-
Pain Medicine (Malden, Mass.) Feb 2021Our aim was to give an overview of the effectiveness of adjunctive analgesics in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients receiving (chemo-) radiotherapy.
OBJECTIVE
Our aim was to give an overview of the effectiveness of adjunctive analgesics in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients receiving (chemo-) radiotherapy.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
INTERVENTIONS
This systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies concerning "head neck cancer," "adjunctive analgesics," "pain," and "radiotherapy."
OUTCOME MEASURES
Pain outcome, adverse events, and toxicity and other reported outcomes, for example, mucositis, quality of life, depression, etc.
RESULTS
Nine studies were included in our synthesis. Most studies were of low quality and had a high risk of bias on several domains of the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Only two studies comprised high-quality randomized controlled trials in which pregabalin and a doxepin rinse showed their effectiveness for the treatment of neuropathic pain and pain from oral mucositis, respectively, in HNC patients receiving (chemo-) radiotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS
More high-quality trials are necessary to provide clear evidence on the effectiveness of adjunctive analgesics in the treatment of HNC (chemo-) radiation-induced pain.
Topics: Analgesics; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Pregabalin; Quality of Life; Stomatitis
PubMed: 32219435
DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnaa044 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Apr 2020The efficacy ranking of antidepressants for post-stroke depression (PSD) has not been assessed thoroughly yet due to the lack of network meta-analyses with sufficiently... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The efficacy ranking of antidepressants for post-stroke depression (PSD) has not been assessed thoroughly yet due to the lack of network meta-analyses with sufficiently large sample size.
METHODS
Seven databases including PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, CBM, CNKI, WanFang and VIP were systematically searched for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding nine antidepressants (citalopram, escitalopram, venlafaxine, paroxetine, duloxetine, amitriptyline, doxepin, sertraline and mirtazapine) treating PSD patients. Stata 15 software and R software were utilized for statistical analyses.
RESULTS
51 RCTs were included in this NMA. For the key efficacy outcomes, escitalopram, mirtazapine, sertraline, citalopram, venlafaxine and paroxetine were associated with larger reduction of the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) total score compared with placebo at 2 weeks. Among the nine antidepressants, escitalopram ranked the best while amitriptyline was the least helpful. At 4 weeks, citalopram ranked higher than placebo and the other eight antidepressants. In contrast, amitriptyline and doxepin were associated with minimal reduction of HAMD score. At 8 weeks, changes in HAMD score were significantly greater in nine antidepressants groups compared to placebo group. Besides, mirtazapine ranked higher than citalopram and escitalopram. At endpoint, mirtazapine was related to the highest response rate, followed by venlafaxine and escitalopram, respectively.
LIMITATIONS
No restriction was imposed on doses of every antidepressant.
CONCLUSIONS
Escitalopram was associated with a quicker relief of depression, but mirtazapine was probably the best option when it comes to the efficacy of 8-week treatment duration. Amitriptyline and doxepin were nearly the worst choice regardless of the duration (2, 4 or 8 weeks).
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; China; Citalopram; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32056924
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.02.005 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... May 2020To update the clinical practice guidelines for the use of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the prevention and/or treatment of oral...
Systematic review of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients and clinical practice guidelines.
PURPOSE
To update the clinical practice guidelines for the use of antimicrobials, mucosal coating agents, anesthetics, and analgesics for the prevention and/or treatment of oral mucositis (OM).
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The body of evidence for each intervention, in each cancer treatment setting, was assigned an evidence level. The findings were added to the database used to develop the 2014 MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines. Based on the evidence level, the following guidelines were determined: Recommendation, Suggestion, and No Guideline Possible.
RESULTS
A total of 9 new papers were identified within the scope of this section, adding to the 62 papers reviewed in this section previously. A new Suggestion was made for topical 0.2% morphine for the treatment of OM-associated pain in head and neck (H&N) cancer patients treated with RT-CT (modification of previous guideline). A previous Recommendation against the use of sucralfate-combined systemic and topical formulation in the prevention of OM in solid cancer treatment with CT was changed from Recommendation Against to No Guideline Possible. Suggestion for doxepin and fentanyl for the treatment of mucositis-associated pain in H&N cancer patients was changed to No Guideline Possible.
CONCLUSIONS
Of the agents studied for the management of OM in this paper, the evidence supports a Suggestion in favor of topical morphine 0.2% in H&N cancer patients treated with RT-CT for the treatment of OM-associated pain.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics; Anesthetics; Anti-Infective Agents; Antineoplastic Agents; Guidelines as Topic; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Male; Mucositis; Stomatitis
PubMed: 32052137
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-019-05181-6 -
European Journal of Clinical... Mar 2020Insomnia is highly prevalent in older persons and significantly impacts quality of life, functional abilities, and health status. It is frequently treated with...
PURPOSE
Insomnia is highly prevalent in older persons and significantly impacts quality of life, functional abilities, and health status. It is frequently treated with benzodiazepines or Z-drugs. Due to adverse events, an increased use of alternative sedative medications has been observed in older adults. We aimed to study the efficacy and safety of alternative sedative medications for treating insomnia in older people, excluding benzodiazepines and Z-drugs.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials databases. We included randomized controlled trials and prospective and retrospective quasi-experimental studies, conducted in patients older than 65 years, without psychiatric or neurological comorbidities.
RESULTS
The systematic search yielded 9483 articles, of which 24 were included in this review, describing nine different sleep medications in total. No clear beneficial impact on sleep could be demonstrated in studies investigating the impact of melatonin (n = 10), paroxetine (n = 1), diphenhydramine (n = 1), tiagabine (n = 2), and valerian (n = 1). Ramelteon slightly improved sleep latency (n = 4), while doxepin was found to provide a sustained sleep improvement with a safety profile that was comparable to placebo (n = 3). Suvorexant showed an improved sleep maintenance with only mild side effects (n = 1). One study detected increased adverse effects of trazodone after 3 months but did not evaluate the effect on sleep.
CONCLUSIONS
The overall level of evidence was limited, making it difficult to draw robust conclusions. Preliminary evidence points towards suvorexant, doxepin, and possibly ramelteon as effective and safe pharmacological alternatives for treating insomnia in older adults.
Topics: Aged; Benzodiazepines; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Sleep; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders
PubMed: 31838549
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-019-02812-z