial infarction as primary outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction in duplicate. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and measured statistical heterogeneity using I(2). We used a random-effects model and conducted trial sequential analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 37 randomised controlled trials involving 11,948 participants. These trials compared lidocaine versus placebo or no intervention, disopyramide, mexiletine, tocainide, propafenone, amiodarone, dimethylammonium chloride, aprindine and pirmenol. Overall, trials were underpowered and had high risk of bias. Ninety-seven per cent of trials (36/37) were conducted without an a priori sample size estimation. Ten trials were sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. Trials were conducted in 17 countries, and intravenous intervention was the most frequent route of administration.In trials involving participants with proven or non-proven acute myocardial infarction, lidocaine versus placebo or no intervention showed no significant differences regarding all-cause mortality (213/5879 (3.62%) vs 199/5848 (3.40%); RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.27; participants = 11727; studies = 18; I(2) = 15%); low-quality evidence), cardiac mortality (69/4184 (1.65%) vs 62/4093 (1.51%); RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.50; participants = 8277; studies = 12; I(2) = 12%; low-quality evidence) and prophylaxis of ventricular fibrillation (76/5128 (1.48%) vs 103/4987 (2.01%); RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.12; participants = 10115; studies = 16; I(2) = 18%; low-quality evidence). In terms of sinus bradycardia, lidocaine effect is imprecise compared with effects of placebo or no intervention (55/1346 (4.08%) vs 49/1203 (4.07%); RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.80; participants = 2549; studies = 8; I(2) = 21%; very low-quality evidence). In trials involving only participants with proven acute myocardial infarction, lidocaine versus placebo or no intervention showed no significant differences in all-cause mortality (148/2747 (5.39%) vs 135/2506 (5.39%); RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.30; participants = 5253; studies = 16; I(2) = 9%; low-quality evidence). No significant differences were noted between lidocaine and any other antiarrhythmic drug in terms of all-cause mortality and ventricular fibrillation. Data on overall survival 30 days after myocardial infarction were not reported. Lidocaine compared with placebo or no intervention increased risk of asystole (35/3393 (1.03%) vs 14/3443 (0.41%); RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.26 to 4.26; participants = 6826; studies = 4; I(2) = 0%; very low-quality evidence) and dizziness/drowsiness (74/1259 (5.88%) vs 16/1274 (1.26%); RR 3.85, 95% CI 2.29 to 6.47; participants = 2533; studies = 6; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence). Overall, safety data were poorly reported and adverse events may have been underestimated. Trial sequential analyses suggest that additional trials may not be needed for reliable conclusions to be drawn regarding these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This Cochrane review found evidence of low quality to suggest that prophylactic lidocaine has very little or no effect on mortality or ventricular fibrillation in people with acute myocardial infarction. The safety profile is unclear. This conclusion is based on randomised controlled trials with high risk of bias. However (disregarding the risk of bias), trial sequential analysis suggests that additional trials may not be needed to disprove an intervention effect of 20% relative risk reduction. Smaller risk reductions might require additional higher trials.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Bradycardia; Humans; Lidocaine; Myocardial Infarction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ventricular Fibrillation
PubMed: 26295202
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008553.pub2