-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jun 2007NSAIDs are widely used. Almost 10% of people in The Netherlands used a non-aspirin NSAID in 1987, and the overall use was 11 defined daily doses per 1000 population per... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
NSAIDs are widely used. Almost 10% of people in The Netherlands used a non-aspirin NSAID in 1987, and the overall use was 11 defined daily doses per 1000 population per day. In Australia in 1994, overall use was 35 defined daily doses per 1000 population a day, with 36% of the people receiving NSAIDs for osteoarthritis, 42% for sprain and strain or low back pain, and 4% for rheumatoid arthritis; 35% of the people receiving NSAIDs were aged over 60 years.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: Are there any important differences between NSAIDs? What are the effects of topical NSAIDs; and of co-treatments to reduce the risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects of NSAIDs? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to December 2006 (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 35 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 benefits and harms of the following interventions: alternative analgesics, H(2) blockers, misoprostol, NSAIDs (systemic, topical, differences in efficacy between, dose-response relationship of), proton pump inhibitors.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Acute Disease; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Osteoarthritis; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Sprains and Strains; Ultrasonic Therapy
PubMed: 19454084
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Dental Research Apr 2023This study compares the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments to develop guidelines for the management of acute pain after tooth extraction. We searched Medline,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This study compares the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments to develop guidelines for the management of acute pain after tooth extraction. We searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and US Clinical Trials registry on November 21, 2020. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of participants undergoing dental extractions comparing 10 interventions, including acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and combinations to placebo. After duplicate screening and data abstraction, we conducted a frequentist network meta-analysis for each outcome at 6 h (i.e., pain relief, total pain relief [TOTPAR], summed pain intensity difference [SPID], global efficacy rating, rescue analgesia, and adverse effects). We assessed the risk of bias using a modified Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We implemented the analyses in RStudio version 3.5.3 and classified interventions from most to least beneficial or harmful. We included 82 RCTs. Fifty-six RCTs enrolling 9,095 participants found moderate- and high-certainty evidence that ibuprofen 200 to 400 mg plus acetaminophen 500 to 1,000 mg (mean difference compared to placebo [MDp], 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.31), acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg (MDp, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.85-1.54), ibuprofen 400 mg (MDp, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.17-1.45), and naproxen 400-440 mg (MDp, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.07-1.80) were most effective for pain relief on a 0 to 4 scale. Oxycodone 5 mg, codeine 60 mg, and tramadol 37.5 mg plus acetaminophen 325 mg were no better than placebo. The results for TOTPAR, SPID, global efficacy rating, and rescue analgesia were similar. Based on low- and very low-certainty evidence, most interventions were classified as no more harmful than placebo for most adverse effects. Based on moderate- and high-certainty evidence, NSAIDs with or without acetaminophen result in better pain-related outcomes than opioids with or without acetaminophen (except acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg) or placebo.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Acetaminophen; Ibuprofen; Oxycodone; Network Meta-Analysis; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Pain, Postoperative; Analgesics, Opioid; Tooth Extraction; Acute Pain
PubMed: 36631957
DOI: 10.1177/00220345221139230 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Nov 2007About 10-30% of people present to primary healthcare services with sore throat each year. The causative organisms of sore throat may be bacteria (most commonly... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
About 10-30% of people present to primary healthcare services with sore throat each year. The causative organisms of sore throat may be bacteria (most commonly Streptococcus) or viruses (typically rhinovirus), although it is difficult to distinguish bacterial from viral infections clinically.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to reduce symptoms of acute infective sore throat? What are the effects of interventions to prevent complications of acute infective sore throat? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to May 2006 (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 eight 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: antibiotics, corticosteroids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, and probiotics.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Incidence; Pharyngitis; Streptococcal Infections; Streptococcus
PubMed: 19450346
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2008Recurrent miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of three or more consecutive pregnancies with the same biological father in the first trimester, and affects 1-2% of women,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Recurrent miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of three or more consecutive pregnancies with the same biological father in the first trimester, and affects 1-2% of women, half of whom have no identifiable cause. Overall, 75% of affected women will have a successful subsequent pregnancy, but this rate falls for older mothers and with increasing number of miscarriages. Antiphospholipid syndrome, with anticardiolipin or lupus anticoagulant antibodies, is present in 15% of women with recurrent first and second trimester miscarriage.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments for unexplained recurrent miscarriage? What are the effects of treatments for recurrent miscarriage caused by antiphospholipid syndrome? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to April 2007 (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 14 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: aspirin (low dose), bed rest, corticosteroids, early scanning in subsequent pregnancies, heparin plus low-dose aspirin, human chorionic gonadotrophin, intravenous immunoglobulin treatment, lifestyle adaptation, oestrogen, paternal white cell immunisation, progesterone, trophoblastic membrane infusion, and vitamin supplementation.
Topics: Abortion, Habitual; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antiphospholipid Syndrome; Aspirin; Heparin; Humans
PubMed: 19450314
DOI: No ID Found -
Annals of Internal Medicine Nov 2020Patients and clinicians can choose from several treatment options to address acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients and clinicians can choose from several treatment options to address acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries.
PURPOSE
To assess the comparative effectiveness of outpatient treatments for acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries by performing a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to 2 January 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Pairs of reviewers independently identified interventional RCTs that enrolled patients presenting with pain of up to 4 weeks' duration from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries.
DATA EXTRACTION
Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data. Certainty of evidence was evaluated by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The 207 eligible studies included 32 959 participants and evaluated 45 therapies. Ninety-nine trials (48%) enrolled populations with diverse musculoskeletal injuries, 59 (29%) included patients with sprains, 13 (6%) with whiplash, and 11 (5%) with muscle strains; the remaining trials included various injuries ranging from nonsurgical fractures to contusions. Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) proved to have the greatest net benefit, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac. Effects of these agents on pain were modest (around 1 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale, approximating the minimal important difference). Regarding opioids, compared with placebo, acetaminophen plus an opioid improved intermediate pain (1 to 7 days) but not immediate pain (≤2 hours), tramadol was ineffective, and opioids increased the risk for gastrointestinal and neurologic harms (all moderate-certainty evidence).
LIMITATIONS
Only English-language studies were included. The number of head-to-head comparisons was limited.
CONCLUSION
Topical NSAIDs, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac, showed the most convincing and attractive benefit-harm ratio for patients with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. No opioid achieved benefit greater than that of NSAIDs, and opioids caused the most harms.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
National Safety Council. (PROSPERO: CRD42018094412).
Topics: Acetaminophen; Acute Pain; Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Diclofenac; Drug Eruptions; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Musculoskeletal System; Nervous System Diseases; Network Meta-Analysis; Patient Satisfaction; Physical Functional Performance; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32805127
DOI: 10.7326/M19-3601 -
Critical Care Medicine May 2017This meta-analysis aimed to examine the impact of antipyretic therapy on mortality in critically ill septic adults. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This meta-analysis aimed to examine the impact of antipyretic therapy on mortality in critically ill septic adults.
DATA SOURCES
Literature searches were implemented in Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and ClinicalTrials.gov through February 2016.
STUDY SELECTION
Inclusion criteria were observational or randomized studies of septic patients, evaluation of antipyretic treatment, mortality reported, and English-language version available. Studies were excluded if they enrolled pediatric patients, patients with neurologic injury, or healthy volunteers. Criteria were applied by two independent reviewers.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated methodologic quality. Outcomes included mortality, frequency of shock reversal, acquisition of nosocomial infections, and changes in body temperature, heart rate, and minute ventilation. Randomized and observational studies were analyzed separately.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Eight randomized studies (1,507 patients) and eight observational studies (17,432 patients) were analyzed. Antipyretic therapy did not reduce 28-day/hospital mortality in the randomized studies (relative risk, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.77-1.13; I = 0.0%) or observational studies (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.54-1.51; I = 76.1%). Shock reversal (relative risk, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.68-1.90; I = 51.6%) and acquisition of nosocomial infections (relative risk, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.61-2.09; I = 61.0%) were also unchanged. Antipyretic therapy decreased body temperature (mean difference, -0.38°C; 95% CI, -0.63 to -0.13; I = 84.0%), but not heart rate or minute ventilation.
CONCLUSIONS
Antipyretic treatment does not significantly improve 28-day/hospital mortality in adult patients with sepsis.
Topics: Body Temperature; Critical Illness; Cross Infection; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Morgue; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sepsis
PubMed: 28221185
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002285 -
JAMA Aug 2022The role of ticagrelor with or without aspirin after coronary artery bypass graft surgery remains unclear. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The role of ticagrelor with or without aspirin after coronary artery bypass graft surgery remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the risks of vein graft failure and bleeding associated with ticagrelor dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) or ticagrelor monotherapy vs aspirin among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to June 1, 2022, without language restriction.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of ticagrelor DAPT or ticagrelor monotherapy vs aspirin on saphenous vein graft failure.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Individual patient data provided by each trial were synthesized into a combined data set for independent analysis. Multilevel logistic regression models were used.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary analysis assessed the incidence of saphenous vein graft failure per graft (primary outcome) in RCTs comparing ticagrelor DAPT with aspirin. Secondary outcomes were saphenous vein graft failure per patient and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events. A supplementary analysis included RCTs comparing ticagrelor monotherapy with aspirin.
RESULTS
A total of 4 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, involving 1316 patients and 1668 saphenous vein grafts. Of the 871 patients in the primary analysis, 435 received ticagrelor DAPT (median age, 67 years [IQR, 60-72 years]; 65 women [14.9%]; 370 men [85.1%]) and 436 received aspirin (median age, 66 years [IQR, 61-73 years]; 63 women [14.5%]; 373 men [85.5%]). Ticagrelor DAPT was associated with a significantly lower incidence of saphenous vein graft failure (11.2%) per graft than was aspirin (20%; difference, -8.7% [95% CI, -13.5% to -3.9%]; OR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.74]; P < .001) and was associated with a significantly lower incidence of saphenous vein graft failure per patient (13.2% vs 23.0%, difference, -9.7% [95% CI, -14.9% to -4.4%]; OR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.74]; P < .001). Ticagrelor DAPT (22.1%) was associated with a significantly higher incidence of BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events than was aspirin (8.7%; difference, 13.3% [95% CI, 8.6% to 18.0%]; OR, 2.98 [95% CI, 1.99 to 4.47]; P < .001), but not BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding events (1.8% vs 1.8%, difference, 0% [95% CI, -1.8% to 1.8%]; OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.37 to 2.69]; P = .99). Compared with aspirin, ticagrelor monotherapy was not significantly associated with saphenous vein graft failure (19.3% vs 21.7%, difference, -2.6% [95% CI, -9.1% to 3.9%]; OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.58 to 1.27]; P = .44) or BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events (8.9% vs 7.3%, difference, 1.7% [95% CI, -2.8% to 6.1%]; OR, 1.25 [95% CI, 0.69 to 2.29]; P = .46).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery, adding ticagrelor to aspirin was associated with a significantly decreased risk of vein graft failure. However, this was accompanied by a significantly increased risk of clinically important bleeding.
Topics: Aged; Aspirin; Coronary Artery Bypass; Female; Graft Occlusion, Vascular; Hemorrhage; Humans; Male; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Saphenous Vein; Ticagrelor; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35943473
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2022.11966 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Dec 2007Mortality from paracetamol overdose is now about 0.4%, although severe liver damage occurs without treatment in at least half of people with blood paracetamol levels... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Mortality from paracetamol overdose is now about 0.4%, although severe liver damage occurs without treatment in at least half of people with blood paracetamol levels above the UK standard treatment line. In adults, ingestion of less than 125 mg/kg is unlikely to lead to hepatotoxicity; even higher doses may be tolerated by children without causing liver damage.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for acute paracetamol poisoning? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to March 2006 (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 24 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: activated charcoal (single or multiple dose), gastric lavage, ipecacuanha, liver transplant, methionine, N-acetylcysteine.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Administration, Oral; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Benzodiazepines; Charcoal; Drug Overdose; Humans; Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate
PubMed: 19450343
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jun 2015Diagnosis of migraine headache in children can be difficult as it depends on subjective symptoms; diagnostic criteria are broader than in adults. Migraine occurs in 3%... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Diagnosis of migraine headache in children can be difficult as it depends on subjective symptoms; diagnostic criteria are broader than in adults. Migraine occurs in 3% to 10% of children and increases with age up to puberty. Migraine spontaneously remits after puberty in half of children, but if it begins during adolescence it may be more likely to persist throughout adulthood.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments for acute attacks of migraine headache in children? What are the effects of pharmacological prophylaxis for migraine headache in children? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2014 (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
Twenty-three studies were included. 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. For acute symptom relief: 5HT1 agonists [such as triptans], non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], and paracetamol. And, for prophylaxis: beta-blockers, flunarizine, pizotifen, and topiramate.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Child; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Tryptamines
PubMed: 26044059
DOI: No ID Found -
Frontiers of Medicine Jun 2017In traditional Chinese medicine, Lonicerae Japonicae Flos is commonly used as anti-inflammatory, antiviral, and antipyretic herbal medicine, and geo-authentic herbs are... (Review)
Review
In traditional Chinese medicine, Lonicerae Japonicae Flos is commonly used as anti-inflammatory, antiviral, and antipyretic herbal medicine, and geo-authentic herbs are believed to present the highest quality among all samples from different regions. To discuss the current situation and trend of geo-authentic Lonicerae Japonicae Flos, we searched Chinese Biomedicine Literature Database, Chinese Journal Full-text Database, Chinese Scientific Journal Full-text Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Wanfang, and PubMed. We investigated all studies up to November 2015 pertaining to quality assessment, discrimination, pharmacological effects, planting or processing, or ecological system of geo-authentic Lonicerae Japonicae Flos. Sixty-five studies mainly discussing about chemical fingerprint, component analysis, planting and processing, discrimination between varieties, ecological system, pharmacological effects, and safety were systematically reviewed. By analyzing these studies, we found that the key points of geo-authentic Lonicerae Japonicae Flos research were quality and application. Further studies should focus on improving the quality by selecting the more superior of all varieties and evaluating clinical effectiveness.
Topics: Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Ecosystem; Lonicera; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Plant Extracts; Plants, Medicinal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28425044
DOI: 10.1007/s11684-017-0504-0