-
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 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jan 2020To determine, in critically ill patients, the relative impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, or no... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine, in critically ill patients, the relative impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, or no gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (or stress ulcer prophylaxis) on outcomes important to patients.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, and grey literature up to March 2019.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES AND METHODS
We included randomised controlled trials that compared gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee ( Rapid Recommendation) provided critical oversight of the systematic review, including identifying outcomes important to patients. We performed random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. When results differed between low risk and high risk of bias studies, we used the former as best estimates.
RESULTS
Seventy two trials including 12 660 patients proved eligible. For patients at highest risk (>8%) or high risk (4-8%) of bleeding, both PPIs and H2RAs probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding compared with placebo or no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.89), 3.3% fewer for highest risk and 2.3% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 0.46 (0.27 to 0.79), 4.6% fewer for highest risk and 3.1% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty). Both may increase the risk of pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 1.39 (0.98 to 2.10), 5.0% more, low certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 1.26 (0.89 to 1.85), 3.4% more, low certainty). It is likely that neither affect mortality (PPIs 1.06 (0.90 to 1.28), 1.3% more, moderate certainty; H2RAs 0.96 (0.79 to 1.19), 0.9% fewer, moderate certainty). Otherwise, results provided no support for any affect on mortality, infection, length of intensive care stay, length of hospital stay, or duration of mechanical ventilation (varying certainty of evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
For higher risk critically ill patients, PPIs and H2RAs likely result in important reductions in gastrointestinal bleeding compared with no prophylaxis; for patients at low risk, the reduction in bleeding may be unimportant. Both PPIs and H2RAs may result in important increases in pneumonia. Variable quality evidence suggested no important effects of interventions on mortality or other in-hospital morbidity outcomes.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42019126656.
Topics: Critical Illness; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Patient Selection; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Risk Adjustment
PubMed: 31907166
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l6744 -
Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology :... 2020Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS) is a benign, poorly understood disorder that is difficult to manage. Medical interventions such as sucralfate, sulfasalzine, human... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND/AIM
Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS) is a benign, poorly understood disorder that is difficult to manage. Medical interventions such as sucralfate, sulfasalzine, human fibrin, and a high fibre diet are reported as the first line of treatment. The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of medical treatments for SRUS.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Databases including PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase were searched for randomised clinical trials (RCT) and observational studies that evaluated medical treatments for SRUS. Two authors independently performed selection of eligible studies based on eligiblity criteria. Data extraction from potentially eligible studies was carried out according to predefined data collection methods. Medical treatments, including sucralfate, sulfasalzine, human fibrin, a high fibre diet, and psyllium powder as a single or combination therapy were compared to placebo alone or combined with other treatments. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with ulcer remission; this was presented as pooled prevalence (PP) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The I value and Q statistic test were used to test for heterogeneity. In the presence of heterogeneity, a random-effects model was applied.
RESULTS
A total of 9 studies with 216 patients (males = 118, females = 98) diagnosed with SRUS were analysed in the final meta-analysis. The pooled effect estimate of treatment efficacy revealed that, of the patients receiving medical treatment, 57% had resolution of their ulcers (PP 0.57; 95% CI; 0.41 to 0.73). Statistically significant heterogeneity was observed (I = 63%; τ2 = 0.64, P= <0.01). The scarcity of RCTs comparing medical treatments with other interventions was a major limitation.
CONCLUSIONS
The majority of patients receiving medical treatment for the management of SRUS experience resolution of their ulcers.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Ulcer Agents; Case-Control Studies; Cathartics; Child; Disease Management; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Fibrin Tissue Adhesive; Gastrointestinal Agents; Hemostatics; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Observational Studies as Topic; Placebos; Prevalence; Psyllium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectal Diseases; Sucralfate; Sulfasalazine; Treatment Outcome; Ulcer; Young Adult
PubMed: 31898642
DOI: 10.4103/sjg.SJG_213_19 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Feb 2020Post-operative pain following excisional haemorrhoidectomy poses a particular challenge for patient recovery, as well as a burden on hospital resources. There appears to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Post-operative pain following excisional haemorrhoidectomy poses a particular challenge for patient recovery, as well as a burden on hospital resources. There appears to be an increasing role for topical agents to improve this pain, but their efficacy and safety have not been fully assessed. This systematic review aims to assess all topical agents used for pain following excisional haemorrhoidectomy.
METHODS
The study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two authors independently assessed MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases to 27 June 2019. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in English that investigated topical agents following excisional haemorrhoidectomy were included. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager, version 5.3.
RESULTS
A total of 3639 records were identified. A final 32 RCTs were included in the qualitative analysis. Meta-analysis was performed on 9 RCTs that investigated glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) (5 for diltiazem, 2 for metronidazole and 2 for sucralfate). There were mixed significant changes in pain for GTN compared with placebo. Diltiazem resulted in significant reduction of pain on post-operative days 1, 2, 3 and 7 (p < 0.00001). Metronidazole resulted in significant reduction of pain on days 1 (p = 0.009), 7 (p = 0.002) and 14 (p < 0.00001). Sucralfate resulted in signification reduction of pain on days 7 and 14 (both p < 0.00001).
CONCLUSION
Topical diltiazem, metronidazole and sucralfate appear to significantly reduce pain at various timepoints following excisional haemorrhoidectomy. GTN had mixed evidence. Several single trials identified other promising topical analgesics.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Analgesics; Hemorrhoidectomy; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31897645
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-019-03497-7