-
World Neurosurgery Mar 2018Despite demonstrable safety and efficacy of subdermal contraceptive implants (SCIs), both insertion and removal of SCIs in the arm have been associated with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite demonstrable safety and efficacy of subdermal contraceptive implants (SCIs), both insertion and removal of SCIs in the arm have been associated with neurovascular complications. The aim of this study was to investigate type and prognosis of nerve injuries associated with SCIs.
METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search of 4 electronic databases for studies pertaining to patients with nerve injury and concurrent SCI. Studies published between January 1987 and June 2017 were included. Implant location, damaged nerves, clinical presentation, preoperative imaging (x-ray, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging), neurologic evaluation (nerve conduction studies, electromyography), and treatment methods were reviewed. To outline management strategies, 2 illustrative cases of major nerve injury caused by SCI removal were presented.
RESULTS
We analyzed 10 studies including 12 patients. Fourteen nerve injuries in 12 patients were reported during SCI insertion (n = 1) and removal (n = 11). Medial antebrachial cutaneous (n = 5) and median (n = 5) nerves were primarily affected. Neuropathic pain was the main symptom. Primary reasons for nerve injury were pulling or grasping of the nerve (n = 9) after mistaking it for the implant. Neurapraxia (n = 7) was the most common lesion and was treated with implant removal and clinical surveillance (n = 6). Five patients completely recovered; the remaining patients continued to have motor and/or sensory deficit at mean follow-up of 0.7 year (range, 0-2 years).
CONCLUSIONS
Nerve injuries related to SCIs are rare but potentially serious. For nonpalpable SCIs, a multidisciplinary approach, including practitioners with experience treating peripheral nerve injuries, is invaluable.
Topics: Adult; Arm; Contraceptive Agents, Female; Device Removal; Drug Implants; Female; Humans; Medical Errors; Neuralgia; Peripheral Nerve Injuries
PubMed: 29309985
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.12.160 -
PloS One 2013Intravitreal agents have replaced observation in macular edema in central (CRVO) and grid laser photocoagulation in branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). We conducted a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Intravitreal agents have replaced observation in macular edema in central (CRVO) and grid laser photocoagulation in branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). We conducted a systematic review to evaluate efficacy and safety outcomes of intravitreal therapies for macular edema in CRVO and BRVO.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for RCTs with no limitations of language and year of publication. 11 RCTs investigating anti-VEGF agents (ranibizumab, bevacizumab, aflibercept) and steroids (triamcinolone, dexamethasone implant) with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were evaluated.
EFFICACY CRVO
Greatest gain in visual acuity after 12 months was observed both under aflibercept 2 mg: +16.2 letters (8.5 injections), and under bevacizumab 1.25 mg: +16.1 letters (8 injections). Ranibizumab 0.5 mg improved vision by +13.9 letters (8.8 injections). Triamcinolone 1 mg and 4 mg stabilized visual acuity at a lower injection frequency (-1.2 letters, 2 injections).
BRVO
Ranibizumab 0.5 mg resulted in a visual acuity gain of +18.3 letters (8.4 injections). The effect of dexamethasone implant was transient after 1.9 implants in both indications.
SAFETY
Serious ocular adverse events were rare, e.g., endophthalmitis occurred in 0.0-0.9%. Major differences were found in an indirect comparison between steroids and anti-VEGF agents for cataract progression (19.8-35.0% vs. 0.9-7.0%) and in required treatment of increased intraocular pressure (7.0-41.0% vs. none). No major differences were identified in systemic adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
Anti-VEGF agents result in a promising gain of visual acuity, but require a high injection frequency. Dexamethasone implant might be an alternative, but comparison is impaired as the effect is temporary and it has not yet been tested in PRN regimen. The ocular risk profile seems to be favorable for anti-VEGF agents in comparison to steroids. Because comparative data from head-to-head trials are missing currently, clinicians and patients should carefully weigh the benefit-harm ratio.
Topics: Humans; Intravitreal Injections; Macular Edema; Patient Safety; Retinal Vein Occlusion; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 24205253
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078538 -
Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy Dec 2017Peritoneal carcinomatosis results when tumour cells implant and grow within the peritoneal cavity. Treatment and prognosis vary based on the primary cancer. Although... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Peritoneal carcinomatosis results when tumour cells implant and grow within the peritoneal cavity. Treatment and prognosis vary based on the primary cancer. Although therapy with intention-to-cure is offered to selective patients using cytoreductive surgery with chemotherapy, the prognosis remains poor for most of the patients. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a cancer-therapeutic modality where a photosensitiser is administered to patients and exerts a cytotoxic effect on cancer cells when excited by light of a specific wavelength. It has potential application in the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed the evidence of using PDT to treat peritoneal carcinomatosis in both animals and humans (Medline/EMBASE searched in June 2017).
RESULTS
Three human and 25 animal studies were included. Phase I and II human trials using first-generation photosensitisers showed that applying PDT after surgical debulking in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis is feasible with some clinical benefits. The low tumour-selectivity of the photosensitisers led to significant toxicities mainly capillary leak syndrome and bowel perforation. In animal studies, PDT improved survival by 15-300%, compared to control groups. PDT led to higher tumour necrosis values (categorical values 0-4 [4=highest]: PDT 3.4±1.0 vs. control 0.4±0.6, p<0.05) and reduced tumour size (residual tumour size is 10% of untreated controls, p<0.001).
CONCLUSION
PDT has potential in treating peritoneal carcinomatosis, but is limited by its narrow therapeutic window and possible serious side effects. Recent improvement in tumour-selectivity and light delivery systems is promising, but further development is needed before PDT can be routinely applied for peritoneal carcinomatosis.
Topics: Animals; Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Peritoneal Neoplasms; Photochemotherapy; Photosensitizing Agents; Prognosis
PubMed: 29111390
DOI: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2017.10.021 -
Medicine Nov 2017Even if drug-eluting stents (DES) showed beneficial effects in patients with coronary artery diseases (CADs), limitations have been observed with the first-generation... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents versus first-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Even if drug-eluting stents (DES) showed beneficial effects in patients with coronary artery diseases (CADs), limitations have been observed with the first-generation durable polymer DES (DP-DES). Recently, biodegradable polymer DES (BP-DES) have been approved to be used as an alternative to DP-DES, with potential benefits. We aimed to systematically compare BP-DES with the first-generation DP-DES using a large number of randomized patients.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BP-DES with first-generation DP-DES. The main endpoints were the long-term (≥2 years) adverse clinical outcomes that were reported with these 2 types of DES. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the analysis was carried out by RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS
Twelve trials with a total number of 13,480 patients (7730 and 5750 patients were treated by BP-DES and first-generation DP-DES, respectively) were included. During a long-term follow-up period of ≥2 years, mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were not significantly different between these 2 groups with OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.66-1.07; P = .16, I = 0%, OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.45-2.27; P = .98, I = 0%, OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.75-1.11; P = .37, I = 0% and OR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.44-1.67; P = .65, I = 0%, respectively. Long-term total stent thrombosis (ST), definite ST, and probable ST were also not significantly different between BP-DES and the first-generation DP-DES with OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.50-1.18; P = .22, I = 0%, OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.43-1.18; P = .19, I = 0% and OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 0.56-3.08; P = .53, I = 6%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Long-term mortality, MI, TLR, MACEs, and ST were not significantly different between BP-DES and the first-generation DP-DES. However, the follow-up period was restricted to only 3 years in this analysis.
Topics: Absorbable Implants; Coronary Artery Disease; Drug-Eluting Stents; Humans; Polymers; Postoperative Complications; Prosthesis Design; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29382011
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000008878 -
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy Feb 2022The NIA-AA research framework proposes a purely biological definition of Alzheimer's disease (AD). This implies that AD can be diagnosed based on biomarker...
BACKGROUND
The NIA-AA research framework proposes a purely biological definition of Alzheimer's disease (AD). This implies that AD can be diagnosed based on biomarker abnormalities, irrespective of clinical manifestation. While this brings opportunities, it also raises challenges. We aimed to provide an overview of considerations regarding the disclosure of AD pathology before the onset of dementia.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted and reported according to PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, Embase, APA PsycINFO, and Web of Science Core Collection (on 10 December 2020) for references on conveying AD biomarker results to individuals without dementia. Our query combined variations on the terms Alzheimer's disease, disclosure, or diagnosis, preclinical or prodromal, and biomarkers. Two reviewers independently screened the resulting 6860 titles and abstracts for eligibility and examined 162 full-text records for relevance. We included theoretical articles in English, on communicating amyloid and/or tau results to individuals with mild cognitive impairment, subjective cognitive decline, or normal cognition. MAXQDA-software was used for inductive data analysis.
RESULTS
We included 27 publications. From these, we extracted 26 unique considerations, which we grouped according to their primary relevance to a clinical, personal, or societal context. Clinical considerations included (lack of) validity, utility, and disclosure protocols. Personal considerations covered psychological and behavioral implications, as well as the right to (not) know. Finally, societal considerations comprised the risk of misconception, stigmatization, and discrimination. Overall, views were heterogeneous and often contradictory, with emphasis on harmful effects.
CONCLUSIONS
We found 26 diverse and opposing considerations, related to a clinical, personal, or societal context, which are relevant to diagnosing AD before dementia. The theoretical literature tended to focus on adverse impact and rely on common morality, while the motivation for and implications of biomarker testing are deeply personal. Our findings provide a starting point for clinicians to discuss biomarker-based diagnosis with their patients, which will become even more relevant in light of the conditional approval of a first disease-modifying drug for AD.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Amyloid; Biomarkers; Cognitive Dysfunction; Dementia; Disease Progression; Humans
PubMed: 35144684
DOI: 10.1186/s13195-022-00971-3 -
International Journal of Environmental... Nov 2022The implementation of adjunctive antibiotics has been recommended for the therapy of peri-implantitis (PI). In this review, antibiotic resistance patterns in PI patients... (Review)
Review
The implementation of adjunctive antibiotics has been recommended for the therapy of peri-implantitis (PI). In this review, antibiotic resistance patterns in PI patients were assessed. A systematic scoping review of observational studies and trials was established in conjunction with the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. The SCOPUS, PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCIELO, Web of Science, and LILACS databases were reviewed along with the gray literature. The primary electronic examination produced 139 investigations. Finally, four observational studies met the selection criteria. These studies evaluated 214 implants in 168 patients. and mainly presented high resistance to tetracycline, metronidazole, and erythromycin in PI patients. Similarly, was also highly resistant to clindamycin and doxycycline. Other microorganisms such as , , and also presented significant levels of resistance to other antibiotics including amoxicillin, azithromycin, and moxifloxacin. However, most microorganisms did not show resistance to the combination amoxicillin metronidazole. Although the management of adjunctive antimicrobials in the therapy of PI is controversial, in this review, the resistance of relevant microorganisms to antibiotics used to treat PI, and usually prescribed in dentistry, was observed. Clinicians should consider the antibiotic resistance demonstrated in the treatment of PI patients and its public health consequences.
Topics: Humans; Peri-Implantitis; Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans; Drug Resistance, Microbial; Fusobacterium nucleatum; Porphyromonas gingivalis; Amoxicillin; Metronidazole; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 36497685
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192315609 -
CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics Dec 2011Naltrexone is an opioid receptor antagonist that blocks the reinforcing effects of opioids and reduces alcohol consumption and craving. It has no abuse potential, mild... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Naltrexone is an opioid receptor antagonist that blocks the reinforcing effects of opioids and reduces alcohol consumption and craving. It has no abuse potential, mild and transient side effects, and thus appears an ideal pharmacotherapy for opioid dependence. Its effectiveness in alcohol dependence is less evident, but compliance with naltrexone combined with psychosocial support has been repeatedly shown to improve drinking outcomes. Limited compliance with oral naltrexone treatment is a known drawback. Several naltrexone implant and injectable depot formulations are being investigated and provide naltrexone release for at least 1 month. Studies among opioid-dependent patients indicate significant reductions in heroin use, but sample sizes are usually small. In alcohol dependence, two large multicenter trials report alcohol and craving reductions for naltrexone and placebo groups, indicating a significant but moderate effect. The pharmacokinetic profile of the injectable formulation indicates reliable naltrexone release over 1 month at therapeutic levels. Implant formulations releasing naltrexone up to 7 months are reported. Findings on safety and tolerability confirm the generally mild adverse effects described for naltrexone tablets. However, further research on therapeutic levels (i.e., opioid blocking) is warranted. The majority of naltrexone implants lacks approval for regular clinical use and larger longitudinal studies are needed. The available naltrexone depot formulations have the potential to significantly improve medication compliance in opioid and alcohol dependence. In certain circumstances, they may constitute a promising new treatment option.
Topics: Alcoholism; Delayed-Action Preparations; Drug Implants; Humans; Naltrexone; Narcotic Antagonists; Opioid-Related Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 21554565
DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-5949.2010.00194.x -
Dentistry Journal Jun 2023This systematic review synthesizes the existing evidence in the literature regarding the association of propolis with controlled delivery systems (DDSs) and its... (Review)
Review
This systematic review synthesizes the existing evidence in the literature regarding the association of propolis with controlled delivery systems (DDSs) and its potential therapeutic action in dental medicine. Two independent reviewers performed a literature search up to 1 June 2023 in five databases: PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Embase, to identify the eligible studies. Clinical, in situ, and in vitro studies that investigated the incorporation of propolis as the main agent in DDSs for dental medicine were included in this study. Review articles, clinical cases, theses, dissertations, conference abstracts, and studies that had no application in dentistry were excluded. A total of 2019 records were initially identified. After carefully examining 21 full-text articles, 12 in vitro studies, 4 clinical, 1 animal model, and 3 in vivo and in vitro studies were included (n = 21). Relevant data were extracted from the included studies and analyzed qualitatively. The use of propolis has been reported in cariology, endodontics, periodontics, stomatology, and dental implants. Propolis has shown non-cytotoxic, osteoinductive, antimicrobial, and anti-inflammatory properties. Moreover, propolis can be released from DDS for prolonged periods, presenting biocompatibility, safety, and potential advantage for applications in dental medicine.
PubMed: 37504228
DOI: 10.3390/dj11070162 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2020Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is frequently prescribed by dentists performing dental implant surgery to avoid premature implant failure and postoperative infections.... (Review)
Review
Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is frequently prescribed by dentists performing dental implant surgery to avoid premature implant failure and postoperative infections. The scientific literature suggests that a single preoperative dose suffices to reduce the risk of early dental implant failure in healthy patients. A systematic review was made based on an electronic literature search in the PubMed-Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and Open Gray databases. The review addressed the question: "which antibiotic prophylaxis regimens are being used in dental implant surgery in healthy patients according to survey-based studies?" The identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion phases were conducted according to the PRISMA statement by two independent reviewers. The following data were collected: country, number of surveyed dentists, number of dentists who responded (n), response rate, routine prescription of antibiotic prophylactic treatment (yes, no, or conditioned prescription), prescription regimen (preoperative, perioperative or postoperative) and antibiotic choice (first and second choice). Cohen's kappa coefficient (k) evaluated the level of agreement between the two reviewers. The analysis of risk of bias was performed follow the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for observational studies. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed to calculate total target sample, sample size and total mean. A total of 159 articles were identified, of which 12 were included in the analysis. Two thousand and seventy-seven dentists from nine different countries on three continents were surveyed. The median response rate was low and disparate between studies. About three-quarters of the surveyed dentists claimed to routinely prescribe systemic antibiotic prophylaxis for dental implant surgery. The prescription regimen was perioperative, postoperative and preoperative, in decreasing order of frequency. The most frequent first choice drug was amoxicillin, with amoxicillin-clavulanic acid as second choice. A majority of dentists from different countries do not prescribe systemic antibiotic prophylaxis for dental implant surgery following the available scientific evidence and could be overprescribing. Efforts are needed by dental educators and professionals to reduce the gap between the use of antibiotic prophylaxis for dental implant surgery as supported by the scientific evidence and what is being done by clinicians in actual practice.
PubMed: 33643035
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.588333 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Dec 2022: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the available evidence of using enamel matrix derivate in the treatment of peri-implantitis. : Three electronic... (Review)
Review
: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the available evidence of using enamel matrix derivate in the treatment of peri-implantitis. : Three electronic databases (, , and ) were searched until August 2022 to identify relevant articles. The inclusion criteria consisted in human clinical studies that reported the use of enamel matrix derivate (EMD) in surgical and non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and for non-RCTs ROBINS-I tool. : Clinical studies included were published between 2012 and 2022 and consisted of two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for non-surgical therapy and two RCTs, three prospective cohort studies, and one retrospective case series in surgical therapy. Due to the heterogeneity of patients' characteristics and assessment of peri-implant therapy, statistical analysis could not be achieved. : The use of EMD indicated a positive effect on both surgical and non-surgical therapy. However, the available literature is scarce, with low evidence in non-surgical approach and modest evidence in surgical approach using EMD. More RCTs with standardize protocols are necessary to evaluate the efficacy of using EMD in both therapies.
Topics: Humans; Peri-Implantitis; Research Design; Bias
PubMed: 36557021
DOI: 10.3390/medicina58121819