-
Scientific Reports Dec 2023Tension-type headache (TTH) is the most common type of headache worldwide. It is defined and classified according to the International Classification of Headache... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Tension-type headache (TTH) is the most common type of headache worldwide. It is defined and classified according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders. TTH is treated with over-the-counter medications, mostly paracetamol or ibuprofen. The purpose was to assess the effectiveness of paracetamol versus ibuprofen in treating episodic tension-type headache (ETTH) through direct and indirect comparisons of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We included RCTs comparing paracetamol with a placebo, ibuprofen with a placebo, or paracetamol with ibuprofen for acute ETTH treatment that were published between 1988 and 2022. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Web of Science. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias. We identified 14 studies including 6521 people with ETTH. None of the studies had a low risk of bias for all domains; this was most likely due to inadequate reporting and a small sample size. Ibuprofen (odds ratio (OR): 1.73, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17-2.56) showed better efficacy than paracetamol (OR: 1.62, 95% CI 1.24-2.13) for pain-free status at 2 h, while paracetamol (OR: 1.42, 95% CI 0.87-2.30) showed better efficacy than ibuprofen (OR: 1.20, 95% CI 0.58-2.48) for pain-free status at 1 h. Paracetamol was associated with the lowest likelihood of rescue medication use (OR: 0.49, 95% CI 0.37-0.65). Ibuprofen was associated with a lower likelihood of the occurrence of any events and gastrointestinal adverse events compared with placebo and paracetamol (OR: 0.95, 95% CI 0.64-1.41 and OR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.44-1.50, respectively). Paracetamol and ibuprofen showed better efficacy than placebo in treating ETTH; there was no statistically significant difference in efficacy between the two drugs. For individuals at a higher risk (like renal insufficiency or risk of GI bleeding), paracetamol may be considered as a preferred option instead of Ibuprofen. Further meta-analyses of head-to-head trials are needed for direct comparisons in the future.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022340936.
Topics: Humans; Acetaminophen; Ibuprofen; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Tension-Type Headache; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 38057585
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-48910-y -
Cureus Oct 2023A herniated disc in the spine is a condition during which a nucleus pulposus is displaced from intervertebral space. It is a common cause of back pain. The patients who... (Review)
Review
A herniated disc in the spine is a condition during which a nucleus pulposus is displaced from intervertebral space. It is a common cause of back pain. The patients who experience pain related to a herniated disc often remember an inciting event that caused their pain. This activity reviews the evaluation and management of lumbar disc herniation and discusses the role of the healthcare team in evaluating and improving care for patients with this condition. Data sources were PubMed/Medline and Embase. Our review investigated English-language articles (from 2010 to 2023) according to the PRISMA guidelines. Overall, there were seven articles. Surveys and analyses of national databases were the most widely used methods (n=7). The search identified 777 studies; 7 were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. Further understanding of spinal disc herniation and treatment protocols may help improve evaluation and management in the future. Our research covered a range of management options. Disc herniation is a frequent problem for internists, emergency department doctors, nurse practitioners, and primary care physicians. To manage efficiently, an interprofessional team is needed. The first course of treatment is conservative, with paracetamol and anti-inflammatories being frequently used to relieve pain. A chemist must supervise the use of opioid analgesics in certain situations. Although surgery is sometimes the final option, patients frequently have neurological damage and lingering discomfort. In circumstances where physical treatment is not working, MRI interpretation becomes necessary. Primary care physicians or mental health professionals should handle back pain as it is frequently linked to mental health issues. Results can be enhanced by regular exercise and preserving a healthy body weight.
PubMed: 38034203
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.47908 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Oct 2023: Intravenous (IV) non-opioid analgesics (NOAs) have been extensively investigated as a multimodal analgesic strategy for the management of acute pain after hip surgery.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
: Intravenous (IV) non-opioid analgesics (NOAs) have been extensively investigated as a multimodal analgesic strategy for the management of acute pain after hip surgery. This pair-wise meta-analysis examined IV NOA effects following hip surgery. : A systematic search of the MEDLINE (PUBMED), Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed for studies investigating the effect of IV NOA for postoperative pain management following hip surgery up to 7 June 2023. We compared in-admission opioid use, postoperative VAS (visual analogue scale) score, hospital stay duration, and opioid-related adverse events between IV NOA and control groups. : Seven studies were included with a total of 953 patients who underwent hip surgery. Of these, 478 underwent IV NOA treatment, and 475 did not. The IV NOA groups had lower opioid use within 24-h following hip surgery (SMD, -0.48; 95% CI, -0.66 to -0.30; < 0.01), lower VAS score (SMD, -0.47; 95% CI, -0.79 to -0.16; < 0.01), shorter hospital stay (SMD, -0.28; 95% CI, -0.44 to -0.12; < 0.01), and lower incidence of nausea and vomiting (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.67; < 0.01) compared with the control groups. This meta-analysis demonstrated that IV NOA administration following hip surgery may have more favorable postoperative outcomes than those in control groups.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain, Postoperative; Analgesics; Administration, Intravenous
PubMed: 38003953
DOI: 10.3390/medicina59111904 -
Physical Therapy Feb 2024Hip and knee osteoarthritis are among the leading causes of global disability, and one of the main aims of the management is to improve physical function. The objective... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Hip and knee osteoarthritis are among the leading causes of global disability, and one of the main aims of the management is to improve physical function. The objective of this review was to investigate the effect of analgesics on physical function (self-reported physical function and walking ability).
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the findings were performed. Randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of analgesics on self-reported physical function and walking ability were included. Analgesics were orally administered acetaminophen, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or opioids. Data were pooled in a random-effects model, and the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI was calculated (SMDs: 0.2-0.4 = small, 0.5-0.7 = medium, and ≥0.8 = large effect sizes). The quality of the evidence was evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
A total of 1454 studies were identified, of which 33 were included. On self-reported physical function, the results showed low- to moderate-quality evidence for a small beneficial effect of acetaminophen (SMD = -0.13 [95% CI = -0.26 to 0.00]), NSAIDs (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI = -0.37 to -0.27]), or opioids (SMD = -0.20 [95% CI = -0.32 to -0.09]). There was moderate-quality evidence for a small effect of NSAIDs on pain during walking (SMD = -0.34 [95% CI = -0.45 to -0.23]).
CONCLUSION
In people with hip or knee osteoarthritis, there was low- to moderate-quality evidence for small beneficial effects of analgesics on physical function and walking ability.
IMPACT
Analgesics may improve physical function by reducing pain during exercise and walking.
Topics: Humans; Acetaminophen; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Self Report; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Walking
PubMed: 37980627
DOI: 10.1093/ptj/pzad160 -
Advances in Therapy Jan 2024Hyaluronic acid (HA) use to treat knee osteoarthritis (OA) has been extensively investigated in the literature. There are also multiple economic assessments comparing... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Hyaluronic acid (HA) use to treat knee osteoarthritis (OA) has been extensively investigated in the literature. There are also multiple economic assessments comparing intra-articular HAs with oral anti-inflammatory medicines and other conservative measures (NSAIDs), as well as different types and formulations of HA. Owing to the broad landscape of evidence across this area, it is important to further understand the empirical data comparing HA products, as well as the health economic implications that exist between commercially available HAs. This systematic review aims to identify and summarize the available evidence comparing commercially available HA products in the USA, as well as the health economic evidence and socioeconomic outcomes associated with HA use for knee OA.
METHODS
A systematic literature review within the OVID Medline, Embase, HealthStar, and Cochrane EBM HTA databases was conducted. Articles were screened for eligibility, and a qualitative summary of the findings was provided based on specific themes: (1) trials comparing the safety and/or efficacy of two or more HA products in knee OA, (2) economic/cost analyses of HA use in knee OA, and (3) studies investigating healthcare resource utilization in patients treated with HA for knee OA.
RESULTS
The search strategy identified 398 studies, 27 of which were deemed eligible: 21 health economic analyses with US relevance and six head-to-head trials of HA products available in the USA, cumulatively assessing 5,782,156 patients with knee OA. The evidence demonstrates a clear distinction between high and low molecular weight HAs, as both efficacy and cost analyses provided favorable results for the high molecular weight options. In all but one cost analysis, HA use was a cost-effective option when compared to routine nonoperative care, captured in administrative databases, which typically included NSAID use and/or corticosteroids. HA saw benefits in delaying the need for total knee arthroplasty (TKA), decreasing the use of rescue medication, and limiting the need for additional corticosteroid injection. The included evidence highlights that the treatment's cost-effectiveness is improved when HA is utilized in earlier stages of the disease, as opposed to when HA is reserved for late stages of knee OA. Additionally, among HAs, Bio-HA and Hylan G-F 20 evidence made up the majority of available literature with beneficial efficacy and cost outcomes. Head-to-head evidence between them indicated similar pain outcomes; however, Bio-HA required less rescue with acetaminophen and had fewer joint effusions in this comparison.
CONCLUSIONS
The available efficacy and safety data as well as health economic analyses on the use of HA for knee OA management suggest that there are economic benefits of this treatment option. From a healthcare system perspective, the body of HA literature summarizes favorable costs profile, decreased opioid and corticosteroid use as rescue medication, and a delay to the need for TKA in patients who have HA included in their treatment regimen.
Topics: Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Injections, Intra-Articular; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Adrenal Cortex Hormones
PubMed: 37899384
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-023-02691-y -
Frontiers in Surgery 2023There is an ongoing debate on the indications for tonsil surgery in both children and adults with recurrent acute tonsillitis. The aim is to provide practical... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There is an ongoing debate on the indications for tonsil surgery in both children and adults with recurrent acute tonsillitis. The aim is to provide practical recommendations for diagnostics and treatment for recurrent acute tonsillitis including evidence-based decision making for tonsillectomy.
METHODS
A systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect from 2014 until April 2023 resulted in 68 articles. These were the basis for the review and a comprehensive series of consensus statements on the most important diagnostics and indications for both non-surgical and surgical therapy. A consensus paper was circulated among the authors and members of the International Head and Neck Scientific Group until a final agreement was reached for all recommendations.
RESULTS
The differentiation between sore throat and tonsillitis patient episodes is mostly not feasible and hence is not relevant for diagnostic decision making. Diagnostics of a tonsillitis/sore throat episode should always include a classification with a scoring system (Centor, McIssac, FeverPAIN score) to estimate the probability of a bacterial tonsillitis, mainly due to group A (GAS). In ambiguous cases, a point-of-care test GAS swab test is helpful. Consecutive counting of the tonsillitis/sore throat episodes is important. In addition, a specific quality of life score (Tonsillectomy Outcome Inventory 14 or Tonsil and Adenoid Health Status Instrument) should be used for each episode. Conservative treatment includes a combination of paracetamol and/or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In case of high probability of bacterial tonsillitis, and only in such cases, especially in patients at risk, standard antibiotic treatment is initiated directly or by delayed prescription. Tonsillectomy is indicated and is highly effective if the patient has had ≥7 adequately treated episodes in the preceding year, ≥5 such episodes in each of the preceding 2 years, or ≥3 such episodes in each of the preceding 3 years. An essential part of surgery is standardized pain management because severe postoperative pain can be expected in most patients.
CONCLUSION
It is necessary to follow a stringent treatment algorithm for an optimal and evidence-based treatment for patients with recurrent acute tonsillitis. This will help decrease worldwide treatment variability, antibiotic overuse, and avoid ineffective tonsillectomy.
PubMed: 37881239
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1221932 -
Archives of Physical Medicine and... Feb 2024To perform a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) covering the management of common shoulder disorders. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) covering the management of common shoulder disorders.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic search of CPGs on specific shoulder disorders was conducted up to August 2022 in relevant databases.
STUDY SELECTION
Twenty-six CPGs on rotator cuff (RC) tendinopathy, RC tear, calcific tendinitis, adhesive capsulitis, glenohumeral (GH) instability, GH osteoarthritis, or acromioclavicular disorders published from January 2008 onward were screened and included.
DATA EXTRACTION
CPGs methodological quality was assessed with the AGREE II checklist. All recommendations from CPGs were extracted and categorized by shoulder disorder and care components (evaluation, diagnostic imaging, medical, rehabilitation, and surgical treatments). After semantic analysis of the terminology, recommendations for each shoulder disorders were classified by 2 reviewers into "recommended," "may be recommended," or "not recommended." Disagreements were resolved by discussion until reviewers reached consensus.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Only 12 CPGs (46%) were of high quality with major limitations related to the applicability and editorial independence of the guidelines. The initial evaluation of shoulder pain should include patient's history, subjective evaluation focused on red flags, and clinical examination. Magnetic resonance imaging is usually not recommended to manage early shoulder pain, and recommendations for X-rays are conflicting. Acetaminophen, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and rehabilitation including exercises were recommended or may be recommended to treat all shoulder pain disorders. Guidelines on surgical management recommendations differed; for example, 6 CPGs reported that acromioplasty was recommended or may be recommended in chronic RC tendinopathy, whereas 4 CPGs did not recommend it.
CONCLUSIONS
Recommendations vary for diagnostic imaging, conservative vs surgical treatment to manage shoulder pain, although several care components are consensual. The development of evidence-based, rigorous CPGs with a valid methodology and transparent reporting is warranted to improve overall shoulder pain care.
Topics: Humans; Shoulder Pain; Shoulder; Rotator Cuff Injuries; Osteoarthritis; Tendinopathy
PubMed: 37832814
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2023.09.022 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2023Concerns exist regarding antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) owing to adverse reactions, cost and antibacterial resistance. One proposed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Concerns exist regarding antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) owing to adverse reactions, cost and antibacterial resistance. One proposed strategy to reduce antibiotic prescribing is to provide prescriptions, but to advise delay in antibiotic use with the expectation that symptoms will resolve first. This is an update of a Cochrane Review originally published in 2007, and updated in 2010, 2013 and 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects on duration and/or severity of clinical outcomes (pain, malaise, fever, cough and rhinorrhoea), antibiotic use, antibiotic resistance and patient satisfaction of advising a delayed prescription of antibiotics in respiratory tract infections.
SEARCH METHODS
From May 2017 until 20 August 2022, this was a living systematic review with monthly searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science. We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 20 August 2022. Due to the abundance of evidence supporting the review's key findings, it ceased being a living systematic review on 21 August 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials involving participants of all ages with an RTI, where delayed antibiotics were compared to immediate or no antibiotics. We defined a delayed antibiotic as advice to delay the filling of an antibiotic prescription by at least 48 hours. We considered all RTIs regardless of whether antibiotics were recommended or not.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.
MAIN RESULTS
For this 2022 update, we added one new trial enrolling 448 children (436 analysed) with uncomplicated acute RTIs. Overall, this review includes 12 studies with a total of 3968 participants, of which data from 3750 are available for analysis. These 12 studies involved acute RTIs including acute otitis media (three studies), streptococcal pharyngitis (three studies), cough (two studies), sore throat (one study), common cold (one study) and a variety of RTIs (two studies). Six studies involved only children, two only adults and four included both adults and children. Six studies were conducted in primary care, four in paediatric clinics and two in emergency departments. Studies were well reported and appeared to provide moderate-certainty evidence. Randomisation was not adequately described in two trials. Four trials blinded the outcome assessor, and three included blinding of participants and doctors. We conducted meta-analyses for pain, malaise, fever, adverse effects, antibiotic use and patient satisfaction. Cough (four studies): we found no differences amongst delayed, immediate and no prescribed antibiotics for clinical outcomes in any of the four studies. Sore throat (six studies): for the outcome of fever with sore throat, four of the six studies favoured immediate antibiotics, and two found no difference. For the outcome of pain related to sore throat, two studies favoured immediate antibiotics, and four found no difference. Two studies compared delayed antibiotics with no antibiotic for sore throat, and found no difference in clinical outcomes. Acute otitis media (four studies): two studies compared immediate with delayed antibiotics - one found no difference for fever, and the other favoured immediate antibiotics for pain and malaise severity on Day 3. Two studies compared delayed with no antibiotics: one found no difference for pain and fever severity on Day 3, and the other found no difference for the number of children with fever on Day 3. Common cold (two studies): neither study found differences for clinical outcomes between delayed and immediate antibiotic groups. One study found delayed antibiotics were probably favoured over no antibiotics for pain, fever and cough duration (moderate-certainty evidence).
ADVERSE EFFECTS
there were either no differences for adverse effects or results may have favoured delayed over immediate antibiotics with no significant differences in complication rates (low-certainty evidence). Antibiotic use: delayed antibiotics probably resulted in a reduction in antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics (odds ratio (OR) 0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.07; 8 studies, 2257 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, a delayed antibiotic was probably more likely to result in reported antibiotic use than no antibiotics (OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.69 to 3.75; 5 studies, 1529 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Patient satisfaction: patient satisfaction probably favoured delayed over no antibiotics (OR 1.45, 1.08 to 1.96; 5 studies, 1523 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was probably no difference in patient satisfaction between delayed and immediate antibiotics (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.29; 7 studies, 1927 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies evaluated antibiotic resistance. Reconsultation rates and use of alternative medicines were similar for delayed, immediate and no antibiotic strategies. In one of the four studies reporting use of alternative medicines, less paracetamol was used in the immediate group compared to the delayed group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For many clinical outcomes, there were no differences between prescribing strategies. Symptoms for acute otitis media and sore throat were modestly improved by immediate antibiotics compared with delayed antibiotics. There were no differences in complication rates. Delaying prescribing did not result in significantly different levels of patient satisfaction compared with immediate provision of antibiotics (86% versus 91%; moderate-certainty evidence). However, delay was favoured over no antibiotics (87% versus 82%). Delayed antibiotics achieved lower rates of antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics (30% versus 93%). The strategy of no antibiotics further reduced antibiotic use compared to delaying prescription for antibiotics (13% versus 27%). Delayed antibiotics for people with acute respiratory infection reduced antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics, but was not shown to be different to no antibiotics in terms of symptom control and disease complications. Where clinicians feel it is safe not to prescribe antibiotics immediately for people with RTIs, no antibiotics with advice to return if symptoms do not resolve is likely to result in the least antibiotic use while maintaining similar patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes to delayed antibiotics. Where clinicians are not confident in not prescribing antibiotics, delayed antibiotics may be an acceptable compromise in place of immediate prescribing to significantly reduce unnecessary antibiotic use for RTIs, while maintaining patient safety and satisfaction levels. Further research into antibiotic prescribing strategies for RTIs may best be focused on identifying patient groups at high risk of disease complications, enhancing doctors' communication with patients to maintain satisfaction, ways of increasing doctors' confidence to not prescribe antibiotics for RTIs, and policy measures to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing for RTIs.
Topics: Child; Adult; Humans; Common Cold; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cough; Respiratory Tract Infections; Pharyngitis; Otitis Media; Fever; Pain
PubMed: 37791590
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004417.pub6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2023Lumbar puncture (LP) is a common invasive procedure, most frequently performed to diagnose infection. Physicians perform LP in newborn infants with the help of an... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Lumbar puncture (LP) is a common invasive procedure, most frequently performed to diagnose infection. Physicians perform LP in newborn infants with the help of an assistant using a strict aseptic technique; it is important to monitor the infant during all the steps of the procedure. Without adequate analgesia, LP can cause considerable pain and discomfort. As newborns have increased sensitivity to pain, it is crucial to adequately manage the procedural pain of LP in this population.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms, including pain, discomfort, and success rate, of any pharmacological intervention during lumbar puncture in newborn infants, compared to placebo, no intervention, non-pharmacological interventions, or other pharmacological interventions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and three trial registries in December 2022. We also screened the reference lists of included studies and related systematic reviews for studies not identified by the database searches.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing drugs used for pain management, sedation, or both, during LP. We considered the following drugs suitable for inclusion. • Topical anesthetics (e.g. eutectic mixture of local anesthetics [EMLA], lidocaine) • Opioids (e.g. morphine, fentanyl) • Alpha-2 agonists (e.g. clonidine, dexmedetomidine) • N-Methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists (e.g. ketamine) • Other analgesics (e.g. paracetamol) • Sedatives (e.g. benzodiazepines such as midazolam) DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Our main outcomes were successful LP on first attempt, total number of LP attempts, episodes of bradycardia, pain assessed with validated scales, episodes of desaturation, number of episodes of apnea, and number of infants with one or more episodes of apnea. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three studies (two RCTs and one quasi-RCT) that enrolled 206 newborns. One study included only term infants. All studies assessed topical treatment versus placebo or no intervention. The topical anesthetics were lidocaine 4%, lidocaine 1%, and EMLA. We identified no completed studies on opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, alpha-2 agonists, NMDA receptor antagonists, other analgesics, sedatives, or head-to-head comparisons (drug A versus drug B). Based on very low-certainty evidence from one quasi-RCT of 100 LPs in 76 infants, we are unsure if topical anesthetics (lidocaine), compared to no anesthesia, has an effect on the following outcomes. • Successful LP on first attempt (first-attempts success in 48% of LPs in the lidocaine group and 42% of LPs in the control group) • Number of attempts per LP (mean 1.9 attempts, [standard error of the mean 0.2] in the lidocaine group, and mean 2.1 attempts [standard error of the mean 2.1] in the control group) • Episodes of bradycardia (0% of LPs in the lidocaine group and 4% of LPs in the control group) • Episodes of desaturation (0% of LPs in the lidocaine group and 8% of LPs in the control group) • Occurrence of apnea (RR 3.24, 95% CI 0.14 to 77.79; risk difference [RD] 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.08). Topical anesthetics compared to placebo may reduce pain assessed with the Neonatal Facial Coding System (NFCS) score (SMD -1.00 standard deviation (SD), 95% CI -1.47 to -0.53; I² = 98%; 2 RCTs, 112 infants; low-certainty evidence). No studies in this comparison reported total number of episodes of apnea. We identified three ongoing studies, which will assess the effects of EMLA, lidocaine, and fentanyl. Three studies are awaiting classification.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of topical anesthetics (lidocaine) compared to no anesthesia on successful lumbar puncture on first attempt, the number of attempts per lumbar puncture, episodes of bradycardia, episodes of desaturation, and occurrence of apnea. Compared to placebo, topical anesthetics (lidocaine or EMLA) may reduce pain assessed with the NFCS score. One ongoing study will assess the effects of systemic treatment.
Topics: Humans; Infant, Newborn; Analgesics; Anesthetics, Local; Apnea; Bradycardia; Fentanyl; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Lidocaine; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Pain; Spinal Puncture
PubMed: 37767875
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015594.pub2 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... Jan 2024Pain in pediatric musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries can lead to increased anxiety, fear, and avoidance of medical care, making analgesic management critical. Therefore, we... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Pain in pediatric musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries can lead to increased anxiety, fear, and avoidance of medical care, making analgesic management critical. Therefore, we evaluated analgesic efficacy and adverse effects to select the optimal analgesic agent in pediatric patients with MSK injuries.
METHODS
Four databases were searched from inception to March 2023 for peer-reviewed, open randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Inclusion criteria were: (1) trials with RCT design, (2) children aged 1 month-18 years with MSK injury, (3) outpatient setting, (4) interventions and control, (5) primary outcome of pain score at 60 and 120 min and secondary outcome of adverse effects, and (6) full-text and peer-reviewed articles. Two reviewers screened, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation working group approach.
RESULTS
We included eight trials comprising 1645 children. Ibuprofen was significantly associated with pain reduction at 120 min, compared with acetaminophen (SMD 0.31 [95% CI 0.11-0.51]; moderate certainty) and opioids (SMD 0.34 [95% CI 0.20-0.48]; moderate certainty). Compared with opioids alone, ibuprofen-opioid combination was significantly associated with pain reduction at 120 min (SMD 0.19 [95% CI 0.03-0.35]). No significant differences were found in pain interventions at 60 min. Ibuprofen had statistically fewer adverse events than opioids (RR, 0.54 [95% CI 0.33-0.90]; moderate certainty) and ibuprofen with opioids (RR 0.47 [95% CI 0.25-0.89]; moderate certainty). In terms of limitations, the eight RCTs included had relatively small sample sizes; only two were high-quality RCTs.
CONCLUSIONS
Our NMA found ibuprofen to be the most effective and least adverse analgesic in pediatric patients with MSK injuries.
Topics: Child; Humans; Acetaminophen; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Ibuprofen; Musculoskeletal System; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain
PubMed: 37688572
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14803