-
Arquivos de Neuro-psiquiatria Jun 2023Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global health problem, and gabapentin and pregabalin are often used in the treatment of patients without associated radiculopathy or...
BACKGROUND
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global health problem, and gabapentin and pregabalin are often used in the treatment of patients without associated radiculopathy or neuropathy. Therefore, determining their efficacy and safety is of enormous value.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the efficacy and safety of using gabapentin and pregabalin for CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy.
METHODS
We performed a search on the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and Web of Science data bases for clinical trials, cohorts, and case-control studies that evaluated patients with CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy for at least eight weeks. The data were extracted and inserted into a previously-prepared Microsoft Excel spreadsheet; the outcomes were evaluated using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and the quality of evidence, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.
RESULTS
Of the 2,230 articles identified, only 5 were included, totaling 242 participants. In them, pregabalin was slightly less efficacious than amitriptyline, the combination of tramadol/acetaminophen, and celecoxib, and pregabalin added to celecoxib showed no benefit when compared to celecoxib alone (very low evidence for all). On the other hand, although one study with gabapentin did not support its use in a general sample of patients with low back pain, another found a reduction in the pain scale and improved mobility (moderate evidence). No serious adverse events were observed in any of the studies.
CONCLUSION
Quality information to support the use of pregabalin or gabapentin in the treatment of CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy is lacking, although results may suggest gabapentin as a viable option. More data is needed to fill this current gap in knowledge.
Topics: Humans; Radiculopathy; Gabapentin; Pregabalin; Low Back Pain; Celecoxib
PubMed: 37379868
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1764414 -
Medicine Jun 2023The analgesic sedation of dexmedetomidine compared with midazolam for third molar surgery remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The analgesic sedation of dexmedetomidine compared with midazolam for third molar surgery remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for third molar surgery.
METHODS
We have searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through December 2022 for randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for third molar surgery. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model.
RESULTS
Four randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with midazolam for third molar surgery, dexmedetomidine administration leads to comparable oxygen saturation (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.24 to 0.74; P = .31), heart rate (SMD = -0.37; 95% CI = -1.18 to 0.44; P = .37), SBP (SMD = -0.24; 95% CI = -0.57 to 0.09; P = .16), DBP (SMD = -0.26; 95% CI = -0.60 to 0.07; P = .12), as well as nausea and vomiting (OR = 0.58; 95% CI = 0.05-6.61; P = .66).
CONCLUSIONS
Dexmedetomidine may obtain the comparable sedation efficacy with midazolam for third molar surgery.
Topics: Humans; Midazolam; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Dexmedetomidine; Molar, Third; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37352026
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000033155 -
Medicine Jun 2023Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF), as a new technique, is used to treat a variety of chronic pain syndromes, but it has a high recurrence rate for herpetic neuralgia and is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF), as a new technique, is used to treat a variety of chronic pain syndromes, but it has a high recurrence rate for herpetic neuralgia and is often combined with drugs therapy. The aim of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of PRF combined with pregabalin in the treatment of herpetic neuralgia.
METHODS
The electronic databases, including CNKI, Wanfang data, PubMed, Embase, web of science, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January 31, 2023. The outcomes were pain scores, sleep quality and side effects.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies with 1817 patients were included in this meta-analysis. PRF combined with pregabalin significantly reduced the visual analogue scale/score in patients with postherpetic neuralgia or herpes zoster neuralgia when compared with pregabalin or PRF monotherapy [P < .00001, standardized mean difference (SMD) = -2.01, confidence intervals (CI) = -2.36 to -1.66; P < .00001, SMD = -0.69, CI = -0.77 to -0.61]. Compared with pregabalin monotherapy, PRF combined with pregabalin significantly decreased the pittsburgh sleep quality index score, the dosage and number of days of using pregabalin (P < .00001, SMD = -1.68, CI = -2.19 to -1.17; P < .00001, SMD = -0.94, CI = -1.25 to -0.64; P < .00001, SMD = -1.52, CI = -1.85 to -1.19). However, there was no significant difference in the effect of PRF combined with pregabalin versus PRF alone on pittsburgh sleep quality index score in patients with postherpetic neuralgia (P = .70, SMD = -1.02, CI = -6.11 to 4.07). In addition, PRF combined with pregabalin could significantly decrease the incidence of dizziness, somnolence, ataxia and pain at puncture site when compared with pregabalin monotherapy (P = .0007, odds ratio [OR] = 0.56, CI = 0.40 to 0.78; P = .008, OR = 0.60, CI = 0.41 to 0.88; P = .008, OR = 0.52, CI = 0.32 to 0.84; P = .0007, OR = 12.39, CI = 2.87 to 53.43), but no significant difference was observed when compared with PRF alone.
CONCLUSIONS
PRF combined with pregabalin can effectively alleviate the pain intensity and improve sleep quality in patients with herpetic neuralgia, and the incidence of complications was low, so it was worthy of clinical application.
Topics: Humans; Pregabalin; Neuralgia, Postherpetic; Pulsed Radiofrequency Treatment; Neuralgia; Herpes Zoster; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37335664
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000033932 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Pain is a common symptom in people with cancer; 30% to 50% of people with cancer will experience moderate-to-severe pain. This can have a major negative impact on their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pain is a common symptom in people with cancer; 30% to 50% of people with cancer will experience moderate-to-severe pain. This can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine-like) medications are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. Pain is not sufficiently relieved by opioid medications in 10% to 15% of people with cancer. In people with insufficient relief of cancer pain, new analgesics are needed to effectively and safely supplement or replace opioids.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines, including medical cannabis, for treating pain and other symptoms in adults with cancer compared to placebo or any other established analgesic for cancer pain.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 January 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected double-blind randomised, controlled trials (RCT) of medical cannabis, plant-derived and synthetic cannabis-based medicines against placebo or any other active treatment for cancer pain in adults, with any treatment duration and at least 10 participants per treatment arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. The primary outcomes were 1. proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain; 2. Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved and 3. withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were 4. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater and overall opioid use reduced or stable; 5. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater, or 50% or greater; 6. pain intensity; 7. sleep problems; 8. depression and anxiety; 9. daily maintenance and breakthrough opioid dosage; 10. dropouts due to lack of efficacy; 11. all central nervous system adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 14 studies involving 1823 participants. No study assessed the proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain on treatment by 14 days after start of treatment. We found five RCTs assessing oromucosal nabiximols (tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD)) or THC alone involving 1539 participants with moderate or severe pain despite opioid therapy. The double-blind periods of the RCTs ranged between two and five weeks. Four studies with a parallel design and 1333 participants were available for meta-analysis. There was moderate-certainty evidence that there was no clinically relevant benefit for proportions of PGIC much or very much improved (risk difference (RD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.12; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 16, 95% CI 8 to 100). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of withdrawals due to adverse events (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0 to 0.08; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 25, 95% CI 16 to endless). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no difference between nabiximols or THC and placebo in the frequency of serious adverse events (RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07). There was moderate-certainty evidence that nabiximols and THC used as add-on treatment for opioid-refractory cancer pain did not differ from placebo in reducing mean pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.02). There was low-certainty evidence that a synthetic THC analogue (nabilone) delivered over eight weeks was not superior to placebo in reducing pain associated with chemotherapy or radiochemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer (2 studies, 89 participants, qualitative analysis). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies. There was low-certainty evidence that synthetic THC analogues were superior to placebo (SMD -0.98, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.60), but not superior to low-dose codeine (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.32; 5 single-dose trials; 126 participants) in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain after cessation of previous analgesic treatment for three to four and a half hours (2 single-dose trials; 66 participants). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies. There was low-certainty evidence that CBD oil did not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain intensity in people with advanced cancer. There was no difference in the number of dropouts due to adverse events and serious adverse events (1 study, 144 participants, qualitative analysis). We found no studies using herbal cannabis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-certainty evidence that oromucosal nabiximols and THC are ineffective in relieving moderate-to-severe opioid-refractory cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that nabilone is ineffective in reducing pain associated with (radio-) chemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. There is low-certainty evidence that a single dose of synthetic THC analogues is not superior to a single low-dose morphine equivalent in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that CBD does not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain in people with advanced cancer.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Cancer Pain; Cannabis; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Codeine; Lung Neoplasms; Medical Marijuana; Morphine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37283486
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014915.pub2 -
The Journal of Headache and Pain May 2023While there are several trials that support the efficacy of various drugs for migraine prophylaxis against placebo, there is limited evidence addressing the comparative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
While there are several trials that support the efficacy of various drugs for migraine prophylaxis against placebo, there is limited evidence addressing the comparative safety and efficacy of these drugs. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to facilitate comparison between drugs for migraine prophylaxis.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to August 13, 2022, for randomized trials of pharmacological treatments for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and rated the certainty (quality) of evidence as either high, moderate, low, or very low using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
We identified 74 eligible trials, reporting on 32,990 patients. We found high certainty evidence that monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene related peptide or its receptor (CGRP(r)mAbs), gepants, and topiramate increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo. We found moderate certainty evidence that beta-blockers, valproate, and amitriptyline increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, and low certainty evidence that gabapentin may not be different from placebo. We found high certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, valproate and amitriptyline lead to substantial adverse events leading to discontinuation, moderate certainty evidence that topiramate, beta-blockers, and gabapentin increase adverse events leading to discontinuation, and moderate to high certainty evidence that (CGRP(r)mAbs) and gepants do not increase adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
(CGRP(r)mAbs) have the best safety and efficacy profile of all drugs for migraine prophylaxis, followed closely by gepants.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Topiramate; Valproic Acid; Gabapentin; Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide; Network Meta-Analysis; Amitriptyline; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Migraine Disorders
PubMed: 37208596
DOI: 10.1186/s10194-023-01594-1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Harmful alcohol use is defined as unhealthy alcohol use that results in adverse physical, psychological, social, or societal consequences and is among the leading risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Harmful alcohol use is defined as unhealthy alcohol use that results in adverse physical, psychological, social, or societal consequences and is among the leading risk factors for disease, disability and premature mortality globally. The burden of harmful alcohol use is increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and there remains a large unmet need for indicated prevention and treatment interventions to reduce harmful alcohol use in these settings. Evidence regarding which interventions are effective and feasible for addressing harmful and other patterns of unhealthy alcohol use in LMICs is limited, which contributes to this gap in services.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of psychosocial and pharmacologic treatment and indicated prevention interventions compared with control conditions (wait list, placebo, no treatment, standard care, or active control condition) aimed at reducing harmful alcohol use in LMICs.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indexed in the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group (CDAG) Specialized Register, the Cochrane Clinical Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) through 12 December 2021. We searched clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Web of Science, and Opengrey database to identify unpublished or ongoing studies. We searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles for eligible studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All RCTs comparing an indicated prevention or treatment intervention (pharmacologic or psychosocial) versus a control condition for people with harmful alcohol use in LMICs were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 66 RCTs with 17,626 participants. Sixty-two of these trials contributed to the meta-analysis. Sixty-three studies were conducted in middle-income countries (MICs), and the remaining three studies were conducted in low-income countries (LICs). Twenty-five trials exclusively enrolled participants with alcohol use disorder. The remaining 51 trials enrolled participants with harmful alcohol use, some of which included both cases of alcohol use disorder and people reporting hazardous alcohol use patterns that did not meet criteria for disorder. Fifty-two RCTs assessed the efficacy of psychosocial interventions; 27 were brief interventions primarily based on motivational interviewing and were compared to brief advice, information, or assessment only. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to brief interventions given the high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Studies reporting continuous outcomes: Tau² = 0.15, Q =139.64, df =16, P<.001, I² = 89%, 3913 participants, 17 trials, very low certainty; Studies reporting dichotomous outcomes: Tau²=0.18, Q=58.26, df=3, P<.001, I² =95%, 1349 participants, 4 trials, very low certainty). The other types of psychosocial interventions included a range of therapeutic approaches such as behavioral risk reduction, cognitive-behavioral therapy, contingency management, rational emotive therapy, and relapse prevention. These interventions were most commonly compared to usual care involving varying combinations of psychoeducation, counseling, and pharmacotherapy. We are uncertain whether a reduction in harmful alcohol use is attributable to psychosocial treatments due to high levels of heterogeneity among included studies (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 1.15; Q = 444.32, df = 11, P<.001; I²=98%, 2106 participants, 12 trials, very low certainty). Eight trials compared combined pharmacologic and psychosocial interventions with placebo, psychosocial intervention alone, or another pharmacologic treatment. The active pharmacologic study conditions included disulfiram, naltrexone, ondansetron, or topiramate. The psychosocial components of these interventions included counseling, encouragement to attend Alcoholics Anonymous, motivational interviewing, brief cognitive-behavioral therapy, or other psychotherapy (not specified). Analysis of studies comparing a combined pharmacologic and psychosocial intervention to psychosocial intervention alone found that the combined approach may be associated with a greater reduction in harmful alcohol use (standardized mean difference (standardized mean difference (SMD))=-0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.61 to -0.24; 475 participants; 4 trials; low certainty). Four trials compared pharmacologic intervention alone with placebo and three with another pharmacotherapy. Drugs assessed were: acamprosate, amitriptyline, baclofen disulfiram, gabapentin, mirtazapine, and naltrexone. None of these trials evaluated the primary clinical outcome of interest, harmful alcohol use. Thirty-one trials reported rates of retention in the intervention. Meta-analyses revealed that rates of retention between study conditions did not differ in any of the comparisons (pharmacologic risk ratio (RR) = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.44, 247 participants, 3 trials, low certainty; pharmacologic in addition to psychosocial intervention: RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.40, 363 participants, 3 trials, moderate certainty). Due to high levels of heterogeneity, we did not calculate pooled estimates comparing retention in brief (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; Q = 172.59, df = 11, P<.001; I = 94%; 5380 participants; 12 trials, very low certainty) or other psychosocial interventions (Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; Q = 34.07, df = 8, P<.001; I = 77%; 1664 participants; 9 trials, very low certainty). Two pharmacologic trials and three combined pharmacologic and psychosocial trials reported on side effects. These studies found more side effects attributable to amitriptyline relative to mirtazapine, naltrexone and topiramate relative to placebo, yet no differences in side effects between placebo and either acamprosate or ondansetron. Across all intervention types there was substantial risk of bias. Primary threats to validity included lack of blinding and differential/high rates of attrition.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In LMICs there is low-certainty evidence supporting the efficacy of combined psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use relative to psychosocial interventions alone. There is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of pharmacologic or psychosocial interventions on reducing harmful alcohol use largely due to the substantial heterogeneity in outcomes, comparisons, and interventions that precluded pooling of these data in meta-analyses. The majority of studies are brief interventions, primarily among men, and using measures that have not been validated in the target population. Confidence in these results is reduced by the risk of bias and significant heterogeneity among studies as well as the heterogeneity of results on different outcome measures within studies. More evidence on the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions, specific types of psychosocial interventions are needed to increase the certainty of these results.
Topics: Humans; Male; Acamprosate; Alcoholism; Amitriptyline; Developing Countries; Disulfiram; Mirtazapine; Naltrexone; Ondansetron; Topiramate
PubMed: 37158538
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013350.pub2 -
The International Journal of... Jun 2023Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a highly prevalent and burdensome condition. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of vortioxetine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a highly prevalent and burdensome condition. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of vortioxetine in treating MDD based on real-world data.
METHODS
A systematic search of 8 electronic databases was performed from inception until October 2022 to identify real-world studies, excluding randomized controlled trials. We conducted subgroup, meta-regression, sensitivity analyses, publication bias, and quality assessments using the random-effects model. The effects were summarized by rates or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Of the 870 records identified, 11 studies (3139 participants) and 10 case reports or series were eligible for inclusion. Vortioxetine significantly relieved depression symptoms as assessed by both patients (SMD = 2.25, 95% CI = 1.60-2.89) and physicians (SMD = 3.73, 95% CI = 2.78-4.69). Cognitive function (SMD =1.86, 95% CI = 1.11-2.62) and functional disability (SMD =1.71, 95% CI = 1.14-2.29) were similarly markedly improved. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses showed that geographic location and medication regimen (whether combined with other antidepressants) were crucial factors influencing effectiveness (in terms of depression severity and cognitive function), potentially contributing to significant heterogeneity. The estimated response and remission rates were 66.4% (95% CI = 51.2%-81.5%) and 58.0% (95% CI = 48.9%-67.1%), respectively. Vortioxetine was well tolerated, with a pooled dropout rate of 3.5% (95% CI = 1.8%-5.8%), and the most common adverse event was nausea, with an estimated rate of 8.9% (95% CI = 3.8%-15.8%).
LIMITATIONS
The study has some limitations, including significant heterogeneity and limited evidence for some outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Vortioxetine is effective, well tolerated, and safe for treating MDD in clinical practice, with significant improvements observed in depressive severity, cognitive function, and functioning. Future studies should directly compare vortioxetine with other antidepressants in real-world settings to further evaluate its clinical utility.
Topics: Humans; Vortioxetine; Depressive Disorder, Major; Antidepressive Agents; Nausea; Cognition
PubMed: 37105713
DOI: 10.1093/ijnp/pyad018 -
European Neuropsychopharmacology : the... Jul 2023The endocannabinoid system is a promising candidate for anxiolytic therapy, but translation to the clinic has been lagging. We meta-analyzed the evidence for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The endocannabinoid system is a promising candidate for anxiolytic therapy, but translation to the clinic has been lagging. We meta-analyzed the evidence for anxiety-reduction by compounds that facilitate endocannabinoid signaling in humans and animals. To identify areas of specific potential, effects of moderators were assessed. Literature was searched in Pubmed and Embase up to May 2021. A placebo/vehicle-control group was required and in human studies, randomization. We excluded studies that co-administered other substances. Risk of bias was assessed with SYRCLE's RoB tool and Cochrane RoB 2.0. We conducted three-level random effects meta-analyses and explored sources of heterogeneity using Bayesian regularized meta-regression (BRMA). The systematic review yielded 134 studies. We analyzed 120 studies (114 animal, 6 human) that investigated cannabidiol (CBD, 61), URB597 (39), PF-3845 (6) and AM404 (14). Pooled effects on conditioned and unconditioned anxiety in animals (with the exception of URB597 on unconditioned anxiety) and on experimentally induced anxiety in humans favored the investigational drugs over placebo/vehicle. Publication year was negatively associated with effects of CBD on unconditioned anxiety. Compared to approach avoidance tests, tests of repetitive-compulsive behavior were associated with larger effects of CBD and URB597, and the social interaction test with smaller effects of URB597. Larger effects of CBD on unconditioned anxiety were observed when anxiety pre-existed. Studies reported few side effects at therapeutic doses. The evidence quality was low with indications of publication bias. More clinical trials are needed to translate the overall positive results to clinical applications.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Endocannabinoids; Bayes Theorem; Anxiety; Cannabidiol
PubMed: 37094409
DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2023.04.001 -
BMC Psychiatry Apr 2023Today, gabapentinoids such as Gabapentin (GBP) and pregabalin (PGB) are widely used as painkillers. This may alter the function of the nervous system; hence their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Today, gabapentinoids such as Gabapentin (GBP) and pregabalin (PGB) are widely used as painkillers. This may alter the function of the nervous system; hence their results may include a difference in memory and processes that end in memory formation. This study aims to conclude whether gabapentinoids can alter memory or not by reviewing and analyzing clinical and preclinical studies.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A comprehensive search was carried out in databases including PUBMED, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science. In the included studies, memory was measured as an outcome variable in clinical or preclinical studies.
RESULT
A total of 21 articles (4 clinical, 17 preclinical) were included in the meta-analysis by STATA Software. The results showed that memory changes under the influence of GBP. Both the administrated dosage and the time of administration are important in the final results and latency time of retention. GBP administration in healthy animals increased latency time, whereas if the administration of GBP took place exactly before training, the latency time increased slightly. Short-term administration of PGB in healthy volunteers is accompanied by transient side effects on the CNS. However, the number and homogeneity of the studies were not such that a meta-analysis could be performed on them.
CONCLUSION
Clinical and preclinical studies showed that PGB administration did not confirm its improving memory effect. GBP administration in healthy animals increased latency time and improved memory. Although it depended on the time of administration.
Topics: Animals; Analgesics; Gabapentin; Pregabalin
PubMed: 37069609
DOI: 10.1186/s12888-023-04696-x -
Tremor and Other Hyperkinetic Movements... 2023The objective of this review is to provide updated information on the epidemiology, correlating factors and treatment of chronic kidney disease associated restless legs... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review is to provide updated information on the epidemiology, correlating factors and treatment of chronic kidney disease associated restless legs syndrome (CKD-A-RLS) in both adult and pediatric population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We have reviewed the Medline search and Google Scholar search up to May 2022, using key words restless legs syndrome, chronic kidney disease and hemodialysis and kidney transplant. The reviewed articles were studied for epidemiology, correlating factors, as well as pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatment options.
RESULTS
Our search revealed 175 articles, 111 were clinical trials or cross- sectional studies and 64 were review articles. All 111 articles were retrieved and studied in detail. Of these, 105 focused on adults and 6 on children. A majority of studies on dialysis patients reported a prevalence between 15-30%, which is notably higher than prevalence of RLS in general population (5-10%). The correlation between presence of CKD-A-RLS with age, gender, abnormalities of hemogram, iron, ferritin, serum lipids, electrolytes and parathyroid hormones were also reviewed. The results were inconsistent and controversial. Limited studies have reported on the treatment of CKD-A-RLS. Non-pharmacological treatment focused on the effect(s) of exercise, acupuncture, massage with different oils and infra-red light whereas, pharmacologic treatment options include the effects of dopaminergic drugs, Alpha2-Delta ligands (gabapentin and pregabalin), vitamins E and C, and intravenous iron infusion.
CONCLUSION
This updated review showed that RLS is two to three times more common in patients with CKD compared to the general population. More patients with CKD-A-RLS demonstrated increased mortality, increased incidence of cardiovascular accident, depression, insomnia and impaired quality of life than those with CKD without RLS. Dopaminergic drugs such as levodopa, ropinirole, pramipexole and rotigotine as well as calcium channel blockers (gabapentin and pregabalin) are helpful for treatment of RLS. High quality studies with these agents are currently underway and hopefully confirm the efficacy and practicality of using these drugs in CKD-A-RLS. Some studies have shown that aerobic exercise and massage with lavender oil can improve symptoms of CKD-A- RLS suggesting that these measures can be useful as adjunct therapy.
Topics: Humans; Child; Gabapentin; Restless Legs Syndrome; Pregabalin; Quality of Life; Dopamine Agents; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Iron
PubMed: 37008995
DOI: 10.5334/tohm.752