-
BMC Anesthesiology Jun 2024Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are commonly used sedatives in children. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and effectiveness of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are commonly used sedatives in children. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and effectiveness of sedation provided by dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam versus other sedatives including chloral hydrate, midazolam and other sedatives in pediatric sedation.
METHODS
The Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases, and Clinicaltrials.gov register of controlled trials were searched from inception to June 2022. All randomized controlled trials used dexmedetomidine-midazolam in pediatric sedation were enrolled. The articles search, data extraction, and quality assessment of included studies were performed independently by two researchers. The success rate of sedation was considered as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included onset time of sedation, recovery time of sedation and occurrence of adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 522 studies were screened and 6 RCTs were identified; 859 patients were analyzed. The administration of dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam was associated with a higher sedation success rate and a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting in computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, Auditory Brainstem Response test or fiberoptic bronchoscopy examinations than the other sedatives did (OR = 2.92; 95% CI: 1.39-6.13, P = 0.005, I = 51%; OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.07-0.68, P = 0.008, I = 0%, respectively). Two groups did not differ significantly in recovery time and the occurrence of adverse reactions (WMD = - 0.27, 95% CI: - 0.93 to - 0.39, P = 0.42; OR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.48-1.02, P = 0.06, I = 45%. respectively). However, the results of the subgroup analysis of ASA I-II children showed a quicker onset time in dexmedetomidine-midazolam group than the other sedatives (WMD=-3.08; 95% CI: -4.66 to - 1.49, P = 0.0001, I = 30%).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis showed that compared with the control group, dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam group provided higher sedation success rates and caused a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting in completing examinations, indicating a prospective outpatient clinical application for procedural sedation.
Topics: Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Child; Drug Therapy, Combination; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38907338
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-024-02570-1 -
Scientific Reports Jun 2024There have been 774,075,242 cases of COVID-19 and 7,012,986 deaths worldwide as of January 2024. In the early stages of the pandemic, there was an urgent need to reduce... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and meta-analysis, investigating dose and time of fluvoxamine treatment efficacy for COVID-19 clinical deterioration, death, and Long-COVID complications.
There have been 774,075,242 cases of COVID-19 and 7,012,986 deaths worldwide as of January 2024. In the early stages of the pandemic, there was an urgent need to reduce the severity of the disease and prevent the need for hospitalization to avoid stress on healthcare systems worldwide. The repurposing of drugs to prevent clinical deterioration of COVID-19 patients was trialed in many studies using many different drugs. Fluvoxamine (an SSRI and sigma-1 receptor agonist) was initially identified to potentially provide beneficial effects in COVID-19-infected patients, preventing clinical deterioration and the need for hospitalization. Fourteen clinical studies have been carried out to date, with seven of those being randomized placebo-controlled studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis covers the literature from the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 in late 2019 until January 2024. Search terms related to fluvoxamine, such as its trade names and chemical names, along with words related to COVID-19, such as SARS-CoV-2 and coronavirus, were used in literature databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and the ClinicalTrials.gov database from NIH, to identify the trials used in the subsequent analysis. Clinical deterioration and death data were extracted from these studies where available and used in the meta-analysis. A total of 7153 patients were studied across 14 studies (both open-label and double-blind placebo-controlled). 681 out of 3553 (19.17%) in the standard care group and 255 out of 3600 (7.08%) in the fluvoxamine-treated group experienced clinical deterioration. The estimated average log odds ratio was 1.087 (95% CI 0.200 to 1.973), which differed significantly from zero (z = 2.402, p = 0.016). The seven placebo-controlled studies resulted in a log odds ratio of 0.359 (95% CI 0.1111 to 0.5294), which differed significantly from zero (z = 3.103, p = 0.002). The results of this study identified fluvoxamine as effective in preventing clinical deterioration, and subgrouping analysis suggests that earlier treatment with a dose of 200 mg or above provides the best outcomes. We hope the outcomes of this study can help design future studies into respiratory viral infections and potentially improve clinical outcomes.
Topics: Fluvoxamine; Humans; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; Clinical Deterioration; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 38862591
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-64260-9 -
European Review For Medical and... May 2024Painful peripheral diabetic neuropathy (PRDN) is a common disabling condition. Pregabalin and amitriptyline are commonly prescribed as the first-line for PPDN despite... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Painful peripheral diabetic neuropathy (PRDN) is a common disabling condition. Pregabalin and amitriptyline are commonly prescribed as the first-line for PPDN despite the contradicting recommendations. There is a need to inform the scientific community regarding first-line pain control among patients with PPDN. This meta-analysis assessed pregabalin and amitriptyline effects on PPDN.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, and Google Scholar; the terms used were amitriptyline, pregabalin, painful diabetic neuropathy, antidepressant, gabapentinoids, quality of life, and adverse events. Boolean operators like AND, and OR were used. Six hundred and thirty-one studies were retrieved, and 37 full texts were screened. However, only six randomized controlled trials fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
RESULTS
No significant statistical differences between amitriptyline and pregabalin regarding pain score and significant pain reduction (odd ratio, -0.82, 95% CI, -2.21-0.58, and odd ratio, 1.16, 95% CI, 0.76-1.76 respectively). Quality of life, total adverse events, and drug discontinuation were not different between the two drugs (odd ratio, 0.89, 95% CI, -2.11-3.89, odd ratio, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.52-1.85, and odd ratio, 0.51, 95% CI, 0.08-3.15, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
No significant statistical differences between amitriptyline and pregabalin regarding their effects on pain and quality of life. The drugs showed similar total adverse events and drug withdrawal. Further larger real-world studies are needed.
Topics: Pregabalin; Amitriptyline; Humans; Diabetic Neuropathies; Analgesics; Quality of Life
PubMed: 38856135
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202405_36296 -
PloS One 2024Recently, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of fluvoxamine have been successfully conducted for the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Recently, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of fluvoxamine have been successfully conducted for the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine in patients with COVID-19.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for RCTs which were performed to evaluate fluvoxamine and placebo up to January 31, 2024. Review Manager 5.3 was used to perform meta-analysis. The risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) was analyzed and calculated with a random effect model.
RESULTS
We pooled 4,711 participants from six RCTs (2,382 in the fluvoxamine group and 2,329 in the placebo group). Compared to the placebo group, the fluvoxamine group had a significantly lower rate of clinical deterioration (RR, 0.73; P = 0.004; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.90; I2 = 0%) and hospitalization (RR, 0.76; P = 0.04; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.99; I2 = 0%). In the meantime, compared with the placebo group, fluvoxamine group did not show any higher risk of AEs (P = 0.13 and 0.91, respectively) in safety outcomes analysis. The subgroup analysis showed that fluvoxamine treatment performed more than 200 mg daily appears to be more effective than those performed less than 200 mg daily in reducing clinical deterioration and hospitalization risks, while not exhibiting higher AE and SAE risks than placebo group.
CONCLUSION
Fluvoxamine for patients with COVID-19, especially those who take 200 mg or more daily, is superior to the placebo group in reducing clinical deterioration and hospitalization, and did not show any higher risk of AEs and SAEs in safety concerns, which might be a promising intervention for COVID-19.
Topics: Fluvoxamine; Humans; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Treatment Outcome; Hospitalization
PubMed: 38753761
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300512 -
Clinical and Translational Science May 2024Cannabis-drug interactions have caused significant concerns, mainly due to their role in the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme-mediated metabolic pathway of numerous...
Cannabis-drug interactions have caused significant concerns, mainly due to their role in the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme-mediated metabolic pathway of numerous medications. A systematic review was conducted to gain an overview of the potential interactions of cannabis with different drug classes by extracting pertinent information from published study data. From the inception of the study to October 1, 2023, we performed a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, clinicaltrials.gov, and Web of Science. We included 54 out of 464 articles, and a total of 20 drug classes were identified to have interactions with medicinal cannabis. The cannabis-drug interactions were assessed and classified according to their probability and severity. The analysis revealed that antiepileptics had the most evidence of interaction with cannabis, followed by clobazam (CLB), warfarin, and tacrolimus. Generally, cannabis-drug interactions result in pharmacokinetic (PK) or pharmacodynamic (PD) changes. Therefore, careful monitoring should be performed to detect any unusual elevations in plasma levels. In addition, dose titrations or treatment withdrawal could help mitigate the adverse effects attributed to cannabis-drug interactions. Nevertheless, novel drugs are constantly emerging, and more research is needed to further identify potential interactions with cannabis.
Topics: Humans; Anticonvulsants; Clobazam; Drug Interactions; Medical Marijuana; Warfarin
PubMed: 38720531
DOI: 10.1111/cts.13812 -
Croatian Medical Journal Apr 2024To review the literature data on the prevalence of benzodiazepines abuse and poisoning in older adults; the prevalence of polypharmacy with benzodiazepines in this... (Review)
Review
AIM
To review the literature data on the prevalence of benzodiazepines abuse and poisoning in older adults; the prevalence of polypharmacy with benzodiazepines in this demographic; and determine whether benzodiazepine anxiolytics or hypnotics were more frequently implicated in the cases of abuse and poisoning.
METHODS
We searched PubMed and Scopus for relevant studies published from January 1, 2013, to May 1, 2023. Twelve studies were included in the final selection.
RESULTS
The review highlights the diverse prevalence rates of benzodiazepine abuse and poisoning in the older adult population. Benzodiazepine anxiolytics were more frequently associated with negative outcomes than benzodiazepine hypnotics. Concurrent use of benzodiazepines, benzodiazepine-related medications, and opioids was reported, although these medications were not the only ones commonly used by the elderly.
CONCLUSION
It is essential to increase awareness about adhering to prescribed pharmacological therapies to mitigate issues related to drug abuse and poisoning among older adults.
Topics: Humans; Benzodiazepines; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Aged; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Substance-Related Disorders; Polypharmacy; Prevalence; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Anxiety Agents
PubMed: 38706240
DOI: 10.3325/cmj.2024.65.146 -
JAMA Network Open Mar 2024Antipsychotic-induced akathisia (AIA) occurs in 14% to 35% of patients treated with antipsychotics and is associated with increased suicide and decreased adherence in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Antipsychotic-induced akathisia (AIA) occurs in 14% to 35% of patients treated with antipsychotics and is associated with increased suicide and decreased adherence in patients with schizophrenia. However, no comprehensive review and network meta-analysis has been conducted to compare the efficacy of treatments for AIA.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy associated with AIA treatments.
DATA SOURCES
Three databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were systematically searched by multiple researchers for double-blind randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing active drugs for the treatment of AIA with placebo or another treatment between May 30 and June 18, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Selected studies were RCTs that compared adjunctive drugs for AIA vs placebo or adjunctive treatment in patients treated with antipsychotics fulfilling the criteria for akathisia, RCTs with sample size of 10 patients or more, only trials in which no additional drugs were administered during the study, and RCTs that used a validated akathisia score. Trials with missing data for the main outcome (akathisia score at the end points) were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data extraction and synthesis were performed, estimating standardized mean differences (SMDs) through pairwise and network meta-analysis with a random-effects model. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was the severity of akathisia measured by a validated scale at the last available end point.
RESULTS
Fifteen trials involving 492 participants compared 10 treatments with placebo. Mirtazapine (15 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -1.20; 95% CI, -1.83 to -0.58), biperiden (6 mg/d for ≥14 days; SMD, -1.01; 95% CI, -1.69 to -0.34), vitamin B6 (600-1200 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -0.92; 95% CI, -1.57 to -0.26), trazodone (50 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -0.84; 95% CI, -1.54 to -0.14), mianserin (15 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -0.81; 95% CI, -1.44 to -0.19), and propranolol (20 mg/d for ≥6 days; SMD, -0.78; 95% CI, -1.35 to -0.22) were associated with greater efficacy than placebo, with low to moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 34.6%; 95% CI, 0.0%-71.1%). Cyproheptadine, clonazepam, zolmitriptan, and valproate did not yield significant effects. Eight trials were rated as having low risk of bias; 2, moderate risk; and 5, high risk. Sensitivity analyses generally confirmed the results for all drugs except for cyproheptadine and propranolol. No association between effect sizes and psychotic severity was found.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, mirtazapine, biperiden, and vitamin B6 were associated with the greatest efficacy for AIA, with vitamin B6 having the best efficacy and tolerance profile. Trazodone, mianserin, and propranolol appeared as effective alternatives with slightly less favorable efficacy and tolerance profiles. These findings should assist prescribers in selecting an appropriate medication for treating AIA.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Biperiden; Cyproheptadine; Gallopamil; Mianserin; Mirtazapine; Network Meta-Analysis; Propranolol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Trazodone; Vitamin B 6; Akathisia, Drug-Induced
PubMed: 38451521
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.1527 -
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders Mar 2024Postoperative delirium is a common and debilitating complication that significantly affects patients and their families. The purpose of this study is to investigate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Postoperative delirium is a common and debilitating complication that significantly affects patients and their families. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether there is an effective sedative that can prevent postoperative delirium while also examining the safety of using sedatives during the perioperative period.
METHODS
The net-meta analysis was used to compare the incidence of postoperative delirium among four sedatives: sevoflurane, propofol, dexmedetomidine, and midazolam. Interventions were ranked according to their surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).
RESULTS
A total of 41 RCT studies involving 6679 patients were analyzed. Dexmedetomidine can effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium than propofol (OR 0.47 95% CI 0.25-0.90), midazolam (OR 0.42 95% CI 0.17-1.00), normal saline (OR 0.42 95% CI 0.33-0.54) and sevoflurane (OR 0.39 95% CI 0.18-0.82). The saline group showed a significantly lower incidence of bradycardia compared to the group receiving dexmedetomidine (OR 0.55 95% CI 0.37-0.80). In cardiac surgery, midazolam (OR 3.34 95%CI 2.04-5.48) and normal saline (OR 2.27 95%CI 1.17-4.39) had a higher rate of postoperative delirium than dexmedetomidine, while in non-cardiac surgery, normal saline (OR 1.98 95%CI 1.44-2.71) was more susceptible to postoperative delirium than dexmedetomidine.
CONCLUSION
Our analysis suggests that dexmedetomidine is an effective sedative in preventing postoperative delirium whether in cardiac surgery or non-cardiac surgery. The preventive effect of dexmedetomidine on postoperative delirium becomes more apparent with longer surgical and extubation times. However, it should be administered with caution as it was found to be associated with bradycardia.
Topics: Humans; Anesthetics; Bradycardia; Dexmedetomidine; Emergence Delirium; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Propofol; Saline Solution; Sevoflurane; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 38448835
DOI: 10.1186/s12872-024-03783-5 -
PloS One 2024Studies investigating the effectiveness of acupuncture therapies in alleviating pain in pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) have gained increasing attention. However, to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Studies investigating the effectiveness of acupuncture therapies in alleviating pain in pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) have gained increasing attention. However, to date, there have been no systematic reviews and meta-analyses providing high-quality evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of acupuncture therapies in this context.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this review was to assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture therapies as complementary or alternative treatments for pain relief in patients with PID.
METHOD
A comprehensive search was conducted in eight databases from inception to February 20, 2023: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating acupuncture therapies as complementary or additional treatments to routine care were identified. Primary outcomes were pain intensity scores for abdominal or lumbosacral pain. The Cochrane risk of bias criteria was applied to assess the methodological quality of the included trials. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) system was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. Data processing was performed using RevMan 5.4.
RESULT
This systematic review included twelve trials comprising a total of 1,165 patients. Among these, nine trials examined acupuncture therapies as adjunctive therapy, while the remaining three did not. Meta-analyses demonstrated that acupuncture therapies, whether used alone or in combination with routine treatment, exhibited greater efficacy in relieving abdominal pain compared to routine treatment alone immediately after the intervention (MD: -1.32; 95% CI: -1.60 to -1.05; P < 0.00001). The advantage of acupuncture therapies alone persisted for up to one month after the treatment (MD: -1.44; 95% CI: -2.15 to -0.72; P < 0.0001). Additionally, acupuncture therapies combined with routine treatment had a more pronounced effect in relieving lumbosacral pain after the intervention (MD: -1.14; 95% CI: -2.12 to -0.17; P < 0.00001) in patients with PID. The incidence of adverse events did not increase with the addition of acupuncture therapies (OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.21 to 1.51; P = 0.25). The findings also indicated that acupuncture therapies, as a complementary treatment, could induce anti-inflammatory cytokines, reduce pro-inflammatory cytokines, alleviate anxiety, and improve the quality of life in patients with PID.
CONCLUSION
Our findings suggest that acupuncture therapies may effectively reduce pain intensity in the abdomen and lumbosacral region as complementary or alternative treatments, induce anti-inflammatory cytokines, decrease pro-inflammatory cytokines, alleviate anxiety, and enhance the quality of life in patients with PID, without increasing the occurrence of adverse events. However, due to the low quality of the included trials, the conclusion should be interpreted with caution, highlighting the need for further high-quality trials to establish more reliable conclusions.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pelvic Inflammatory Disease; Acupuncture Therapy; Pain; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Cytokines
PubMed: 38295033
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292166 -
Scandinavian Journal of Pain Jan 2024To systematically review the existing literature for evidence of efficacy around interventions in the management of persistent pain post radiotherapy for head and neck...
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the existing literature for evidence of efficacy around interventions in the management of persistent pain post radiotherapy for head and neck cancers.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was conducted to assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions for the management of persistent post-radiotherapy pain in head and neck cancers. The primary outcome evaluated whether an intervention resulted in a reduction in pain which was determined using validated pain tools.
RESULTS
Two randomised controlled trials involving 196 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria, one evaluating the effect of hypnotherapy and the other evaluating the effect of pregabalin on radiotherapy related pain in head and neck cancer patients. In one study by Thuma et al. (2016) there was a decrease in pain scores in the hypnotherapy group (p<0.001). In the other study, by Jiang et al. (2018) patients treated with pregabalin had a greater reduction in pain intensity, pain severity and a reduction in pain functional interference (p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of our review suggest that in chronic post-radiotherapy pain for head and neck cancers there is very-low level evidence for the use of hypnotherapy in reducing pain scores and for the use of pregabalin in reducing pain intensity, severity, functional interference and psychological distress with significant improvement in quality of life.
Topics: Humans; Pain Management; Pregabalin; Quality of Life; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Chronic Pain
PubMed: 38126203
DOI: 10.1515/sjpain-2023-0069