-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Oct 2009Superficial burns that affect the epidermis and upper dermis only are characterised by redness of the skin that blanches on pressure, pain, and hypersensitivity. The... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Superficial burns that affect the epidermis and upper dermis only are characterised by redness of the skin that blanches on pressure, pain, and hypersensitivity. The skin blisters within hours and usually heals with minimal scarring within 2 to 3 weeks if no infection is present. Most minor burns occur in the home, with less than 5% requiring hospital treatment.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for minor thermal burns? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to October 2008 (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: alginate dressing; antibiotics; chlorhexidine-impregnated paraffin gauze dressing; foam dressing; hydrocolloid dressing; hydrogel dressing; paraffin gauze dressing; polyurethane film; silicone-coated nylon dressing; and silver sulfadiazine cream.
Topics: Bandages; Bandages, Hydrocolloid; Burns; Humans; Hydrogel, Polyethylene Glycol Dimethacrylate; Incidence; Silver Sulfadiazine; Sulfadiazine; Wound Healing
PubMed: 21718576
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Tinnitus is a symptom defined as the perception of sound in the absence of an external source. In England alone there are an estimated ¾ million general practice... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Tinnitus is a symptom defined as the perception of sound in the absence of an external source. In England alone there are an estimated ¾ million general practice consultations every year where the primary complaint is tinnitus, equating to a major burden on healthcare services. Clinical management strategies include education and advice, relaxation therapy, tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), sound enrichment using ear-level sound generators or hearing aids, and drug therapies to manage co-morbid symptoms such as insomnia, anxiety or depression. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of Ginkgo biloba for tinnitus in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL (2022, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 7 June 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults and children with acute or chronic subjective tinnitus. We included studies where the intervention involved Ginkgo biloba and this was compared to placebo, no intervention, or education and information. Concurrent use of other medication or other treatment was acceptable if used equally in each group. Where an additional intervention was used equally in both groups, we analysed this as a separate comparison. The review included all courses of Ginkgo biloba, regardless of dose regimens or formulations, and for any duration of treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were tinnitus symptom severity measured as a global score on a multi-item tinnitus questionnaire and serious adverse effects (bleeding, seizures). Our secondary outcomes were tinnitus loudness (change in subjective perception), tinnitus intrusiveness, generalised depression, generalised anxiety, health-related quality of life and other adverse effects (gastrointestinal upset, headache, allergic reaction). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
This review included 12 studies (with a total of 1915 participants). Eleven studies compared the effects of Ginkgo biloba with placebo and one study compared the effects of Ginkgo biloba with hearing aids to hearing aids alone. All included studies were parallel-group RCTs. In general, risk of bias was high or unclear due to selection bias and poor reporting of allocation concealment and blinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessments. Due to heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and measurement methods used, only limited data pooling was possible. Ginkgo biloba versus placebo When we pooled data from two studies for the primary outcome tinnitus symptom severity, we found that Ginkgo biloba may have little to no effect (Tinnitus Handicap Inventory scores) at three to six months compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) -1.35 (scale 0 to 100), 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.26 to 5.55; 2 studies; 85 participants) (very low-certainty). Ginkgo biloba may result in little to no difference in the risk of bleeding or seizures, with no serious adverse effects reported in either group (4 studies; 1154 participants; low-certainty). For the secondary outcomes, one study found that there may be little to no difference between the effects of Ginkgo biloba and placebo on tinnitus loudness measured with audiometric loudness matching at 12 weeks, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -4.00 (scale -10 to 140 dB), 95% CI -13.33 to 5.33; 1 study; 73 participants) (very low-certainty). One study found that there may be little to no difference between the effects of Ginkgo biloba and placebo on health-related quality of life measured with the Glasgow Health Status Inventory at three months (MD -0.58 (scale 0 to 100), 95% CI -4.67 to 3.51; 1 study; 60 participants) (low-certainty). Ginkgo biloba may not increase the frequency of other adverse effects (gastrointestinal upset, headache, allergic reaction) at three months compared to placebo (risk ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.60; 4 studies; 1175 participants) (low-certainty). None of the studies reported the other secondary outcomes of tinnitus intrusiveness or changes in depressive symptoms or depression, anxiety symptoms or generalised anxiety. Gingko biloba with concurrent intervention versus concurrent intervention only One study compared Ginkgo biloba with hearing aids to hearing aids only. It assessed the mean difference in the change in Tinnitus Handicap Inventory scores and tinnitus loudness using a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) at three months. The study did not report adverse effects, tinnitus intrusiveness, changes in depressive symptoms or depression, anxiety symptoms or generalised anxiety, or health-related quality of life. This was a single, very small study (22 participants) and for all outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of Ginkgo biloba for the treatment of tinnitus when compared to placebo. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions regarding the benefits and harms of Ginkgo biloba when used with concurrent intervention (hearing aids). The certainty of the evidence for the reported outcomes, assessed using GRADE, ranged from low to very low. Future research into the effectiveness of Ginkgo biloba in patients with tinnitus should use rigorous methodology. Randomisation and blinding should be of the highest quality, given the subjective nature of tinnitus and the strong likelihood of a placebo response. The CONSORT statement should be used in the design and reporting of future studies. We also recommend the use of validated, patient-centred outcome measures for research in the field of tinnitus.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Ginkgo biloba; Headache; Hypersensitivity; Seizures; Tinnitus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36383762
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013514.pub2 -
The Journal of Infection Sep 2023Historically, extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis has been notoriously difficult to treat with devasting outcomes. As we are coming to the end of an era where the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Historically, extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis has been notoriously difficult to treat with devasting outcomes. As we are coming to the end of an era where the 2006 extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis definitions and old treatment regimens are being replaced, we aimed to estimate the proportion of extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis patients globally who achieved successful treatment outcomes.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase from January 1, 2005, through April 3, 2023. Included studies reported WHO treatment outcomes, or adaptions hereof, for pre-extensively and/or extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis patients according to the 2006 WHO definition. Eligible studies included cohorts of at least 10 adults (aged>18 years) that were not pregnant. Using a random-effects model, we calculated pooled proportions of treatment outcomes and performed sensitivity and subgroup analyses. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022340961.
RESULTS
Among 5056 studies reviewed, we identified 94 studies from 26 countries, involving 10,223 extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis patients. The pooled proportion of successful treatment outcomes was 44.2% (95%CI: 38.3-50.3). Sensitivity analyses consistently produced similar estimates. A slight improvement in treatment outcomes was observed after 2013. Furthermore, 25 studies reported outcomes for 3564 individuals with pre-extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, of which 63.3% achieved successful treatment (95%CI: 43.1-72.5).
CONCLUSION
Globally, the success rate of extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis treatment is 44.2%, far below the WHO's target rate of 75%. These results may serve as a reference for future studies assessing extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis treatment outcomes under the 2021 definition treated with better treatment regimens available. Comprehensive surveillance data of extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis outcomes from the whole world are desirable to monitor treatment progress.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Pregnancy; Female; Extensively Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis; Tuberculosis, Pulmonary; Treatment Outcome; Tuberculosis, Multidrug-Resistant; Antitubercular Agents
PubMed: 37356629
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2023.06.014 -
Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical... 2022Perioperative anaphylaxis is a rare, but life-threatening hypersensitivity reaction for patients undergoing surgical procedures. Sugammadex is a relatively new drug used... (Review)
Review
Perioperative anaphylaxis is a rare, but life-threatening hypersensitivity reaction for patients undergoing surgical procedures. Sugammadex is a relatively new drug used to reverse the neuromuscular blockade of specific anesthetics in surgery. Several case reports indicate that there may be a risk of anaphylaxis associated with the use of sugammadex This review examines the literature in order to evaluate the strength of the association between sugammadex use and anaphylaxis. A query of PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science was conducted using a combination of terms to identify relevant articles from inception until March 9, 2020. We included any primary study that identified sugammadex as a probable causative agent based on the World Allergy Organization diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis. A total of 24 articles were reviewed. Across the three randomized controlled trials, there were only four cases of anaphylaxis identified. Incidence of anaphylaxis was reported in only one trial at 0.33%. Two retrospective observational studies conducted in Japan identified cases of anaphylaxis, with incidences of 0.02 and 0.04%. Among 19 case reports and series, 25 patient cases of anaphylaxis were confirmed via allergy testing to be caused by sugammadex or sugammadex-rocuronium complex. Commonly reported symptoms included hypotension, erythema, and decreased oxygen saturation. Based on the findings of this review, there appears to be a rare, but serious, association of sugammadex-induced perioperative anaphylaxis with an incidence between 0.02 and 0.04% in observational studies. It is unclear whether sugammadex on its own or in complex with rocuronium triggers this reaction, but it is clearly involved in inducing anaphylaxis. Further population studies are needed to get a more accurate global incidence rate, and more detailed allergy testing is required to better describe which step of the sugammadex reversal pathway initiates the anaphylactic attack.
PubMed: 36505200
DOI: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_573_20 -
Clinical and Translational Allergy Aug 2022Multiple drug allergy and multiple drug intolerance syndrome (MDAS/MDIS) labels are an impediment to clinical care and knowledge regarding these conditions is limited....
BACKGROUND
Multiple drug allergy and multiple drug intolerance syndrome (MDAS/MDIS) labels are an impediment to clinical care and knowledge regarding these conditions is limited. This systematic review investigated the characterization, epidemiology, risk factors, clinical impact and pharmaco-economics of MDAS and MDIS.
METHODS
Systematic literature search across 11 databases (01 January 2000-06 November 2020) for MDIS, MDAS and related terminology. Studies were reviewed for quality of evidence and risk of bias by employing Critical Appraisal Skills Programme cohort study checklist. A narrative synthesis approach facilitated by systematic textual descriptions, tabulation and thematic analysis was adopted.
RESULTS
There was heterogeneity in terminology and methodology. Few studies applied standard drug allergy diagnostic methods. There is some evidence to suggest that multiple drug hypersensitivity syndrome (MDHS; i.e., confirmed allergies in MDAS) is a distinct clinical entity. Prevalence of MDIS and MDAS labels in unselected & selected populations varied between 2.1%-6.4% & 4.9%-90% and 1.2% & 0%-36% respectively. Reported risk factors included female gender, increasing age, body mass index, anxiety, depression, co-morbidities, concurrent allergies and increased healthcare utilization. Drugs commonly implicated were antibiotics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. No studies relating to clinical impact and pharmaco-economics were found.
CONCLUSION
There is considerable burden of MDAS and MDIS labels. Data needs cautious interpretation as majority of studies described involved unverified labels. Despite this limitation and heterogeneity of studies, there is some evidence to suggest that MDHS is a distinct clinical entity. Well-designed multi-centre studies applying standardized terminology and diagnostic methodology are needed to gain further insight into these conditions.
PubMed: 36017174
DOI: 10.1002/clt2.12190 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Jan 2021Having a penicillin allergy label associates with a higher risk for antibiotic resistance and increased health care use. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Having a penicillin allergy label associates with a higher risk for antibiotic resistance and increased health care use.
OBJECTIVE
We sought to assess the accuracy of skin tests and specific IgE quantification in the diagnostic evaluation of patients reporting a penicillin/β-lactam allergy.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis, searching on MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science. We included studies conducted in patients reporting a penicillin allergy and in whom skin tests and/or specific IgE quantification were performed and compared with drug challenge results. We quantitatively assessed the accuracy of diagnostic tests with bivariate random-effects meta-analyses. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to explore causes of heterogeneity. Studies' quality was evaluated using QUADAS-2 criteria.
RESULTS
We included 105 primary studies, assessing 31,761 participants. Twenty-seven studies were assessed by bivariate meta-analysis. Skin tests had a summary sensitivity of 30.7% (95% CI, 18.9%-45.9%) and a specificity of 96.8% (95% CI, 94.2%-98.3%), with a partial area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.686 (I = 38.2%). Similar results were observed for subanalyses restricted to patients reporting nonimmediate maculopapular exanthema or urticaria/angioedema. Specific IgE had a summary sensitivity of 19.3% (95% CI, 12.0%-29.4%) and a specificity of 97.4% (95% CI, 95.2%-98.6%), with a partial area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.420 (I = 8.5%). Projected predictive values mainly reflect the low frequency of true penicillin allergy.
CONCLUSIONS
Skin tests and specific IgE quantification appear to have low sensitivity and high specificity. Because current evidence is insufficient for assessing the role of these tests in stratifying patients for delabeling, we identified key requirements needed for future studies.
Topics: Drug Hypersensitivity; Humans; Immunoglobulin E; Penicillins; Skin Tests
PubMed: 32446963
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.04.058 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Nov 2023To improve β-lactam delabeling outcomes, we need to understand current practice and the evidence base regarding its outcomes, safety, and impact.
BACKGROUND
To improve β-lactam delabeling outcomes, we need to understand current practice and the evidence base regarding its outcomes, safety, and impact.
OBJECTIVES
We sought to assess the existing published evidence reporting on the effectiveness of penicillin allergy testing and delabeling.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting β-lactam delabeling practices and outcomes after testing, including β-lactam use and patient understanding of the delabeling result. Searches of the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases; clinical trial registries; and websites of professional organizations were conducted. Data were extracted from the included studies in duplicate, with a third extraction if discrepancies remained.
RESULTS
We included 284 publications (covering 98,316 participants); 173 were prospective studies, with no randomized controlled trials. The overall study quality was low. In all, 95.6% of individuals who underwent provocation testing were delabeled. Factors associated with successful delabeling could not be determined because of significant heterogeneity between studies. Anaphylaxis due to testing occurred in 0.3% of participants (95 of 31,667). Subjects who did not undergo skin testing (6,980 patients in 31 studies) before challenge had higher rates of provocation test positivity (8.8% vs 4.1% [ < .0001]) and anaphylaxis (15.9% vs 2.7% [ < .0001]) than those subjects who underwent skin testing (51,607 patients in 177 studies). Six studies (2.1%) followed patients after testing to assess their adherence to prescribing recommendations. In all, 136 participants (20.6%) were actively avoiding β-lactams despite delabeling.
CONCLUSIONS
The available data suggest that penicillin allergy testing is safe and effective in delabeling most individuals, but the evidence base is incomplete and more work is required to assess the role of skin testing and the impact that delabeling is having on prescribing habits.
PubMed: 37781667
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacig.2023.100160 -
Frontiers in Allergy 2022Gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are frequently used in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations to increase sensitivity in diagnoses. Recently, an increase...
Gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are frequently used in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations to increase sensitivity in diagnoses. Recently, an increase in the description of hypersensitivity reactions to GBCAs has been detected. We performed research in PubMed, PubMed, SCOPUS, and EMBASE until September 2021, searching for studies regarding immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions to gadolinium-based contrast agents in which an allergy study was performed. The initial research identified 149 articles written in English. After excluding articles duplicated and articles that had irrelevant designs, 26 articles were included. Finally, 17 studies concerning immediate reactions, six studies concerning non-immediate reactions, and three concerning both that performed allergy evaluations were selected. In the review, we analyzed the characteristics of immediate and delayed reactions and the results of the allergy study and cross-reactivity. Skin tests seem to have acceptable accuracy, but drug provocation tests are still needed when skin tests are negative o to find alternative agents. Although cross-reactivity patterns are not well established, cross-reactivity seems to exist among macrocyclic agents. Notwithstanding, the number of patients analyzed is low and further studies are required. A management algorithm is suggested.
PubMed: 35386665
DOI: 10.3389/falgy.2022.813927 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine May 2022The aim of the present study is to describe pharmacological characteristics of drug-related allergies and anaphylaxis leading to the emergency department (ED). An 8-year...
The aim of the present study is to describe pharmacological characteristics of drug-related allergies and anaphylaxis leading to the emergency department (ED). An 8-year post hoc analysis on the MEREAFaPS Study database was performed (2012−2019). Subjects who experienced drug-related hypersensitivity leading to an ED visit were selected. Logistic regression analyses were used to estimate the reporting odds ratios (RORs) of drug-related allergies and anaphylaxis adjusting for sex, age classes, and ethnicity. In addition, a systematic review of observational studies evaluating drug-related hypersensitivity reactions leading to ED visits in outpatients was performed. Out of 94,073 ED visits, 14.4% cases were drug-related allergies and 0.6% were anaphylaxis. Females accounted for 56%. Multivariate logistic regression showed a higher risk of drug-related allergy among males and all age classes < 65 years, while a higher risk of anaphylaxis was observed for females (ROR 1.20 [1.01−1.42]) and adults (ROR 2.63 [2.21−3.14]). The systematic review included 37 studies. ED visits related to allergy and anaphylaxis ranged from 0.004% to 88%, and drug-related allergies and anaphylaxis ranged from 0.007% to 88%. Both in our analysis and in primary studies, antibacterials, analgesics, and radiocontrast agents were identified as the most common triggers of hypersensitivity.
PubMed: 35628936
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11102811