-
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Oct 2021To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip...
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip osteoarthritis pain and physical function to enable effective and safe use of these drugs at their lowest possible dose.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, regulatory agency websites, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 28 June 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised trials published in English with ≥100 patients per group that evaluated NSAIDs, opioids, or paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat osteoarthritis.
OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The prespecified primary outcome was pain. Physical function and safety outcomes were also assessed.
REVIEW METHODS
Two reviewers independently extracted outcomes data and evaluated the risk of bias of included trials. Bayesian random effects models were used for network meta-analysis of all analyses. Effect estimates are comparisons between active treatments and oral placebo.
RESULTS
192 trials comprising 102 829 participants examined 90 different active preparations or doses (68 for NSAIDs, 19 for opioids, and three for paracetamol). Five oral preparations (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 60 and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg/day) had ≥99% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. Topical diclofenac (70-81 and 140-160 mg/day) had ≥92.3% probability, and all opioids had ≤53% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. 18.5%, 0%, and 83.3% of the oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of dropouts due to adverse events. 29.8%, 0%, and 89.5% of oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of any adverse event. Oxymorphone 80 mg/day had the highest risk of dropouts due to adverse events (51%) and any adverse event (88%).
CONCLUSIONS
Etoricoxib 60 mg/day and diclofenac 150 mg/day seem to be the most effective oral NSAIDs for pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis. However, these treatments are probably not appropriate for patients with comorbidities or for long term use because of the slight increase in the risk of adverse events. Additionally, an increased risk of dropping out due to adverse events was found for diclofenac 150 mg/day. Topical diclofenac 70-81 mg/day seems to be effective and generally safer because of reduced systemic exposure and lower dose, and should be considered as first line pharmacological treatment for knee osteoarthritis. The clinical benefit of opioid treatment, regardless of preparation or dose, does not outweigh the harm it might cause in patients with osteoarthritis.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO number CRD42020213656.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Aged; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Minimal Clinically Important Difference; Network Meta-Analysis; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain Management
PubMed: 34642179
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n2321 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Dec 2021Recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) is a very common oral mucosal disease, and its management is quite challenging with no definitive cure being available so far. Many... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) is a very common oral mucosal disease, and its management is quite challenging with no definitive cure being available so far. Many studies have tried hyaluronic acid (HA) for alleviating signs and symptoms of RAS. The present systematic review sought to assess the available evidence regarding the efficacy of HA in management of RAS.
METHODS
Two reviewers independently conducted extensive search in four online databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) and the gray literature, with no restriction to date or language of the publication. All clinical trials that assessed the efficacy of HA in reducing signs and symptoms of RAS were included. Risk of bias was assessed by two reviewers independently, using the Cochrane assessment tool. Due to substantial heterogeneity, no meta-analysis was feasible.
RESULTS
Out of the 75 identified articles, nine clinical trials involving 538 RAS patients (259 in HA group) were included. The risk of bias was high in five studies, low in one study, and unclear in three studies. The comparative groups varied greatly across the included studies: triamcinolone (in three studies), chlorhexidine mouthwash, lidocaine, placebo, iodine glycerin, diclofenac, and laser therapy. Overall, the results revealed a good efficacy of HA in alleviating pain and shortening the healing time of RAS, without any reported side effects. Compared to triamcinolone, HA showed superior results in one study, and comparable results in two studies.
CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence suggests that HA is a promising treatment option for RAS. However, given the huge heterogeneity of the included studies and high risk of bias in some of these studies, the evidence is inconclusive. Further well-designed clinical trials with standardized methodologies and adequate sample sizes are warranted to discern the efficacy of HA for RAS.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Hyaluronic acid might be a viable alternative therapeutic option for patients with RAS.
Topics: Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Low-Level Light Therapy; Mouth Diseases; Pain; Stomatitis, Aphthous
PubMed: 34542725
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04180-4 -
The Pharmacogenomics Journal Dec 2021Variable responses to medications complicates perioperative care. As a potential solution, we evaluated and synthesized pharmacogenomic evidence that may inform...
Variable responses to medications complicates perioperative care. As a potential solution, we evaluated and synthesized pharmacogenomic evidence that may inform anesthesia and pain prescribing to identify clinically actionable drug/gene pairs. Clinical decision-support (CDS) summaries were developed and were evaluated using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. We found that 93/180 (51%) of commonly-used perioperative medications had some published pharmacogenomic information, with 18 having actionable evidence: celecoxib/diclofenac/flurbiprofen/ibuprofen/piroxicam/CYP2C9, codeine/oxycodone/tramadol CYP2D6, desflurane/enflurane/halothane/isoflurane/sevoflurane/succinylcholine/RYR1/CACNA1S, diazepam/CYP2C19, phenytoin/CYP2C9, succinylcholine/mivacurium/BCHE, and morphine/OPRM1. Novel CDS summaries were developed for these 18 medications. AGREE II mean ± standard deviation scores were high for Scope and Purpose (95.0 ± 2.8), Rigor of Development (93.2 ± 2.8), Clarity of Presentation (87.3 ± 3.0), and Applicability (86.5 ± 3.7) (maximum score = 100). Overall mean guideline quality score was 6.7 ± 0.2 (maximum score = 7). All summaries were recommended for clinical implementation. A critical mass of pharmacogenomic evidence exists for select medications commonly used in the perioperative setting, warranting prospective examination for clinical utility.
Topics: Analgesics; Anesthetics; Clinical Decision-Making; Decision Support Techniques; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Perioperative Care; Pharmacogenetics; Pharmacogenomic Testing; Pharmacogenomic Variants; Predictive Value of Tests; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34376788
DOI: 10.1038/s41397-021-00248-2 -
Cancers Jul 2021Actinic cheilitis is a premalignant condition that may evolve to squamous cell carcinoma. A consensus on its management has not been established, and large clinical... (Review)
Review
Actinic cheilitis is a premalignant condition that may evolve to squamous cell carcinoma. A consensus on its management has not been established, and large clinical trials are lacking. We aimed to review the existing data regarding the treatment of actinic cheilitis with various modalities regarding safety, efficacy, recursions, and post-treatment malignant transformation. A systematic review was conducted through Pubmed, Ovid and the Cochrane library for studies in English language and the references of included papers from inception to January 2021. Case series were considered if ≥6 patients were included. Of the 698 articles, 36 studies and, overall, 699 patients were eventually reviewed. Laser ablation and vermilionectomy provided the best clinical and aesthetic outcomes with few recurrences, while photodynamic therapy was linked to more relapses. Generally, the adverse events were minor and there was no risk of post-treatment malignant transformation. The limitations of our review include the heterogeneity and the small number of patients across studies. Conclusively, invasive treatments demonstrated superior therapeutic and safety profile. Nevertheless, high-quality head-to-head studies that assess different modalities for actinic cheilitis and report patient preferences are lacking.
PubMed: 34283099
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13133354 -
The Lancet. Gastroenterology &... Sep 2021Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intravenous fluid, pancreatic stents, or combinations of these have been evaluated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, intravenous fluids, pancreatic stents, or their combinations for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intravenous fluid, pancreatic stents, or combinations of these have been evaluated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis, but the comparative efficacy of these treatments remains unclear. Our aim was to do an exploratory network meta-analysis of previous RCTs to systematically compare the direct and indirect evidence and rank NSAIDs, intravenous fluids, pancreatic stents, or combinations of these to determine the most efficacious method of prophylaxis for post-ERCP pancreatitis.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register from inception to Nov 15, 2020, for full-text RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of NSAIDs, pancreatic stents, intravenous fluids, or combinations of these for post-ERCP pancreatitis prevention in adult (aged ≥18 years) patients undergoing ERCP. Summary data from intention-to-treat analyses were extracted from published reports. We analysed incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis across studies using network meta-analysis under the frequentist framework, obtaining pairwise odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system for the confidence rating. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020172606.
FINDINGS
We identified 1503 studies, of which 55 RCTs evaluating 20 interventions in 17 062 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. The mean incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in the placebo or active control group was 12·2% (95% CI 11·4-13·0). Normal saline plus rectal indometacin (OR 0·02, 95% CI 0·00-0·40), intramuscular diclofenac 75 mg (0·24, 0·09-0·69), intravenous high-volume Ringer's lactate plus rectal diclofenac 100 mg (0·30, 0·16-0·55), intravenous high-volume Ringer's lactate (0·31, 0·12-0·78), 5-7 Fr pancreatic stents (0·35, 0·26-0·48), rectal diclofenac 100 mg (0·36, 0·25-0·52), 3 Fr pancreatic stents (0·47, 0·26-0·87), and rectal indometacin 100 mg (0·60, 0·50-0·73) were all more efficacious than placebo for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in pairwise comparisons. 5-7 Fr pancreatic stents (0·59, 0·41-0·84), intravenous high-volume Ringer's lactate plus rectal diclofenac 100 mg (0·49, 0·26-0·94), intravenous standard-volume normal saline plus rectal indometacin 100 mg (0·04, 0·00-0·66), and rectal diclofenac 100 mg (0·59, 0·40-0·89) were more efficacious than rectal indometacin 100 mg. The GRADE confidence rating was low to moderate for 98·3% of the pairwise comparisons.
INTERPRETATION
This systematic review and network meta-analysis summarises the available literature on NSAIDs, pancreatic stents, intravenous fluids, or combinations of these for prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Rectal diclofenac 100 mg is the best performing rectal NSAID in this network meta-analysis. Combinations of prophylaxis might be more effective, but there is little evidence. These findings help to establish prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis for future research and practice, and could reduce costs and increase adoption of prophylaxis.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Fluid Therapy; Global Health; Humans; Incidence; Pancreatitis; Postoperative Complications; Stents
PubMed: 34214449
DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00170-9 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Febrile seizures occurring in a child older than one month during an episode of fever affect 2-4% of children in Great Britain and the United States and recur in 30%.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Febrile seizures occurring in a child older than one month during an episode of fever affect 2-4% of children in Great Britain and the United States and recur in 30%. Rapid-acting antiepileptics and antipyretics given during subsequent fever episodes have been used to avoid the adverse effects of continuous antiepileptic drugs. This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate primarily the effectiveness and safety of antiepileptic and antipyretic drugs used prophylactically to treat children with febrile seizures; and also to evaluate any other drug intervention where there is a sound biological rationale for its use.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update we searched the following databases on 3 February 2020: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 31 January 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We imposed no language restrictions and contacted researchers to identify continuing or unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Trials using randomised or quasi-randomised participant allocation that compared the use of antiepileptics, antipyretics or recognised Central Nervous System active agents with each other, placebo, or no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For the original review, two review authors independently applied predefined criteria to select trials for inclusion and extracted the predefined relevant data, recording methods for randomisation, blinding, and exclusions. For the 2016 update, a third review author checked all original inclusions, data analyses, and updated the search. For the 2020 update, one review author updated the search and performed the data analysis following a peer-review process with the original review authors. We assessed seizure recurrence at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48 months, and where data were available at age 5 to 6 years along with recorded adverse effects. We evaluated the presence of publication bias using funnel plots.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 42 articles describing 32 randomised trials, with 4431 randomised participants used in the analysis of this review. We analysed 15 interventions of continuous or intermittent prophylaxis and their control treatments. Methodological quality was moderate to poor in most studies. We found no significant benefit for intermittent phenobarbital, phenytoin, valproate, pyridoxine, ibuprofen, or zinc sulfate versus placebo or no treatment; nor for diclofenac versus placebo followed by ibuprofen, paracetamol, or placebo; nor for continuous phenobarbital versus diazepam, intermittent rectal diazepam versus intermittent valproate, or oral diazepam versus clobazam. There was a significant reduction of recurrent febrile seizures with intermittent diazepam versus placebo or no treatment at six months (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 0.85; 6 studies, 1151 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), 12 months (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.84; 8 studies, 1416 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), 18 months (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60; 1 study, 289 participants; low-certainty evidence), 24 months (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; 4 studies, 739 participants; high-certainty evidence), 36 months (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85; 1 study, 139 participants; low-certainty evidence), 48 months (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.89; 1 study, 110 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), with no benefit at 60 to 72 months (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.31; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Phenobarbital versus placebo or no treatment reduced seizures at six months (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83; 6 studies, 833 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), 12 months (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.70; 7 studies, 807 participants; low-certainty evidence), and 24 months (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.89; 3 studies, 533 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but not at 18 months (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.05; 2 studies, 264 participants) or 60 to 72 months follow-up (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.69; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Intermittent clobazam compared to placebo at six months resulted in a RR of 0.36 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.64; 1 study, 60 participants; low-certainty evidence), an effect found against an extremely high (83.3%) recurrence rate in the controls, a result that needs replication. When compared to intermittent diazepam, intermittent oral melatonin did not significantly reduce seizures at six months (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.15; 1 study, 60 participants; very-low certainty evidence). When compared to placebo, intermittent oral levetiracetam significantly reduced recurrent seizures at 12 months (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.52; 1 study, 115 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The recording of adverse effects was variable. Two studies reported lower comprehension scores in phenobarbital-treated children. Adverse effects were recorded in up to 30% of children in the phenobarbital-treated groups and 36% in benzodiazepine-treated groups. We found evidence of publication bias in the meta-analyses of comparisons for phenobarbital versus placebo (seven studies) at 12 months but not at six months (six studies); and valproate versus placebo (four studies) at 12 months. There were too few studies to identify publication bias for the other comparisons. The methodological quality of most of the included studies was low or very low. Methods of randomisation and allocation concealment often did not meet current standards, and 'treatment versus no treatment' was more commonly seen than 'treatment versus placebo', leading to obvious risks of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found reduced recurrence rates for intermittent diazepam and continuous phenobarbital, with adverse effects in up to 30% of children. The apparent benefit for clobazam treatment in one trial needs to be replicated. Levetiracetam also shows benefit with a good safety profile; however, further study is required. Given the benign nature of recurrent febrile seizures, and the high prevalence of adverse effects of these drugs, parents and families should be supported with adequate contact details of medical services and information on recurrence, first aid management, and, most importantly, the benign nature of the phenomenon.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Antipyretics; Child; Child, Preschool; Confidence Intervals; Humans; Infant; Placebos; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Seizures, Febrile
PubMed: 34131913
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003031.pub4 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Oct 2021Actinic keratoses (AK) are rough scaly patches that arise on chronically ultraviolet-exposed skin and can progress to keratinocyte carcinoma. Treatment options for AK...
BACKGROUND
Actinic keratoses (AK) are rough scaly patches that arise on chronically ultraviolet-exposed skin and can progress to keratinocyte carcinoma. Treatment options for AK include topical medications, photodynamic therapy, cryosurgery, and laser ablation.
OBJECTIVE
This executive summary provides a synopsis of the 18 evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of AK detailed in the Guidelines of Care for the Management of Actinic Keratosis.
METHODS
A multidisciplinary workgroup conducted a systematic review to address 5 clinical questions on the management of AKs and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading clinical recommendations. Graded recommendations were voted on to achieve consensus.
RESULTS
Analysis of the evidence resulted in 18 recommendations, suggesting there are several effective treatments available for AK.
LIMITATIONS
The analysis informing the recommendations was based on the best available evidence at the time it was conducted. The results of future studies may necessitate a revision of current recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
Strong recommendations are presented for using ultraviolet protection, topical imiquimod, topical 5-fluorouracil, and cryosurgery. Conditional recommendations are presented for the use of photodynamic therapy and diclofenac for the treatment of AK, both individually and as part of combination therapy regimens.
Topics: Cryosurgery; Fluorouracil; Humans; Imiquimod; Keratosis, Actinic; Photochemotherapy; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 34111497
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.05.056 -
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... Aug 2021Tibetan traditional medicine CheeZheng Pain-Relieving Plaster (CZPRP) is frequently used as an over-the-counter external analgesic for musculoskeletal pain; however, its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE
Tibetan traditional medicine CheeZheng Pain-Relieving Plaster (CZPRP) is frequently used as an over-the-counter external analgesic for musculoskeletal pain; however, its evidence for low back pain (LBP) has not been evaluated.
AIM OF THE STUDY
This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of CZPRP for both acute, subacute and chronic LBP through a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed, CENTRAL, CNKI, CQVIP, and Wanfang databases were searched through April 20, 2020 for randomized controlled trials of CZPRP for LBP. Eligible comparators were placebo, active treatment, or usual care. Clinical outcomes included pain severity, lower back function score, pain-free rate, and adverse events (AEs). Qualitative evaluations were conducted using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tools. Quantitative analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
This study includes 1674 LBP patients from nine clinical studies. Pooled analyses among subjects with acute LBP show 1) significant pain reductions (mean difference -0.84, 95% confidence interval[CI] -1.31, -0.37) in CZPRP plus diclofenac versus diclofenac, 2) significant improvements in lower back function (standard mean difference -1.50, 95% CI -2.16, -0.85) in CZPRP versus diclofenac, and 3) a higher pain-free rate in CZPRP alone (risk ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.16, 1.89; I = 61%) or CZPRP plus nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (risk ratio 1.66, 95% CI 1.14, 2.40; I = 0%) versus NSAIDs. However, in a heterogeneous population with mixed LBP subtypes, there was no significant difference in pain outcomes between CZPRP and diclofenac. Additionally, CZPRP use did not increase AEs compared with no CZPRP (p = 0.40). All nine studies are associated with moderate to high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of CZPRP is associated with improved acute LBP outcomes compared to diclofenac. However, due to the moderate to high risk of bias of the studies, future rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the effects of CZPRP for acute and chronic LBP.
Topics: Analgesics; Animals; Diclofenac; Humans; Low Back Pain; Medicine, Traditional; Plant Preparations; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tibet
PubMed: 34015584
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2021.111727 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Postoperative pain is common and may be severe. Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postoperative pain is common and may be severe. Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, may reduce the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous ketorolac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases without language restrictions: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS on 20 April 2020. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized double-blind trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous ketorolac with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a four- and six-hour period. Our secondary outcomes were time to and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and for any other cause; and number of participants experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and NSAID-related or opioid-related AEs. For subgroup analysis, we planned to analyze different doses of parenteral ketorolac separately and to analyze results based on the type of surgery performed. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 studies, involving 1905 participants undergoing various surgeries (pelvic/abdominal, dental, and orthopedic), with 17 to 83 participants receiving intravenous ketorolac in each study. Mean study population ages ranged from 22.5 years to 67.4 years. Most studies administered a dose of ketorolac of 30 mg; one study assessed 15 mg, and another administered 60 mg. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias for some domains, particularly allocation concealment and blinding, and a high risk of bias due to small sample size. The overall certainty of evidence for each outcome ranged from very low to moderate. Reasons for downgrading certainty included serious study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision. Ketorolac versus placebo Very low-certainty evidence from eight studies (658 participants) suggests that ketorolac results in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over four hours compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 2.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 4.37). The number needed to treat for one additional participant to benefit (NNTB) was 2.4 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.7). Low-certainty evidence from 10 studies (914 participants) demonstrates that ketorolac may result in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over six hours compared to placebo (RR 3.26, 95% CI 1.93 to 5.51). The NNTB was 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.7). Among secondary outcomes, for time to rescue medication, moderate-certainty evidence comparing intravenous ketorolac versus placebo demonstrated a mean median of 271 minutes for ketorolac versus 104 minutes for placebo (6 studies, 633 participants). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from five studies (417 participants) compared ketorolac with placebo. The RR was 0.60 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.00), that is, it did not demonstrate a difference between groups. Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with placebo (74% versus 65%; 8 studies, 810 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.19; number needed to treat for an additional harmful event (NNTH) 16.7, 95% CI 8.3 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from eight studies (703 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and placebo (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.03). Ketorolac versus NSAIDs Ketorolac was compared to parecoxib in four studies and diclofenac in two studies. For our primary outcome, over both four and six hours there was no evidence of a difference between intravenous ketorolac and another NSAID (low-certainty and moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). Over four hours, four studies (337 participants) produced an RR of 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.21) and over six hours, six studies (603 participants) produced an RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.19). For time to rescue medication, low-certainty evidence from four studies (427 participants) suggested that participants receiving ketorolac waited an extra 35 minutes (mean median 331 minutes versus 296 minutes). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from three studies (260 participants) compared ketorolac with another NSAID. The RR was 0.90 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.40), that is, there may be little or no difference between groups. Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with another NSAID (76% versus 68%, 5 studies, 516 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.23; NNTH 12.5, 95% CI 6.7 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from five studies (530 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and another NSAID (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.13 to 76.99). Only one of the five studies reported a single serious AE.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The amount and certainty of evidence for the use of intravenous ketorolac as a treatment for postoperative pain varies across efficacy and safety outcomes and amongst comparators, from very low to moderate. The available evidence indicates that postoperative intravenous ketorolac administration may offer substantial pain relief for most patients, but further research may impact this estimate. Adverse events appear to occur at a slightly higher rate in comparison to placebo and to other NSAIDs. Insufficient information is available to assess whether intravenous ketorolac has a different rate of gastrointestinal or surgical-site bleeding, renal dysfunction, or cardiovascular events versus other NSAIDs. There was a lack of studies in cardiovascular surgeries and in elderly populations who may be at increased risk for adverse events.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Bias; Diclofenac; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Isoxazoles; Ketorolac; Middle Aged; Numbers Needed To Treat; Pain, Postoperative; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 33998669
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013263.pub2 -
Diclofenac Versus Dexamethasone Following Strabismus Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and... 2021To compare outcomes of diclofenac versus dexamethasone in patients after strabismus surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed as per the Preferred... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
To compare outcomes of diclofenac versus dexamethasone in patients after strabismus surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the outcomes of diclofenac versus dexamethasone poststrabismus surgery were included. An extraction spreadsheet for data collection and Review Manager 5.3 were used for data analysis based on the fixed and random effects models. Discomfort, inflammation, chemosis, conjunctival gap, and intraocular pressure (IOP) were primary outcome measures. Secondary outcomes included conjunctival congestion and injection, discharge, and drop intolerance. Fixed and random effects models were used for the analysis. Five RCTs enrolling 248 subjects were enrolled. At week 2 postoperatively, there was a significant difference favoring diclofenac over dexamethasone in terms of discomfort (mean difference [MD] = -0.37, = 0.02), conjunctival inflammation (MD = -0.16, = 0.02), conjunctival chemosis (MD = -0.16, = 0.04), and postoperative conjunctival gap (MD = -0.17, = 0.002). In terms of IOP, there were no significant differences. However, no statistically significant differences were noted at weeks 1 and 4 postoperatively. For secondary outcomes, dexamethasone had significantly improved conjunctival congestion; however, diclofenac had significantly less injection at the site of muscle attachments at week 2. No significant difference was noted in terms of discharge and drop intolerance. Diclofenac is comparable to dexamethasone when used following strabismus surgery. However, a significant difference favoring diclofenac in terms of discomfort, inflammation, conjunctival chemosis, and conjunctival gap was only noted at 2 weeks postoperatively. The authors suggest conducting further studies to support the effectiveness of diclofenac as an alternative to corticosteroids following strabismus surgery.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Dexamethasone; Diclofenac; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Prognosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Strabismus
PubMed: 33944620
DOI: 10.1089/jop.2020.0133