-
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Sep 2022Despite the vaginal mucosa is able to respond to allergenic stimuli, vaginal allergic responses have been under investigated in clinical practice. Thus, we aimed to... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Despite the vaginal mucosa is able to respond to allergenic stimuli, vaginal allergic responses have been under investigated in clinical practice. Thus, we aimed to identify the most frequent etiological agents responsible for vulvovaginal allergies, the prevalent signs/symptoms, and the diagnostic tests applied in this clinical condition.
METHODS
Literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Scielo, Web of Science, and EMBASE. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020167238). Studies were divided in two groups depending on allergen exposure route. Due to a significant number of studies correlating allergy to Candida infection, subgroup analysis was included.
RESULTS
In direct exposure cases, Human Seminal Plasma was the most prevalent allergen, sensitizing 73% of affected women. These women presented localized swelling and burning as prevalent symptoms, affecting 42/68 and 36/68 women, respectively. Cutaneous Prick tests were applied in 58/68 women, either alone or combined with IgE measurements. Regarding cases of indirect/unidentified exposure, house dust mites was the most prevalent allergen (54%), followed by pollen (44%). Predominant symptoms were vulvar pruritus and burning, affecting 67/98 and 52/98 women. Skin prick test was the most prevalent diagnostic method used among different studies. Hypersensitivity toward Candida antigen was present in only half (163/323) of women presenting concomitant allergy and Candida infection.
CONCLUSION
From the two types of allergen exposure that can cause vulvovaginal allergic responses, direct contact of the antigen with the vulva and/or vagina was the most prevalent. Still, allergens can also sensitize the vaginal mucosa secondarily to other exposure route, specifically aeroallergens.
Topics: Allergens; Candidiasis; Female; Humans; Hypersensitivity; Skin Tests; Vulvovaginitis
PubMed: 34825938
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-021-06332-z -
Journal of Pain Research 2021Compared to low concentrations of local anesthetics with opioids for labor epidural analgesia, very high concentrations of local anesthetics are associated with an...
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Labor Epidural Analgesia Using Moderately High Concentrations of Plain Local Anesthetics versus Low Concentrations of Local Anesthetics with Opioids.
PURPOSE
Compared to low concentrations of local anesthetics with opioids for labor epidural analgesia, very high concentrations of local anesthetics are associated with an increased risk of assisted vaginal delivery. We aimed to investigate if moderately high concentrations of plain local anesthetics are also associated with this risk.
METHODS
We searched for published randomized controlled trials that compared moderately high concentrations of plain local anesthetics (>0.1% but ≤0.125% bupivacaine, >0.1% but ≤0.125% levobupivacaine, or >0.17% but ≤0.2% ropivacaine) to low concentrations of local anesthetics (≤0.1% bupivacaine, ≤0.1% levobupivacaine, or ≤0.17% ropivacaine) with opioids for labor analgesia. Meta-analyses were performed to compare the risk of assisted vaginal delivery and other perinatal outcomes between these two groups.
RESULTS
We identified nine randomized controlled trials with a total of 1334 participants. Meta-analysis of these nine trials showed no differences in the risks of assisted vaginal delivery (odds ratio [OR] = 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.49) or Cesarean delivery (OR = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71-1.29) between the two groups. The incidence of motor block was higher in the group of moderately high concentrations (OR = 4.05; 95% CI, 2.19-7.48), while the incidence of pruritus was lower (OR = 0.07; 95% CI, 0.03-0.16).
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that the current evidence is inadequate to support that moderately high concentrations of plain local anesthetics increase the risk of assisted vaginal delivery compared to low concentrations of local anesthetics with opioids.
PubMed: 34054305
DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S305838 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Jul 2015Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) has gained popularity, but it is still unclear whether adding a background infusion confers any benefit. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The effect of adding a background infusion to patient-controlled epidural labor analgesia on labor, maternal, and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) has gained popularity, but it is still unclear whether adding a background infusion confers any benefit.
METHODS
A systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, CENTRAL, Clinicaltrials.gov, and ISI WOS was performed to identify randomized controlled double-blind trials that compare PCEA-only with PCEA combined with a continuous infusion (PCEA + CI) in parturients. The data were subjected to meta-analyses using the random-effects model. Our primary outcome was the incidence of instrumental vaginal delivery. Secondary outcomes were incidences of spontaneous vaginal and cesarean deliveries, duration of labor, analgesic outcomes, maternal outcomes (visual analog scale scores for pain, maternal satisfaction, nausea, pruritus, hypotension), and neonatal outcomes (Apgar score, umbilical artery pH).
RESULTS
We identified 7 trials with a low risk of bias, reporting on 891 parturients, for inclusion in our systematic review. The risk of instrumental vaginal delivery was increased in the PCEA + CI group, risk ratio (RR) 1.66 (95% confidence interval 1.08-2.56, P = 0.02; I = 0%); the RR for cesarean delivery was 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.61-1.13, I = 0%). The second stage of labor was prolonged (weighted mean difference 12.3 minutes, 95% confidence interval 5.1-19.5 minutes, P = 0.0008; I = 0%) in the PCEA + CI group. Fewer patients in the PCEA + CI group required physician-administered boluses (RR 0.35 [95% confidence interval 0.25-0.47, P < 0.00001; I = 0%]). No differences regarding maternal adverse events (nausea, pruritus, hypotension) or neonatal outcomes (Apgar scores <7, umbilical artery pH) were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of current evidence, no conclusion can be drawn regarding the risks or benefits of adding a continuous background infusion to PCEA compared with PCEA-only epidural labor analgesia. Further high-quality studies involving a sufficient number of patients are required.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics; Apgar Score; Cesarean Section; Chi-Square Distribution; Extraction, Obstetrical; Female; Fetal Blood; Humans; Hydrogen-Ion Concentration; Infant, Newborn; Infusions, Parenteral; Labor Pain; Labor, Obstetric; Odds Ratio; Pain Measurement; Parturition; Patient Satisfaction; Pregnancy; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25902319
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000743 -
BMC Urology Jan 2015Tramadol is a centrally acting analgesic prescribed off-label for the treatment of premature ejaculation (PE). However, tramadol may cause addiction and difficulty in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Tramadol is a centrally acting analgesic prescribed off-label for the treatment of premature ejaculation (PE). However, tramadol may cause addiction and difficulty in breathing and the beneficial effect of tramadol in PE is yet not supported by a high level of evidence. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCT) for tramadol in the management of PE.
METHODS
We searched bibliographic databases including MEDLINE to August 2014 for RCTs. The primary outcome was intra-vaginal ejaculatory latency time (IELT). Methodological quality of RCTs was assessed. Between-group differences in IELT and other outcomes were pooled across RCTs in a meta-analysis. Statistical and clinical between-trial heterogeneity was assessed.
RESULTS
A total of eight RCTs that evaluated tramadol against a comparator were included. The majority of RCTs were of unclear methodological quality due to limited reporting. Pooled evidence (four RCTs, 721 participants), suggests that tramadol is significantly more effective than placebo at increasing IELT over eight to 12 weeks (p = 0.0007). However, a high level of statistical heterogeneity is evident (I-squared = 74%). Single RCT evidence indicates that tramadol is significantly more effective than paroxetine taken on-demand, sildenafil, lidocaine gel, or behavioural therapy on IELT in men with PE. Tramadol is associated with significantly more adverse events including: erectile dysfunction, constipation, nausea, headache, somnolence, dry mouth, dizziness, pruritus, and vomiting, than placebo or behavioural therapy over eight to 12 weeks of treatment. However, addiction problems or breathing difficulties reported by patients for PE is not assessed in the current evidence base.
CONCLUSIONS
Tramadol appears effective in the treatment of PE. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the observed levels of between-trial heterogeneity and the reporting quality of the available evidence. The variability across placebo-controlled trials in terms of the tramadol dose evaluated and the treatment duration does not permit any assessment of a safe and effective minimum daily dose. The long-term effects and side effects, including addiction potential, for men with PE have not been evaluated in the current evidence base.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The review is registered on PROSPERO 2013: CRD42013005289 .
Topics: Drug Administration Schedule; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Male; Off-Label Use; Orgasm; Patient Satisfaction; Premature Ejaculation; Prevalence; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tramadol; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25636495
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2490-15-6