-
Revista de NeurologiaAttention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most frequent behavioural disorder in infancy and methylphenidate is the most widely used medication. AIM. To... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most frequent behavioural disorder in infancy and methylphenidate is the most widely used medication. AIM. To analyze if the use of methylphenidate allows a good clinical practice in ADHD in terms of efficacy, effectiveness, efficiency and safety.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Systematic review of the articles about therapeutic management of ADHD with methylphenidate published in secondary and primary publications and critical appraisal by means of methodology of the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.
RESULTS
The main secondary information is found in the Cochrane Library, but we also detect relevant articles in Pubmed, mainly published in Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Pediatrics. There are many randomized clinical trials with methylphenidate (immediate-release and extended-release methylphenidate) and some systematic review and/or meta-analysis, but these trials have some limitations (in relation to patients, interventions and outcomes) and publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS
From the evidence-based analysis (and from the experience) we detect good scientific evidence that methylphenidate improve target outcomes in ADHD in the short and half-term in children (mainly 6-12 years). The treatment algorithm advises to start with methylphenidate (immediate or extended-release methylphenidate, in relation to cost-benefit parameters); when there is not response (between 10-30% of patients) or evidence of relevant secondary effects, we could consider the use of atomoxetine. There are many questions to solve based on better clinical trials: the efficacy and safety of methylphenidate in very young children and adolescents, long-term effects and the duration of the treatment.
Topics: Adolescent; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Bibliometrics; Child; Child, Preschool; Databases, Bibliographic; Drug Administration Schedule; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Humans; Infant; Male; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Methylphenidate; Professional Practice; Propylamines; Quality of Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 17160919
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2009Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is increasingly recognised as occurring in people with intellectual disability (ID), although treatment of ADHD in this... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is increasingly recognised as occurring in people with intellectual disability (ID), although treatment of ADHD in this population has not been tested widely. Amfetamine has been used to treat ADHD in people with and without ID, although the evidence for its efficacy in people with ID is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness of amfetamine for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in people with intellectual disabilities.
SEARCH STRATEGY
MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, AMED, ISI Web of Science and WorldCat Dissertations were searched using an extensive list of synonyms for ADHD and ID. CENTRAL, Current Controlled Trials meta-register (mRCT), CenterWatch, NHS National Research Register, clinicaltrials.gov were searched in August 2007. Pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field were contacted. Reference lists of review articles were examined and citation searches were performed in ISI Web of Knowledge.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled studies, both published and unpublished, in any language, in which children or adults with ADHD and ID were treated with amfetamine.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted independently by two reviewers using a standardised extraction sheet. Risk of bias was assessed by two authors using a standardised framework. Meta-analyses were planned but were not performed due to a lack of suitable studies.
MAIN RESULTS
Only one study was suitable for inclusion. This was a cross-over study in 15 children with ADHD, ID and Fragile X syndrome. Duration of treatment was only one week. No significant difference was reported between amfetamine and placebo for any of the ADHD measures, but significantly more side effects were reported while taking amfetamine, mainly mood lability and irritability.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very little evidence for the effectiveness of amfetamine for ADHD in people with ID . Prescribing in this population is based on extrapolation of research in people without ID. More research into effectiveness and tolerability is urgently needed.
Topics: Amphetamine; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Child, Preschool; Fragile X Syndrome; Humans; Methylphenidate; Persons with Mental Disabilities
PubMed: 19160313
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007009.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, reduces the incidence and severity of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, reduces the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous diclofenac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases without language restrictions: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Register of Studies Online), MEDLINE, and Embase on 22 May 2018. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous diclofenac with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for review inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data.Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a four- and six-hour period.Our secondary outcomes were time to, and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, AEs, and for any cause; and number of participants experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and NSAID-related AEs. We performed a post hoc analysis of opioid-related AEs, to enable indirect comparisons with other analyses of postoperative analgesics.For subgroup analysis, we planned to analyze different doses and formulations of parenteral diclofenac separately.We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight studies, involving 1756 participants undergoing various surgeries (dental, mixed minor, abdominal, and orthopedic), with 20 to 175 participants receiving intravenous diclofenac in each study. Mean study population ages ranged from 24.5 years to 54.5 years. Intravenous diclofenac doses varied among and within studies, ranging from 3.75 mg to 75 mg. Five studies assessed newer formulations of parenteral diclofenac that could be administered as an undiluted intravenous bolus. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias for several domains and a high risk of bias due to small sample size. The overall quality of evidence for each outcome was generally low for reasons including unclear risk of bias in studies, imprecision, and low event numbers.Primary outcomeThree studies (277 participants) produced a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for at least 50% of maximum pain relief versus placebo of 2.4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9 to 3.1) over four hours (low-quality evidence). Four studies (436 participants) produced an NNTB of 3.8 versus placebo (95% CI 2.9 to 5.9) over six hours (low-quality evidence). No studies provided data for the comparison of intravenous diclofenac with another NSAID over four hours. At six hours there was no difference between intravenous diclofenac and another NSAID (low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesFor secondary efficacy outcomes, intravenous diclofenac was generally superior to placebo and similar to other NSAIDs.For time to rescue medication, comparison of intravenous diclofenac versus placebo demonstrated a median of 226 minutes for diclofenac versus 80 minutes for placebo (5 studies, 542 participants, low-quality evidence). There were insufficient data for pooled analysis for comparisons of diclofenac with another NSAID (very low-quality evidence).For the number of participants using rescue medication, two studies (235 participants) compared diclofenac with placebo. The number needed to treat to prevent one additional harmful event (NNTp) (here, the need for rescue medication) compared with placebo was 3.0 (2.2 to 4.5, low-quality evidence). The comparison of diclofenac with another NSAID included only one study (98 participants). The NNTp was 4.5 (2.5 to 33) for ketorolac versus diclofenac (very low-quality evidence).The numbers of participants withdrawing were generally low and inconsistently reported (very low-quality evidence). Participant withdrawals were: 6% (8/140) diclofenac versus 5% (7/128) placebo, and 9% (8/87) diclofenac versus 7% (6/82) another NSAID for lack of efficacy; 2% (4/211) diclofenac versus 0% (0/198) placebo, and 3% (4/138) diclofenac versus 2% (2/129) another NSAID due to AEs; and 11% (21/191) diclofenac versus 17% (30/179) placebo, and 18% (21/118) diclofenac versus 15% (17/111) another NSAID for any cause.Overall adverse event rates were similar between intravenous diclofenac and placebo (71% in both groups, 2 studies, 296 participants) and between intravenous diclofenac and another NSAID (55% and 58%, respectively, 2 studies, 265 participants) (low-quality evidence for both comparisons). Serious and specific AEs were rare, preventing meta-analysis.There were sufficient data for a dose-effect analysis for our primary outcome for only one alternative dose, 18.75 mg. Analysis of the highest dose employed in each study demonstrated a relative benefit compared with placebo of 1.9 (1.4 to 2.4), whereas for the group receiving 18.75 mg, the relative benefit versus placebo was 1.6 (1.2 to 2.1, 2 studies). Compared to another NSAID, the high-dose analysis demonstrated a relative benefit of 0.9 (0.8 to 1.1), for the group receiving 18.75 mg, the relative benefit was 0.78 (0.65 to 0.93). For direct comparison of high dose versus 18.75 mg, the proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief was 66% (90/137) for the high-dose arm versus 57% (77/135) in the low-dose arm. There were insufficient data for subgroup meta-analysis of different diclofenac formulations.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The amount and quality of evidence for the use of intravenous diclofenac as a treatment for postoperative pain is low. The available evidence indicates that postoperative intravenous diclofenac administration offers good pain relief for the majority of patients, but further research may impact this estimate. Adverse events appear to occur at a similar rate to other NSAIDs. Insufficient information is available to assess whether intravenous diclofenac has a different rate of bleeding, renal dysfunction, or cardiovascular events versus other NSAIDs. There was insufficient information to evaluate the efficacy and safety of newer versus traditional formulations of intravenous diclofenac. There was a lack of studies in major and cardiovascular surgeries and in elderly populations, which may be at increased risk for adverse events.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Diclofenac; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Pain, Postoperative; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30153336
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012498.pub2 -
Biological Psychiatry Oct 2014Psychostimulant medication, most commonly the catecholamine agonist methylphenidate, is the most effective treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Psychostimulant medication, most commonly the catecholamine agonist methylphenidate, is the most effective treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, relatively little is known on the mechanisms of action. Acute effects on brain function can elucidate underlying neurocognitive effects. We tested methylphenidate effects relative to placebo in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) during three disorder-relevant tasks in medication-naïve ADHD adolescents. In addition, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the fMRI findings of acute stimulant effects on ADHD brain function.
METHODS
The fMRI study compared 20 adolescents with ADHD under either placebo or methylphenidate in a randomized controlled trial while performing stop, working memory, and time discrimination tasks. The meta-analysis was conducted searching PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases. Peak coordinates of clusters of significant effects of stimulant medication relative to placebo or off medication were extracted for each study.
RESULTS
The fMRI analysis showed that methylphenidate significantly enhanced activation in bilateral inferior frontal cortex (IFC)/insula during inhibition and time discrimination but had no effect on working memory networks. The meta-analysis, including 14 fMRI datasets and 212 children with ADHD, showed that stimulants most consistently enhanced right IFC/insula activation, which also remained for a subgroup analysis of methylphenidate effects alone. A more lenient threshold also revealed increased putamen activation.
CONCLUSIONS
Psychostimulants most consistently increase right IFC/insula activation, which are key areas of cognitive control and also the most replicated neurocognitive dysfunction in ADHD. These neurocognitive effects may underlie their positive clinical effects.
Topics: Adolescent; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Brain; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Deep Brain Stimulation; Female; Humans; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; Inhibition, Psychological; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Methylphenidate; Neuropsychological Tests; Oxygen; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 24314347
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.10.016 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017Traumatic corneal abrasions are relatively common and there is a lack of consensus about analgesia in their management. It is therefore important to document the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Traumatic corneal abrasions are relatively common and there is a lack of consensus about analgesia in their management. It is therefore important to document the clinical efficacy and safety profile of topical ophthalmic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the management of traumatic corneal abrasions.
OBJECTIVES
To identify and evaluate all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of topical NSAIDs with placebo or any alternative analgesic interventions in adults with traumatic corneal abrasions (including corneal abrasions arising from foreign body removal), to reduce pain, and its effects on healing time.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 30 March 2017), Embase Ovid (1947 to 30 March 2017), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (1982 to 30 March 2017), OpenGrey (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) (www.opengrey.eu/); searched 30 March 2017, ZETOC (1993 to 30 March 2017), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch); searched 30 March 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 30 March 2017 and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 30 March 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.We checked the reference lists of identified trials to search for further potentially relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs comparing topical NSAIDs to placebo or any alternative analgesic interventions in adults with traumatic corneal abrasions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed data extraction and assessed risks of bias in the included studies. We rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine studies that met the inclusion criteria, reporting data on 637 participants.The studies took place in the UK, USA, Israel, Italy, France and Portugal. These studies compared five types of topical NSAIDs (0.1% indomethacin, 0.03% flurbiprofen, 0.5% ketorolac, 1% indomethacin, 0.1% diclofenac) to control (consisting of standard care and in four studies used placebo eye drops). Overall, the studies were at an unclear or high risk of bias (particularly selection and reporting bias). None of the included studies reported the primary outcome measures of this review, namely participant-reported pain intensity reduction of 30% or more or 50% or more at 24 hours. Four trials, that included data on 481 participants receiving NSAIDs or control (placebo/standard care), reported on the use of 'rescue' analgesia at 24 hours as a proxy measure of pain control. Topical NSAIDs were associated with a reduction in the need for oral analgesia compared with control (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.61; low-certainty evidence). Approximately 4 out of 10 people in the control group used rescue analgesia at 24 hours. No data were available on the use of analgesia at 48 or 72 hours.One trial (28 participants) reported on the proportion of abrasions healed after 24 and 48 hours. These outcomes were similar in both arms of the trial. (at 24 hours RR 1.00 (0.81 to 1.23); at 48 hours RR 1.00 (0.88 to 1.14); low-certainty evidence). In the control group nine out of 10 abrasions were healed within 24 hours and all were healed by 48 hours. Complications of corneal abrasions were reported in 6 studies (609 participants) and were infrequently reported (4 complications, 1 in NSAID groups (recurrent corneal erosion) and 3 in control groups (2 recurrent corneal erosions and 1 corneal abscess), very low-certainty evidence). Possible drug-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in two trials (163 participants), with the number of adverse events low (4 AEs, 3 in NSAID group, including discomfort/photophobia on instillation, conjunctival hyperaemia and urticaria, and 1 in the control group, corneal abscess) very low-certainty evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The findings of the included studies do not provide strong evidence to support the use of topical NSAIDs in traumatic corneal abrasions. This is important, since NSAIDs are associated with a higher cost compared to oral analgesics. None of the trials addressed our primary outcome measure of participant-reported pain intensity reduction of 30% or more or 50% or more at 24 hours.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Corneal Injuries; Diclofenac; Flurbiprofen; Humans; Indomethacin; Ketorolac; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Wound Healing
PubMed: 28516471
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009781.pub2 -
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry Aug 2017This study compared the clinical efficacy and safety of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) pharmacotherapy in children and adolescents 6-17 years of age. A... (Review)
Review
This study compared the clinical efficacy and safety of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) pharmacotherapy in children and adolescents 6-17 years of age. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacologic monotherapies among children and adolescents with ADHD. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to compare change in symptoms using the ADHD Rating Scale Version IV (ADHD-RS-IV), Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) response, all-cause discontinuation, and adverse event-related discontinuation. Thirty-six RCTs were included in the analysis. The mean (95% credible interval [CrI]) ADHD-RS-IV total score change from baseline (active minus placebo) was -14.98 (-17.14, -12.80) for lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX), -9.33 (-11.63, -7.04) for methylphenidate (MPH) extended release, -8.68 (-10.63, -6.72) for guanfacine extended release (GXR), and -6.88 (-8.22, -5.49) for atomoxetine (ATX); data were unavailable for MPH immediate release. The relative risk (95% CrI) for CGI-I response (active versus placebo) was 2.56 (2.21, 2.91) for LDX, 2.13 (1.70, 2.54) for MPH extended release, 1.94 (1.59, 2.29) for GXR, 1.77 (1.31, 2.26) for ATX, and 1.62 (1.05, 2.17) for MPH immediate release. Among non-stimulant pharmacotherapies, GXR was more effective than ATX when comparing ADHD-RS-IV total score change (with a posterior probability of 93.91%) and CGI-I response (posterior probability 76.13%). This study found that LDX had greater efficacy than GXR, ATX, and MPH in the treatment of children and adolescents with ADHD. GXR had a high posterior probability of being more efficacious than ATX, although their CrIs overlapped.
Topics: Adolescent; Antihypertensive Agents; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Child; Female; Guanfacine; Humans; Male
PubMed: 28258319
DOI: 10.1007/s00787-017-0962-6 -
Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy 2015Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neuropsychiatric pathology that has an important prevalence among young people and is difficult to diagnose. It is... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neuropsychiatric pathology that has an important prevalence among young people and is difficult to diagnose. It is usually treated with methylphenidate, a psychostimulant with a mechanism of action similar to that of cocaine. Previous studies show that repeated use of psychostimulants during childhood or adolescence may sensitize subjects, making them more prone to later abuse of psychostimulant drugs such as cocaine and methamphetamine.
OBJECTIVE
To review experimental studies in non-human models (rodents and monkeys) treated with methylphenidate during infancy or adolescence and tested for reinforcing effects on psychostimulant drugs in adulthood.
METHOD
Systematic collection of data was performed on four databases (Web of Knowledge, PsycARTICLE, PubMed and SciELO). The initial search identified 202 articles published from 2009 to 2014, which were screened for eligibility. Seven articles met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed in this study.
RESULTS
The findings indicate that early exposure to methylphenidate has an effect on an ADHD animal model, specifically, on spontaneously hypertensive strain rats, especially those tested using the self-administration paradigm.
CONCLUSION
Future studies should prioritize the spontaneously hypertensive rat strain - an animal model of ADHD. Experimental designs comparing different behavioral paradigms and modes of administration using this strain could lead to improved understanding of the effects of exposure to methylphenidate during childhood and adolescence.
Topics: Animals; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Disease Models, Animal; Female; Methylphenidate; Pregnancy; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 26630401
DOI: 10.1590/2237-6089-2014-0060 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2021Trigger finger is a common hand condition that occurs when movement of a finger flexor tendon through the first annular (A1) pulley is impaired by degeneration,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Trigger finger is a common hand condition that occurs when movement of a finger flexor tendon through the first annular (A1) pulley is impaired by degeneration, inflammation, and swelling. This causes pain and restricted movement of the affected finger. Non-surgical treatment options include activity modification, oral and topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), splinting, and local injections with anti-inflammatory drugs.
OBJECTIVES
To review the benefits and harms of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) versus placebo, glucocorticoids, or different NSAIDs administered by the same route for trigger finger.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, www.ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO trials portal until 30 September 2020. We applied no language or publication status restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials of adult participants with trigger finger that compared NSAIDs administered topically, orally, or by injection versus placebo, glucocorticoid, or different NSAIDs administered by the same route.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two or more review authors independently screened the reports, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and GRADE certainty of evidence. The seven major outcomes were resolution of trigger finger symptoms, persistent moderate or severe symptoms, recurrence of symptoms, total active range of finger motion, residual pain, patient satisfaction, and adverse events. Treatment effects were reported as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
Two RCTs conducted in an outpatient hospital setting were included (231 adult participants, mean age 58.6 years, 60% female, 95% to 100% moderate to severe disease). Both studies compared a single injection of a non-selective NSAID (12.5 mg diclofenac or 15.0 mg ketorolac) given at lower than normal doses with a single injection of a glucocorticoid (triamcinolone 20 mg or 5 mg), with maximum follow-up duration of 12 weeks or 24 weeks. In both studies, we detected risk of attrition and performance bias. One study also had risk of selection bias. The effects of treatment were sensitive to assumptions about missing outcomes. All seven outcomes were reported in one study, and five in the other. NSAID injection may offer little to no benefit over glucocorticoid injection, based on low- to very low-certainty evidence from two trials. Evidence was downgraded for bias and imprecision. There may be little to no difference between groups in resolution of symptoms at 12 to 24 weeks (34% with NSAIDs, 41% with glucocorticoids; absolute effect 7% lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 16% lower to 5% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.11; low-certainty evidence). The rate of persistent moderate to severe symptoms may be higher at 12 to 24 weeks in the NSAIDs group (28%) compared to the glucocorticoid group (14%) (absolute effect 14% higher, 95% CI 2% to 33% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.46; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAIDs result in fewer recurrences at 12 to 24 weeks (1%) compared to glucocorticoid (21%) (absolute effect 20% lower, 95% CI 21% to 13% lower; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.38; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in mean total active motion at 24 weeks (235 degrees with NSAIDs, 240 degrees with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 5% lower, 95% CI 34.54% lower to 24.54% higher; 1 study, 99 participants; MD -5.00, 95% CI -34.54 to 24.54; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in residual pain at 12 to 24 weeks (20% with NSAIDs, 24% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 4% lower, 95% CI 11% lower to 7% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in participant-reported treatment success at 24 weeks (64% with NSAIDs, 68% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 4% lower, 95% CI 18% lower to 15% higher; 1 study, 121 participants; RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.23; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAID injection has an effect on adverse events at 12 to 24 weeks (1% with NSAIDs, 1% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 0% difference, 95% CI 2% lower to 3% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.42; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For adults with trigger finger, by 24 weeks' follow-up, results from two trials show that compared to glucocorticoid injection, NSAID injection offered little to no benefit in the treatment of trigger finger. Specifically, there was no difference in resolution, symptoms, recurrence, total active motion, residual pain, participant-reported treatment success, or adverse events.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Bias; Diclofenac; Female; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Ketorolac; Male; Middle Aged; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Triamcinolone; Trigger Finger Disorder
PubMed: 33849080
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012789.pub2 -
PloS One 2014Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a common symptom affecting patients with cancer. There are an increasing number of trials examining potential treatments for CRF.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a common symptom affecting patients with cancer. There are an increasing number of trials examining potential treatments for CRF. Methylphenidate represents one of the most researched drugs and an up-to-date assessment of the evidence for its use is needed. Trials of methylphenidate for CRF provided inconsistent results. This meta-analysis was aimed at assessing the effect and safety of methylphenidate on CRF.
METHODS
We comprehensively searched the Pubmed, EMBASE, PSYCHInfo and the Cochrane databases in order to identify published studies on the effect of methylphenidate on CRF. Primary outcomes included fatigue. Secondary outcomes included depression, cognition and adverse effects.
FINDINGS
A meta-analysis was conducted on five randomized controlled trials and 498 patients were enrolled. Despite a large placebo effect observed in the studies included, pooled data suggested therapeutic effect of methylphenidate on CRF. Subgroup Analyses showed that the efficacy of methylphenidate on CRF is getting better with prolonging treatment duration, with a MD of -3.70 (95% CI -7.03- -0.37, p = 0.03) for long-time group and a MD of -2.49 (95% CI -6.01-1.03, p = 0.17) for short-time group. In general, there was no impact of methylphenidate on depression and cognition associated with CRF. Adverse events were similar between methylphenidate and placebo groups except that more patients reported vertigo, anxiety, anorexia and nausea in methylphenidate group compared to placebo group.
CONCLUSION
Existing trials of methylphenidate on CRF provided limited evidence for the use of methylphenidate 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: Cognition; Depression; Fatigue; Humans; Methylphenidate; Neoplasms
PubMed: 24416225
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084391 -
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Oct 2010To determine whether antipyretic treatment for influenza infection influences the risk of mortality in animal models and humans. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether antipyretic treatment for influenza infection influences the risk of mortality in animal models and humans.
DESIGN
A systematic search of Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials was undertaken to identify randomized placebo-controlled trials of antipyretic use in influenza infection in animal models or humans that reported mortality. A quantitative meta-analysis of the risk of death using Peto's one step odds ratio with calculation of the pooled risk of death and standard evaluation of heterogeneity was undertaken.
SETTING
Not applicable.
PARTICIPANTS
Not applicable.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Risk of mortality associated with antipyretic use in influenza infection.
RESULTS
Eight studies from three publications met the inclusion criteria. No human studies were identified. The risk of mortality was increased by antipyretic use in influenza-infected animals with a fixed effects pooled odds ratio of 1.34 (95% CI 1.04-1.73). An increased risk was observed with aspirin, paracetamol and diclofenac.
CONCLUSION
In animal models, treatment with antipyretics for influenza infection increases the risk of mortality. There are no randomized placebo-controlled trials of antipyretic use in influenza infection in humans that reported data on mortality and a paucity of clinical data by which to assess their efficacy. We suggest that randomized placebo-controlled trials of antipyretic use in human influenza infection are urgently required, and that these are sufficiently powered to investigate a potential effect on mortality.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Animals; Aspirin; Diclofenac; Disease Models, Animal; Humans; Influenza, Human; Orthomyxoviridae Infections
PubMed: 20929891
DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.2010.090441