scholarly journals Acetyl-L-Carnitine in the Treatment of Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. e0119479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheyu Li ◽  
Qianrui Li ◽  
Yun Li ◽  
Ling Li ◽  
Haoming Tian ◽  
...  
SLEEP ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. A271-A272
Author(s):  
Aidan McParland ◽  
Kapustin Daniel ◽  
Anuj Bhatia ◽  
Hance Clarke ◽  
Trivedi Aditya ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction Neuropathic pain (NP) syndromes are debilitating conditions which can impact sleep health and overall quality of life significantly. Pharmacological treatment with cannabinoids has not been evaluated for its impact on sleep health. The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to determine the effect of cannabinoids on sleep quality, pain control, and patient impression of treatment efficacy. Methods We reviewed randomized controlled trials comparing synthetic and natural cannabinoids (CB) to placebo in patients with central and peripheral neuropathic pain syndromes. A systematic search of the standard literature databases was conducted, including randomized controlled trials evaluating the pharmacological treatment of NP syndromes using cannabinoids. Data on NRS pain scales, sleep quality, daytime somnolence, nausea, dizziness, and patient global impression of change (PGIC) scores were recorded. Meta-analysis using the random effects model was conducted where appropriate. Results Of the 3536 studies screened, a total of 8 randomized controlled trials including 1051 patients (placebo: 478 patients; CB: 573 patients) with neuropathic pain were included. Cannabinoids included in the studies were Sativex (GW-1000–02), Nabilone, and medical cannabis preparations with THC dose ranging from 1mg to 130mg per day. Pain scores were significantly reduced in the CB group (standardized difference in means (SDM) = -0.236, 95% CI=-0.375 to -0.100, p-value = 0.001) compared to placebo (Figure 1). Significant improvement in sleep quality (Figure 2) was also observed in the CB group (SMD 0.389, 95% CI, 0.233 to 0.546, p<0.013). Additionally, patients in the CB group were more likely to report improvement in PGIC scores (OR=2.3, 95% CI 1.37 to 3.9, p=0.002) compared to patients treated with placebo (Figure 3). Notably, CB-treated patients were more likely to experience daytime somnolence (OR=2.2, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.9, p=0.004), nausea (OR=1.7, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.5, p=0.02), and dizziness (OR=3.8, 95% CI 2.6 to 5.7, p<0.001). Conclusion Cannabinoids are useful agents for NP as evidenced by significant improvement in pain, sleep quality, and PGIC. With the advent of new agents and more refined cannabis derivatives, further research is needed to comprehensively explore treatment effectiveness. Future work should incorporate clinically validated measures of sleep health to better evaluate this outcome. Support (if any):


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joao Ricardo Nickenig Vissoci

BackgroundHarmful alcohol use leads to a large burden of disease and disability which disportionately impacts LMICs. The World Health Organization and the Lancet have issued calls for this burden to be addressed, but issues remain, primarily due to gaps in information. While a variety of interventions have been shown to be effective at reducing alcohol use in HICs, their efficacy in LMICs have yet to be assessed. This systematic review describes the current published literature on alcohol interventions in LMICs and conducts a meta analysis of clinical trials evaluating interventions to reduce alcohol use and harms in LMICs.MethodsIn accordance with PRISMA guidelines we searched the electronic databases Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus,Web of Science, Cochrane, and Psych Info. Articles were eligible if they evaluated an intervention targeting alcohol-related harm in LMICs. After a reference and citation analysis, we conducted a quality assessment per PRISMA protocol. A meta-analysis was performed on the 39 randomized controlled trials that evaluated an alcohol-related outcome.ResultsOf the 3,801 articles from the literature search, 87 articles from 25 LMICs fit the eligibility and inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 39 randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Nine of these studies focused specifically on medication, while the others focused on brief motivational intervention, brain stimulation, AUDIT-based brief interventions, WHO ASSIST-based interventions, group based education, basic screening and interventions, brief psychological or counseling, dyadic relapse prevention, group counseling, CBT, motivational + PTSD based interview, and health promotion/awareness. Conclusion Issues in determining feasible options specific to LMICs arise from unstandardized interventions, unequal geographic distribution of intervention implementation, and uncertain effectiveness over time. Current research shows that brain stimulation, psychotherapy, and brief motivational interviews have the potential to be effective in LMIC settings, but further feasibility testing and efforts to standardize results are necessary to accurately assess their effectiveness.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document