-
BMC Endocrine Disorders Jun 2024There is equivocal evidence that psyllium can prevent or attenuate increases in fasting blood sugar. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis sought to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
There is equivocal evidence that psyllium can prevent or attenuate increases in fasting blood sugar. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis sought to investigate the influence of psyllium on hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c), fasting blood sugar (FBS), insulin, and Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA IR). We searched PubMed, ISI Web of Science (WOS), and Scopus for eligible publications, up to 15 July 2022, including randomized controlled trials (RCT) assessing the effect of psyllium on HbA1c, FBS, insulin, and HOMA IR levels in adults. Using a random effects model, we report the weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). In this article, 19 RCT studies, consisting of 962 participants, were included. Psyllium significantly decreased FBS, HbA1c, and HOMA IR levels, but not insulin levels, as compared to placebo (FBS: WMD): -6.89; 95% CI: -10.62, -3.16; p < .001), HbA1c: (WMD: -0.75; 95% CI: -1.21, -0.29; p < .001), HOMA IR: (WMD: -1.17; 95% CI: -2.11, -0.23; p < .05), and insulin: (WMD: -2.08; 95% CI: -4.21, -0.035; p > .05)). Subgroup analyses illustrated differences in the effects of psyllium on FBS: dosages less than and more than 10 g/d showed significant differences (p value < 0.05). However, it was not significant in intervention durations less than 50 days (p value > 0.05). For HbA1c: psyllium consumption less than 10 g/d (p value > 0.05) was non-significant. For HOMA IR and insulin: no significant changes were noted with psyllium consumption less than vs. more than 10 g/d. In conclusion, we found that psyllium could significantly decrease FBS, HbA1c, and HOMA IR levels, but not insulin levels, as compared to placebo.
Topics: Humans; Psyllium; Insulin Resistance; Glycated Hemoglobin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Insulin; Blood Glucose; Fasting
PubMed: 38844885
DOI: 10.1186/s12902-024-01608-2 -
Minerva Cardiology and Angiology Jun 2024New-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a common complication following cardiac surgeries. N-acetylcysteine (NAC) showed a significant reduction in the...
Efficacy of N-acetylcysteine in reducing the risk of postoperative atrial fibrillation in cardiothoracic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
INTRODUCTION
New-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a common complication following cardiac surgeries. N-acetylcysteine (NAC) showed a significant reduction in the incidence of POAF. This review aimed to systematically summarize and Meta-analyze data from previously published Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs).
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Electronic databases: PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Data was extracted and the quality of the included studies was assessed. A random-effects DerSimonian Laird model was employed for meta-analysis.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Fifteen RCTs were included in this study (NAC, N.=940; control, N.=935). In the NAC group, 16.38% developed POAF compared with 23.53% in the control group. NAC supplementation was associated with a decreased incidence of POAF in patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.52, 0.91; P=0.008). Meta-regression of randomized trial data showed that the incidence of POAF was not related to the NAC dose (P=0.439). A subgroup analysis in terms of the time of NAC administration revealed that preoperative and postoperative NAC administration was the only subgroup that demonstrated a statistically significant difference (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32, 0.71; P=0.0003) compared with placebo and showed no heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS
Atrial fibrillation is a significant postoperative complication, particularly in cardiothoracic surgery. This study highlights the need for further research on optimal NAC dosing and timing, with evidence suggesting that preoperative and postoperative NAC administration may significantly decrease postoperative atrial fibrillation in cardiothoracic surgery patients, although limitations and variability in study designs need to be considered.
PubMed: 38842239
DOI: 10.23736/S2724-5683.24.06482-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2024Persistent visceral pain is an unpleasant sensation coming from one or more organs within the body. Visceral pain is a common symptom in those with advanced cancer.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Persistent visceral pain is an unpleasant sensation coming from one or more organs within the body. Visceral pain is a common symptom in those with advanced cancer. Interventional procedures, such as neurolytic sympathetic nerve blocks, have been suggested as additional treatments that may play a part in optimising pain management for individuals with this condition.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of neurolytic sympathetic nerve blocks for persistent visceral pain in adults with inoperable abdominopelvic cancer compared to standard care or placebo and comparing single blocks to combination blocks.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases without language restrictions on 19 October 2022 and ran a top-up search on 31 October 2023: CENTRAL; MEDLINE via Ovid; Embase via Ovid; LILACS. We searched trial registers without language restrictions on 2 November 2022: ClinicalTrials.gov; WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We searched grey literature, checked reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles for additional studies, and performed citation searches on key articles. We also contacted experts in the field for unpublished and ongoing trials. Our trial protocol was preregistered in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 21 October 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any sympathetic nerve block targeting sites commonly used to treat abdominal pelvic pain from inoperable malignancies in adults to standard care or placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently selected trials based on predefined inclusion criteria, resolving any differences via adjudication with a third review author. We used a random-effects model as some heterogeneity was expected between the studies due to differences in the interventions being assessed and malignancy types included in the study population. We chose three primary outcomes and four secondary outcomes of interest. We sought consumer input to refine our review outcomes and assessed extracted data using Cochrane's risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE system.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 studies with 1025 participants in this review. Fifteen studies with a total of 951 participants contributed to the quantitative analysis. Single block versus standard care Primary outcomes No included studies reported our primary outcome, 'Proportion of participants reporting no worse than mild pain after treatment at 14 days'. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sympathetic nerve blocks on reducing pain to no worse than mild pain at 14 days when compared to standard care due to insufficient data (very low-certainty evidence). Sympathetic nerve blocks may provide small to 'little to no' improvement in quality of life (QOL) scores at 14 days after treatment when compared to standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.70 to 0.25; I² = 87%; 4 studies, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of serious adverse events as defined in our review as only one study contributed data to this outcome. Sympathetic nerve blocks may have an 'increased risk' to 'no additional risk' of harm compared with standard care (very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes Sympathetic nerve blocks showed a small to 'little to no' effect on participant-reported pain scores at 14 days using a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain compared with standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) -0.44, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.11; I² = 56%; 5 studies, 214 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be a 'moderate to large' to 'little to no' reduction in daily consumption of opioids postprocedure at 14 days with sympathetic nerve blocks compared with standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (change in daily consumption of opioids at 14 days as oral milligrams morphine equivalent (MME): MD -41.63 mg, 95% CI -78.54 mg to -4.72 mg; I² = 90%; 4 studies, 130 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sympathetic nerve blocks on participant satisfaction with procedure at 0 to 7 days and time to need for retreatment or treatment effect failure (or both) due to insufficient data. Combination block versus single block Primary outcomes There is no evidence about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks on the proportion of participants reporting no worse than mild pain after treatment at 14 days because no studies reported this outcome. There may be a small to 'little to no' effect on QOL score at 14 days after treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of serious adverse events with combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks due to limited reporting in the included studies (very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks on participant-reported pain score and change in daily consumption of opioids postprocedure, at 14 days. There may be a small to 'little to no' effect, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). There is no evidence about the effect on participant satisfaction with procedure at 0 to 7 days and time to need for retreatment or treatment effect failure (or both) due to these outcomes not being measured by the studies. Risk of bias The risk of bias was predominately high for most outcomes in most studies due to significant concerns regarding adequate blinding. Very few studies were deemed as low risk across all domains for any outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence to support or refute the use of sympathetic nerve blocks for persistent abdominopelvic pain due to inoperable malignancy. We are very uncertain about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks. The certainty of the evidence is very low and these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Topics: Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Autonomic Nerve Block; Adult; Bias; Pelvic Neoplasms; Abdominal Neoplasms; Cancer Pain; Abdominal Pain; Pain Management; Nerve Block; Quality of Life
PubMed: 38842054
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015229.pub2 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2024Epidural steroid injection for the treatment of sciatica caused by disc herniation is increasingly used worldwide, but its effectiveness remains controversial. The... (Review)
Review
Epidural steroid injection for the treatment of sciatica caused by disc herniation is increasingly used worldwide, but its effectiveness remains controversial. The review aiming to analyze the efficacy of epidural steroid injection on sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of epidural steroid injections in the management of sciatica induced by lumbar disc herniation were collected from PubMed and other databases from January, 2008 to December, 2023, with epidural steroid injection in the test group and epidural local anesthetic and/or placebo in the control group. Pain relief rate, assessed by numerical rating scale (NRS) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, and function recovery, evaluated by Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, were recorded and compared. Meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager. In comparison to the control group, epidural steroid injections have been shown to be effective for providing short- (within 3 months) [MD = 0.44, 95%CI (0.20, 0.68), = 0.0003] and medium-term (within 6 months) [MD = 0.66, 95%CI (0.09,1.22), = 0.02] pain relief for sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation, while its long-term pain-relief effect were limited. However, the administration of epidural steroid injections did not lead to a significant improvement on sciatic nerve function in short- [MD = 0.79, 95%CI = (0.39, 1.98), = 0.19] and long-term [MD = 0.47, 95% CI = (-0.86, 1.80), = 0.49] assessed by IOD. Furthermore, the analysis revealed that administering epidural steroid injections resulted in a reduction in opioid usage among patients with lumbar disc herniation [MD = -14.45, 95% CI = (-24.61, -4.29), = 0.005]. The incidence of epidural steroid injection was low. Epidural steroid injection has demonstrated notable efficacy in relieving sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation in short to medium-term. Therefore, it is recommended as a viable treatment option for individuals suffering from sciatica.
PubMed: 38841695
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1406504 -
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies Jun 2024Acupuncture is widely used worldwide; however, studies on its effectiveness have been impeded by limitations regarding the design of appropriate control groups. In...
BACKGROUND
Acupuncture is widely used worldwide; however, studies on its effectiveness have been impeded by limitations regarding the design of appropriate control groups. In clinical research, noninvasive sham acupuncture techniques can only be applied through validation studies. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to evaluate the scope of existing literature on this topic to identify trends.
METHODS
We queried Pubmed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to July 2022 for relevant articles. Author names were used to identify additional relevant articles. Two independent reviewers assessed the identified articles based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The following data were extracted: study design, information regarding acupuncturists and participants, general and treatment-related characteristics of the intervention and control groups, participants' experience of acupuncture, and research findings.
RESULTS
The database query yielded 673 articles, of which 29 articles were included in the final review. Among these, 18 involved the use of one of three devices: Streitberger (n = 5), Park (n = 7), and Takakura (n = 6) devices. The remaining 11 studies used other devices, including self-developed needles. All the included studies were randomized controlled trials. The methodological details of the included studies were heterogeneous with respect to outcomes assessed, blinding, and results.
CONCLUSIONS
Sham acupuncture validation studies have been conducted using healthy volunteers, with a focus on blind review and technological developments in sham acupuncture devices. However, theren may be language bias in our findings since we could not query Chinese and Japanese databases due to language barriers. There is a need for more efforts toward establishing control groups suitable for various acupuncture therapy interventions. Moreover, there is a need for more rigorous sham acupuncture validation studies, which could lead to higher-quality clinical studies.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Humans; Validation Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Placebos
PubMed: 38840076
DOI: 10.1186/s12906-024-04506-1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2024Practitioners in the field of assisted reproductive technology (ART) continually seek alternative or adjunct treatments to improve ART outcomes. This Cochrane review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Practitioners in the field of assisted reproductive technology (ART) continually seek alternative or adjunct treatments to improve ART outcomes. This Cochrane review investigates the adjunct use of synthetic versions of two naturally produced hormones, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and testosterone (T), in assisted reproduction. Steroid hormones are proposed to increase conception rates by positively affecting follicular response to gonadotrophin stimulation. This may lead to a greater oocyte yield and, subsequently, an increased chance of pregnancy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of DHEA and T as pre- or co-treatments in infertile women undergoing assisted reproduction.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases up to 8 January 2024: the Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and trial registries for ongoing trials. We also searched citation indexes, Web of Science, PubMed, and OpenGrey. We searched the reference lists of relevant studies and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials. There were no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DHEA or T as an adjunct treatment to any other active intervention, placebo, or no treatment in women undergoing assisted reproduction.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted relevant data, and assessed risk of bias. We pooled data from studies using fixed-effect models. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) for each dichotomous outcome. Analyses were stratified by type of treatment. We assessed the certainty of evidence for the main findings using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 29 RCTs. There were 1599 women in the intervention group and 1469 in the control group. Apart from three trials, the trial participants were women identified as 'poor responders' to standard in vitro fertilisation (IVF) protocols. The included trials compared either T or DHEA treatment with placebo or no treatment. Pre-treatment with DHEA versus placebo/no treatment: DHEA likely results in little to no difference in live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates (OR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.76; I² = 16%, 9 RCTs, N = 1433, moderate certainty evidence). This suggests that in women with a 12% chance of live birth/ongoing pregnancy with placebo or no treatment, the live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate in women using DHEA will be between 12% and 20%. DHEA likely does not decrease miscarriage rates (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.37; I² = 0%, 10 RCTs, N =1601, moderate certainty evidence). DHEA likely results in little to no difference in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.49; I² = 0%, 13 RCTs, N = 1886, moderate certainty evidence). This suggests that in women with a 17% chance of clinical pregnancy with placebo or no treatment, the clinical pregnancy rate in women using DHEA will be between 16% and 24%. We are very uncertain about the effect of DHEA on multiple pregnancy (OR 3.05, 95% CI 0.47 to 19.66; 7 RCTs, N = 463, very low certainty evidence). Pre-treatment with T versus placebo/no treatment: T likely improves live birth rates (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.61 to 3.99; I² = 0%, 8 RCTs, N = 716, moderate certainty evidence). This suggests that in women with a 10% chance of live birth with placebo or no treatment, the live birth rate in women using T will be between 15% and 30%. T likely does not decrease miscarriage rates (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.51; I² = 0%, 9 RCTs, N = 755, moderate certainty evidence). T likely increases clinical pregnancy rates (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.54 to 3.06; I² = 0%, 13 RCTs, N = 1152, moderate certainty evidence). This suggests that in women with a 12% chance of clinical pregnancy with placebo or no treatment, the clinical pregnancy rate in women using T will be between 17% and 29%. We are very uncertain about the effect of T on multiple pregnancy (OR 2.56, 95% CI 0.59 to 11.20; 5 RCTs, N = 449, very low certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of T versus oestradiol or T versus oestradiol + oral contraceptive pills. The certainty of the evidence was moderate to very low, the main limitations being lack of blinding in the included trials, inadequate reporting of study methods, and low event and sample sizes in the trials. Data on adverse events were sparse; any reported events were minor.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Pre-treatment with T likely improves, and pre-treatment with DHEA likely results in little to no difference, in live birth and clinical pregnancy rates in women undergoing IVF who have been identified as poor responders. DHEA and T probably do not decrease miscarriage rates in women under IVF treatment. The effects of DHEA and T on multiple pregnancy are uncertain. Data regarding adverse events were very limited; any reported events were minor. Research is needed to identify the optimal duration of treatment with T. Future studies should include data collection on adverse events and multiple pregnancy.
Topics: Humans; Female; Dehydroepiandrosterone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pregnancy; Testosterone; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted; Pregnancy Rate; Live Birth; Infertility, Female; Androgens; Bias; Abortion, Spontaneous; Ovulation Induction
PubMed: 38837771
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009749.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2024Metformin has been used in the management of diabetes for decades. It is an effective, low-cost intervention with a well-established safety profile. Emerging evidence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Metformin has been used in the management of diabetes for decades. It is an effective, low-cost intervention with a well-established safety profile. Emerging evidence suggests that metformin targets a number of pathways that lead to chronic kidney damage, and long-term use may, therefore, slow the rate of kidney function decline and chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effect of metformin therapy on kidney function decline in patients with CKD with or without diabetes mellitus and assess the safety and dose tolerability in this population.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 19 July 2023 with assistance from an Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that reported kidney-related outcomes with a minimum duration of 12 months delivery of the metformin intervention and whose eligibility criteria included adult participants with either i) a diagnosis of CKD of any aetiology and/or ii) those with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Comparisons included placebo, no intervention, non-pharmacological interventions, other antidiabetic medications or any other active control. Studies that included patients on any modality of kidney replacement therapy were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently carried out data extraction using a standard data extraction form. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
MAIN RESULTS
This review included 11 studies reporting on 8449 randomised participants. Studies were conducted in patient populations with Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease (ADPKD) (four studies) or diabetes mellitus (seven studies). Six studies compared metformin with no active control, four studies compared metformin with active controls (rosiglitazone, glyburide, pioglitazone, or glipizide), and one study included treatment arms that randomised to either metformin, diet and lifestyle modifications, or other antidiabetic therapies. The risk of bias in included studies varied; two studies were abstract-only publications and were judged to have a high risk of bias in most domains. Other included publications were judged to have a low risk of bias in most domains. Across comparisons, GRADE evaluations for most outcomes were judged as low or very low certainty, except for those relating to side effects, tolerance, and withdrawals, which were judged as moderate certainty. The evidence suggests that compared to placebo, metformin may result in i) a slightly smaller decline in kidney function (3 studies, 505 participants: MD 1.92 mL/min, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.51; I = 0%; low certainty), ii) very uncertain effects on the incidence of kidney failure (1 study, 753 participants: RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.17 to 8.49), iii) little or no effect on death (3 studies, 865 participants: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32; I = 0%; moderate certainty), iv) little or no effect on the incidence of serious adverse events (3 studies, 576 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.72; I = 0%; moderate certainty), and v) likely higher incidence of intolerance leading to study withdrawal than placebo (4 studies, 646 participants: RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.27; I = 0%; moderate certainty). The certainty of the evidence for proteinuria was very uncertain. Compared to other active controls (rosiglitazone, glyburide, pioglitazone, or glipizide), metformin i) demonstrated very uncertain effects on kidney function decline, ii) may result in little or no difference in death (3 studies, 5608 participants: RR 0.95 95% CI 0.63 to 1.43; I = 0%; low certainty), iii) probably results in little or no difference in intolerance leading to study withdrawal (3 studies, 5593 participants: RR 0.92, 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.08; I = 0%; moderate certainty), iv) probably results in little or no difference in the incidence of serious adverse events (2 studies, 5545 participants: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71; I = 0%; moderate certainty), and v) may increase the urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (2 studies, 3836 participants: MD 14.61, 95% CI 8.17 to 21.05; I = 0%; low certainty). No studies reported the incidence of kidney failure.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review highlights the lack of RCTs reporting on the effects of metformin on kidney function, particularly in patients with CKD. Future research in this field requires adequately powered RCTs comparing metformin to placebo or standard care in those with CKD. Seven ongoing studies were identified in this review, and future updates, including their findings, may further inform the results of this review.
Topics: Metformin; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Disease Progression; Hypoglycemic Agents; Glomerular Filtration Rate; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Adult; Bias
PubMed: 38837240
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013414.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2024Postburn pruritus (itch) is a common and distressing symptom experienced on healing or healed burn or donor site wounds. Topical, systemic, and physical treatments are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postburn pruritus (itch) is a common and distressing symptom experienced on healing or healed burn or donor site wounds. Topical, systemic, and physical treatments are available to control postburn pruritus; however, it remains unclear how effective these are.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions for treating postburn pruritus in any care setting.
SEARCH METHODS
In September 2022, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries and scanned references of relevant publications to identify eligible trials. There were no restrictions with respect to language, publication date, or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people with postburn pruritus to compare an intervention for postburn pruritus with any other intervention, placebo or sham intervention, or no intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 25 RCTs assessing 21 interventions with 1166 randomised participants. These 21 interventions can be grouped into six categories: neuromodulatory agents (such as doxepin, gabapentin, pregabalin, ondansetron), topical therapies (such as CQ-01 hydrogel, silicone gel, enalapril ointment, Provase moisturiser, beeswax and herbal oil cream), physical modalities (such as massage therapy, therapeutic touch, extracorporeal shock wave therapy, enhanced education about silicone gel sheeting), laser scar revision (pulsed dye laser, pulsed high-intensity laser, fractional CO2 laser), electrical stimulation (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation), and other therapies (cetirizine/cimetidine combination, lemon balm tea). Most RCTs were conducted at academic hospitals and were at a high risk of performance, attrition, and detection bias. While 24 out of 25 included studies reported change in burn-related pruritus, secondary outcomes such as cost-effectiveness, pain, patient perception, wound healing, and participant health-related quality of life were not reported or were reported incompletely. Neuromodulatory agents versus antihistamines or placebo There is low-certainty evidence that doxepin cream may reduce burn-related pruritus compared with oral antihistamine (mean difference (MD) -2.60 on a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS), 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.79 to -1.42; 2 studies, 49 participants). A change of 2 points represents a minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Due to very low-certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether doxepin cream impacts the incidence of somnolence as an adverse event compared to oral antihistamine (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.25; 1 study, 24 participants). No data were reported on pain in the included study. There is low-certainty evidence that gabapentin may reduce burn-related pruritus compared with cetirizine (MD -2.40 VAS, 95% CI -4.14 to -0.66; 1 study, 40 participants). A change of 2 points represents a MCID. There is low-certainty evidence that gabapentin reduces the incidence of somnolence compared to cetirizine (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.38; 1 study, 40 participants). No data were reported on pain in the included study. There is low-certainty evidence that pregabalin may result in a reduction in burn-related pruritus intensity compared with cetirizine with pheniramine maleate (MD -0.80 VAS, 95% CI -1.24 to -0.36; 1 study, 40 participants). A change of 2 points represents a MCID. There is low-certainty evidence that pregabalin reduces the incidence of somnolence compared to cetirizine (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.69; 1 study, 40 participants). No data were reported on pain in the included study. There is moderate-certainty evidence that ondansetron probably results in a reduction in burn-related pruritus intensity compared with diphenhydramine (MD -0.76 on a 0 to 10 numeric analogue scale (NAS), 95% CI -1.50 to -0.02; 1 study, 38 participants). A change of 2 points represents a MCID. No data were reported on pain and adverse events in the included study. Topical therapies versus relevant comparators There is moderate-certainty evidence that enalapril ointment probably decreases mean burn-related pruritus compared with placebo control (MD -0.70 on a 0 to 4 scoring table for itching, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.36; 1 study, 60 participants). No data were reported on pain and adverse events in the included study. Physical modalities versus relevant comparators Compared with standard care, there is low-certainty evidence that massage may reduce burn-related pruritus (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.86, 95% CI -1.45 to -0.27; 2 studies, 166 participants) and pain (SMD -1.32, 95% CI -1.66 to -0.98). These SMDs equate to a 4.60-point reduction in pruritus and a 3.74-point reduction in pain on a 10-point VAS. A change of 2 VAS points in itch represents a MCID. No data were reported on adverse events in the included studies. There is low-certainty evidence that extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) may reduce burn-related pruritus compared with sham stimulation (SMD -1.20, 95% CI -1.65 to -0.75; 2 studies, 91 participants). This equates to a 5.93-point reduction in pruritus on a 22-point 12-item Pruritus Severity Scale. There is low-certainty evidence that ESWT may reduce pain compared with sham stimulation (MD 2.96 on a 0 to 25 pressure pain threshold (PPT), 95% CI 1.76 to 4.16; 1 study, 45 participants). No data were reported on adverse events in the included studies. Laser scar revision versus untreated or placebo controls There is moderate-certainty evidence that pulsed high-intensity laser probably results in a reduction in burn-related pruritus intensity compared with placebo laser (MD -0.51 on a 0 to 1 Itch Severity Scale (ISS), 95% CI -0.64 to -0.38; 1 study, 49 participants). There is moderate-certainty evidence that pulsed high-intensity laser probably reduces pain compared with placebo laser (MD -3.23 VAS, 95% CI -5.41 to -1.05; 1 study, 49 participants). No data were reported on adverse events in the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate to low-certainty evidence on the effects of 21 interventions. Most studies were small and at a high risk of bias related to blinding and incomplete outcome data. Where there is moderate-certainty evidence, practitioners should consider the applicability of the evidence for their patients.
Topics: Humans; Pruritus; Burns; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Bias; Antipruritics
PubMed: 38837237
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013468.pub2 -
Cellular and Molecular Biology... Jun 2024Chronic heart disease (CHD) is still a major global cause of morbidity and mortality, necessitating effective therapeutic interventions to mitigate its progression.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effect of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on markers of inflammation and endothelial function in patients with chronic heart disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Chronic heart disease (CHD) is still a major global cause of morbidity and mortality, necessitating effective therapeutic interventions to mitigate its progression. Omega-3 fatty acids (FAs) have garnered attention for their potential anti-inflammatory and endothelial-protective properties in CHD management. The present study aims to assess the efficacy of Omega-3 FA supplementation on markers of inflammation and endothelial function in patients with CHD. To achieve this, we used the relevant keywords to search international databases (Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus) and extract publications evaluating the effectiveness of omega-3 FA supplementation on inflammation markers and endothelial function in patients with CHD. STATA (version 15) and the random and fixed-effects models were used to evaluate the collected data. Thirteen clinical trial studies met inclusion criteria, with a total sample size of 853 individuals (406 cases and 447 controls). The cases had a mean age of 58 ± 10.3 years. The pooled results indicated that omega-3 Omega-3 FA supplementation significantly reduced the level of circulating IL-6 (SMD = -0.47, 95% CI -1.29 to 0.35, %, p < 0.001), hs-CRP (SMD = -0.21, 95% CI -0.70 to 0.28, p = 0.01), and TNF-α (SMD = -0.56, 95% CI -1.14 to 0.01, p < 0.001) in patients with CHD. Also, findings revealed that a daily supplement of omega-3 significantly increased FMD by 0.34% (95% CI: 0.14-0.54%, p < 0.001) as compared with placebo by a fixed-effect model in patients with CHD. These findings underscore the potential therapeutic utility of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation in modulating inflammation and endothelial dysfunction in patients with CHD.
Topics: Humans; Middle Aged; Biomarkers; Chronic Disease; Dietary Supplements; Endothelium, Vascular; Fatty Acids, Omega-3; Heart Diseases; Inflammation; Aged
PubMed: 38836663
DOI: 10.14715/cmb/2024.70.6.26 -
Scientific Reports Jun 2024Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is often managed surgically. Enzymatic chemonucleolysis emerged as a non-surgical alternative. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is often managed surgically. Enzymatic chemonucleolysis emerged as a non-surgical alternative. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of chemonucleolytic enzymes for LDH. The primary objective is to evaluate efficacy through "treatment success" (i.e., pain reduction) and severe adverse events (SAEs) rates. Additionally, differences in efficacy and safety trends among chemonucleolytic enzymes are explored. Following our PROSPERO registered protocol (CRD42023451546) and PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of PubMed and Web of Science databases was conducted up to July 18, 2023. Inclusion criteria involved human LDH treatment with enzymatic chemonucleolysis reagents, assessing pain alleviation, imaging changes, and reporting on SAEs, with focus on allergic reactions. Quality assessment employed the Cochrane Source of Bias and MINORS tools. Meta-analysis utilized odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Among 62 included studies (12,368 patients), chemonucleolysis demonstrated an 79% treatment success rate and significantly outperformed placebo controls (OR 3.35, 95% CI 2.41-4.65) and scored similar to surgical interventions (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.20-2.10). SAEs occurred in 1.4% of cases, with slightly higher rates in chymopapain cohorts. No significant differences in "proceeding to surgery" rates were observed between chemonucleolysis and control cohorts. Limitations include dated and heterogeneous studies, emphasizing the need for higher-quality trials. Further optimization through careful patient selection and advances in therapy implementation may further enhance outcomes. The observed benefits call for wider clinical exploration and adoption. No funding was received for this review.
Topics: Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Treatment Outcome; Intervertebral Disc Chemolysis
PubMed: 38834631
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-62792-8