-
Journal of Diabetes and Metabolic... Jun 2024Prior research has yielded mixed results regarding the impact of acarbose intake on glycemic markers. To provide a more comprehensive analysis, a systematic review and... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Prior research has yielded mixed results regarding the impact of acarbose intake on glycemic markers. To provide a more comprehensive analysis, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compile data from various randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effects of acarbose intake on fasting blood sugar (FBS), insulin, hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c), and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) in adults.
METHODS
To identify relevant literature up to April 2023, a comprehensive search was conducted on various scholarly databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. The effect size of the studies was evaluated using a random-effects model to calculate the weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using Cochran's Q test and I.
RESULTS
This systematic review and meta-analysis included a total of 101 RCTs with a total of 107 effect sizes. The effect sizes for FBS in milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl), insulin in picomoles per liter (pmol/l), hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) in percentage (%), and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) were 92, 46, 80, and 22, respectively. The pooled analysis indicated that acarbose intake resulted in significant decreases in FBS ( = 0.018), insulin ( < 0.001), HbA1c ( < 0.001), and HOMA-IR ( < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that acarbose intake can potentially lead to significant improvements in glycemic parameters by decreasing the levels of FBS, HbA1c, and insulin. However, larger and more rigorously designed studies are still needed to further evaluate and strengthen this association.
PubMed: 38932875
DOI: 10.1007/s40200-023-01336-9 -
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive &... Jun 2024Protocols surrounding opioid reduction have become commonplace in plastic surgery to improve peri-operative outcomes. Within such protocols, opioid requirement is a... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Protocols surrounding opioid reduction have become commonplace in plastic surgery to improve peri-operative outcomes. Within such protocols, opioid requirement is a frequently analyzed outcome. Though often examined, there is no literature standard conversion for morphine milligram equivalents (MME) at present, leading to questionable external validity. We hypothesized significant heterogeneity in MME reporting would exist within plastic surgery literature.
METHODS
Following the PRISMA guidelines, the authors conducted a systematic review of 16 journals. Clinical studies focused on opioid reduction within plastic surgery were identified. Primary outcomes included reporting of morphine equivalents (ME) delivery (IV/oral), operative ME, inpatient ME, outpatient ME, timeline, and method of calculation.
RESULTS
Among the 101 studies analyzed, 73% reported opioid requirements in the form of ME. Among those that used ME, 3% reported IV ME, 41% reported oral, 32% reported both, and 25% gave no indication of either. Operative ME were reported in 19% of studies. Furthermore, 54% of studies reported inpatient ME whereas 32% of studies reported outpatient ME. Only 19% reported the number of days opioids were consumed postoperatively. Moreover, 27% of the studies reported the actual method of ME conversion, with 17 unique methods described. Only 8 studies (8%) reported using the Center for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for ME conversion.
CONCLUSION
There is significant variability among the reported ME conversion methodology within plastic surgery literature. Highlighting these discrepancies is an essential step in creating and implementing a single, standard method to mitigate opioid morbidity in plastic surgery and to optimize enhanced recovery protocols.
PubMed: 38909598
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2024.06.001 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2024Persistent visceral pain is an unpleasant sensation coming from one or more organs within the body. Visceral pain is a common symptom in those with advanced cancer.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Persistent visceral pain is an unpleasant sensation coming from one or more organs within the body. Visceral pain is a common symptom in those with advanced cancer. Interventional procedures, such as neurolytic sympathetic nerve blocks, have been suggested as additional treatments that may play a part in optimising pain management for individuals with this condition.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of neurolytic sympathetic nerve blocks for persistent visceral pain in adults with inoperable abdominopelvic cancer compared to standard care or placebo and comparing single blocks to combination blocks.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases without language restrictions on 19 October 2022 and ran a top-up search on 31 October 2023: CENTRAL; MEDLINE via Ovid; Embase via Ovid; LILACS. We searched trial registers without language restrictions on 2 November 2022: ClinicalTrials.gov; WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We searched grey literature, checked reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles for additional studies, and performed citation searches on key articles. We also contacted experts in the field for unpublished and ongoing trials. Our trial protocol was preregistered in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 21 October 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any sympathetic nerve block targeting sites commonly used to treat abdominal pelvic pain from inoperable malignancies in adults to standard care or placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently selected trials based on predefined inclusion criteria, resolving any differences via adjudication with a third review author. We used a random-effects model as some heterogeneity was expected between the studies due to differences in the interventions being assessed and malignancy types included in the study population. We chose three primary outcomes and four secondary outcomes of interest. We sought consumer input to refine our review outcomes and assessed extracted data using Cochrane's risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE system.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 studies with 1025 participants in this review. Fifteen studies with a total of 951 participants contributed to the quantitative analysis. Single block versus standard care Primary outcomes No included studies reported our primary outcome, 'Proportion of participants reporting no worse than mild pain after treatment at 14 days'. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sympathetic nerve blocks on reducing pain to no worse than mild pain at 14 days when compared to standard care due to insufficient data (very low-certainty evidence). Sympathetic nerve blocks may provide small to 'little to no' improvement in quality of life (QOL) scores at 14 days after treatment when compared to standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.70 to 0.25; I² = 87%; 4 studies, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of serious adverse events as defined in our review as only one study contributed data to this outcome. Sympathetic nerve blocks may have an 'increased risk' to 'no additional risk' of harm compared with standard care (very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes Sympathetic nerve blocks showed a small to 'little to no' effect on participant-reported pain scores at 14 days using a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain compared with standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) -0.44, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.11; I² = 56%; 5 studies, 214 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be a 'moderate to large' to 'little to no' reduction in daily consumption of opioids postprocedure at 14 days with sympathetic nerve blocks compared with standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (change in daily consumption of opioids at 14 days as oral milligrams morphine equivalent (MME): MD -41.63 mg, 95% CI -78.54 mg to -4.72 mg; I² = 90%; 4 studies, 130 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sympathetic nerve blocks on participant satisfaction with procedure at 0 to 7 days and time to need for retreatment or treatment effect failure (or both) due to insufficient data. Combination block versus single block Primary outcomes There is no evidence about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks on the proportion of participants reporting no worse than mild pain after treatment at 14 days because no studies reported this outcome. There may be a small to 'little to no' effect on QOL score at 14 days after treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of serious adverse events with combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks due to limited reporting in the included studies (very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks on participant-reported pain score and change in daily consumption of opioids postprocedure, at 14 days. There may be a small to 'little to no' effect, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). There is no evidence about the effect on participant satisfaction with procedure at 0 to 7 days and time to need for retreatment or treatment effect failure (or both) due to these outcomes not being measured by the studies. Risk of bias The risk of bias was predominately high for most outcomes in most studies due to significant concerns regarding adequate blinding. Very few studies were deemed as low risk across all domains for any outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence to support or refute the use of sympathetic nerve blocks for persistent abdominopelvic pain due to inoperable malignancy. We are very uncertain about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks. The certainty of the evidence is very low and these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Topics: Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Autonomic Nerve Block; Adult; Bias; Pelvic Neoplasms; Abdominal Neoplasms; Cancer Pain; Abdominal Pain; Pain Management; Nerve Block; Quality of Life
PubMed: 38842054
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015229.pub2 -
Indian Journal of Anaesthesia Feb 2024Rectus sheath block (RSB) is an effective postoperative pain control technique in abdominal surgical procedures. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy and...
Investigation into the clinical performance of rectus sheath block in reducing postoperative pain following surgical intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Rectus sheath block (RSB) is an effective postoperative pain control technique in abdominal surgical procedures. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy and outcome data of patients undergoing RSB compared to the standard of care in both laparoscopic and open surgical procedures.
METHODS
This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022372596). The search was restricted to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RSB effectiveness on postoperative pain to any standard general anaesthesia technique (control). We systematically explored PubMed, Medline, Central, Scopus and Web of Science for RCTs from inception to September 2023. The primary outcome was the evaluation of pain scores at rest 0-2, 10-12 and 12-24 h postoperatively. The secondary outcome was the analysis of postoperative intravenous (IV) morphine equivalent consumption at 24-h. A risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (ROB 2.0, Cochrane, Copenhagen, Denmark) assessment and Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE, Cochrane, Copenhagen, Denmark) analysis was conducted to evaluate the quality of the RCTs.
RESULTS
Twenty RCTs involving 708 participants who received RSB intervention and 713 who received alternative analgesic care were included. RSB pain scores were significantly lower than control at 0-2 h ( < 0.001) and 10-12 h ( < 0.001) postoperatively. No significant effect was observed at 24 h ( = 0.11). RSB performance compared to control in 24-h IV morphine equivalency in milligrams was significantly lower ( < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
RSB implementation was associated with reduced postoperative pain scores and decreased opioid consumption in IV morphine equivalency up to 24 h following surgical intervention.
PubMed: 38435659
DOI: 10.4103/ija.ija_1099_23 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Jan 2024. This paper aims to estimate asymptomatic hip osteonecrosis prevalence in SLE patients using MRI examination and to determine the prevalence among higher risk... (Review)
Review
. This paper aims to estimate asymptomatic hip osteonecrosis prevalence in SLE patients using MRI examination and to determine the prevalence among higher risk subpopulations. . PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and SCOPUS were searched from inception to May 9th, 2023. Studies on patients who were clinically diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus without reported symptoms attributable to hip osteonecrosis were included. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Data collected from each study include the study year, the number of hips screened, the number of hips with osteonecrosis, demographics, laboratory data, medications, follow-up time, radiological protocols, and MRI-based osteonecrosis detection and grading criteria. . Eleven eligible studies including 503 participants (15-35 years old; 74-100% female) with SLE were identified. Significant risk of bias was determined in one study. The overall prevalence of osteonecrosis of the hip was found to be 14% (184/1006 hip joints, 95% confidence interval: 7-22%, number needed to scan: 7.1). SLE patients who received corticosteroid treatment had a higher prevalence of asymptomatic hip osteonecrosis (18%) compared to non-corticosteroid users (0%, -value < 0.01). Additionally, meta-regression results revealed that daily corticosteroid dose was associated with increased prevalence of asymptomatic osteonecrosis (0.5%/milligram, -value < 0.01). . The high prevalence of asymptomatic hip osteonecrosis in SLE patients raises concerns about the timeliness of interventions. The limitations of this study include a relatively low number of identified studies; and one study lacked full-text availability.
PubMed: 38337795
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14030279 -
The Clinical Journal of Pain May 2024Ultrasound-guided pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block is an emerging regional anesthesia technique that may provide analgesia for patients undergoing total hip... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ultrasound-guided pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block is an emerging regional anesthesia technique that may provide analgesia for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasties (THA). There are clinical studies comparing this fascial plane block to other established methods; however, evidence on the actual efficacy of this block for THA continues to evolve.
OBJECTIVE
Available clinical studies conducted over the past 4 years were reviewed to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and effectiveness of PENG block in patients undergoing THAs.
METHODS
A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients undergoing THA, where PENG block was compared to no block, placebo/sham block (injection with saline), or other analgesic techniques including suprainguinal fascia iliaca block (FIB), or periarticular infiltration (PAI) was performed. Our primary outcome was opioid consumption during the first 24 hours. Secondary outcomes were postoperative rest and dynamic pain scores at 6-12, 24 and 48 hours, block performance time, sensory-motor assessment, quadriceps weakness, the incidence of postoperative falls, first analgesic request, block and opioid-related complications, surgical complications, patient satisfaction scores, postanesthesia care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, and functional and quality of life outcomes.
RESULTS
We included 12 RCTs with a total of 705 patients. Data showed that PENG block decreased 24-hour oral morphine milligram equivalent consumption by a mean difference (MD) of 3.75 mg (95% CI: -5.96,-1.54; P =0.0009). No statistically significant differences in rest or dynamic pain were found, except for a modest MD reduction in dynamic pain score of 0.55 points (95% CI: -0.98, -0.12; P =0.01), measured 24 hours after surgery in favor of PENG block.
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that PENG block provides better analgesia, measured as MME use, in the first 24 hours after THA, with no real impact on postoperative VAS scores. Despite statistical significance, the high heterogeneity across RCTs implies that PENG's benefits may not surpass the minimal clinically important difference threshold for us to recommend PENG as best practice in THA.
Topics: Humans; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain, Postoperative; Nerve Block; Analgesics
PubMed: 38268183
DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000001196 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023As a popular antidiabetic drug, teneligliptin has been used for over 10 years, but its efficacy and safety have rarely been systematically evaluated. Therefore, a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
As a popular antidiabetic drug, teneligliptin has been used for over 10 years, but its efficacy and safety have rarely been systematically evaluated. Therefore, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of teneligliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing teneligliptin with placebo or active comparators in T2DM patients for at least 12 weeks were included in the study. Data analysis was performed using R 4.2.3 and Stata 17.0 software. Each outcome was presented as a mean difference (MD) or an odds ratio (OR) along with 95% confidence interval (CI) and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value (SUCRA).
RESULTS
A total of 18 RCTs with 3,290 participants with T2DM were included in this study. Generally, compared to placebo, sitagliptin, vildagliptin, metformin, and bromocriptine, 20 mg of teneligliptin showed better efficacy in reducing HbA1c (MD [95% CI], -0.78 [-0.86 to -0.70], -0.08 [-0.36 to 0.19], -0.04 [-0.72 to 0.60], -0.12 [-0.65 to 0.42], and -0.50 [-0.74 to -0.26], respectively) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (MD [95% CI], -18.02 [-20.64 to -15.13], 1.17 [-9.39 to 11.70], -8.06 [-30.95 to 14.35], -2.75 [-18.89 to 13.01], and -34.23 [-45.93 to -22.96], respectively), and 40 mg of teneligliptin also showed better efficacy in reducing HbA1c (MD [95% CI], -0.84 [-1.03 to -0.65], -0.15 [-0.49 to 0.19], -0.10 [-0.81 to 0.57], -0.18 [-0.76 to 0.39], and -0.56 [-0.88 to -0.26], respectively) and FPG (MD [95% CI], -20.40 [-26.07 to -14.57], -1.20 [-13.21 to 10.38], -10.43 [-34.16 to 12.65], -5.13 [-22.21 to 11.66], and -36.61 [-49.33 to -24.01], respectively). Compared to placebo, 20 mg of teneligliptin showed no significant difference in incidences of hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal adverse events (OR [95% CI], 1.30 [0.70 to 2.19] and 1.48 [0.78 to 2.98], respectively), and 40 mg of teneligliptin showed no significant difference in incidence of hypoglycemia (OR [95% CI], 2.63 [0.46 to 8.10]). Generally, antidiabetic effect and hypoglycemia risk of teneligliptin gradually increased as its dose increased from 5 mg to 40 mg. Compared to 20 mg of teneligliptin, 40 mg of teneligliptin showed superior efficacy and no-inferior safety, which was considered as the best option in reducing HbA1c, FPG, and 2h PPG and increasing proportion of the patients achieving HbA1c < 7% (SUCRA, 85.51%, 84.24%, 79.06%, and 85.81%, respectively) among all the included interventions.
CONCLUSION
Compared to sitagliptin, vildagliptin, metformin, bromocriptine, and placebo, teneligliptin displayed favorable efficacy and acceptable safety in treating T2DM. Twenty milligrams or 40 mg per day was the optimal dosage regimen of teneligliptin. The results of this study will provide important evidence-based basis for rational use of teneligliptin and clinical decision-making of T2DM medication.
Topics: Humans; Bromocriptine; Glycated Hemoglobin; Network Meta-Analysis; Vildagliptin; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Metformin; Sitagliptin Phosphate; Hypoglycemic Agents; Hypoglycemia
PubMed: 38189048
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1282584 -
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2023Safe and effective management of cancer-related pain is a worldwide challenge. In the search for treatment options, natural products used in Chinese herbal medicines... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Safe and effective management of cancer-related pain is a worldwide challenge. In the search for treatment options, natural products used in Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) have received attention in clinical studies for their effects on cancer-related pain. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the clinical evidence for topically applied CHMs as adjunctive treatments for cancer pain management.
METHODS
Nine biomedical databases and 4 clinical trial registries were searched for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) that reported measures of pain and/or quality of life. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. Meta-analysis employed mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (random effects).
RESULTS
Twenty (20) RCTs (1636 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were grouped based on the comparisons and outcome measures. For pain intensity, there was a greater reduction in the topical CHM group versus placebo (MD -0.72 [-1.04, -0.40]), no difference when compared to tramadol (MD -0.15 [-0.38, 0.08]), and a greater reduction when topical CHMs were combined with conventional analgesic medications (MD -0.67 [-0.93, -0.40]). Analgesic onset time was reduced in the CHM group compared to tramadol (MD -26.02 [-27.57, -24.47] minutes), and for CHMs combined with conventional medications (MD -19.17 [-21.83, -16.52] minutes). When CHMs were combined with analgesic medications, improvements were found for duration of analgesia (MD 1.65 [0.78, 2.51] hours), analgesic maintenance dose (MD -31.72 [-50.43, -13.01] milligrams/day), and quality of life.
CONCLUSION
Addition of topical CHMs to conventional analgesic medications was associated with improved outcomes for pain intensity, some other pain-related outcomes, and measures of quality of life. Limitations included methodological issues in some studies and considerable heterogeneity in some pooled results.
Topics: Humans; Cancer Pain; Tramadol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Analgesics; Neoplasms
PubMed: 37962002
DOI: 10.1177/15347354231210870 -
International Journal of Surgery... Nov 2023The optimal approach for perioperative pain management in laparoscopic gynecological surgery is unclear due to a lack of comprehensive analysis, which limits the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy of nonopioid analgesics and regional techniques for perioperative pain management in laparoscopic gynecological surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The optimal approach for perioperative pain management in laparoscopic gynecological surgery is unclear due to a lack of comprehensive analysis, which limits the development of evidence-based enhanced recovery after surgery protocols. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to support clinical decision-making for optimal analgesia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL from inception to 3 December 2021, and updated on 19 August 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing the perioperative use of nonopioid analgesics and regional techniques in adults undergoing elective laparoscopic gynecological surgery under general anesthesia were included in the analysis, either alone or in combination. The co-analgesic interventions during the perioperative period for the intervention and control groups of each eligible study were also considered. We assessed the risk of bias using the Risk of Bias 2 tool and evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approach. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to estimate the efficacy of the analgesic strategies. The primary outcomes were pain score at rest and cumulative oral morphine milligram equivalents at 24 h postoperatively.
RESULTS
Overall, 108 studies with 9582 participants and 35 different interventions were included. Compared with inert treatments, combinations of two or more interventions showed better efficacy and longer duration in reducing postoperative pain and opioid consumption within 24 h than monotherapies, and showed stepwise enhanced effects with increasing analgesic modes. In combination therapies, regional techniques that included peripheral nerve blocks and intraperitoneal local anesthetics, in combination with nonopioid systemic analgesics, or combining local anesthetics with adjuvant drugs, were found to be more effective. Monotherapies were found to be mostly ineffective. The most effective peripheral nerve blocks were found to be ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block with adjuvant and ultrasound-guided quadratus lumborum block.
CONCLUSIONS
These results provide robust evidence for the routine use of regional techniques in combination with nonopioid analgesics in perioperative pain management. However, further better quality and larger trials are needed, considering the low confidence levels for certain interventions.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Female; Anesthetics, Local; Pain Management; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain, Postoperative; Laparoscopy; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 37534670
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000630 -
International Journal of Clinical... Feb 2024Although duloxetine has shown a positive effect on pain relief with hip and knee osteoarthritis, there is no pooled analysis of duloxetine for pain relief and opioid... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although duloxetine has shown a positive effect on pain relief with hip and knee osteoarthritis, there is no pooled analysis of duloxetine for pain relief and opioid consumption in patients after total hip or knee arthroplasty.
AIM
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to analyze pain control, opioid consumption, and associated adverse events of perioperative administration of duloxetine after total hip or knee arthroplasty.
METHOD
After being registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022323202), the databases of MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception until March 20, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Primary outcomes were the visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores at rest (rVAS) and upon ambulation (aVAS). Secondary outcomes were postoperative opioid consumption quantified as oral morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) and adverse effects of duloxetine.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs with 806 cases were included. Duloxetine was associated with lower VAS scores at different times after surgery (24 h, two weeks, and ≥ 3 months). Compared to placebo, perioperative daily duloxetine use significantly reduced daily opioid MMEs at 24 h (standard mean deviation [SMD] -0.71, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] -1.19 to -0.24, P = 0.003), three days (SMD -1.10, 95% CI -1.70 to -0.50, P = 0.0003), and one week (SMD -1.18, 95% CI -1.99 to -0.38, P = 0.004) after surgery. The duloxetine group had a significantly lower rate of nausea (odds ratio 0.62, 95% CI [0.41 to 0.94], P = 0.02) and a higher rate of drowsiness and somnolence (odds ratio 1.87, 95% CI [1.13 to 3.07], P = 0.01) compared to the placebo group. No significant differences were observed in the rates of other adverse events.
CONCLUSION
Perioperative duloxetine significantly decreased postoperative pain and opioid consumption with good safety profiles. Further high quality designed and well-controlled randomized trials are warranted.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37294475
DOI: 10.1007/s11096-023-01593-x