-
Transfusion and Apheresis Science :... Apr 2022Acquired methemoglobinemia may cause cyanosis and tissue ischemia unresponsive to oxygen supplementation.
INTRODUCTION
Acquired methemoglobinemia may cause cyanosis and tissue ischemia unresponsive to oxygen supplementation.
METHODS
We performed a literature search to identify cases of acquired methemoglobinemia published between 1980 and 2020. Clinical, diagnostic, and treatment details were extracted from eligible cases.
RESULTS
A total of 76 reports involving 87 cases were analyzed. The median age at presentation was 32.5 with male to female ratio of 1.6. Cyanosis and SpO <90 % were reported in 82 % and 60 % of cases, respectively. Dapsone or cocaine-based anesthetics were causative in 52 % of cases; most anesthetic-related cases occurred in the peri-procedural setting. Methylene blue (MB) and red cell transfusion were given in 71 % and 10 % of cases, respectively. Compared to MB untreated patients, MB treated patients were more likely to be cyanotic (91.9 % vs 54.2 %), had higher proportions (%) and levels (g/dL) of methemoglobin (MetHb) - 33.2 % vs 15.3 % and 3.1 g/dL vs 1.2 g/dL, respectively. We found that among cyanotic cases, the median MetHb level was 3.0 g/dL (0.4-12.3 g/dL) with 74 % of values ≥ 1.5 g/dL. An SaO2:SpO ratio of >1 was not universally present, but always coincided with an [SaO-SpO] delta value greater than zero.
CONCLUSIONS
Cyanosis and hypoxemia were not universal findings of acquired methemoglobinemia in our series. In addition, not all patients had cyanosis at MetHb ≥ 1.5 g/dL or an SaO2:SpO ratio of >1. All those with an SaO:SpO >1 did, however, have a delta value greater than zero - a finding not previously reported which we feel holds diagnostic value.
Topics: Cyanosis; Female; Humans; Hypoxia; Male; Methemoglobinemia; Methylene Blue; Oxygen
PubMed: 34740513
DOI: 10.1016/j.transci.2021.103299 -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Jan 2022Several localization techniques are in use for localization of non palpable breast cancer but data on comparative effectiveness of these techniques are sparse. Our aim... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several localization techniques are in use for localization of non palpable breast cancer but data on comparative effectiveness of these techniques are sparse. Our aim was to provide the first comparative effectiveness data on the topic.
METHODS
PubMed, Ovid, Scopus and Cochrane library were searched for randomized controlled trials. Pairwise meta-analysis was performed when more than 2 studies reported on the same head-to-head comparison. Network meta-analysis was performed in Stata.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies with 3112 patients were identified. A star shaped network was formed for every outcome as all studies had as common comparator the wire localization technique (WGL). Ultrasound guided surgery (UGS) had decreased positive margin both in the pairwise [OR = 0.19(0.11, 0.35); P < 0.01] and network meta-analysis OR = 0.19 (0.11,0.60). There was also a statistically significant reduction in re-operation rate [OR = 0.19 (0.11, 0.36); P < 0.01] and operative time [MD = -4.24(-7.85,-0.63); P = 0.02] as compared to WGL in pairwise meta-analysis. Re-operation rate and operative time did not hold there statistical significance in network meta-analysis. On network meta-analysis UGS had a statistically significant reduction in positive margin as compared to radio-guided occult lesion localization (ROLL) OR = 0.19 (0.11,0.6) and radioactive seed localization (RSL) OR = 0.26(0.13, 0.52). UGS had a 54.6% of being the best technique for positive margin. All techniques were equivalent for successful excision, localization complications, operative time and overall complications.
CONCLUSIONS
UGS has potential benefits in reduction of positive surgical margin, the rest of the techniques seem to have equivalent efficacy. Further randomized trials are required to verify these results.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Female; Humans; Indocyanine Green; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Margins of Excision; Mastectomy, Segmental; Methylene Blue; Network Meta-Analysis; Operative Time; Radiopharmaceuticals; Reoperation; Surgery, Computer-Assisted; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 34656392
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.10.001 -
Oral Diseases Nov 2022The goal of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of dexamethasone compared to other treatments in oral lichen planus (OLP). The literature search used the... (Review)
Review
The goal of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of dexamethasone compared to other treatments in oral lichen planus (OLP). The literature search used the following inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing dexamethasone and other treatment strategies in patients with OLP. The outcome measures included relief of symptoms, decrement of erosive area size, and changes in quality of life. A computer and manual search was performed in Pubmed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to January 31, 2021. The risk of bias was measured with the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. Eight trials with 131 study participants and 132 controls were identified. The following interventions were compared dexamethasone mouthwash, and 5% methylene blue-mediated photodynamic therapy, low-level laser therapy, amlexanox, clobetasol mouthwash, ketoconazole with amitriptyline, and thalidomide 1% paste. The therapeutic outcomes were more advantageous for dexamethasone in comparison with photodynamic therapy (PDT) (2 RCT) and low-level laser therapy (LLLT). Comparable effects were observed for dexamethasone, amlexanox, thalidomide, and PDT (1 RCT). Clobetasol showed more effective action than dexamethasone. Given the small sample sizes, heterogeneity and the few studies included, there is limited evidence to support the selection of treatment for OLP.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Aminopyridines; Amitriptyline; Clobetasol; Dexamethasone; Humans; Ketoconazole; Lichen Planus, Oral; Methylene Blue; Mouthwashes; Thalidomide
PubMed: 34273228
DOI: 10.1111/odi.13966 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2021Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties, weight loss, seizures and neurodevelopmental problems.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of using an opioid for treatment of NAS due to withdrawal from opioids in newborn infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We ran an updated search on 17 September 2020 in CENTRAL via Cochrane Register of Studies Web and MEDLINE via Ovid. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for eligible trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi- and cluster-RCTs which enrolled infants born to mothers with opioid dependence and who were experiencing NAS requiring treatment with an opioid.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and independently extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 trials (1110 infants) with NAS secondary to maternal opioid use in pregnancy. Seven studies at low risk of bias were included in sensitivity analysis. Opioid versus no treatment / usual care: a single trial (80 infants) of morphine and supportive care versus supportive care alone reported no difference in treatment failure (risk ratio (RR) 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 4.07; very low certainty evidence). No infant had a seizure. The trial did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. Morphine increased days hospitalisation (mean difference (MD) 15.00, 95% CI 8.86 to 21.14; very low certainty evidence) and treatment (MD 12.50, 95% CI 7.52 to 17.48; very low certainty evidence), but decreased days to regain birthweight (MD -2.80, 95% CI -5.33 to -0.27) and duration (minutes) of supportive care each day (MD -197.20, 95% CI -274.15 to -120.25). Morphine versus methadone: there was no difference in treatment failure (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.67; 2 studies, 147 infants; low certainty evidence). Seizures, neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. A single study reported no difference in days hospitalisation (MD 1.40, 95% CI -3.08 to 5.88; 116 infants; low certainty evidence), whereas data from two studies found an increase in days treatment (MD 2.71, 95% CI 0.22 to 5.21; 147 infants; low certainty) for infants treated with morphine. A single study reported no difference in breastfeeding, adverse events, or out of home placement. Morphine versus sublingual buprenorphine: there was no difference in treatment failure (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.74; 3 studies, 113 infants; very low certainty evidence). Neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. There was moderate certainty evidence of an increase in days hospitalisation (MD 11.45, 95% CI 5.89 to 17.01; 3 studies, 113 infants), and days treatment (MD 12.79, 95% CI 7.57 to 18.00; 3 studies, 112 infants) for infants treated with morphine. A single adverse event (seizure) was reported in infants exposed to buprenorphine. Morphine versus diluted tincture of opium (DTO): a single study (33 infants) reported no difference in days hospitalisation, days treatment or weight gain (low certainty evidence). Opioid versus clonidine: a single study (31 infants) reported no infant with treatment failure in either group. This study did not report seizures, neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability. There was low certainty evidence for no difference in days hospitalisation or days treatment. This study did not report adverse events. Opioid versus diazepam: there was a reduction in treatment failure from use of an opioid (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80; 2 studies, 86 infants; low certainty evidence). Seizures, neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. A single study of 34 infants comparing methadone versus diazepam reported no difference in days hospitalisation or days treatment (very low certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported. Opioid versus phenobarbital: there was a reduction in treatment failure from use of an opioid (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.74; 6 studies, 458 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis found a reduction in treatment failure in trials titrating morphine to ≧ 0.5 mg/kg/day (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.45; 3 studies, 230 infants), whereas a single study using morphine < 0.5 mg/kg/day reported no difference compared to use of phenobarbital (subgroup difference P = 0.05). Neonatal or infant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability were not reported. A single study (111 infants) of paregoric versus phenobarbital reported seven infants with seizures in the phenobarbital group, whereas no seizures were reported in two studies (170 infants) comparing morphine to phenobarbital. There was no difference in days hospitalisation or days treatment. A single study (96 infants) reported no adverse events in either group. Opioid versus chlorpromazine: there was a reduction in treatment failure from use of morphine versus chlorpromazine (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.62; 1 study, 90 infants; moderate certainty evidence). No seizures were reported in either group. There was low certainty evidence for no difference in days treatment. This trial reported no adverse events in either group. None of the included studies reported time to control of NAS. Data for duration and severity of NAS were limited, and we were unable to use these data in quantitative synthesis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to supportive care alone, the addition of an opioid may increase duration of hospitalisation and treatment, but may reduce days to regain birthweight and the duration of supportive care each day. Use of an opioid may reduce treatment failure compared to phenobarbital, diazepam or chlorpromazine. Use of an opioid may have little or no effect on duration of hospitalisation or treatment compared to use of phenobarbital, diazepam or chlorpromazine. The type of opioid used may have little or no effect on the treatment failure rate. Use of buprenorphine probably reduces duration of hospitalisation and treatment compared to morphine, but there are no data for time to control NAS with buprenorphine, and insufficient evidence to determine safety. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness and safety of clonidine.
Topics: Buprenorphine; Chlorpromazine; Clonidine; Diazepam; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant, Newborn; Methadone; Morphine; Narcotics; Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome; Opioid-Related Disorders; Opium; Phenobarbital; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34231914
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002059.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother-infant relationship, sleep-wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties, weight loss, seizures and neurodevelopmental problems.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of using a sedative versus control (placebo, usual treatment or non-pharmacological treatment) for NAS due to withdrawal from opioids and determine which type of sedative is most effective and safe for NAS due to withdrawal from opioids.
SEARCH METHODS
We ran an updated search on 17 September 2020 in CENTRAL via CRS Web and MEDLINE via Ovid. We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included trials enrolling infants with NAS born to mothers with an opioid dependence with more than 80% follow-up and using randomised, quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised allocation to sedative or control.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and independently extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 trials (581 infants) with NAS secondary to maternal opioid use in pregnancy. There were multiple comparisons of different sedatives and regimens. There were limited data available for use in sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias. Phenobarbital versus supportive care: one study reported there may be little or no difference in treatment failure with phenobarbital and supportive care versus supportive care alone (risk ratio (RR) 2.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 7.94; 62 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No infant had a clinical seizure. The study did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. There may be an increase in days' hospitalisation and treatment from use of phenobarbital (hospitalisation: mean difference (MD) 20.80, 95% CI 13.64 to 27.96; treatment: MD 17.90, 95% CI 11.98 to 23.82; both 62 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Phenobarbital versus diazepam: there may be a reduction in treatment failure with phenobarbital versus diazepam (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.62; 139 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. One study reported there may be little or no difference in days' hospitalisation and treatment (hospitalisation: MD 3.89, 95% CI -1.20 to 8.98; 32 participants; treatment: MD 4.30, 95% CI -0.73 to 9.33; 31 participants; both low-certainty evidence). Phenobarbital versus chlorpromazine: there may be a reduction in treatment failure with phenobarbital versus chlorpromazine (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.92; 138 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), and no infant had a seizure. The studies did not report mortality and neurodevelopmental disability. One study reported there may be little or no difference in days' hospitalisation (MD 7.00, 95% CI -3.51 to 17.51; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 0/100 infants had an adverse event. Phenobarbital and opioid versus opioid alone: one study reported no infants with treatment failure and no clinical seizures in either group (low-certainty evidence). The study did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. One study reported there may be a reduction in days' hospitalisation for infants treated with phenobarbital and opioid (MD -43.50, 95% CI -59.18 to -27.82; 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). Clonidine and opioid versus opioid alone: one study reported there may be little or no difference in treatment failure with clonidine and dilute tincture of opium (DTO) versus DTO alone (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.59; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All five infants with treatment failure were in the DTO group. There may be little or no difference in seizures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.68; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All three infants with seizures were in the DTO group. There may be little or no difference in mortality after discharge (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.37 to 131.28; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All three deaths were in the clonidine and DTO group. The study did not report neurodevelopmental disability. There may be little or no difference in days' treatment (MD -4.00, 95% CI -8.33 to 0.33; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One adverse event occurred in the clonidine and DTO group. There may be little or no difference in rebound NAS after stopping treatment, although all seven cases were in the clonidine and DTO group. Clonidine and opioid versus phenobarbital and opioid: there may be little or no difference in treatment failure (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.98 to 5.25; 2 studies, 93 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported one infant in the clonidine and morphine group had a seizure, and there were no infant mortalities. The studies did not report neurodevelopmental disability. There may be an increase in days' hospitalisation and days' treatment with clonidine and opioid versus phenobarbital and opioid(hospitalisation: MD 7.13, 95% CI 6.38 to 7.88; treatment: MD 7.57, 95% CI 3.97 to 11.17; both 2 studies, 91 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in adverse events (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 5.40; 2 studies, 93 participants; very low-certainty evidence). However, there was oversedation only in the phenobarbital and morphine group; and hypotension, rebound hypertension and rebound NAS only in the clonidine and morphine group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very low-certainty evidence that phenobarbital increases duration of hospitalisation and treatment, but reduces days to regain birthweight and duration of supportive care each day compared to supportive care alone. There is low-certainty evidence that phenobarbital reduces treatment failure compared to diazepam and very low-certainty evidence that phenobarbital reduces treatment failure compared to chlorpromazine. There is low-certainty evidence of an increase in days' hospitalisation and days' treatment with clonidine and opioid compared to phenobarbital and opioid. There are insufficient data to determine the safety and incidence of adverse events for infants treated with combinations of opioids and sedatives including phenobarbital and clonidine.
Topics: Bias; Chlorpromazine; Clonidine; Diazepam; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant, Newborn; Narcotics; Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome; Opioid-Related Disorders; Phenobarbital; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34002380
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002053.pub4 -
Asian Cardiovascular & Thoracic Annals Oct 2021To evaluate the benefit of methylene blue as an adjunct treatment by assessing hemodynamic, morbidity rate, intensive care unit length of stay, and mortality rate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To evaluate the benefit of methylene blue as an adjunct treatment by assessing hemodynamic, morbidity rate, intensive care unit length of stay, and mortality rate outcomes in adult patients with vasoplegic syndrome.
METHODS
A systematic search through electronic databases including Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, and Medline for studies assessing the use of methylene blue in patients with vasoplegic syndrome compared to control treatments. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tool was used for observational studies, and Jadad Scale was used for controlled trials to assess the risk of bias.
RESULTS
This systematic review included six studies for qualitative synthesis and five studies for quantitative synthesis. Pooled analysis revealed that mean arterial pressure, systemic vascular resistance, heart rate, and hospital stay were not statistically significant in methylene blue administration compared to control. However, administration of methylene blue in vasoplegic syndrome patients significantly reduces renal failure (OR = 0.25; 95% CI = 0.08-0.75), development of multiple organ failure (OR = 0.09; 95% CI = 0.02-0.51), and mortality rate (OR = 0.12; 95% CI = 0.03-0.46).
CONCLUSION
Adjunct administration of methylene blue for vasoplegic syndrome patients significantly reduces renal failure, multiple organ failure, and mortality.
Topics: Adult; Cardiopulmonary Bypass; Hemodynamics; Humans; Methylene Blue; Vascular Resistance; Vasoplegia
PubMed: 33653154
DOI: 10.1177/0218492321998523 -
Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 2022Traditional meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of oral lesions have been conducted, but they were inherently limited to direct pairwise comparisons between a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Traditional meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of oral lesions have been conducted, but they were inherently limited to direct pairwise comparisons between a single method and a single alternative, while multiple diagnostic options and the ranking thereof were methodologically not possible.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the diagnostic values of various methods in patients with oral potential malignant disease by performing a network meta-analysis.
METHODS
Two authors independently searched the databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Google scholar) up to June 2020 for studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of various tools (autofluorescence, chemiluminescence, cytology, narrow band imaging, and toluidine blue) with visual examination or other tools. The outcomes of interest for this analysis were sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value and accuracy. Both a standard pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis were conducted.
RESULTS
Treatment networks consisting of six interventions were defined for the network meta-analysis. The results of traditional meta-analysis showed that, among six methods, narrow band imaging showed higher sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and accuracy compared to visual examination. The results of network meta-analysis showed that autofluorescence, chemiluminescence, and narrow band imaging had higher sensitivity compared with visual examination, and that chemiluminescence and narrow band imaging had higher negative predictive value compared with visual examination. However, autofluorescence and chemiluminescence had lower specificity compared with visual examination. There were no significant differences in positive predictive value and accuracy among the six interventions.
CONCLUSION
This study demonstrated that narrow banding imaging has superiority in terms of sensitivity and negative predictive value compared with the other five tested agents.
Topics: Humans; Sensitivity and Specificity; Early Detection of Cancer; Mouth Neoplasms; Tolonium Chloride; Narrow Band Imaging; Mouth Diseases
PubMed: 33642212
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2020.12.019 -
Lasers in Medical Science Oct 2021Although the standard treatment for periodontal disease is based on scaling and root planing (SRP), the use of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) has been studied... (Review)
Review
Although the standard treatment for periodontal disease is based on scaling and root planing (SRP), the use of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) has been studied as a complement to obtain better clinical results. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of aPDT as adjuncts to SRP, compared with SRP alone, on clinical parameters of chronic periodontal patients. Only randomized controlled trials with at least 3-month follow-ups, of SRP alone and in association with aPDT, were included. The MEDLINE (PubMed), Google Scholar, and LILACS databases were searched for articles published up to July 2020. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for clinical attachment level (CAL) and probing pocket depth (PPD) change after treatment. Of 141 potentially relevant papers, 22 were included. The association between SRP and aPDT promoted a significant CAL gain and PPD reduction. Periodontal treatment was partially improved by aPDT, and a favorable effect of indocyanine green-mediated aPDT was observed, and high concentrations of phenothiazine chloride presented clinical improvement as well.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Chronic Periodontitis; Combined Modality Therapy; Dental Scaling; Humans; Photochemotherapy; Photosensitizing Agents; Root Planing
PubMed: 33438165
DOI: 10.1007/s10103-020-03238-1 -
European Archives of... Sep 2021Methylene blue (MB) is frequently administered during fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) to enhance visualization of pharyngeal bolus transit.... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Methylene blue (MB) is frequently administered during fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) to enhance visualization of pharyngeal bolus transit. However, the safety of MB is being questioned since serious adverse events (AEs) such as hemodynamic instability, hemolysis, and serotonin syndrome were reported. The aim of this study is a systematic analysis of the literature to obtain an evidence-based overview of AEs due to oral administration of MB and to determine its safety as a food dye during swallowing assessment.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was carried out in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Two reviewers independently selected articles describing oral administration of MB as a main diagnostic/therapeutic intervention, dosage, and AEs. Expert opinions, conference papers, sample size < 10, and animal studies were excluded. Level of evidence of the included studies was determined.
RESULTS
A total of 2264 unduplicated articles were obtained. Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria with 100% agreement between the two reviewers. Among these, twelve studies were randomized controlled trials. In a pooled population of 1902 patients receiving oral MB, three serious AEs were reported related to MB. Non-serious AEs showed a dose-related trend and were usually mild and self-limiting. A meta-analysis could not be performed as studies were methodologically too heterogeneous.
CONCLUSION
Serious AEs due to oral administration of MB are rare (n = 3, 0.16%). MB-related non-serious AEs are mild, self-limiting, and show a dose-related trend. These findings indicate that it is safe to use small amounts of MB as a food dye during swallowing examinations.
Topics: Deglutition; Humans; Methylene Blue; Pharynx
PubMed: 33389001
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-020-06509-3 -
Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy Mar 2021There are investigations on multiple photosensitizers for modulation of caries-related biofilms using PDT. However, much controversy remains about recommended parameters... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There are investigations on multiple photosensitizers for modulation of caries-related biofilms using PDT. However, much controversy remains about recommended parameters mostly on the selection of an efficient photosensitizer.
OBJECTIVE
The study performed a systematic review to identify the answer to the following question: What photosensitizers present high bactericidal efficacy against cariogenic biofilms?
METHODS
Systematic review with meta-analyses were carried out for English language articles from October to December 2019 (PRISMA standards) using MEDLINE, Scopus, Biomed Central, EMBASE, LILACS, and Web of Science. Information on study design, biofilm model, photosensitizer, light source, energy delivery, the incubation time for photosensitizer, and bacterial reduction outcomes were recorded. We performed two meta-analyses to compare bacterial reduction, data was expressed by (1) base 10 Logarithm values and (2) Log reduction RESULTS: After the eligibility criteria were applied (PEDro scale), the selected studies showed that toluidine Blue Ortho (TBO) and methylene blue (MBO) (5-min incubation time and 5-min irradiation) demonstrated better bacterial reduction outcomes. For the data expressed by Log TBO, MBO, curcumin, and Photogem® presented a significant bacterial decrease in comparison to the control (p = 0.042). For the data represented by Log reduction, the bacterial reduction toward S.mutans was not significant for any photosensitizer (p = 0.679).
CONCLUSION
The lack of methodological standardization among the studies still hinders the establishment of photosensitizer and bactericidal efficiency. TBO, MBO, curcumin, and photogem generate greater PDT-based bacterial reduction on caries-related bacteria.. Further clinical studies are necessary in order to obtain conclusive results.
Topics: Biofilms; Photochemotherapy; Photosensitizing Agents; Streptococcus mutans; Tolonium Chloride; Triazenes
PubMed: 33031937
DOI: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2020.102046