-
Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Jan 2024The effects of combining dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine on block duration are unclear. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE
The effects of combining dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine on block duration are unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effects of combining dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine on block duration.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, the Web of Science, and BIOSIS until June 8, 2023. RCTs with adults undergoing surgery with a peripheral nerve block randomized to combined dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine versus placebo or other adjuncts were eligible. Primary outcome was duration of analgesia. We performed meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis, risk of bias-2, and Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation assessment.
FINDINGS
We included 9 RCTs with 14 eligible comparisons. The combination of dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine was compared with placebo in three RCTs (173 participants), dexamethasone in seven (569 participants), and dexmedetomidine in four (281 participants). The duration of analgesia was likely increased with the combination versus placebo (mean difference 460 min, 95% CI 249 to 671) and versus dexmedetomidine (mean difference 388 min, 95% CI 211 to 565). The duration was likely similar with the combination versus dexamethasone (mean difference 50 min, 95% CI -140 to 239). The certainty of the evidence was moderate because most trials were at high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Combined dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine likely increased the duration of analgesia when compared with placebo and dexmedetomidine. The combination likely provided a similar duration of analgesia as dexamethasone. Based on this systematic review, it seems reasonable to use dexamethasone as the sole adjunct if the goal is to increase the duration of analgesia.
PubMed: 38253609
DOI: 10.1136/rapm-2023-105098 -
Archives of Physical Medicine and... Jan 2024The objective of this study was to identify the difference on pain intensity and disability between particulate and nonparticulate steroid injections in patients with... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to identify the difference on pain intensity and disability between particulate and nonparticulate steroid injections in patients with lumbar radicular pain. Subgroup analysis by study design, type of particulate steroid, and follow-up duration were performed.
DATA SOURCES
We performed the literature search in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up March, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies, that compared particulate steroid injection and nonparticulate steroid injection in patients with lumbar radicular pain were independently reviewed by 2 reviewers for eligibility for inclusion.
DATA EXTRACTION
Outcomes of interest were pain intensity and disability. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of included studies using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB2.0) tool for RCTs and the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions Tool (ROBINS-I) for nonrandomized studies. Effect sizes were estimated using mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD).
DATA SYNTHESIS
A total of 10 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed no significant difference in visual analog scale, disability score and the numbers of patients with 50% pain reduction between particulate and nonparticulate steroid injection groups (P>.05). Particulate steroid injections showed significant better effect in pain scale in RCTs (MD=0.62; 95% CI 0.08-1.16, P=.02). In subgroup analysis with steroid types, methylprednisolone showed better effect compared with dexamethasone, while dexamethasone showed better effect compared with betamethasone.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis suggested no significant differences between the particulate and nonparticulate steroid groups in pain or disability score. Therefore, considering the safety profile of nonparticulate steroids, nonparticulate steroid injection may be helpful in patients with lumbar radicular pain.
PubMed: 38242297
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2024.01.002 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Mar 2024Despite being a commonly performed surgical procedure, pain management for appendicectomy is often neglected because of insufficient evidence on the most effective...
BACKGROUND
Despite being a commonly performed surgical procedure, pain management for appendicectomy is often neglected because of insufficient evidence on the most effective treatment options.
OBJECTIVE
To provide evidence-based recommendations by assessing the available literature for optimal pain management after appendicectomy.
DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES
This systematic review-based guideline was conducted according to the PROSPECT methodology. Relevant randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the English language from January 1999 to October 2022 were retrieved from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Databases using PRISMA search protocols.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included studies on adults and children. If articles reported combined data from different surgeries, they had to include specific information about appendicectomies. Studies needed to measure pain intensity using a visual analogue scale (VAS) or a numerical rating scale (NRS). Studies that did not report the precise appendicectomy technique were excluded.
RESULTS
Out of 1388 studies, 94 met the inclusion criteria. Based on evidence and consensus, the PROSPECT members agreed that basic analgesics [paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)] should be administered perioperatively for open and laparoscopic appendicectomies. A laparoscopic approach is preferred because of lower pain scores. Additional recommendations for laparoscopic appendicectomies include a three-port laparoscopic approach and the instillation of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic. For open appendicectomy, a preoperative unilateral transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block is recommended. If not possible, preincisional infiltration with local anaesthetics is an alternative. Opioids should only be used as rescue analgesia. Limited evidence exists for TAP block in laparoscopic appendicectomy, analgesic adjuvants for TAP block, continuous wound infiltration after open appendicectomy and preoperative ketamine and dexamethasone. Recommendations apply to children and adults.
CONCLUSION
This review identified an optimal analgesic regimen for open and laparoscopic appendicectomy. Further randomised controlled trials should evaluate the use of regional analgesia and wound infiltrations with adequate baseline analgesia, especially during the recommended conventional three-port approach.
REGISTRATION
The protocol for this study was registered with the PROSPERO database (Registration No. CRD42023387994).
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Analgesics; Acetaminophen; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Anesthetics, Local
PubMed: 38214556
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001953 -
Surgical Neurology International 2023Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is a condition characterized by the accumulation of fluid, blood, and blood breakdown products between the brain's arachnoid and dura...
BACKGROUND
Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is a condition characterized by the accumulation of fluid, blood, and blood breakdown products between the brain's arachnoid and dura mater coverings. While steroids have been explored as a potential treatment option, their efficacy and safety remain uncertain. This meta-analysis and systematic review aimed to assess the impact of steroids on CSDH management, including mortality, recurrence, complications, and functional outcomes.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive literature search in major electronic databases up to June 2023, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and Interventions. Inclusion criteria encompassed adult patients with CSDH, the use of steroids as monotherapy or adjuvant therapy, and clearly defined outcomes. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies meeting these criteria were included in the study.
RESULTS
The initial search yielded 4315 articles, with 12 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Our findings indicate a non-significant trend toward reduced mortality with steroids in combination with standard care (Odds ratios [OR] = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20-2.18). However, substantial heterogeneity was observed (I = 70%). Sensitivity analysis, excluding influential studies, suggested a potential increased mortality risk associated with steroids (OR = 1.47, 95% CI 0.87-2.48). Steroids showed a possible benefit in reducing the recurrence of CSDH (OR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.20-1.67), but with significant heterogeneity (I = 89%). No clear advantage of steroids was observed in terms of functional outcomes at three months (modified Rankin scale scores). Furthermore, steroids were associated with a significantly higher incidence of adverse effects and complications (OR = 2.17, 95% CI 1.48-3.17).
CONCLUSION
Steroids may have a potential role in reducing CSDH recurrence but do not appear to confer significant advantages in terms of mortality or functional outcomes. However, their use is associated with a higher risk of adverse effects and complications. Given the limitations of existing studies, further research is needed to refine the role of steroids in CSDH management, considering patient-specific factors and treatment protocols.
PubMed: 38213424
DOI: 10.25259/SNI_771_2023 -
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia =... Feb 2024Tonsillectomy is one of the most common surgical procedures performed in children. Since most clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are designed to support surgical...
PURPOSE
Tonsillectomy is one of the most common surgical procedures performed in children. Since most clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are designed to support surgical decisions, none are specifically designed for the perioperative management of children undergoing tonsillectomy. We aimed to identify and analyze the existing CPGs with recommendations for the perioperative management of children undergoing tonsillectomy by conducting a systematic review.
SOURCE
We searched Embase, MEDLINE, MEDLINE ePub Ahead of Print, and CINAHL for relevant articles published from inception to 3 August 2022. The inclusion criteria were: 1) CPG of perioperative recommendations for tonsillectomy under general anesthesia in children, 2) CPG that include at least one evidence-based recommendation, 3) peer-reviewed CPG published in English after 2000. We extracted data on baseline characteristics of each CPG and general recommendations for perioperative interventions or complications.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
Out of five eligible CPGs, AGREE II and REX confirmed that two CPGs were high quality while only one of the two was recommended for implementation without modifications. Most of the recommendations were for pain management. Acetaminophen was the only medication recommended in all five CPG. Except for the oldest CPG, the CPG all supported of the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and steroids as a pain adjunct.
CONCLUSIONS
Acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and steroids are recommended in the perioperative management of pediatric tonsillectomy. Future CPG should further clarify the safe use of opioids based on severity of obstructive sleep apnea and in the context of opioid-sparing techniques, such as dexmedetomidine, high-dose dexamethasone, and gabapentinoids.
STUDY REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42021253374); first submitted 18 June 2021.
Topics: Humans; Child; Tonsillectomy; Acetaminophen; Analgesics, Opioid; Steroids; Anti-Inflammatory Agents
PubMed: 38182827
DOI: 10.1007/s12630-023-02668-z -
Inflammopharmacology Apr 2024This study is the first to summarize the evidence on how the use of anti-inflammatory drugs during acute pain has an impact on the development of chronic pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This study is the first to summarize the evidence on how the use of anti-inflammatory drugs during acute pain has an impact on the development of chronic pain.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials retrieved from nine databases included anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs or steroids) versus non-anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with acute pain and reported the incidence of chronic pain. No specified date, age, sex, or language restrictions. Subgroup analyses were performed according to pain classification, follow-up time, and medication. The GRADE method was used to evaluate quality of evidence.
RESULTS
A total of 29 trials (5220 patients) were included. Steroids or NSAIDs did not reduce the incidence of chronic nociceptive pain. Steroid use in acute phase significantly reduced the incidence of chronic neuropathic pain. In subgroup analysis, benefits were observed for methylprednisolone and dexamethasone, with some adverse effects. Steroids or NSAIDs were statistically significant in reducing pain intensity over 1 year, but the effect size was too small, and whether the long-term effect is clinically relevant needs to be further studied.
CONCLUSION
Quality of the evidence was low to moderate. No drug can be recommended to prevent chronic nociceptive pain. Injections of steroids (methylprednisolone or dexamethasone) during the acute phase reduce the incidence of chronic neuropathic pain, but most included studies also used local anesthetics. The results are indirect and need to be interpreted with caution. The pooled data effect sizes for pain intensity were small, so the clinical relevance was unclear. Study registration PROSPERO (CRD42022367030).
Topics: Humans; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Chronic Pain; Acute Pain; Incidence; Steroids; Neuralgia; Methylprednisolone; Nociceptive Pain; Dexamethasone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38153536
DOI: 10.1007/s10787-023-01405-8 -
Journal of Neuro-oncology Jan 2024Glioblastomas, the most common primary malignant brain tumors in adults, still hold poor prognosis. Corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone, are usually prescribed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Glioblastomas, the most common primary malignant brain tumors in adults, still hold poor prognosis. Corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone, are usually prescribed to reduce peritumoral edema and limit neurological symptoms, although potential detrimental effects of these drugs have been described. The present meta-analysis aimed to explore the association of dexamethasone with overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma.
METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for pertinent studies following the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis checklist. Pooled multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for OS and PFS and their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random-effects model and the heterogeneity among studies was assessed using I. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria.
RESULTS
Seven studies were included, pooling data of 1,257 patients, with age varying from 11 to 81 years. Glioblastoma patients on pre- or peri-operative dexamethasone were associated with a significantly poorer overall survival (HR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.15, 1.55; 7 studies; I: 59.9%) and progression free survival (HR: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.05, 2.97; 3 studies; I: 71.1%) compared to patients not on dexamethasone. The quality of evidence was moderate for overall survival and low for progression free survival.
CONCLUSION
Dexamethasone appeared to be associated with poor survival outcomes of glioblastoma patients.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Adolescent; Young Adult; Middle Aged; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Glioblastoma; Progression-Free Survival; Dexamethasone; Disease-Free Survival
PubMed: 38151699
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-023-04549-3 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023The current study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM)...
Efficacy and safety of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.
OBJECTIVES
The current study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) through meta-analysis.
METHODS
As of June 2023, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the clinical outcomes of anti-CD38 mAbs plus immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) or proteasome inhibitors (PIs) plus dexamethasone and IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone alone for RRMM patients were included. Efficacy outcomes were mainly evaluated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The safety was analyzed with hematologic and nonhematologic treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). All results were pooled using hazard ratio (HR), relative risk (RR), and their 95% confidence interval (CI) and prediction interval (PI).
RESULTS
This meta-analysis included 11 RCTs in total. Compared with IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone alone, anti-CD38 mAbs in combination with IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone significantly prolonged PFS (HR: 0.552, 95% CI = 0.461 to 0.659, 95% PI = 0.318 to 0.957) and OS (HR: 0.737, 95% CI = 0.657 to 0.827, 95% PI = 0.626 to 0.868) in patients with RRMM. Additionally, RRMM patients receiving anti-CD38 mAbs in combination with IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone achieved higher rates of overall response (RR: 1.281, 95% CI = 1.144 to 1.434, 95% PI = 0.883 to 1.859), complete response or better (RR: 2.602, 95% CI = 1.977 to 3.424, 95% PI = 1.203 to 5.628), very good partial response (VGPR) or better (RR: 1.886, 95% CI = 1.532 to 2.322, 95% PI = 0.953 to 3.731), and minimum residual disease (MRD)-negative (RR: 4.147, 95% CI = 2.588 to 6.644, 95% PI = 1.056 to 16.283) than those receiving IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone alone. For TEAEs, the rates of hematologic and nonhematologic TEAEs, including thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), pneumonia, bronchitis, dyspnea, diarrhea, pyrexia, back pain, arthralgia, fatigue, insomnia, and hypertension, were higher in the anti-CD38 mAbs in combination with IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone group than in the IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone group.
CONCLUSION
Our study showed that anti-CD38 mAbs in combination with IMiDs (or PIs) and dexamethasone improved PFS and OS, and achieved higher rates of overall response, complete response or better, VGPR or better, and MRD-negative, as well as higher rates of thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, URTI, pneumonia, bronchitis, dyspnea, diarrhea, pyrexia, back pain, arthralgia, fatigue, insomnia, and hypertension in RRMM patients.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42023431071.
PubMed: 38144527
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1240318 -
Life (Basel, Switzerland) Nov 2023Over the last decade, many studies have assessed the efficacy of treatments for refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma (R/R MM). While combination therapies show greater... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Over the last decade, many studies have assessed the efficacy of treatments for refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma (R/R MM). While combination therapies show greater efficacy than traditional methods, limited research has targeted elderly patients who might be less resilient to treatments. Our study aimed to evaluate treatment efficacy for these elderly patients.
METHODS
We carried out a comprehensive review of the literature using a systematic approach. Initially, 4966 citations were retrieved and subsequently narrowed down to 13 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through our systematic review process from databases like Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2022. Evidence was collated through a frequentist network meta-analysis, using the hazard ratio (HR) for evaluation.
RESULTS
Combined therapy of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (DaraLenDex) was the preferred treatment for R/R MM elderly patients. Its strengths included an HR for progression-free survival (0.15; 95% CI: 0.09-0.25) and a 96% P-score.
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis suggests that, pending more comprehensive RCTs, DaraLenDex is the treatment with the highest efficacy for R/R MM in elderly patients.
PubMed: 38137860
DOI: 10.3390/life13122259 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Dec 2023This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine,...
PURPOSE
This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine, dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, and cyclophosphamide in doses of > 1500 mg/m and the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline (AC) in women with breast cancer.
METHODS
A systematic review report following the PRISMA guidelines of the literature from January 1, 2015, until February 1, 2023, was performed. PubMed (Ovid), Scopus (Google), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The literature search was limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Forty-six new references were determined to be relevant. The main topics identified were (1) steroid-sparing regimens, (2) olanzapine-containing regimens, and (3) other issues such as comparisons of antiemetics of the same drug class, intravenous NK receptor antagonists, and potentially new antiemetics. Five updated recommendations are presented.
CONCLUSION
There is no need to prescribe steroids (dexamethasone) beyond day 1 after AC HEC, whereas a 4-day regimen is recommended in non-AC HEC. Olanzapine is now recommended as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen in both non-AC and AC HEC. No major differences between 5-HT receptor antagonists or between NK receptor antagonists were identified. No new antiemetic agents qualified for inclusion in the updated recommendations.
Topics: Female; Humans; Emetics; Antiemetics; Consensus; Olanzapine; Nausea; Vomiting; Antineoplastic Agents; Cyclophosphamide; Anthracyclines
PubMed: 38127246
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-08221-4