-
Journal of the American Heart... Oct 2020Background The emergence of specific therapies for transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis (CA) warrants the need for a systematic review of the literature. Methods and...
Background The emergence of specific therapies for transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis (CA) warrants the need for a systematic review of the literature. Methods and Results A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic search was performed on MEDLINE, PubMed, and Embase databases on November 29, 2019. Studies were selected based on the following predefined eligibility criteria: English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, or observational studies, which included adult patients with variant/wild-type transthyretin-CA, assessed specific therapies for transthyretin-CA, and reported cardiovascular outcomes. Relevant data were extracted to a predefined template. Quality assessment was based on National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations (RCTs) or a checklist by Downs and Black (non-RCTs). From 1203 records, 24 publications were selected, describing 4 RCTs (6 publications) and 16 non-RCTs (18 publications). Tafamidis was shown to significantly improve all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalizations and reduce worsening in 6-minute walk test, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Overall Summary score, and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) in variant/wild-type transthyretin-CA. Patisiran showed promising results in a subgroup analysis of patients with variant transthyretin-CA, which have to be confirmed in RCTs. Inotersen showed conflicting results on cardiac imaging parameters. The one study on AG10 had only a 1-month duration and cardiovascular end points were exploratory and limited to cardiac biomarkers. Limited evidence from noncomparative single-arm small non-RCTs existed for diflunisal, epigallocatechin-3-gallate (green tea extract), and doxycycline+tauroursodeoxycholic acid/ursodeoxycholic acid. Conclusions This systematic review of the literature supports the use of tafamidis in wild-type and variant transthyretin-CA. Novel therapeutic targets including transthyretin gene silencers are currently under investigation.
Topics: Amyloid Neuropathies, Familial; Benzoxazoles; Cardiomyopathies; Cardiovascular Agents; Genetic Therapy; Humans
PubMed: 32969287
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.016614 -
European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy :... Jul 2020To carry out a systematic review of the literature to analyse the efficacy and safety of treatments available or under investigation for amyloidosis due to mutations in...
OBJECTIVE
To carry out a systematic review of the literature to analyse the efficacy and safety of treatments available or under investigation for amyloidosis due to mutations in the transthyretin gene (ATTR).
METHODS
A bibliographic search was carried out in the following electronic databases up to September 2017: PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE. The inclusion criteria were: efficacy and/or safety studies conducted in humans, studies that included treatments, including treatments in the research phase, and studies that included 10 or more patients.
RESULTS
A total of 21 articles were included; 16 were clinical trials, eight of them (50%) phase III trials, and five were observational studies. Of the total number of studies selected, 11 were on tafamidis, four on diflunisal, two on liver transplantation, two on patisiran and two on other therapeutic alternatives. Of the 11 studies related to the drug, the pivotal trial, the results of its two extension studies and an additional post hoc analysis were selected. In addition, two phase III trials were included in specific populations, two phase II studies, one safety study and two observational studies. Regarding the four included studies related to the drug, one was the pivotal trial that gave the indication to diflunisal, another a safety summary of the pivotal trial, and the other two trials were carried out in specific populations, one in a Japanese population and another phase I trial in cardiac amyloidosis in the USA. As far as other alternatives are concerned, of the six studies included in this section, two were related to liver transplantation, two to patisiran and two to different therapeutic alternatives.
CONCLUSIONS
Sufficient evidence has not been found that demonstrates superiority among the available oral alternatives, diflunisal or tafamidis, in the treatment of ATTR. Direct comparisons between both drugs and pharmacoeconomic studies would be necessary to select the most efficient treatment.
Topics: Amyloid Neuropathies, Familial; Benzoxazoles; Diflunisal; Humans; Liver Transplantation; RNA, Small Interfering
PubMed: 32587078
DOI: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2018-001823 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Disease-modifying pharmacological agents for transthyretin (TTR)-related familial amyloid polyneuropathy (FAP) have become available in the last decade, but evidence on...
BACKGROUND
Disease-modifying pharmacological agents for transthyretin (TTR)-related familial amyloid polyneuropathy (FAP) have become available in the last decade, but evidence on their efficacy and safety is limited. This review focuses on disease-modifying pharmacological treatment for TTR-related and other FAPs, encompassing amyloid kinetic stabilisers, amyloid matrix solvents, and amyloid precursor inhibitors.
OBJECTIVES
To assess and compare the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of disease-modifying pharmacological agents for familial amyloid polyneuropathies (FAPs).
SEARCH METHODS
On 18 November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase. We reviewed reference lists of articles and textbooks on peripheral neuropathies. We also contacted experts in the field. We searched clinical trials registries and manufacturers' websites.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs investigating any disease-modifying pharmacological agent in adults with FAPs. Disability due to FAP progression was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were severity of peripheral neuropathy, change in modified body mass index (mBMI), quality of life, severity of depression, mortality, and adverse events during the trial.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
The review included four RCTs involving 655 people with TTR-FAP. The manufacturers of the drugs under investigation funded three of the studies. The trials investigated different drugs versus placebo and we did not conduct a meta-analysis. One RCT compared tafamidis with placebo in early-stage TTR-FAP (128 randomised participants). The trial did not explore our predetermined disability outcome measures. After 18 months, tafamidis might reduce progression of peripheral neuropathy slightly more than placebo (Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) in the lower limbs; mean difference (MD) -3.21 points, 95% confidential interval (CI) -5.63 to -0.79; P = 0.009; low-certainty evidence). However, tafamidis might lead to little or no difference in the change of quality of life between groups (Norfolk Quality of Life-Diabetic Neuropathy (Norfolk QOL-DN) total score; MD -4.50 points, 95% CI -11.27 to 2.27; P = 0.19; very low-certainty evidence). No clear between-group difference was found in the numbers of participants who died (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.74; P = 0.63; very low-certainty evidence), who dropped out due to adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.54; P = 0.73; very low-certainty evidence), or who experienced at least one severe adverse event during the trial (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.62; P = 0.79; very low-certainty evidence). One RCT compared diflunisal with placebo (130 randomised participants). At month 24, diflunisal might reduce progression of disability (Kumamoto Score; MD -4.90 points, 95% CI -7.89 to -1.91; P = 0.002; low-certainty evidence) and peripheral neuropathy (NIS plus 7 nerve tests; MD -18.10 points, 95% CI -26.03 to -10.17; P < 0.001; low-certainty evidence) more than placebo. After 24 months, changes from baseline in the quality of life measured by the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey score showed no clear difference between groups for the physical component (MD 6.10 points, 95% CI 2.56 to 9.64; P = 0.001; very low-certainty evidence) and the mental component (MD 4.40 points, 95% CI -0.19 to 8.99; P = 0.063; very low-certainty evidence). There was no clear between-group difference in the number of people who died (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.41; P = 0.17; very low-certainty evidence), in the number of dropouts due to adverse events (RR 2.06, 95% CI 0.39 to 10.87; P = 0.39; very low-certainty evidence), and in the number of people who experienced at least one severe adverse event (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.32; P = 0.73; very low-certainty evidence) during the trial. One RCT compared patisiran with placebo (225 randomised participants). After 18 months, patisiran reduced both progression of disability (Rasch-built Overall Disability Scale; least-squares MD 8.90 points, 95% CI 7.00 to 10.80; P < 0.001; moderate-certainty evidence) and peripheral neuropathy (modified NIS plus 7 nerve tests - Alnylam version; least-squares MD -33.99 points, 95% CI -39.86 to -28.13; P < 0.001; moderate-certainty evidence) more than placebo. At month 18, the change in quality of life between groups favoured patisiran (Norfolk QOL-DN total score; least-squares MD -21.10 points, 95% CI -27.20 to -15.00; P < 0.001; low-certainty evidence). There was little or no between-group difference in the number of participants who died (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.74; P = 0.35; low-certainty evidence), dropped out due to adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.82; P = 0.017; low-certainty evidence), or experienced at least one severe adverse event (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.28; P = 0.58; low-certainty evidence) during the trial. One RCT compared inotersen with placebo (172 randomised participants). The trial did not explore our predetermined disability outcome measures. From baseline to week 66, inotersen reduced progression of peripheral neuropathy more than placebo (modified NIS plus 7 nerve tests - Ionis version; MD -19.73 points, 95% CI -26.50 to -12.96; P < 0.001; moderate-certainty evidence). At week 65, the change in quality of life between groups favoured inotersen (Norfolk QOL-DN total score; MD -10.85 points, 95% CI -17.25 to -4.45; P < 0.001; low-certainty evidence). Inotersen may slightly increase mortality (RR 5.94, 95% CI 0.33 to 105.60; P = 0.22; low-certainty evidence) and occurrence of severe adverse events (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.57; P = 0.16; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. More dropouts due to adverse events were observed in the inotersen than in the placebo group (RR 8.57, 95% CI 1.16 to 63.07; P = 0.035; low-certainty evidence). There were no studies addressing apolipoprotein AI-FAP, gelsolin-FAP, and beta-2-microglobulin-FAP.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence on the pharmacological treatment of FAPs from RCTs is limited to TTR-FAP. No studies directly compare disease-modifying pharmacological treatments for TTR-FAP. Results from placebo-controlled trials indicate that tafamidis, diflunisal, patisiran, and inotersen may be beneficial in TTR-FAP, but further investigations are needed. Since direct comparative studies for TTR-FAP will be hampered by sample size and costs required to demonstrate superiority of one drug over another, long-term non-randomised open-label studies monitoring their efficacy and safety are needed.
Topics: Amyloid Neuropathies, Familial; Benzoxazoles; Diflunisal; Disease Progression; Humans; Oligonucleotides; Patient Dropouts; Quality of Life; RNA, Small Interfering; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32311072
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012395.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Chronic back pain is an important health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used to treat people with low back pain, especially people... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic back pain is an important health problem. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used to treat people with low back pain, especially people with acute back pain. Short term NSAID use is also recommended for pain relief in people with chronic back pain. Two types of NSAIDs are available and used to treat back pain: non-selective NSAIDs and selective COX-2 NSAIDs. In 2008, a Cochrane review identified a small but significant effect from NSAIDs compared to placebo in people with chronic back pain. This is an update of the Cochrane review published in 2008 and focuses on people with chronic low back pain.
OBJECTIVES
To determine if NSAIDs are more efficacious than various comparison treatments for non-specific chronic low back pain and if so, which type of NSAID is most efficacious.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and two clinical trials registry databases up to 24 June 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English, German or Dutch. We also screened references cited in relevant reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs (double-blind and single-blind) of NSAIDs used to treat people with chronic low back pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion in this Cochrane review according to the inclusion criteria. One review author extracted the data, and a second review author checked the data. Two review authors independently evaluated the risk of bias of all included trials. If data were clinically homogeneous, we performed a meta-analysis and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 trials in this Cochrane review. Ten studies were at 'low' risk of bias. Six studies compared NSAIDs with placebo, and included 1354 participants in total. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are more effective than placebo, with a mean difference in pain intensity score from baseline of -3.30 (95% CI -5.33 to -1.27) on a 0 to 100 visual analogue scale (VAS) with a median follow-up of 56 days (interquartile range (IQR) 13 to 91 days). Four studies measured disability using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. There is low quality evidence that NSAIDs are more effective than placebo on disability, with a mean difference from baseline of -0.85 (95% CI -1.30 to -0.40) on a scale from 0 to 24 with a median follow-up of 84 days (IQR 42 to 105 days). All six placebo controlled studies also reported adverse events, and suggested that adverse events are not statistically significant more frequent in participants using NSAIDs compared to placebo (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.17). Due to the relatively small sample size and relatively short follow-up in most included trials, it is likely that the proportion of patients experiencing an adverse event is underestimated.Two studies compared different types of non-selective NSAIDs, namely ibuprofen versus diclofenac and piroxicam versus indomethacin. The trials did not find any differences between these NSAID types, but both trials had small sample sizes. One trial reported no differences in pain intensity between treatment groups that used selective or non-selective NSAIDs. One other trial compared diflunisal with paracetamol and showed no difference in improvement from baseline on pain intensity score. One trial showed a better global improvement in favour of celecoxib versus tramadol.One included trial compared NSAIDs with 'home-based exercise'. Disability improved more in participants who did exercises versus participants receiving NSAIDs, but pain scores were similar.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Six of the 13 included RCTs showed that NSAIDs are more effective than placebo regarding pain intensity. NSAIDs are slightly more effective than placebo regarding disability. However, the magnitude of the effects is small, and the level of evidence was low. When we only included RCTs at low risk of bias, differences in effect between NSAIDs and placebo were reduced. We identified no difference in efficacy between different NSAID types, including selective versus non-selective NSAIDs. Due to inclusion of RCTs only, the relatively small sample sizes and relatively short follow-up in most included trials, we cannot make firm statements about the occurrence of adverse events or whether NSAIDs are safe for long-term use.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Chronic Pain; Diclofenac; Disability Evaluation; Humans; Ibuprofen; Indomethacin; Low Back Pain; Pain Measurement; Piroxicam; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26863524
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012087 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015This is an update of a Cochrane overview published in Issue 9, 2011; that overview considered both efficacy and adverse events. This overview considers adverse events,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of a Cochrane overview published in Issue 9, 2011; that overview considered both efficacy and adverse events. This overview considers adverse events, with efficacy dealt with in a separate overview.Thirty-nine Cochrane reviews of randomised trials have examined the adverse events associated with individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain. This overview brings together the results of those individual reviews.
OBJECTIVES
To provide an overview of adverse event rates associated with single-dose oral analgesics, compared with placebo, for acute postoperative pain in adults.
METHODS
We identified systematic reviews in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single review group. We extracted information related to participants experiencing any adverse event, and reports of serious adverse events, and deaths from the individual reviews.
MAIN RESULTS
Information was available from 39 Cochrane reviews for 41 different analgesics or analgesic combinations (51 drug/dose/formulations) tested in single oral doses in participants with moderate or severe postoperative pain. This involved around 350 unique studies involving about 35,000 participants. Most studies involved younger participants with pain following removal of molar teeth.For most nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), paracetamol, and combinations not containing opioids, there were few examples where participants experienced significantly more or fewer adverse events than with placebo. For aspirin 1000 mg and diflunisal 1000 mg, opioids, or fixed-dose combination drugs containing opioids, participants typically experienced significantly more adverse events than with placebo. Studies of combinations of ibuprofen and paracetamol reported significantly fewer adverse events.Serious adverse events were rare, occurring a rate of about 1 in 3200 participants.Most reviews did not report specific adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite ongoing problems with the measurement, recording, and reporting of adverse events in clinical trials and in systematic reviews, the large amount of information available for single oral doses of analgesics provides evidence that adverse events rates are generally similar with active drug and placebo in these circumstances, except at higher doses of some drugs, and in combinations including opioids.
Topics: Acute Pain; Administration, Oral; Adult; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 26461263
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011407.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015This is an updated version of the original Cochrane overview published in Issue 9, 2011. That overview considered both efficacy and adverse events, but adverse events... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane overview published in Issue 9, 2011. That overview considered both efficacy and adverse events, but adverse events are now dealt with in a separate overview.Thirty-nine Cochrane reviews of randomised trials have examined the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain. This overview brings together the results of those individual reviews and assesses the reliability of available data.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the efficacy of pharmaceutical interventions for acute pain in adults with at least moderate pain following surgery who have been given a single dose of oral analgesic.
METHODS
We identified systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single review group, had a standard title, and had as their primary outcome the number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. For individual reviews, we extracted the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for this outcome for each drug/dose combination, and also the percentage of participants achieving at least 50% maximum pain relief, the mean of mean or median time to remedication, and the percentage of participants remedicating by six, eight, 12, or 24 hours. Where there was adequate information for pairs of drug and dose (at least 200 participants, in at least two studies), we defined the addition of four comparisons of typical size (400 participants in total) with zero effect as making the result potentially subject to publication bias and therefore unreliable.
MAIN RESULTS
The overview included 39 separate Cochrane Reviews with 41 analyses of single dose oral analgesics tested in acute postoperative pain models, with results from about 50,000 participants in approximately 460 individual studies. The individual reviews included only high-quality trials of standardised design, methods, and efficacy outcome reporting. No statistical comparison was undertaken.Reliable results (high quality information) were obtained for 53 pairs of drug and dose in painful postsurgical conditions; these included various fixed dose combinations, and fast acting formulations of some analgesics. NNTs varied from about 1.5 to 20 for at least 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. The proportion of participants achieving this level of benefit varied from about 30% to over 70%, and the time to remedication varied from two hours (placebo) to over 20 hours. Good (low) NNTs were obtained with ibuprofen 200 mg plus paracetamol (acetaminophen) 500 mg (NNT compared with placebo 1.6; 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 1.8), ibuprofen fast acting 200 mg (2.1; 1.9 to 2.3); ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg (2.1; 1.9 to 3.1), diclofenac potassium 50 mg (2.1; 1.9 to 2.5), and etoricoxib 120 mg (1.8; 1.7 to 2.0). For comparison, ibuprofen acid 400 mg had an NNT of 2.5 (2.4 to 2.6). Not all participants had good pain relief and, for many pairs of drug and dose, 50% or more did not achieve at least 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours.Long duration of action (eight hours or greater) was found for etoricoxib 120 mg, diflunisal 500 mg, paracetamol 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg, naproxen 500/550 mg, celecoxib 400 mg, and ibuprofen 400 mg plus paracetamol 1000 mg.There was no evidence of analgesic effect for aceclofenac 150 mg, aspirin 500 mg, and oxycodone 5 mg (low quality evidence). No trial data were available in reviews of acemetacin, meloxicam, nabumetone, nefopam, sulindac, tenoxicam, and tiaprofenic acid. Inadequate amounts of data were available for nine drugs and doses, and data potentially susceptible to publication bias for 13 drugs and doses (very low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a wealth of reliable evidence on the analgesic efficacy of single dose oral analgesics. Fast acting formulations and fixed dose combinations of analgesics can produce good and often long-lasting analgesia at relatively low doses. There is also important information on drugs for which there are no data, inadequate data, or where results are unreliable due to susceptibility to publication bias. This should inform choices by professionals and consumers.
Topics: Acute Pain; Administration, Oral; Adult; Analgesics; Humans; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 26414123
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008659.pub3 -
Otolaryngology--head and Neck Surgery :... Mar 2015To perform a systematic review evaluating the association between sensorineural hearing loss and (1) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as a class, (2) NSAIDs... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review evaluating the association between sensorineural hearing loss and (1) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as a class, (2) NSAIDs available over the counter, (3) NSAIDs in short intravenous courses, (4) prescription NSAIDs utilized by patients without systemic inflammatory conditions, (5) prescription NSAIDs in patients with arthritides, and (6) acetaminophen with and without concomitant narcotic usage.
DATA SOURCES
Computerized searches of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were updated through May 2014, along with manual searches and inquiries to topic experts.
REVIEW METHODS
The systematic review was performed according to an a priori protocol. Data extraction was performed by 2 independent investigators, and it focused on relevant audiologic measurements, methodological elements related to risk of bias, and potential confounders.
RESULTS
The 23 criterion-meeting studies included a total of 92,532 participants, with mixed results. Sulindac was the only specific agent to have been studied with formal audiometry in a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial in which hearing was the reported primary outcome: Although an effect was seen in the unadjusted analysis (pure tone threshold>15 dB, 9.3% vs 2.9%; relative risk [RR], 3.2; confidence interval [CI], 1.09-9.55; P=.02), the effect dissipated in the adjusted analysis (P=.09). There was a significant effect on self-reported hearing loss from NSAIDs as a class (RR, 1.21; CI, 1.11-1.33), ibuprofen (RR, 1.13; CI, 1.06-1.19), and acetaminophen (RR, 1.21; CI, 1.11-1.33), but no formal audiometric data confirm or refute this suggested effect. Audiometry has demonstrated profound loss in some instances of acetaminophen-narcotic combination ingestions.
CONCLUSIONS
Data are varied regarding the impact of NSAIDs and acetaminophen on population hearing health.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Audiometry; Hearing; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural; Humans; Risk Factors
PubMed: 25560405
DOI: 10.1177/0194599814564533 -
Drug Safety Dec 2012The risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) complications associated with the use of NSAIDs is a serious public health concern. The risk varies between individual NSAIDs;... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) complications associated with the use of NSAIDs is a serious public health concern. The risk varies between individual NSAIDs; however, there is little information on the risk associated with some NSAIDs and on the impact of risk factors. These data are necessary to evaluate the benefit-risk of individual NSAIDs for clinical and health policy decision making. Within the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme, the Safety Of non-Steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) [SOS] project aims to develop decision models for regulatory and clinical use of individual NSAIDs according to their GI and cardiovascular safety.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to provide summary relative risks (RR) of upper GI complications (UGIC) associated with the use of individual NSAIDs, including selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors.
METHODS
We used the MEDLINE database to identify cohort and case-control studies published between 1 January 1980 and 31 May 2011, providing adjusted effect estimates for UGIC comparing individual NSAIDs with non-use of NSAIDs. We estimated pooled RR and 95% CIs of UGIC for individual NSAIDs overall and by dose using fixed- and random-effects methods. Subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate methodological and clinical heterogeneity between studies.
RESULTS
A total of 2984 articles were identified and 59 were selected for data abstraction. After review of the abstracted information, 28 studies met the meta-analysis inclusion criteria. Pooled RR ranged from 1.43 (95% CI 0.65, 3.15) for aceclofenac to 18.45 (95% CI 10.99, 30.97) for azapropazone. RR was less than 2 for aceclofenac, celecoxib (RR 1.45; 95% CI 1.17, 1.81) and ibuprofen (RR 1.84; 95% CI 1.54, 2.20); 2 to less than 4 for rofecoxib (RR 2.32; 95% CI 1.89, 2.86), sulindac (RR 2.89; 95% CI 1.90, 4.42), diclofenac (RR 3.34; 95% CI 2.79, 3.99), meloxicam (RR 3.47; 95% CI 2.19, 5.50), nimesulide (RR 3.83; 95% CI 3.20, 4.60) and ketoprofen (RR 3.92; 95% CI 2.70, 5.69); 4-5 for tenoxicam (RR 4.10; 95% CI 2.16, 7.79), naproxen (RR 4.10; 95% CI 3.22, 5.23), indometacin (RR 4.14; 95% CI 2.91, 5.90) and diflunisal (RR 4.37; 95% CI 1.07, 17.81); and greater than 5 for piroxicam (RR 7.43; 95% CI 5.19, 10.63), ketorolac (RR 11.50; 95% CI 5.56, 23.78) and azapropazone. RRs for the use of high daily doses of NSAIDs versus non-use were 2-3 times higher than those associated with low daily doses.
CONCLUSIONS
We confirmed variability in the risk of UGIC among individual NSAIDs as used in clinical practice. Factors influencing findings across studies (e.g. definition and validation of UGIC, exposure assessment, analysis of new vs prevalent users) and the scarce data on the effect of dose and duration of use of NSAIDs and on concurrent use of other medications need to be addressed in future studies, including SOS.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Case-Control Studies; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Risk Factors
PubMed: 23137151
DOI: 10.2165/11633470-000000000-00000 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2011Thirty-five Cochrane Reviews of randomised trials testing the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain have been published. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Thirty-five Cochrane Reviews of randomised trials testing the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain have been published. This overview brings together the results of all those reviews and assesses the reliability of available data.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise data from all Cochrane Reviews that have assessed the effects of pharmaceutical interventions for acute pain in adults with at least moderate pain following surgery, who have been given a single dose of oral analgesic taken alone.
METHODS
We identified systematic reviews in The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single Review Group, had a standard title, and had as their primary outcome numbers of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. For individual reviews we extracted the number needed to treat (NNT) for this outcome for each drug/dose combination, and also the percentage of participants achieving at least 50% maximum pain relief, the mean of mean or median time to remedication, the percentage of participants remedicating by 6, 8, 12, or 24 hours, and results for participants experiencing at least one adverse event.
MAIN RESULTS
The overview included 35 separate Cochrane Reviews with 38 analyses of single dose oral analgesics tested in acute postoperative pain models, with results from about 45,000 participants studied in approximately 350 individual studies. The individual reviews included only high-quality trials of standardised design and outcome reporting. The reviews used standardised methods and reporting for both efficacy and harm. Event rates with placebo were consistent in larger data sets. No statistical comparison was undertaken.There were reviews but no trial data were available for acemetacin, meloxicam, nabumetone, nefopam, sulindac, tenoxicam, and tiaprofenic acid. Inadequate amounts of data were available for dexibuprofen, dextropropoxyphene 130 mg, diflunisal 125 mg, etoricoxib 60 mg, fenbufen, and indometacin. Where there was adequate information for drug/dose combinations (at least 200 participants, in at least two studies), we defined the addition of four comparisons of typical size (400 participants in total) with zero effect as making the result potentially subject to publication bias and therefore unreliable. Reliable results were obtained for 46 drug/dose combinations in all painful postsurgical conditions; 45 in dental pain and 14 in other painful conditions.NNTs varied from about 1.5 to 20 for at least 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. The proportion of participants achieving this level of benefit varied from about 30% to over 70%, and the time to remedication varied from two hours (placebo) to over 20 hours in the same pain condition. Participants reporting at least one adverse event were few and generally no different between active drug and placebo, with a few exceptions, principally for aspirin and opioids.Drug/dose combinations with good (low) NNTs were ibuprofen 400 mg (2.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4 to 2.6), diclofenac 50 mg (2.7; 95% CI 2.4 to 3.0), etoricoxib 120 mg (1.9; 95% CI 1.7 to 2.1), codeine 60 mg + paracetamol 1000 mg (2.2; 95% CI 1.8 to 2.9), celecoxib 400 mg (2.5; 95% CI 2.2 to 2.9), and naproxen 500/550 mg (2.7; 95% CI 2.3 to 3.3). Long duration of action (≥ 8 hours) was found for etoricoxib 120 mg, diflunisal 500 mg, oxycodone 10 mg + paracetamol 650 mg, naproxen 500/550 mg, and celecoxib 400 mg.Not all participants had good pain relief and for many drug/dose combinations 50% or more did not achieve at last 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a wealth of reliable evidence on the analgesic efficacy of single dose oral analgesics. There is also important information on drugs for which there are no data, inadequate data, or where results are unreliable due to susceptibility to publication bias. This should inform choices by professionals and consumers.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Analgesics; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Review Literature as Topic; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 21901726
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008659.pub2 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Feb 2011Sickle cell disease causes chronic haemolytic anaemia, dactylitis, and painful acute crises. It also increases the risk of stroke, organ damage, bacterial infections,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Sickle cell disease causes chronic haemolytic anaemia, dactylitis, and painful acute crises. It also increases the risk of stroke, organ damage, bacterial infections, and complications of blood transfusion. In sub-Saharan Africa, up to a third of adults are carriers of the defective sickle cell gene, and 1% to 2% of babies are born with the disease.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: what are the effects of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions to prevent sickle cell crisis and other acute complications in people with sickle cell disease? What are the effects of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions to treat pain in people with sickle cell crisis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to March 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 38 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, antibiotic prophylaxis in children <5 years of age, antibiotic prophylaxis in children >5 years of age, aspirin, avoidance of cold environment, blood transfusion, codeine, corticosteroid (with narcotic analgesics), diflunisal, hydration, hydroxyurea, ibuprofen, ketorolac, limiting physical exercise, malaria chemoprophylaxis, morphine (controlled-release oral after initial intravenous bolus, repeated intravenous doses), oxygen, paracetamol, patient-controlled analgesia, pneumococcal vaccines, and rehydration.
Topics: Acute Disease; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Anemia, Sickle Cell; Blood Transfusion; Humans; Hydroxyurea; Pneumococcal Vaccines
PubMed: 21718552
DOI: No ID Found