-
Pain Physician May 2019Postherpetic neuralgia, a persistent pain condition often characterized by allodynia and hyperalgesia, is a deleterious consequence experienced by patients after an...
BACKGROUND
Postherpetic neuralgia, a persistent pain condition often characterized by allodynia and hyperalgesia, is a deleterious consequence experienced by patients after an acute herpes zoster vesicular eruption has healed. The pain associated with postherpetic neuralgia can severely affect a patient's quality of life, quality of sleep, and ability to participate in activities of daily living. Currently, first-line treatments for this condition include the administration of medication therapies such as tricyclic antidepressants, pregabalin, gabapentin, and lidocaine patches, followed by the application of tramadol and capsaicin creams and patches as second- or third-line therapies. As not all patients respond to such conservative options, however, interventional therapies are valuable for those who continue to experience pain.
OBJECTIVE
This review focuses on interventional therapies that have been subjected to randomized controlled trials for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia, including transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation; local botulinum toxin A, cobalamin, and triamcinolone injection; intrathecal methylprednisolone and midazolam injection; stellate ganglion block; dorsal root ganglion destruction; and pulsed radiofrequency therapy.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
SETTING
Hospital department in Taiwan.
METHODS
Search of PubMed database for all randomized controlled trials regarding postherpetic neuralgia that were published before the end of May 2017.
RESULTS
The current evidence is insufficient for determining the single best interventional treatment. Considering invasiveness, price, and safety, the subcutaneous injection of botulinum toxin A or triamcinolone, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, peripheral nerve stimulation, and stellate ganglion block are recommended first, followed by paravertebral block and pulsed radiofrequency. If severe pain persists, spinal cord stimulation could be considered. Given the destructiveness of dorsal root ganglion and adverse events of intrathecal methylprednisolone injection, these interventions should be carried out with great care and only following comprehensive discussion.
LIMITATIONS
Although few adverse effects were reported, these procedures are invasive, and a careful assessment of the risk-benefit ratio should be conducted prior to administration.
CONCLUSION
With the exception of intrathecal methylprednisolone injection for postherpetic neuralgia, the evidence for most interventional procedures used to treat postherpetic neuralgia is Level 2, according to "The Oxford Levels of Evidence 2". Therefore, these modalities have received only grade B recommendations. Despite the lack of a high level of evidence, spinal cord stimulation and peripheral nerve stimulation are possibly useful for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia.
KEY WORDS
Interventional treatment, postherpetic neuralgia, botulinum toxin, steroid, stellate ganglion block, peripheral nerve stimulation, paravertebral block, radiofrequency, spinal cord stimulation.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Neuralgia, Postherpetic; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31151330
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Hypertrophic and keloid scars are common skin conditions resulting from abnormal wound healing. They can cause itching, pain and have a negative physical and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hypertrophic and keloid scars are common skin conditions resulting from abnormal wound healing. They can cause itching, pain and have a negative physical and psychological impact on patients' lives. Different approaches are used aiming to improve these scars, including intralesional corticosteroids, surgery and more recently, laser therapy. Since laser therapy is expensive and may have adverse effects, it is critical to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of this therapy for treating hypertrophic and keloid scars.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of laser therapy for treating hypertrophic and keloid scars.
SEARCH METHODS
In March 2021 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL EBSCO Plus and LILACS. To identify additional studies, we also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for treating hypertrophic or keloid scars (or both), comparing laser therapy with placebo, no intervention or another intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted the data, assessed the risk of bias of included studies and carried out GRADE assessments to assess the certainty of evidence. A third review author arbitrated if there were disagreements.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 RCTs, involving 604 participants (children and adults) with study sample sizes ranging from 10 to 120 participants (mean 40.27). Where studies randomised different parts of the same scar, each scar segment was the unit of analysis (906 scar segments). The length of participant follow-up varied from 12 weeks to 12 months. All included trials had a high risk of bias for at least one domain: all studies were deemed at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding of participants and personnel. The variability of intervention types, controls, follow-up periods and limitations with report data meant we pooled data for one comparison (and only two outcomes within this). Several review secondary outcomes - cosmesis, tolerance, preference for different modes of treatment, adherence, and change in quality of life - were not reported in any of the included studies. Laser versus no treatment: We found low-certainty evidence suggesting there may be more hypertrophic and keloid scar improvement (that is scars are less severe) in 585-nm pulsed-dye laser (PDL) -treated scars compared with no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.96; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11 to 3.45; two studies, 60 scar segments). It is unclear whether non-ablative fractional laser (NAFL) impacts on hypertrophic scar severity when compared with no treatment (very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether fractional carbon dioxide (CO) laser impacts on hypertrophic and keloid scar severity compared with no treatment (very low-certainty evidence). Eight studies reported treatment-related adverse effects but did not provide enough data for further analyses. Laser versus other treatments: We are uncertain whether treatment with 585-nm PDL impacts on hypertrophic and keloid scar severity compared with intralesional corticosteroid triamcinolone acetonide (TAC), intralesional Fluorouracil (5-FU) or combined use of TAC plus 5-FU (very low-certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether erbium laser impacts on hypertrophic scar severity when compared with TAC (very low-certainty evidence). Other comparisons included 585-nm PDL versus silicone gel sheeting, fractional CO laser versus TAC and fractional CO laser versus verapamil. However, the authors did not report enough data regarding the severity of scars to compare the interventions. As only very low-certainty evidence is available on treatment-related adverse effects, including pain, charring (skin burning so that the surface becomes blackened), telangiectasia (a condition in which tiny blood vessels cause thread-like red lines on the skin), skin atrophy (skin thinning), purpuric discolorations, hypopigmentation (skin colour becomes lighter), and erosion (loss of part of the top layer of skin, leaving a denuded surface) secondary to blistering, we are not able to draw conclusions as to how these treatments compare. Laser plus other treatment versus other treatment: It is unclear whether 585-nm PDL plus TAC plus 5-FU leads to a higher percentage of good to excellent improvement in hypertrophic and keloid scar severity compared with TAC plus 5-FU, as the certainty of evidence has been assessed as very low. Due to very low-certainty evidence, it is also uncertain whether CO laser plus TAC impacts on keloid scar severity compared with cryosurgery plus TAC. The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet (Nd:YAG) laser plus intralesional corticosteroid diprospan plus 5-FU on scar severity compared with diprospan plus 5-FU and about the effect of helium-neon (He-Ne) laser plus decamethyltetrasiloxane, polydimethylsiloxane and cyclopentasiloxane cream on scar severity compared with decamethyltetrasiloxane, polydimethylsiloxane and cyclopentasiloxane cream. Only very low-certainty evidence is available on treatment-related adverse effects, including pain, atrophy, erythema, telangiectasia, hypopigmentation, regrowth, hyperpigmentation (skin colour becomes darker), and depigmentation (loss of colour from the skin). Therefore, we are not able to draw conclusions as to how these treatments compare. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of laser therapy for treating hypertrophic and keloid scars. The available information is also insufficient to perform a more accurate analysis on treatment-related adverse effects related to laser therapy. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies, conflicting results, study design issues and small sample sizes, further high-quality trials, with validated scales and core outcome sets should be developed. These trials should take into consideration the consumers' opinion and values, the need for long-term follow-up and the necessity of reporting the rate of recurrence of scars to determine whether lasers may achieve superior results when compared with other therapies for treating hypertrophic and keloid scars.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Aluminum; Atrophy; Carbon Dioxide; Child; Cicatrix, Hypertrophic; Dimethylpolysiloxanes; Erbium; Fluorouracil; Helium; Humans; Hypertrophy; Hypopigmentation; Keloid; Laser Therapy; Neodymium; Neon; Pain; Silicone Gels; Telangiectasis; Triamcinolone Acetonide; Verapamil; Wound Healing; Yttrium
PubMed: 36161591
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011642.pub2 -
Cureus Apr 2022Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative joint disease that causes persistent joint pain and stiffness of mainly the large peripheral weight-bearing joints. It is a leading... (Review)
Review
Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative joint disease that causes persistent joint pain and stiffness of mainly the large peripheral weight-bearing joints. It is a leading cause of functional disability and poor quality of life. Various modalities of therapy are recommended by different research organizations at different stages of OA including non-pharmacological, pharmacological, and surgical interventions. Intra-articular injections of hyaluronic acid (HA) is widely used for over three decades in the treatment of OA. However controversies exist regarding its safety and efficacy, the number of injections and courses, type of preparation, duration of its effects, and combining it with other drugs or molecules. This study aimed to review the most recent data available in the published literature to address these. Electronic databases like Medline, Embase, ProQuest, and Google Scholar were searched for articles using keywords, intraarticular injections, hyaluronic acid, and osteoarthritis knee. The review was carried out as per PRISMA guidelines. Thirty-eight randomized control trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy and safety of intra-articular injection of HA were included in the systematic review. Out of the 38 studies, 22 (57.9%) were double-blind, eight (21%) single-blind, three (7.9%) non-blind, four (10%) with simple randomization, and one (2.7%) was open-labeled. Total 5,025 patients were included in these studies. The mean age of the patients was 60.28 years and the osteoarthritis grade of the knee joint was 1 to 3. HA was studied as a test preparation in 19 (50%) while in another 19 (50%) it was studied as a control. In 24 (63.2%) studies, HA was used as high molecular weight preparation in eight (21%) as low molecular weight preparation while in six studies the information was not available. HA was used as a standalone preparation in 31 studies, in two studies it was injected with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and with either low-level laser therapy (LLLT), triamcinolone (TA), betamethasone (CS), poly deoxyribonucleotide (PDRN) or dexamethasone (DX) in one study each. In the majority of the studies, HA was given as a single injection (52.6% studies) or weekly three injections (28.9% studies). In 13.2 %, it was given as weekly 5 injections and in 5.3% as weekly two injections. IA-HA injections have a limited role in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis in those patients who do not have sufficient pain relief with topical or oral medication and physical therapy. It is safe and effective except for minor side effects such as local pain and swelling lasting for a few days. Severe allergic reactions are extremely rare. They provide adequate pain relief and functional improvement for up to six months irrespective of a number of injections and type of preparations used. The combination formulations with corticosteroids or PRP or MSCs show better results than HA alone. Combining HA with newer molecules such as peptides or diclofenac for sustained and disease-modifying effects requires more studies in the future.
PubMed: 35651409
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.24503 -
BMC Oral Health May 2022To compare the reported efficacy and costs of available interventions used for the management of oral lichen planus (OLP).
OBJECTIVE
To compare the reported efficacy and costs of available interventions used for the management of oral lichen planus (OLP).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed from database inception until March 2021 in MEDLINE via PubMed and the Cochrane library following PRISMA guidelines. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing an active intervention with placebo or different active interventions for OLP management were considered.
RESULTS
Seventy (70) RCTs were included. The majority of evidence suggested efficacy of topical steroids (dexamethasone, clobetasol, fluocinonide, triamcinolone), topical calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus, pimecrolimus, cyclosporine), topical retinoids, intra-lesional triamcinolone, aloe-vera gel, photodynamic therapy, and low-level laser therapies for OLP management. Based on the estimated cost per month and evidence for efficacy and side-effects, topical steroids (fluocinonide > dexamethasone > clobetasol > triamcinolone) appear to be more cost-effective than topical calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus > pimecrolimus > cyclosporine) followed by intra-lesional triamcinolone.
CONCLUSION
Of common treatment regimens for OLP, topical steroids appear to be the most economical and efficacious option followed by topical calcineurin inhibitors. Large-scale multi-modality, prospective trials in which head-to-head comparisons interventions are compared are required to definitely assess the cost-effectiveness of OLP treatments.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Calcineurin Inhibitors; Clobetasol; Cyclosporins; Dexamethasone; Fluocinonide; Health Care Costs; Humans; Lichen Planus, Oral; Steroids; Tacrolimus; Treatment Outcome; Triamcinolone
PubMed: 35524296
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02168-4 -
Blood Transfusion = Trasfusione Del... Jan 2023The number of articles evaluating the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in androgenetic alopecia (AGA) and alopecia areata (AA) has increased exponentially during... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The number of articles evaluating the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in androgenetic alopecia (AGA) and alopecia areata (AA) has increased exponentially during the last years. This systematic review and meta-analysis is aimed at evaluating the benefit of PRP in the treatment of alopecia.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We searched MEDLINE (through PUBMED), Embase, and CENTRAL for relevant data. Treatment effect was described by mean difference (MD) and risk difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of the body of evidence.
RESULTS
We found 27 controlled trials (1,117 subjects) that met our inclusion criteria: 18 trials (713 subjects) in patients with AGA, and 9 (404 subjects) in patients with AA. Eleven studies had a split head design. There was heterogeneity in types of PRP (e.g., activated and non-activated) and administration schedules. PRP was compared to saline injections (18 studies), local steroid injections (4 studies) and other comparators (5 studies). Most commonly reported outcomes were hair density and hair regrowth. It was not possible to pool all outcome data because of heterogeneity in reporting, and because reporting was often limited to a single study. Compared to saline injections, PRP injections increased hair density over a medium-term follow-up (MD, 25.6 hairs/cm; 95 % CI: 2.62-48.57), but the evidence was rated as low quality due to inconsistency and risk of bias. In individuals with AA, it is unclear whether PRP injection compared with triamcinolone injection increase the rate of subjects with hair regrowth (very-low quality of evidence due to inconsistency, imprecision, and risk of bias). There were no serious adverse events related to PRP injection or control treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence showing benefit of PRP for treatment of alopecia, and most of this evidence is of low quality.
Topics: Humans; Alopecia Areata; Clinical Protocols; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34967722
DOI: 10.2450/2021.0216-21 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2013Keloid and hypertrophic scars are common and are caused by a proliferation of dermal tissue following skin injury. They cause functional and psychological problems for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Keloid and hypertrophic scars are common and are caused by a proliferation of dermal tissue following skin injury. They cause functional and psychological problems for patients, and their management can be difficult. The use of silicone gel sheeting to prevent and treat hypertrophic scarring is still relatively new and started in 1981 with treatment of burn scars.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of silicone gel sheeting for:(1) prevention of hypertrophic or keloid scarring in people with newly healed wounds (e.g. post surgery);(2) treatment of established scarring in people with existing keloid or hypertrophic scars.
SEARCH METHODS
In May 2013 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL for this second update.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Any randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials, or controlled clinical trials, comparing silicone gel sheeting for prevention or treatment of hypertrophic or keloid scars with any other non surgical treatment, no treatment or placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed all relevant trials for methodological quality. Three review authors extracted data independently using a standardised form and cross-checked the results. We assessed all trials meeting the selection criteria for methodological quality.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 20 trials involving 873 people, ranging in age from 1.5 to 81 years. The trials compared adhesive silicone gel sheeting with no treatment; non silicone dressing; other silicone products; laser therapy; triamcinolone acetonide injection; topical onion extract and pressure therapy. In the prevention studies, when compared with a no treatment option, whilst silicone gel sheeting reduced the incidence of hypertrophic scarring in people prone to scarring (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.98) these studies were highly susceptible to bias. In treatment studies, silicone gel sheeting produced a statistically significant reduction in scar thickness (mean difference (MD) -2.00, 95% CI -2.14 to -1.85) and colour amelioration (RR 3.49, 95% CI 1.97 to 6.15) but again these studies were highly susceptible to bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is weak evidence of a benefit of silicone gel sheeting as a prevention for abnormal scarring in high-risk individuals but the poor quality of research means a great deal of uncertainty prevails. Trials evaluating silicone gel sheeting as a treatment for hypertrophic and keloid scarring showed improvements in scar thickness and scar colour but are of poor quality and highly susceptible to bias.
Topics: Cicatrix, Hypertrophic; Humans; Keloid; Occlusive Dressings; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Silicone Gels
PubMed: 24030657
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003826.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2020Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a relatively common chronic T cell-mediated disease, which can cause significant pain, particularly in its erosive or ulcerative forms. As... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a relatively common chronic T cell-mediated disease, which can cause significant pain, particularly in its erosive or ulcerative forms. As pain is the indication for treatment of OLP, pain resolution is the primary outcome for this review. This review is an update of a version last published in 2011, but focuses on the evidence for corticosteroid treatment only. A second review considering non-corticosteroid treatments is in progress.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects and safety of corticosteroids, in any formulation, for treating people with symptoms of oral lichen planus.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases to 25 February 2019: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, CENTRAL (2019, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid, and Embase Ovid. ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions on language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of any local or systemic corticosteroid treatment compared with a placebo, a calcineurin inhibitor, another corticosteroid, any other local or systemic (or both) drug, or the same corticosteroid plus an adjunctive treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently scanned the titles and abstracts of all reports identified, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool and extracted data from included studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we expressed the estimates of effects of an intervention as risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous outcomes, we used mean differences (MD) and 95% CI. The statistical unit of analysis was the participant. We conducted meta-analyses only with studies of similar comparisons reporting the same outcome measures. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 35 studies (1474 participants) in this review. We assessed seven studies at low risk of bias overall, 11 at unclear and the remaining 17 studies at high risk of bias. We present results for our main outcomes, pain and clinical resolution measured at the end of the treatment course (between one week and six months), and adverse effects. The limited evidence available for comparisons between different corticosteroids, and corticosteroids versus alternative or adjunctive treatments is presented in the full review. Corticosteroids versus placebo Three studies evaluated the effectiveness and safety of topical corticosteroids in an adhesive base compared to placebo. We were able to combine two studies in meta-analyses, one evaluating clobetasol propionate and the other flucinonide. We found low-certainty evidence that pain may be more likely to be resolved when using a topical corticosteroid rather than a placebo (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.36; 2 studies, 72 participants; I² = 0%). The results for clinical effect of treatment and adverse effects were inconclusive (clinical resolution: RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 47.58; 2 studies, 72 participants; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence; adverse effects RR 1.48, 95% 0.48 to 4.56; 3 studies, 88 participants, I² = 0%, very low-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids versus calcineurin inhibitors Three studies compared topical clobetasol propionate versus topical tacrolimus. We found very low-certainty evidence regarding any difference between tacrolimus and clobetasol for the outcomes pain resolution (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.88; 2 studies, 100 participants; I² = 80%), clinical resolution (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.99; 2 studies, 52 participants; I² = 95%) and adverse effects (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.83; 2 studies, 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence) . One study (39 participants) compared topical clobetasol and ciclosporin, and provided only very low-certainty evidence regarding the rate of clinical resolution with clobetasol (RR 3.16, 95% CI 1.00 to 9.93), pain resolution (RR 2.11, 95% CI 0.76 to 5.86) and adverse effects (RR 6.32, 95% CI 0.84 to 47.69). Two studies (60 participants) that compared triamcinolone and tacrolimus found uncertain evidence regarding the rate of clinical resolution (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.35; very low-certainty evidence) and that there may be a lower rate of adverse effects in the triamcinolone group (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.99; low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report on pain resolution.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Corticosteroids have been first line for the treatment of OLP. This review found that these drugs, delivered topically as adhesive gels or similar preparations, may be more effective than placebo for reducing the pain of symptomatic OLP; however, with the small number of studies and participants, our confidence in the reliability of this finding is low. The results for clinical response were inconclusive, and we are uncertain about adverse effects. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that calcineurin inhibitors, specifically tacrolimus, may be more effective at resolving pain than corticosteroids, although there is some uncertainty about adverse effects and clinical response to tacrolimus showed conflicting results.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Calcineurin Inhibitors; Clobetasol; Cyclosporine; Humans; Lichen Planus, Oral; Oral Health; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tacrolimus
PubMed: 32108333
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001168.pub3 -
Drug Delivery and Translational Research Jun 2023Needle-free jet injectors are used for the intralesional treatment of various dermatological indications. However, a systematic review that evaluates the efficacy and... (Review)
Review
Needle-free jet injectors are used for the intralesional treatment of various dermatological indications. However, a systematic review that evaluates the efficacy and safety of these treatments has not been published. The objectives of this study are to evaluate the efficacy and safety of needle-free jet injections for dermatological indications and to provide evidence-based treatment recommendations. An electronic literature search was conducted in April 2022. Two reviewers independently selected studies based on predefined criteria and performed a methodological quality assessment using the Cochrane Collaborations risk-of-bias 2.0 assessment tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Thirty-seven articles were included, involving 1911 participants. Dermatological indications included scars, alopecia areata, hyperhidrosis, nail diseases, non-melanoma skin cancer, common warts, local anesthesia, and aesthetic indications. Keloids and other types of scars (hypertrophic, atrophic, and burn scars) were investigated most frequently (n = 7). The included studies reported favorable efficacy and safety outcomes for intralesional jet injector-assisted treatment with triamcinolone acetonide/hexacetonide, 5-fluorouracil, bleomycin, or hyaluronic acid. Two high-quality studies showed good efficacy and tolerability of intralesional jet injections with a combination of 5-fluorouracil and triamcinolone acetonide in hypertrophic scars and with saline in boxcar and rolling acne scars. No serious adverse reactions and good tolerability were reported in the included studies. Overall, the methodological quality of the included studies was low. Limited evidence suggests that needle-free jet injector-assisted intralesional treatment is efficacious and safe for hypertrophic and atrophic acne scars. More well-powered RCTs investigating the efficacy and safety of jet injector treatment in dermatology are warranted to make further evidence-based recommendations.
Topics: Humans; Triamcinolone Acetonide; Dermatology; Keloid; Fluorouracil; Acne Vulgaris; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36884194
DOI: 10.1007/s13346-023-01295-x -
European Urology Oct 2021Urethral stricture disease (USD) is initially managed with minimally invasive techniques such as urethrotomy and urethral dilatation. Minimally invasive techniques are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CONTEXT
Urethral stricture disease (USD) is initially managed with minimally invasive techniques such as urethrotomy and urethral dilatation. Minimally invasive techniques are associated with a high recurrence rate, especially in recurrent USD. Adjunctive measures, such as local drug injection, have been used in an attempt to reduce recurrence rates.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review evidence for the efficacy and safety of adjuncts used alongside minimally invasive treatment of USD.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic review of the literature published between 1990 and 2020 was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA checklist.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of 26 studies were included in the systematic review, from which 13 different adjuncts were identified, including intralesional injection (triamcinolone, n = 135; prednisolone, n = 58; mitomycin C, n = 142; steroid-mitomycin C-hyaluronidase, n = 103, triamcinolone-mitomycin C-N-acetyl cysteine, n = 50; platelet-rich plasma, n = 44), intraluminal instillation (mitomycin C, n = 20; hyaluronic acid and carboxymethylcellulose, n = 70; captopril, n = 37; 192-iridium brachytherapy, n = 10), application via a lubricated catheter (triamcinolone, n = 124), application via a coated balloon (paclitaxel, n = 106), and enteral application (tamoxifen, n = 30; deflazacort, n = 36). Overall, 13 randomised controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Use of any adjunct was associated with a lower rate of USD recurrence (odds ratio [OR] 0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-0.50; p < 0.001) compared to no adjunct use. Of all the adjuncts, mitomycin C was associated with the lowest rate of USD recurrence (intralesional injection: OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.11-0.48; p < 0.001; intraluminal injection: OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02-0.61; p = 0.01). Urinary tract infection (2.9-14%), bleeding (8.8%), and extravasation (5.8%) were associated with steroid injection; pruritis of the urethra (61%) occurred after instillation of captopril; mild gynaecomastia (6.7%) and gastrointestinal side effects (6.7%) were associated with oral tamoxifen.
CONCLUSIONS
Adjuncts to minimally invasive treatment of USD appear to lower the recurrence rate and are associated with a low adjunct-specific complication rate. However, the studies included were at high risk of bias. Mitomycin C is the adjunct supported by the highest level of evidence.
PATIENT SUMMARY
We reviewed studies on additional therapies (called adjuncts) to minimally invasive treatments for narrowing of the urethra in men. Adjuncts such as mitomycin C injection result in a lower recurrence rate compared to no adjunct use. The use of adjuncts appeared to be safe and complications are uncommon; however, the studies were small and of low quality.
Topics: Captopril; Humans; Injections, Intralesional; Male; Mitomycin; Recurrence; Tamoxifen; Triamcinolone; Urethra; Urethral Stricture
PubMed: 34275660
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.06.022 -
Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research 2019To evaluate the outcomes of different intravitreal injections for the treatment of retinal vein occlusion including central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) and branch... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate the outcomes of different intravitreal injections for the treatment of retinal vein occlusion including central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) and branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO).
METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane, the metaRegister of ControlledTrials, and ClinicalTrials were searched for intravitreal anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) and steroids with relevant keywords and date limitation of 2009-2018. Meta-analysis was performed on studies that met the defined inclusion criteria. Main outcomes were visual acuity (VA) and central macular thickness (CMT).
RESULTS
Out of 681 studies, 36 articles (including 21 reporting CRVO and 15 dealing with BRVO) were selected for systematic review. All five intravitreal drugs including triamcinolone, dexamethasone, ranibizumab, bevacizumab, and aflibercept showed improvement of CMT and VA as compared to placebo or laser treatment. Six randomized controlled trials were selected for meta-analysis in RVO patients. The pooled mean difference of visual improvement between sham and ranibizumab was 12.7 Early Treatment for Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters (95%CI: 11.00 to 13.2), and the pooled mean difference in CMT reduction was 221 m (95%CI: 153 to 284); both changes were significantly in favor of ranibizumab. The pooled mean difference of visual improvement between bevacizumab and triamcinolone was 5.3 ETDRS letters in favor of bevacizumab (95%CI: 16 m to 17.5 m). Triamcinolone led to 68.1 m greater CMT reduction than bevacizumab (95%CI: 58 m to 76 m). However, none of these differences were statistically significant.
CONCLUSION
Treatment with anti-VEGF agents in RVO is superior to observation. No significant difference was seen between the eyes treated with bevacizumab or triamcinolone based on these results.
PubMed: 31660113
DOI: 10.18502/jovr.v14i3.4791