-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. Cough can impact quality of life, cause anxiety, and affect sleep in children and their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. Cough can impact quality of life, cause anxiety, and affect sleep in children and their parents. Honey has been used to alleviate cough symptoms. This is an update of reviews previously published in 2014, 2012, and 2010.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2018, Issue 2), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (2014 to 8 February 2018), Embase (2014 to 8 February 2018), CINAHL (2014 to 8 February 2018), EBSCO (2014 to 8 February 2018), Web of Science (2014 to 8 February 2018), and LILACS (2014 to 8 February 2018). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 12 February 2018. The 2014 review included searches of AMED and CAB Abstracts, but these were not searched for this update due to lack of institutional access.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing honey alone, or in combination with antibiotics, versus no treatment, placebo, honey-based cough syrup, or other over-the-counter cough medications for children aged 12 months to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six randomised controlled trials involving 899 children; we added three studies (331 children) in this update.We assessed two studies as at high risk of performance and detection bias; three studies as at unclear risk of attrition bias; and three studies as at unclear risk of other bias.Studies compared honey with dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine, salbutamol, bromelin (an enzyme from the Bromeliaceae (pineapple) family), no treatment, and placebo. Five studies used 7-point Likert scales to measure symptomatic relief of cough; one used an unclear 5-point scale. In all studies, low score indicated better cough symptom relief.Using a 7-point Likert scale, honey probably reduces cough frequency better than no treatment or placebo (no treatment: mean difference (MD) -1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.48 to -0.62; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 154 children; moderate-certainty evidence; placebo: MD -1.62, 95% CI -3.02 to -0.22; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 402 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Honey may have a similar effect as dextromethorphan in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.07, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.94; I² = 87%; 2 studies; 149 children; low-certainty evidence). Honey may be better than diphenhydramine in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.24; 1 study; 80 children; low-certainty evidence).Giving honey for up to three days is probably more effective in relieving cough symptoms compared with placebo or salbutamol. Beyond three days honey probably had no advantage over salbutamol or placebo in reducing cough severity, bothersome cough, and impact of cough on sleep for parents and children (moderate-certainty evidence). With a 5-point cough scale, there was probably little or no difference between the effects of honey and bromelin mixed with honey in reducing cough frequency and severity.Adverse events included nervousness, insomnia, and hyperactivity, experienced by seven children (9.3%) treated with honey and two children (2.7%) treated with dextromethorphan (risk ratio (RR) 2.94, 95% Cl 0.74 to 11.71; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 149 children; low-certainty evidence). Three children (7.5%) in the diphenhydramine group experienced somnolence (RR 0.14, 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.68; 1 study; 80 children; low-certainty evidence). When honey was compared with placebo, 34 children (12%) in the honey group and 13 (11%) in the placebo group complained of gastrointestinal symptoms (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.24; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 402 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Four children who received salbutamol had rashes compared to one child in the honey group (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.63; 1 study; 100 children; moderate-certainty evidence). No adverse events were reported in the no-treatment group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Honey probably relieves cough symptoms to a greater extent than no treatment, diphenhydramine, and placebo, but may make little or no difference compared to dextromethorphan. Honey probably reduces cough duration better than placebo and salbutamol. There was no strong evidence for or against using honey. Most of the children received treatment for one night, which is a limitation to the results of this review. There was no difference in occurrence of adverse events between the honey and control arms.
Topics: Adolescent; Albuterol; Antitussive Agents; Apitherapy; Bromelains; Bronchodilator Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Cough; Dextromethorphan; Diphenhydramine; Honey; Humans; Infant; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29633783
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007094.pub5 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Nov 2017While a large number of studies has examined the efficacy of opioid-sparing analgesics in adult surgical populations, fewer studies are available to guide postoperative... (Review)
Review
While a large number of studies has examined the efficacy of opioid-sparing analgesics in adult surgical populations, fewer studies are available to guide postoperative pain treatment in pediatric patients. We systematically reviewed available publications on the use of systemic nonopioid agents for postoperative analgesia in pediatric surgical populations. A comprehensive literature search identified meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of systemic, nonopioid agents on postoperative narcotic requirements or pain scores in pediatric surgical populations. If a meta-analysis was located, we summarized its results and any RCTs published after it. We located and reviewed 11 acetaminophen RCTs, 1 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) meta-analysis, 2 NSAID RCTs, 1 dexamethasone meta-analysis, 3 dexamethasone RCTs, 2 ketamine meta-analyses, 5 ketamine RCTs, 2 gabapentin RCTs, 1 clonidine meta-analysis, 3 magnesium RCTs, 2 dexmedetomidine meta-analyses, and 1 dextromethorphan RCT. No meta-analyses or RCTs were found assessing the perioperative efficacy of intravenous lidocaine, amantadine, pregabalin, esmolol, or caffeine in pediatric surgical patients. The available evidence is limited, but suggests that perioperative acetaminophen, NSAIDs, dexamethasone, ketamine, clonidine, and dexmedetomidine may decrease postoperative pain and opioid consumption in some pediatric surgical populations. Not enough, or no, data exist from which to draw conclusions on the perioperative use of gabapentin, magnesium, dextromethorphan, lidocaine, amantadine, pregabalin, esmolol, and caffeine in pediatric surgical patients. Further pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics studies to establish both the clinical benefit and efficacy of nonopioid analgesia in pediatric populations are needed.
Topics: Adolescent; Age Factors; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Child; Child, Preschool; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Dosage Calculations; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29049110
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002434 -
The Clinical Journal of Pain May 2018To investigate the efficacy of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) antagonists for neuropathic pain (NeuP) and review literature to determine if specific pharmacologic...
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the efficacy of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) antagonists for neuropathic pain (NeuP) and review literature to determine if specific pharmacologic agents provide adequate NeuP relief.
METHODS
Literature was reviewed on PubMed using a variety of key words for 8 NMDAR antagonists. These key words include: "Ketamine and Neuropathy," "Ketamine and Neuropathic Pain," "Methadone and Neuropathy," "Methadone and Neuropathic Pain," "Memantine and Neuropathic pain," "Memantine and Neuropathy," "Amantadine and Neuropathic Pain," "Amantadine and Neuropathy," "Dextromethorphan and Neuropathic Pain," "Dextromethorphan and Neuropathy," "Carbamazepine and Neuropathic Pain," "Carbamazepine and Neuropathy," "Valproic Acid and Neuropathy," "Valproic Acid and Neuropathic Pain," "Phenytoin and Neuropathy," and "Phenytoin and Neuropathic Pain." With the results, the papers were reviewed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting in Systematic and Meta-Analyses) guideline.
RESULTS
A total of 58 randomized controlled trials were reviewed among 8 pharmacologic agents, which are organized by date and alphabetical order. Of the trials for ketamine, 15 showed some benefit for analgesia. Methadone had 3 positive trials, while amantadine and memantine each only had 2 trials showing NeuP analgesic properties. Dextromethorphan and valproic acid both had 4 randomized controlled trials that showed some NeuP treatment benefit while carbamazepine had over 8 trials showing efficacy. Finally, phenytoin only had 1 trial that showed clinical response in treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
There are a variety of NMDAR antagonist agents that should be considered for treatment of NeuP. Nevertheless, continued and further investigation of the 8 pharmacologic agents is needed to continue to evaluate their efficacy for treatment of NeuP.
Topics: Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Humans; Neuralgia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate
PubMed: 28877137
DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000547 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 12, 2011. Phantom limb pain (PLP) is pain that arises in the missing limb after amputation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 12, 2011. Phantom limb pain (PLP) is pain that arises in the missing limb after amputation and can be severe, intractable, and disabling. Various medications have been studied in the treatment of phantom pain. There is currently uncertainty in the optimal pharmacologic management of PLP.
OBJECTIVES
This review aimed to summarise the evidence of effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions in treating PLP.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, and Embase for relevant studies. We ran the searches for the original review in September 2011 and subsequent searches for this update up to April 2016. We sought additional studies from clinical trials databases and reference lists of retrieved papers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials studying the effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions compared with placebo, another active treatment, or no treatment, in established PLP. We considered the following outcomes: change in pain intensity, function, sleep, depression or mood, quality of life, adverse events, treatment satisfaction, and withdrawals from the study.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently assessed issues of study quality and extracted efficacy and adverse event data. Due to the wide variability in the studies, we did not perform a meta-analysis for all the interventions and outcomes, but attempted to pool the results of some studies where possible. We prepared a qualitative description and narrative summary of results. We assessed clinical heterogeneity by making qualitative comparisons of the populations, interventions, outcomes/outcome measures, and methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We added only one new study with 14 participants to this updated review. We included a 14 studies (10 with low risk of bias and 4 with unclear risk of bias overall) with a total of 269 participants. We added another drug class, botulinum neurotoxins (BoNTs), in particular botulinum toxin A (BoNT/A), to the group of medications reviewed previously. Our primary outcome was change in pain intensity. Most studies did not report our secondary outcomes of sleep, depression or mood, quality of life, treatment satisfaction, or withdrawals from the study.BoNT/A did not improve phantom limb pain intensity during the six months of follow-up compared with lidocaine/methylprednisolone.Compared with placebo, morphine (oral and intravenous) was effective in decreasing pain intensity in the short term with reported adverse events being constipation, sedation, tiredness, dizziness, sweating, voiding difficulty, vertigo, itching, and respiratory problems.The N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists ketamine (versus placebo; versus calcitonin) and dextromethorphan (versus placebo), but not memantine, had analgesic effects. The adverse events of ketamine were more serious than placebo and calcitonin and included loss of consciousness, sedation, hallucinations, hearing and position impairment, and insobriety.The results for gabapentin in terms of pain relief were conflicting, but combining the results favoured treatment group (gabapentin) over control group (placebo) (mean difference -1.16, 95% confidence interval -1.94 to -0.38; 2 studies). However, gabapentin did not improve function, depression score, or sleep quality. Adverse events experienced were somnolence, dizziness, headache, and nausea.Compared with an active control benztropine mesylate, amitriptyline was not effective in PLP, with dry mouth and dizziness as the most frequent adverse events based on one study.The findings for calcitonin (versus placebo; versus ketamine) and local anaesthetics (versus placebo) were variable. Adverse events of calcitonin were headache, vertigo, drowsiness, nausea, vomiting, and hot and cold flushes. Most of the studies were limited by their small sample sizes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Since the last version of this review, we identified another study that added another form of medical therapy, BoNTs, specifically BoNT/A, to the list of pharmacologic interventions being reviewed for clinical efficacy in phantom limb pain. However, the results of this study did not substantially change the main conclusions. The short- and long-term effectiveness of BoNT/A, opioids, NMDA receptor antagonists, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, calcitonins, and local anaesthetics for clinically relevant outcomes including pain, function, mood, sleep, quality of life, treatment satisfaction, and adverse events remain unclear. Based on a small study, BoNT/A (versus lidocaine/methylprednisolone) does not decrease phantom limb pain. Morphine, gabapentin, and ketamine demonstrate favourable short-term analgesic efficacy compared with placebo. Memantine and amitriptyline may not be effective for PLP. However, results must be interpreted with caution, as they were based mostly on a small number of studies with limited sample sizes that varied considerably and also lacked long-term efficacy and safety outcomes. The direction of efficacy of calcitonin, local anaesthetics, and dextromethorphan needs further clarification. Overall, the efficacy evidence for the reviewed medications is thus far inconclusive. Larger and more rigorous randomised controlled trials are needed for us to reach more definitive conclusions about which medications would be useful for clinical practice.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics; Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Calcitonin; Humans; Neurotoxins; Phantom Limb; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate
PubMed: 27737513
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006380.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2014Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. It can impact on quality of life, cause anxiety and affect sleep in parents and children.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. It can impact on quality of life, cause anxiety and affect sleep in parents and children. Several remedies, including honey, have been used to alleviate cough symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1950 to October week 4, 2014), EMBASE (1990 to November 2014), CINAHL (1981 to November 2014), Web of Science (2000 to November 2014), AMED (1985 to November 2014), LILACS (1982 to November 2014) and CAB abstracts (2009 to January 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing honey given alone, or in combination with antibiotics, versus nothing, placebo or other over-the-counter (OTC) cough medications to participants aged from one to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results for eligible studies and extracted data on reported outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs, two at high risk of bias and one at low risk of bias, involving 568 children. The studies compared honey with dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine, 'no treatment' and placebo for the effect on symptomatic relief of cough using a seven-point Likert scale. The lower the score, the better the cough symptom being assessed.Moderate quality evidence showed that honey may be better than 'no treatment' in reducing the frequency of cough (mean difference (MD) -1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.48 to -0.62; I(2) statistic 23%; two studies, 154 participants). High quality evidence also suggests that honey may be better than placebo for reduction of cough frequency (MD -1.85; 95% Cl -3.36 to -0.33; one study, 300 participants). Moderate quality evidence suggests that honey does not differ significantly from dextromethorphan in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.07; 95% CI -1.07 to 0.94; two studies, 149 participants). Low quality evidence suggests that honey may be slightly better than diphenhydramine in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.57; 95% CI -0.90 to -0.24; one study, 80 participants).Adverse events included mild reactions (nervousness, insomnia and hyperactivity) experienced by seven children (9.3%) from the honey group and two (2.7%) from the dextromethorphan group; the difference was not significant (risk ratio (RR) 2.94; 95% Cl 0.74 to 11.71; two studies, 149 participants). Three children (7.5%) in the diphenhydramine group experienced somnolence (RR 0.14; 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.68; one study, 80 participants). When honey was compared with placebo, four children (1.8%) in the honey group and one (1.3%) from the placebo group complained of gastrointestinal symptoms (RR 1.33; 95% Cl 0.15 to 11.74). However, there was no significant difference between honey versus dextromethorphan, honey versus diphenhydramine or honey versus placebo. No adverse event was reported in the 'no treatment' group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Honey may be better than 'no treatment', diphenhydramine and placebo for the symptomatic relief of cough, but it is not better than dextromethorphan. None of the included studies assessed the effect of honey on 'cough duration' because intervention and follow-up were for one night only. There is no strong evidence for or against the use of honey.
Topics: Adolescent; Antitussive Agents; Apitherapy; Child; Child, Preschool; Cough; Dextromethorphan; Diphenhydramine; Honey; Humans; Infant; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25536086
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007094.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014Acute cough due to upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) is a common symptom. Non-prescription, over-the-counter (OTC) medicines are frequently recommended as a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute cough due to upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) is a common symptom. Non-prescription, over-the-counter (OTC) medicines are frequently recommended as a first-line treatment, but there is little evidence as to whether these drugs are effective.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of oral OTC cough preparations for acute cough in children and adults in community settings.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March week 3 2014), EMBASE (January 1974 to March 2014), CINAHL (January 2010 to March 2014), LILACS (January 2010 to March 2014), Web of Science (January 2010 to March 2014) and the UK Department of Health National Research Register (March 2010).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral OTC cough preparations with placebo in children and adults suffering from acute cough in community settings. We considered all cough outcomes; secondary outcomes of interest were adverse effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened potentially relevant citations, extracted data and assessed study quality. We performed quantitative analysis where appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
Due to the small numbers of trials in each category, the limited quantitative data available and the marked differences between trials in terms of participants, interventions and outcome measurement, we felt that pooling of the results was inappropriate.We included 29 trials (19 in adults, 10 in children) involving 4835 people (3799 adults and 1036 children). All studies were placebo-controlled RCTs. However, assessment of the risk of bias of the included studies was limited by poor reporting, particularly for the earlier studies.In the adult studies, six trials compared antitussives with placebo and had variable results. Three trials compared the expectorant guaifenesin with placebo; one indicated significant benefit, whereas the other two did not. One trial found that a mucolytic reduced cough frequency and symptom scores. Two studies examined antihistamine-decongestant combinations and found conflicting results. Four studies compared other combinations of drugs with placebo and indicated some benefit in reducing cough symptoms. Three trials found that antihistamines were no more effective than placebo in relieving cough symptoms.In the child studies, antitussives (data from three studies), antihistamines (data from three studies), antihistamine-decongestants (two studies) and antitussive/bronchodilator combinations (one study) were no more effective than placebo. No studies using expectorants met our inclusion criteria. The results of one trial favoured active treatment with mucolytics over placebo. One trial tested two paediatric cough syrups and both preparations showed a 'satisfactory response' in 46% and 56% of children compared to 21% of children in the placebo group. One new trial indicated that three types of honey were more effective than placebo over a three-day period.Twenty-one studies reported adverse effects. There was a wide range across studies, with higher numbers of adverse effects in participants taking preparations containing antihistamines and dextromethorphan.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The results of this review have to be interpreted with caution because the number of studies in each category of cough preparations was small. Availability, dosing and duration of use of over-the-counter cough medicines vary significantly in different countries. Many studies were poorly reported making assessment of risk of bias difficult and studies were also very different from each other, making evaluation of overall efficacy difficult. There is no good evidence for or against the effectiveness of OTC medicines in acute cough. This should be taken into account when considering prescribing antihistamines and centrally active antitussive agents in children; drugs that are known to have the potential to cause serious harm.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Adult; Ambulatory Care; Antitussive Agents; Child; Cough; Drug Therapy, Combination; Expectorants; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Nonprescription Drugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25420096
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001831.pub5 -
Pain Medicine (Malden, Mass.) Feb 2014Review the current evidence-based pharmacotherapy for phantom limb pain (PLP) in the context of the current understanding of the pathophysiology of this condition. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Review the current evidence-based pharmacotherapy for phantom limb pain (PLP) in the context of the current understanding of the pathophysiology of this condition.
DESIGN
We conducted a systematic review of original research papers specifically investigating the pharmacologic treatment of PLP. Literature was sourced from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Studies with animals, "neuropathic" but not "phantom limb" pain, or without pain scores and/or functional measures as primary outcomes were excluded. A level of evidence 1-4 was ascribed to individual treatments. These levels included meta-analysis or systematic reviews (level 1), one or more well-powered randomized, controlled trials (level 2), retrospective studies, open-label trials, pilot studies (level 3), and anecdotes, case reports, or clinical experience (level 4).
RESULTS
We found level 2 evidence for gabapentin, both oral (PO) and intravenous (IV) morphine, tramadol, intramuscular (IM) botulinum toxin, IV and epidural Ketamine, level 3 evidence for amitriptyline, dextromethorphan, topiramate, IV calcitonin, PO memantine, continuous perineural catheter analgesia with ropivacaine, and level 4 evidence for methadone, intrathecal (IT) buprenorphine, IT and epidural fentanyl, duloxetine, fluoxetine, mirtazapine, clonazepam, milnacipran, capsaicin, and pregabalin.
CONCLUSIONS
Currently, the best evidence (level 2) exists for the use of IV ketamine and IV morphine for the short-term perioperative treatment of PLP and PO morphine for an intermediate to long-term treatment effect (8 weeks to 1 year). Level 2 evidence is mixed for the efficacy of perioperative epidural anesthesia with morphine and bupivacaine for short to long-term pain relief (perioperatively up to 1 year) as well as for the use of gabapentin for pain relief of intermediate duration (6 weeks).
Topics: Analgesics; Humans; Pain Management; Phantom Limb
PubMed: 24224475
DOI: 10.1111/pme.12283 -
Drugs Oct 2013Both chronic and acute pain have been cited as the most common symptoms amongst patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), with recent prevalence estimates as high as 83 %.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Both chronic and acute pain have been cited as the most common symptoms amongst patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), with recent prevalence estimates as high as 83 %. The evidence for spasticity and trigeminal neuralgia pharmacological treatments in MS has been systematically reviewed, but no equivalent reviews have been published concerning MS pain unrelated to these two conditions.
OBJECTIVE
Our objective was to systematically review pain management strategies for the reduction of non-spastic and non-trigeminal neuralgic pain in MS patients.
DATA SOURCES
Experimental studies published after 1965 were chosen for review by searching electronic databases (e.g. PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, and clinicaltrials.gov) and bibliographies/citations of previously published reviews.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies were included if all participants were adults clinically diagnosed with MS, study sample was not restricted to participants with spasticity or trigeminal neuralgia, and participant-reported pain was a primary or secondary outcome measured with a validated tool.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
Records were screened and methodological qualities of included studies were assessed independently by two reviewers under the supervision of another reviewer using the principles recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions and the levels of evidence espoused by the American Academy of Neurology.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria for review; interventions included antidepressants, anticonvulsants, dextromethorphan/quinidine, cannabinoids, and opioids/opioid antagonists. The pooled effect size for anticonvulsants (4 studies, 78 participants) was -1.88 (95 % CI: -3.13 to -0.64). The pooled effect size for cannabinoids (3 studies, 565 participants) was 0.08 (95 % CI: -0.74 to 0.89). Overall, only four trials reported Class 1 evidence. For these trials, dizziness was the most commonly reported adverse event, followed by nausea and somnolence.
LIMITATIONS
The relatively small number of trials in MS patients with chronic pain precludes specific recommendations for treatment strategies. The review did not reveal any studies of drug combinations.
CONCLUSIONS
More trials with rigorous design and reporting are needed to determine effective treatments for specific pain types presenting in people living with MS.
Topics: Analgesics; Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Cannabinoids; Chronic Pain; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Multiple Sclerosis; Neuralgia; Pain Management; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24085618
DOI: 10.1007/s40265-013-0125-0 -
Chest Dec 2013Understanding the comparative effectiveness of treatments for patients with unexplained or refractory cough is important to increase awareness of proven therapies and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Understanding the comparative effectiveness of treatments for patients with unexplained or refractory cough is important to increase awareness of proven therapies and their potential adverse effects in this unique population.
METHODS
We performed a literature search for English-language studies published up to June 2012 that compared symptomatic therapies for chronic cough. Two investigators screened each abstract and full-text article for inclusion, abstracted data, and rated quality. Meta-analysis with random-effects models was used to summarize effects of treatments.
RESULTS
We identified 49 studies (3,067 patients) comprising 68 therapeutic comparisons. Of the studied agents, opioid and certain nonopioid and nonanesthetic antitussives had demonstrated efficacy for chronic cough in adults. Compared with placebo, effect sizes (standardized mean differences for cough severity and rate ratios for cough frequency) for opioids were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.38-0.72; P < .0001) and 0.57 (95% CI, 0.36-0.91; P = .0260), respectively. For dextromethorphan, effect sizes were 0.37 (95% CI, 0.19-0.56; P = .0008) and 0.40 (95% CI, 0.18-0.85; P = .0248), respectively. The overall strength of evidence was limited by inconsistency and imprecision of results and by small numbers of direct comparisons. Nonpharmacologic therapies and the management of cough in children were infrequently studied.
CONCLUSIONS
Although evidence is limited, opioid and certain nonopioid and nonanesthetic antitussives demonstrated efficacy for treating chronic cough in adults. There is a need for further studies in patients with unexplained or refractory cough as well as for more systematic study designs, assessment of patient-centered outcomes, and reporting.
Topics: Antitussive Agents; Chronic Disease; Cough; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23928798
DOI: 10.1378/chest.13-0490 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2012Cramps are painful, involuntary muscle contractions. They commonly affect people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease (ALS/MND) at all stages of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cramps are painful, involuntary muscle contractions. They commonly affect people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease (ALS/MND) at all stages of the disease. To date, the treatment of muscle cramps in ALS has been largely empirical without any evidence from randomised controlled trials.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically assess the effect of interventions on muscle cramps as a primary or secondary endpoint or adverse event in people with ALS/MND.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (14 February 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 1, 2011 in The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (January 1966 to January 2011) and EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2011) and reference lists of articles searched using the terms motor neuron disease, motor neurone disease, motoneuron disease or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. We contacted authors of trials for further information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised and quasi-randomised trials of oral medications in people with ALS which assessed cramps as a primary or secondary outcome measure or as an adverse event. We also included trials using subcutaneous or intravenous medications or physical therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All authors applied the selection criteria and assessed study quality independently, and all authors performed independent data extraction.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty studies including 4789 participants were identified. Only one trial, of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), assessed cramps as the primary endpoint. Thirteen studies assessed cramps as a secondary endpoint. The medications comprised vitamin E, baclofen, riluzole, L-threonine, xaliproden, indinavir, and memantine. Six studies assessed cramps as an adverse event. The medications comprised creatine, gabapentin, dextromethorphan, quinidine, and lithium. In all 20 studies no favourable effect for the treatment of cramps in ALS/MND could be demonstrated, but many studies were underpowered to draw a definite conclusion. A meta-analysis of two small studies showed a statistically nonsignificant result for the amino acid L-threonine for the treatment of cramps in ALS/MND. No study was identified using physical therapy as a therapeutic intervention for cramps.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence to support the use of any intervention for muscle cramps in ALS/MND. More and larger randomised controlled trials evaluating treatments for muscle cramps in ALS/MND are needed.
Topics: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis; Humans; Muscle Cramp; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 22513921
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004157.pub2