-
International Journal of Environmental... Oct 2022There are several techniques for the removal of pharmaceuticals (drugs) from wastewater; however, strengths and weaknesses have been observed in their elimination... (Review)
Review
There are several techniques for the removal of pharmaceuticals (drugs) from wastewater; however, strengths and weaknesses have been observed in their elimination processes that limit their applicability. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the best techniques for the removal of pharmaceuticals from municipal and hospital wastewater. For this, a non-experimental, descriptive, qualitative-quantitative design was used, corresponding to a systematic review without meta-analysis. Based on established inclusion and exclusion criteria, 31 open-access articles were selected from the Scopus, ProQuest, EBSCOhost, and ScienceDirect databases. The results showed that high concentrations of analgesics such as naproxen (1.37 mg/L) and antibiotics such as norfloxacin (0.561 mg/L) are frequently found in wastewater and that techniques such as reverse osmosis, ozonation, and activated sludge have the best removal efficiency, achieving values of 99%. It was concluded that reverse osmosis is one of the most efficient techniques for eliminating ofloxacin, sulfamethoxazole, carbamazepine, and diclofenac from municipal wastewater, with removal rates ranging from 96 to 99.9%, while for hospital wastewater the activated sludge technique proved to be efficient, eliminating analgesics and antibiotics in the range of 41-99%.
Topics: Wastewater; Sewage; Diclofenac; Naproxen; Norfloxacin; Water Pollutants, Chemical; Carbamazepine; Hospitals; Ozone; Sulfamethoxazole; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Ofloxacin; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Waste Disposal, Fluid
PubMed: 36293682
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192013105 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Nov 2015Is methylphenidate beneficial or harmful for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents? (Review)
Review
Methylphenidate for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: Cochrane systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.
STUDY QUESTION
Is methylphenidate beneficial or harmful for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents?
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched up to February 2015 for parallel and crossover randomised clinical trials comparing methylphenidate with placebo or no intervention in children and adolescents with ADHD. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) were conducted. Quality was assessed using GRADE. Teachers, parents, and observers rated ADHD symptoms and general behaviour.
STUDY ANSWER AND LIMITATIONS
The analyses included 38 parallel group trials (n=5111, median treatment duration 49 days) and 147 crossover trials (n=7134, 14 days). The average age across all studies was 9.7 years. The analysis suggested a beneficial effect of methylphenidate on teacher rated symptoms in 19 parallel group trials (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.77, n=1698), corresponding to a mean difference of -9.6 points on the ADHD rating scale. There was no evidence that methylphenidate was associated with an increase in serious adverse events (risk ratio 0.98, nine trials, n=1532; TSA adjusted intervention effect RR 0.91). Methylphenidate was associated with an increased risk of non-serious adverse events (1.29, 21 trials, n=3132; TSA adjusted RR 1.29). Teacher rated general behaviour seemed to improve with methylphenidate (SMD -0.87, five trials, n=668) A change of 7 points on the child health questionnaire (CHQ) has been deemed a minimal clinically relevant difference. The change reported in a meta-analysis of three trials corresponds to a mean difference of 8.0 points on the CHQ (range 0-100 points), which suggests that methylphenidate may improve parent reported quality of life (SMD 0.61, three trials, n=514). 96.8% of trials were considered high risk of bias trials according to the Cochrane guidelines. All outcomes were assessed very low quality according to GRADE.
WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS
The results suggest that among children and adolescents with a diagnosis of ADHD, methylphenidate may improve teacher reported symptoms of ADHD and general behaviour and parent reported quality of life. However, given the risk of bias in the included studies, and the very low quality of outcomes, the magnitude of the effects is uncertain. Methylphenidate is associated with an increased risk of non-serious but not serious adverse events.
FUNDING, COMPETING INTERESTS, DATA SHARING
Region Zealand Research Foundation and Copenhagen Trial Unit. Competing interests are given in the full paper on bmj.com. Full data are available in the version of this review published in The Cochrane Library.
Topics: Adolescent; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Cross-Over Studies; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Methylphenidate; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26608309
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h5203 -
Journal of Psychopharmacology (Oxford,... Mar 2014Clinicians obtain critical prescribing knowledge from clinical papers and review articles. This is the first published systematic review of clinical atomoxetine data... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Clinicians obtain critical prescribing knowledge from clinical papers and review articles. This is the first published systematic review of clinical atomoxetine data covering 2009-2011.
OBJECTIVE
We aim to update clinicians on current clinical atomoxetine data with specific reference to time of onset of efficacy and maximal efficacy. These data may allow critical analysis of comparative efficacy between atomoxetine and stimulant medications.
METHODS
A formal systematic review of atomoxetine data from January 2009-June 2011 was conducted. The search term used was "atomoxetine" in the English language. The search yielded 747 citations from which 106 are clinical data. This paper includes clinical efficacy and safety data and excludes quality-of-life and review papers.
RESULTS
Atomoxetine has an onset of action within 4 weeks (possibly within 1 week in subsequent responders) but requires at least 12 weeks for full response to be demonstrated. Treatment-naïve cohorts (6-12 weeks) report effect sizes of 0.6-1.3. Using minimum 6-week clinical trial criteria, atomoxetine may demonstrate similar efficacy to methylphenidate comparing reduction in core ADHD symptoms in meta-analysis, although the diversity of the data makes interpretation complex. From epidemiological databases, cardiovascular and suicide-related events were similar to those seen in patients taking methylphenidate.
CONCLUSIONS
Incremental response time to atomoxetine should be considered in the design of future comparative efficacy trials.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenergic Uptake Inhibitors; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Humans; Methylphenidate; Propylamines; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23438503
DOI: 10.1177/0269881113478475 -
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management Apr 2011Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a common and distressing symptom affecting patients with cancer. There is an increasing number of drug trials examining potential... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a common and distressing symptom affecting patients with cancer. There is an increasing number of drug trials examining potential treatments for CRF. Methylphenidate represents one of the most researched drugs in this area, and an up-to-date assessment of the evidence for its use is needed.
OBJECTIVES
To assess and summarize the increasing evidence for the use of psychostimulants, particularly methylphenidate, in the treatment of CRF.
METHODS
A systematic review of electronic databases was conducted from inception to the start of October 2009, together with cross-referencing of cited abstracts and hand searching of relevant cancer journals.
RESULTS
A meta-analysis was conducted on five psychostimulant trials (n=426 participants). The overall standardized mean difference was -0.28 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.48, -0.09; P=0.005), although several trials failed to find any benefit over placebo. There were no differences in the frequency of adverse events between methylphenidate and placebo: combined odds ratio 1.24 (95% CI 0.42, 3.62).
CONCLUSION
There is preliminary evidence for the use of psychostimulants to treat CRF. The absolute numbers still remain small, and further confirmation is needed before firm recommendations on their usage and safety can be made in the treatment of CRF.
Topics: Central Nervous System Stimulants; Clinical Trials as Topic; Fatigue; Humans; Methylphenidate; Neoplasms
PubMed: 21251796
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.06.020 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015At December 2014, this review has been withdrawn from the Cochrane Library. This review is out of date, although it is correct at the date of publication. The review may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
At December 2014, this review has been withdrawn from the Cochrane Library. This review is out of date, although it is correct at the date of publication. The review may be misleading as new studies could alter the original conclusions. All previous versions of the review can be found in the ‘Other versions’ tab. We are seeking additional authors to support the updating of this review. For further information, please contact PaPaS Managing Editor, Anna Hobson [Contact Person]. The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adolescent; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Child; Diclofenac; Humans; Pain; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26134060
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005538.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2007Lumiracoxib is a novel selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor. COX-2 inhibitors have been developed to avoid COX-1 related gastrointestinal (GI) problems.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Lumiracoxib is a novel selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor. COX-2 inhibitors have been developed to avoid COX-1 related gastrointestinal (GI) problems. Lumiracoxib has analgesic and anti-inflammatory activity comparable with traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs) in the management of post-operative pain, but with the advantage of better GI tolerability.
OBJECTIVES
To review the analgesic efficacy, duration of analgesia, and adverse effects of a single oral dose of lumiracoxib for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults and compare it with established analgesics.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2007), EMBASE (1974 to 2006), and PubMed (February 2007).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Single oral dose, randomised placebo controlled trials of lumiracoxib, in acute postoperative pain, in adult patients.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Trials were quality scored and data extracted by two review authors independently. Summed pain relief (TOTPAR) was extracted and converted into dichotomous information yielding the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief. These derived results were used to calculate the relative benefit (RB) and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for one patient to achieve at least 50% pain relief.
MAIN RESULTS
Three studies (737 patients) met the inclusion criteria. In total 211 patients were treated with lumiracoxib 400 mg, 51 with lumiracoxib 100 mg, and 161 with placebo. Active comparators were naproxen 500 mg (60 patients), rofecoxib 50 mg (102), celecoxib 200 mg (101), and ibuprofen 400 mg (51). One hundred patients (48%) given lumiracoxib 400 mg had at least 50% pain relief over six hours, compared with 17 (11%) given placebo; RB 4.8 (95% CI 2.9 to 7.9), NNT 2.7 (2.2 to 3.5). Weighted median time to use of rescue medication was 7.4 hours for lumiracoxib 400 mg and 1.8 hours for placebo. Patient global assessment at study endpoint was rated as "excellent" by 71 patients (34%) given lumiracoxib 400 mg and 5 (3%) given placebo. Median time to onset of analgesia was shorter for lumiracoxib 400 mg (0.6 to 1.5 hours) than placebo (>12 hours), and use of rescue medication within 12 hours occurred in 64 patients (58%) given lumiracoxib 400 mg and 100 (91%) given placebo. Adverse events reported were generally mild to moderate in severity, with one serious adverse event reported in a patient given placebo.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Lumiracoxib 400 mg given as a single oral dose, is an effective analgesic for acute postoperative pain.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Diclofenac; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 17943921
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006865 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jul 2006To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of oral methylphenidate hydrochloride (MPH), dexamfetaminesulphate (DEX) and atomoxetine (ATX) in children and adolescents... (Review)
Review
A systematic review and economic model of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of methylphenidate, dexamfetamine and atomoxetine for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of oral methylphenidate hydrochloride (MPH), dexamfetaminesulphate (DEX) and atomoxetine (ATX) in children and adolescents (<18 years of age) diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (including hyperkinetic disorder).
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases covering 1999--July 2004 for MPH, 1997--July 2004 for DEX and 1981--July 2004 for ATX.
REVIEW METHODS
Selected studies were assessed using modified criteria based on CRD Report No. 4. Clinical effectiveness data were reported separately for each drug and by the type of comparison. Data for MPH were also analysed separately based on whether it was administered as an immediate release (IR) or extended release (ER) formulation. For all drugs, the data were examined by dose. Data for the core outcomes of hyperactivity (using any scale), Clinical Global Impression [as a proxy of quality of life (QoL)] and adverse events were reported. For crossover studies, the mean and standard deviation (SD) for each outcome were data extracted for end of trial data (i.e. baseline data were not considered). For parallel studies, change scores were reported where given, otherwise means and SDs were presented for end of trial data. In addition, mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each study. For adverse events, self-ratings were reported when used, otherwise, parent reports were utilised. Percentages of participants reporting adverse events were used to calculate numbers of events in each treatment arm. All the clinical effectiveness data and economic evaluations (including accompanying models) included in the company submissions were assessed. A new model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the alternative treatments in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year. To achieve this, a mixed treatment comparison model was used to estimate the differential mean response rates. Monte Carlo simulation was used to reflect uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results.
RESULTS
In total, 65 papers met the inclusion criteria. The results suggest that MPH and DEX are effective at reducing hyperactivity and improving QoL (as determined by Clinical Global Impression) in children, although the reliability of the MPH study results is not known and there were only a small number of DEX studies. There was consistent evidence that ATX was superior to placebo for hyperactivity and Clinical Global Impression. Studies on ATX more often reported the study methodology well, and the results were likely to be reliable. Very few studies made direct head-to-head comparisons between the drugs or examined a non-drug intervention in combination with MPH, DEX or ATX. Adequate and informative data regarding the potential adverse effects of the drugs were also lacking. The results of the economic evaluation clearly identified an optimal treatment strategy of DEX first-line, followed by IR-MPH for treatment failures, followed by ATX for repeat treatment failures. Where DEX is unsuitable as a first-line therapy, the optimal strategy is IR-MPH first-line, followed by DEX and then ATX. For patients contraindicated to stimulants, ATX is preferred to no treatment. For patients in whom a midday dose of medication is unworkable, ER-MPH is preferred to ATX, and ER-MPH12 appears more cost-effective than ER-MPH8. As identified in the clinical effectiveness review, the reporting of studies was poor, therefore this should be borne in mind when interpreting the model results.
CONCLUSIONS
Drug therapy seems to be superior to no drug therapy, no significant differences between the various drugs in terms of efficacy or side effects were found, mainly owing to lack of evidence, and the additional benefits from behavioural therapy (in combination with drug therapy) are uncertain. Given the lack of evidence for any differences in effectiveness between the drugs, the economic model tended to be driven by drug costs, which differed considerably. Future trials examining MPH, DEX and ATX should include the assessment of tolerability and safety as a priority. Longer term follow-up of individuals participating in trials could further inform policy makers and health professionals. Such data could potentially distinguish between these drugs in a clinically useful way. In addition, research examining whether somatic complaints are actually related to drug treatment or to the disorder itself would be informative.
Topics: Adolescent; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Child; Child, Preschool; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dextroamphetamine; Humans; Methylphenidate; Models, Economic; Propylamines; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 16796929
DOI: 10.3310/hta10230 -
BMC Psychiatry Sep 2013The stimulant methylphenidate (MPH) has been a mainstay of treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) for many years. Owing to the short half-life and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The stimulant methylphenidate (MPH) has been a mainstay of treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) for many years. Owing to the short half-life and the issues associated with multiple daily dosing of immediate-release MPH formulations, a new generation of long-acting MPH formulations has emerged. Direct head-to-head studies of these long-acting MPH formulations are important to facilitate an evaluation of their comparative pharmacokinetics and efficacy; however, to date, relatively few head-to-head studies have been performed.The objective of this systematic review was to compare the evidence available from head-to-head studies of long-acting MPH formulations and provide information that can guide treatment selection.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and PsycINFO in March 2012 using the MeSH terms: attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity/drug therapy; methylphenidate/therapeutic use and All Fields: Concerta; Ritalin LA; OROS and ADHD; Medikinet; Equasym XL and ADHD; long-acting methylphenidate; Diffucaps and ADHD; SODAS and methylphenidate. No filters were applied and no language, publication date or publication status limitations were imposed. Articles were selected if the title indicated a comparison of two or more long-acting MPH preparations in human subjects of any age; non-systematic review articles and unpublished data were not included.
RESULTS
Of 15,295 references returned in the literature search and screened by title, 34 articles were identified for inclusion: nine articles from pharmacokinetic studies (nine studies); nine articles from laboratory school studies (six studies); two articles from randomized controlled trials (two studies); three articles from switching studies (two studies) and three articles from one observational study.
CONCLUSIONS
Emerging head-to-head studies provide important data on the comparative efficacy of the formulations available. At a group level, efficacy across the day generally follows the pharmacokinetic profile of the MPH formulation. No formulation is clearly superior to another; careful consideration of patient needs and subtle differences between formulations is required to optimize treatment. For patients achieving suboptimal symptom control, switching long-acting MPH formulations may be beneficial. When switching formulations, it is usually appropriate to titrate the immediate-release component of the formulation; a limitation of current studies is a focus on total daily dose rather than equivalent immediate-release components. Further studies are necessary to provide guidance in clinical practice, particularly in the treatment of adults and pre-school children and the impact of comorbidities and symptom severity on treatment response.
Topics: Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Delayed-Action Preparations; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Methylphenidate; Schools; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24074240
DOI: 10.1186/1471-244X-13-237 -
PloS One 2017To study in more depth the relationship between type, dose, or duration of methylphenidate offered to children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Gastrointestinal adverse events during methylphenidate treatment of children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of randomised clinical trials.
OBJECTIVES
To study in more depth the relationship between type, dose, or duration of methylphenidate offered to children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and their risks of gastrointestinal adverse events based on our Cochrane systematic review.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We use data from our review including 185 randomised clinical trials. Randomised parallel-group trials and cross-over trials reporting gastrointestinal adverse events associated with methylphenidate were included. Data were extracted and quality assessed according to Cochrane guidelines. Data were summarised as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the inverse variance method. Bias risks were assessed according to domains. Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) was used to control random errors. Eighteen parallel group trials and 43 cross-over trials reported gastrointestinal adverse events. All trials were at high risk of bias. In parallel group trials, methylphenidate decreased appetite (RR 3.66, 95% CI 2.56 to 5.23) and weight (RR 3.89, 95% CI 1.43 to 10.59). In cross-over trials, methylphenidate increased abdominal pain (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.04). We found no significant differences in the risk according to type, dose, or duration of administration. The required information size was achieved in three out of four outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Methylphenidate increases the risks of decreased appetite, weight loss, and abdominal pain in children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. No differences in the risks of gastrointestinal adverse events according to type, dose, or duration of administration were found.
Topics: Adolescent; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Cross-Over Studies; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Female; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Male; Methylphenidate; Odds Ratio; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28617801
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178187 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015Diclofenac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, available as a potassium salt (immediate release) or sodium salt (enteric coated to suppress dissolution in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Diclofenac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, available as a potassium salt (immediate release) or sodium salt (enteric coated to suppress dissolution in the stomach). This review updates an earlier review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 2, 2009) entitled 'Single dose oral diclofenac for acute postoperative pain in adults'.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single oral dose of diclofenac for moderate to severe postoperative pain, using methods that permit comparison with other analgesics evaluated in standardised trials using almost identical methods and outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, two clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of articles. The date of the most recent search was 9 March 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of single dose, oral diclofenac (sodium or potassium) for acute postoperative pain in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently considered studies for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We used the area under the pain relief versus time curve to derive the proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief over six hours prescribed either diclofenac or placebo. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat to benefit (NNT). We used information on the use of rescue medication to calculate the proportion of participants requiring rescue medication and the weighted mean of the median time to use. We also collected information on adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
This update included three new studies, providing a 26% increase in participants in comparisons between diclofenac and placebo. We included 18 studies involving 3714 participants, 1902 treated with diclofenac and 1007 with placebo. This update has also changed the focus of the review, examining the effects of formulation in more detail than previously. This is a result of increased understanding of the importance of speed of onset in determining analgesic efficacy in acute pain.The largest body of information, for diclofenac potassium 50 mg, in seven studies, produced an NNT for at least 50% of maximum pain relief compared with placebo of 2.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9 to 2.5) (high quality evidence). There was a graded improvement in efficacy as doses rose from 25 mg to 100 mg, both for participants achieving at least 50% maximum pain relief, and for remedication within 6 to 8 hours. Fast-acting formulations (dispersible products, solutions, and softgel formulations) had a similar efficacy for a 50 mg dose, with an NNT of 2.4 (2.0 to 3.0). Diclofenac sodium in a small number of studies produced a lesser effect, with an NNT of 6.6 (4.1 to 17) for the 50 mg dose.Adverse event rates were low in these single dose studies, with no difference between diclofenac and placebo (moderate quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Diclofenac potassium provides good pain relief at 25 mg, 50 mg, and 100 mg doses. Diclofenac sodium has limited efficacy and should probably not be used in acute pain.
Topics: Acute Pain; Administration, Oral; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Chemistry, Pharmaceutical; Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors; Diclofenac; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26151766
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004768.pub3