-
Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive... 2009To evaluate the efficacy of pharmacological treatment of apathy in patients with neurodegenerative diseases. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy of pharmacological treatment of apathy in patients with neurodegenerative diseases.
METHODS
Systematic review of studies assessing the effects of pharmacological treatment on apathy in neurodegenerative diseases.
RESULTS
Thirty-five studies were included: 2 meta-analyses, 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 14 open-label studies, 5 case series, and 1 single case study. Eight studies included apathy as a primary outcome. A cholinesterase inhibitor was investigated in 24 studies, methylphenidate in 5, and other medications in 6 studies. Most RCTs of cholinesterase inhibitors reported a small but statistically significant improvement of apathetic symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS
Although some medications are promising candidates for further study, there is as yet insufficient evidence that pharmacological treatment improves apathetic symptoms in patients with neurodegenerative disease. Large-scale, placebo-controlled RCTs with apathy as a primary outcome measure are needed to establish the potential benefit of pharmacological treatment of apathy.
Topics: Aged; Case-Control Studies; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cohort Studies; Databases, Factual; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Methylphenidate; Neurodegenerative Diseases; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction
PubMed: 19609082
DOI: 10.1159/000228840 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2014Cognitive deficits are common in people who have received cranial irradiation and have a serious impact on daily functioning and quality of life. The benefit of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cognitive deficits are common in people who have received cranial irradiation and have a serious impact on daily functioning and quality of life. The benefit of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of cognitive deficits in this population is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing or ameliorating cognitive deficits in adult patients treated with cranial irradiation.
SEARCH METHODS
In August 2014. we searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO and checked the reference lists of included studies. We also searched for ongoing trials via ClinicalTrials.gov, the Physicians Data Query and the Meta Register of Controlled Trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions in cranial irradiated adults, with objective cognitive functioning as a primary or secondary outcome measure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (JD, KZ) independently extracted data from selected studies and carried out a 'Risk of bias' assessment. Cognitive function, fatigue and mood outcomes were reported. No data were pooled.
MAIN RESULTS
Sixteen studies were identified for possible inclusion in the review, six of which were included. Three studies investigated prevention and three studies investigated amelioration. Due to differences between studies in the interventions being evaluated, a meta-analysis was not possible. Two studies investigated a pharmacological intervention for the prevention of cognitive deficits; memantine compared with placebo, and d-threo-methylphenidate HCL compared with placebo. In the first study the primary cognitive outcome of memory at six months did not reach significance, but there was significant improvement in overall cognitive function compared to placebo, with similar adverse events across groups. The second study found no statistically significant difference between arms, with few adverse events. The third study investigated a rehabilitation program for the prevention of cognitive deficits but did not carry out a statistical comparison of cognitive performance between groups.Three studies investigated the use of a pharmacological intervention for the treatment of cognitive deficits; methylphenidate compared with modafinil, two different doses of modafinil, and donepezil compared with placebo. The first study found improvements in cognitive function in both the methylphenidate and modafinil arms; few adverse events were reported. The second study combined treatment arms and found improvements across all cognitive tests, however, a number of adverse events were reported. Both studies were limited by a small sample size. The third study did not find an improvement in the primary cognitive outcome of overall performance, but did find improvement in an individual test of memory, compared to placebo; adverse events were not reported. No non-pharmacological studies for the amelioration of cognitive deficits were eligible. There were a number of limitations across studies but few without high risks of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is supportive evidence that memantine may help prevent cognitive deficits for adults with brain metastases receiving cranial irradiation. There is supportive evidence that donepezil may have a role in treating cognitive deficits in adults with primary or metastatic brain tumours who have been treated with cranial irradiation. Patient withdrawal affected the statistical power of both studies. Further research that tries to minimise the withdrawal of consent, and subsequently reduce the requirement for imputation procedures, may offer a higher quality of evidence.There is no strong evidence to support any non-pharmacological interventions (medical or cognitive/behavioural) in the prevention or amelioration of cognitive deficits. Non-randomised studies appear promising but are as yet to be conclusive via translation into high quality evidence. Further research is required.
Topics: Adult; Benzhydryl Compounds; Cognition Disorders; Cranial Irradiation; Donepezil; Humans; Indans; Memantine; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Nootropic Agents; Piperidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25519950
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011335.pub2 -
Medicine Nov 2021Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most common childhood-onset neurodevelopmental disorder, and methylphenidate (MPH) is considered one of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most common childhood-onset neurodevelopmental disorder, and methylphenidate (MPH) is considered one of the first-line medicine for ADHD. Unfortunately, this medication is only effective for some children with ADHD. This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate whether noradrenergic gene polymorphisms impact the efficacy of MPH in children with ADHD.
METHODS
Candidate gene studies published in English until March 1, 2020, were identified through literature searches on PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Data were pooled from individual clinical trials considering MPH pharmacogenomics. According to the heterogeneity, the odds ratio and mean differences were calculated by applying fixed-effects or random-effects models.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis includes 15 studies and 1382 patients. Four polymorphisms of the NET gene (rs5569, rs28386840, rs2242446, rs3785143) and 2 polymorphisms of the α2A-adrenergic receptor gene (ADRA2A) gene (MspI and DraI) were selected for the analysis. In the pooled data from all studies, T allele carriers of the rs28386840 polymorphism were significantly more likely to respond to MPH (P < .001, ORTcarriers = 2.051, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.316, 3.197) and showed a relationship with significantly greater hyperactive-impulsive symptoms improvement (P < .001, mean difference:1.70, 95% CI:0.24, 3.16). None of the ADRA2A polymorphisms correlated significantly with MPH response as a whole. However, G allele carriers of the MspI polymorphism showed a relationship with significantly inattention symptoms improvement (P < .001, mean difference:0.31, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.47).
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis results indicate that the noradrenergic gene polymorphisms may impact MPH response. The NET rs28386840 is linked to improved MPH response in ADHD children. And the ADRA2A MspI is associated with inattention symptom improvements. Further investigations with larger samples will be needed to confirm these results.Registration: PROSPERO (no. CRD42021265830).
Topics: Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Humans; Methylphenidate; Norepinephrine; Norepinephrine Plasma Membrane Transport Proteins; Pharmacogenetics; Polymorphism, Genetic; Receptors, Adrenergic, alpha-2; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34797323
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000027858 -
International Journal of Environmental... Aug 2018: This meta-analysis aims to study the effects of atomoxetine and methylphenidate on heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and a number of adverse cardiac... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The Effect of Methylphenidate and Atomoxetine on Heart Rate and Systolic Blood Pressure in Young People and Adults with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression.
UNLABELLED
: This meta-analysis aims to study the effects of atomoxetine and methylphenidate on heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and a number of adverse cardiac events on patients receiving treatment for attention-deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) in comparison to placebo and between atomoxetine and methylphenidate. : We searched the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and ScienceDirect. Meta-analysis was performed on studies that examined the relationships between methylphenidate or atomoxetine and HR, SBP, as well as a number of adverse cardiac events. These studies were either placebo-controlled or comparison studies between methylphenidate and atomoxetine. Meta-regression identified patient- and treatment-related factors that may contribute to heterogeneity. : Twenty-two studies were included and the total number of participants was 46,107. Children/adolescents and adults treated with methylphenidate had more significant increases in post- vs. pre-treatment HR (p < 0.001) and SBP (p < 0.001) than those treated by placebo. Children and adolescents treated with atomoxetine had more significant increases post- vs. pre-treatment HR (p = 0.025) and SBP (p < 0.001) than those treated with methylphenidate. Meta-regression revealed mean age of participants, mean dose, and duration of atomoxetine and methylphenidate as significant moderators that explained heterogeneity. There were no differences in the number of adverse cardiac events between participants with methylphenidate treatment and placebo or atomoxetine.
CONCLUSIONS
Children/adolescents and adults treated with methylphenidate resulted in significant increases in post- vs. pre-treatment HR and SBP as compared to placebo. Similarly, children and adolescents treated with atomoxetine had significant increases in post- vs. pre-treatment HR and SBP than those treated with methylphenidate. These findings have potential implications for continuous monitoring of HR and SBP throughout the course of treatment although the risk for adverse cardiac events were insignificant.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Blood Pressure; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Heart Rate; Humans; Methylphenidate
PubMed: 30127314
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15081789 -
Current Neuropharmacology 2020To systematically review the literature on the therapeutic use of amphetamine, lisdexamfetamine and methylphenidate in elderly population with and without dementia.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the literature on the therapeutic use of amphetamine, lisdexamfetamine and methylphenidate in elderly population with and without dementia.
METHODS
We conducted two researches on the PubMed, Scopus and Embase using the keywords ("elderly") AND ("amphetamine" OR "methylphenidate" OR "lisdexamfetamine") and then ("Alzheimer" OR "dementia") AND ("amphetamine" OR "methylphenidate" OR "lisdexamfetamine").
RESULTS
Twenty-nine papers met all the eligibility criteria. The results are encouraging as 81.5% of the studies showed clinical improvement of the investigated condition.
CONCLUSION
Amphetamines and methylphenidate are probably effective strategies for different conditions in the elderly population. However, further studies are needed to provide more robust evidence on efficacy, dosage and safety for this population.
Topics: Aged; Amphetamine; Dementia; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Methylphenidate
PubMed: 31660835
DOI: 10.2174/1570159X17666191010093021 -
Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience :... Jan 2021Depression is a common morbidity after traumatic brain injury. This network meta-analysis investigated the efficacy and tolerability of pharmacologic and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Depression is a common morbidity after traumatic brain injury. This network meta-analysis investigated the efficacy and tolerability of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions for depression after traumatic brain injury.
METHODS
We extracted randomized controlled trials examining pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic interventions with placebo- or active-controlled designs from PubMed, the Cochrane Library and ScienceDirect, from inception to October 30, 2018. We based study selection and extraction of a predefined list of variables on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and conducted meta-analysis procedures using random effects modelling. Primary outcomes were changes in depressive symptom severity after pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic treatment; the secondary outcome was tolerability, reflected in overall patient dropout rates.
RESULTS
Our analysis of 27 randomized controlled trials (10 pharmacologic, total n = 483, mean age = 37.9 yr; 17 nonpharmacologic, total n = 1083, mean age = 38.0 yr) showed that methylphenidate had significantly superior efficacy compared to placebo or control (standardized mean difference -0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.49 to -0.33). Sertraline was associated with significantly lower tolerability (i.e., a higher dropout rate) compared to placebo or control (odds ratio 2.65, 95% CI 1.27 to 5.54). No nonpharmacologic treatment was more effective than the others, and we found no significant differences in tolerability (i.e., dropout rates) among the nonpharmacologic treatments.
LIMITATIONS
Heterogeneity in participant characteristics (e.g., comorbidities), study designs (e.g., trial duration) and psychopathology assessment tools, as well as small trial numbers for some treatment arms, could have been confounders.
CONCLUSION
The present network meta-analysis suggests that methylphenidate might be the best pharmacologic intervention for depressive symptoms related to traumatic brain injury. None of the nonpharmacologic interventions was associated with better improvement in depressive symptoms than the others or than control conditions. None of the pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic treatments had inferior tolerability compared to placebo or controls except for sertraline, which had significantly lower tolerability than placebo.
Topics: Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Methylphenidate; Network Meta-Analysis; Neurotransmitter Uptake Inhibitors; Psychotherapy
PubMed: 33497170
DOI: 10.1503/jpn.190122 -
Harvard Review of Psychiatry 2013Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a psychiatric disorder affecting 5% of children. Methylphenidate (MPH) is a common medication for ADHD. Studies... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a psychiatric disorder affecting 5% of children. Methylphenidate (MPH) is a common medication for ADHD. Studies examining MPH's effect on pediatric ADHD patients' brain function using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have not been compiled. The goals of this systematic review were to determine (1) which areas of the brain in pediatric ADHD patients are modulated by a single dose of MPH, (2) whether areas modulated by MPH differ by task type performed during fMRI data acquisition, and (3) whether changes in brain activation due to MPH relate to clinical improvements in ADHD-related symptoms.
METHODS
We searched the electronic databases PubMed and PsycINFO (1967-2011) using the following terms: ADHD AND (methylphenidate OR MPH OR ritalin) AND (neuroimaging OR MRI OR fMRI OR BOLD OR event related), and identified 200 abstracts, 9 of which were reviewed based on predefined criteria.
RESULTS
In ADHD patients the middle and inferior frontal gyri, basal ganglia, and cerebellum were most often affected by MPH. The middle and inferior frontal gyri were frequently affected by MPH during inhibitory control tasks. Correlation between brain regions and clinical improvement was not possible due to the lack of symptom improvement measures within the included studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Throughout nine task-based fMRI studies investigating MPH's effect on the brains of pediatric patients with ADHD, MPH resulted in increased activation within frontal lobes, basal ganglia, and cerebellum. In most cases, this increase "normalized" activation of at least some brain areas to that seen in typically developing children.
Topics: Adolescent; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Basal Ganglia; Brain; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cerebellum; Child; Female; Frontal Lobe; Functional Neuroimaging; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Methylphenidate
PubMed: 23660970
DOI: 10.1097/HRP.0b013e318293749e -
BMC Psychiatry Oct 2015Among young people up to 18 years of age, approximately 5% have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), many of whom have symptoms persisting into adulthood.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Among young people up to 18 years of age, approximately 5% have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), many of whom have symptoms persisting into adulthood. ADHD is associated with increased risk of co-morbid psychiatric disorders, including substance misuse. Many will be prescribed medication, namely methylphenidate, atomoxetine, dexamphetamine and lisdexamfetamine. If so, it is important to know if interactions exist and if they are potentially toxic.
METHODS
Three databases (Medline, EMBASE and PsychINFO) from a 22 year period (1992 - June 2014) were searched systematically. Key search terms included alcohol, substance related disorders, methylphenidate, atomoxetine, dexamphetamine, lisdexamfetamine, and death, which identified 493 citations (344 after removal of duplicates). The eligibility of each study was assessed jointly by two investigators, leaving 20 relevant articles.
RESULTS
We identified only a minimal increase in side-effects when ADHD medication (therapeutic doses) was taken with alcohol. None of the reviewed studies showed severe sequelae among those who had overdosed on ADHD medication and other coingestants, including alcohol.
CONCLUSIONS
The numbers across all the papers studied remain too low to exclude uncommon effects. Also, studies of combined effects with novel psychoactive substances have not yet appeared in the literature. Nevertheless, no serious sequelae were identified from combining ADHD medication with alcohol/illicit substances from the pre-novel psychoactive substance era.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenergic Uptake Inhibitors; Alcohol Drinking; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Dextroamphetamine; Drug Interactions; Humans; Illicit Drugs; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Methylphenidate; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 26517983
DOI: 10.1186/s12888-015-0657-9 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Postoperative pain is common and may be severe. Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postoperative pain is common and may be severe. Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, may reduce the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous ketorolac, 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: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS on 20 April 2020. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized double-blind trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous ketorolac 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. 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, adverse events (AEs), and for any other cause; and number of participants experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and NSAID-related or opioid-related AEs. For subgroup analysis, we planned to analyze different doses of parenteral ketorolac separately and to analyze results based on the type of surgery performed. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 studies, involving 1905 participants undergoing various surgeries (pelvic/abdominal, dental, and orthopedic), with 17 to 83 participants receiving intravenous ketorolac in each study. Mean study population ages ranged from 22.5 years to 67.4 years. Most studies administered a dose of ketorolac of 30 mg; one study assessed 15 mg, and another administered 60 mg. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias for some domains, particularly allocation concealment and blinding, and a high risk of bias due to small sample size. The overall certainty of evidence for each outcome ranged from very low to moderate. Reasons for downgrading certainty included serious study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision. Ketorolac versus placebo Very low-certainty evidence from eight studies (658 participants) suggests that ketorolac results in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over four hours compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 2.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 4.37). The number needed to treat for one additional participant to benefit (NNTB) was 2.4 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.7). Low-certainty evidence from 10 studies (914 participants) demonstrates that ketorolac may result in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over six hours compared to placebo (RR 3.26, 95% CI 1.93 to 5.51). The NNTB was 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.7). Among secondary outcomes, for time to rescue medication, moderate-certainty evidence comparing intravenous ketorolac versus placebo demonstrated a mean median of 271 minutes for ketorolac versus 104 minutes for placebo (6 studies, 633 participants). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from five studies (417 participants) compared ketorolac with placebo. The RR was 0.60 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.00), that is, it did not demonstrate a difference between groups. Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with placebo (74% versus 65%; 8 studies, 810 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.19; number needed to treat for an additional harmful event (NNTH) 16.7, 95% CI 8.3 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from eight studies (703 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and placebo (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.03). Ketorolac versus NSAIDs Ketorolac was compared to parecoxib in four studies and diclofenac in two studies. For our primary outcome, over both four and six hours there was no evidence of a difference between intravenous ketorolac and another NSAID (low-certainty and moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). Over four hours, four studies (337 participants) produced an RR of 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.21) and over six hours, six studies (603 participants) produced an RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.19). For time to rescue medication, low-certainty evidence from four studies (427 participants) suggested that participants receiving ketorolac waited an extra 35 minutes (mean median 331 minutes versus 296 minutes). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from three studies (260 participants) compared ketorolac with another NSAID. The RR was 0.90 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.40), that is, there may be little or no difference between groups. Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with another NSAID (76% versus 68%, 5 studies, 516 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.23; NNTH 12.5, 95% CI 6.7 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from five studies (530 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and another NSAID (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.13 to 76.99). Only one of the five studies reported a single serious AE.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The amount and certainty of evidence for the use of intravenous ketorolac as a treatment for postoperative pain varies across efficacy and safety outcomes and amongst comparators, from very low to moderate. The available evidence indicates that postoperative intravenous ketorolac administration may offer substantial pain relief for most patients, but further research may impact this estimate. Adverse events appear to occur at a slightly higher rate in comparison to placebo and to other NSAIDs. Insufficient information is available to assess whether intravenous ketorolac has a different rate of gastrointestinal or surgical-site bleeding, renal dysfunction, or cardiovascular events versus other NSAIDs. There was a lack of studies in cardiovascular surgeries and in elderly populations who may be at increased risk for adverse events.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Bias; Diclofenac; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Isoxazoles; Ketorolac; Middle Aged; Numbers Needed To Treat; Pain, Postoperative; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 33998669
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013263.pub2 -
International Wound Journal Feb 2023Pain and wound after haemorrhoidectomy constantly bothered the patient's convenience. Recurrently, topical sucralfate is used to treat excoriations and burns. It is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficacy of topical sucralfate in improving pain and wound healing after haemorrhoidectomy procedure: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of randomised clinical trials.
Pain and wound after haemorrhoidectomy constantly bothered the patient's convenience. Recurrently, topical sucralfate is used to treat excoriations and burns. It is considered to enhance epidermal growth and tissue granulation, thus, alleviating patients' problems. This study evaluated topical sucralfate's feasibility, safety, and superiority after haemorrhoidectomy. We searched randomised controlled trial (RCT) studies in PubMed, Google Scholar, Europe PMC, and ClinicalTrials.gov until March 29th, 2022. We investigated the influence of topical sucralfate on pain score postoperatively (24 hours, 7 days, and 14 days), pethidine usage, diclofenac usage, and wound healing rate compared to placebo. This study was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. This study sorted the final six studies with 439 patients underwent haemorrhoidectomy. Topical sucralfate demonstrated significant outcomes on VAS 24 hours post-operative [Std. Mean Difference -1.00 (95% CI -1.70, -0.31), P = .005], VAS 7 days post-operative [Std. Mean Difference -2.29 (95% CI -3.34, -1.25), P < .0001], VAS 14 days post-operative [Std. Mean Difference -1.88 (95% CI -2.74, -1.01), P < .0001], pethidine usage within 24 hours post-operative [Std. Mean Difference -0.62 (95% CI -0.96, -0.27), P = .0004], diclofenac usage 7 days post-operative [Std. Mean Difference -1.76 (95% CI -2.61, -0.92), P < .0001], diclofenac usage 14 days post-operative [Std. Mean Difference -1.64 (95% CI -2.38, -0.91), P < .0001], and wound healing rate at 28-day post-operative [RR 1.45 (95% CI 1.25-1.68), P < .00001]. Topical sucralfate alleviated pain, improved wound healing, and minimised the usage of pethidine and diclofenac compared to placebo.
Topics: Humans; Diclofenac; Hemorrhoidectomy; Meperidine; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sucralfate; Wound Healing
PubMed: 35864080
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13901