scholarly journals Combination Therapy for Neuropathic Pain: A Review of Recent Evidence

Author(s):  
Ancor Serrano Afonso ◽  
Thiago Carnaval ◽  
Sebastiá Videla Cés

Pharmacological treatment is not very effective for neuropathic pain (NP). A progressive decrease in the estimated effect of NP drugs has been reported, giving rise to an increase in the use of the multimodal analgesic approach. We performed a new, independent review to assess whether more evidence and of better-quality has become available since the last systematic review. We evaluated the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of double-blinded, randomized, controlled trials involving only adult participants and comparing combination therapy (CT: ≥ 2 drugs) to a placebo and/or at least one other comparator with an NP indication. The primary outcome assessed was the proportion of participants reporting ≥50% pain reductions from baseline. The secondary outcome assessed was the proportion of drop-outs due to treatment-emergent adverse events. After removing duplicates, 2323 citations were screened, with 164 articles assessed for eligibility, from which 16 were included for qualitative analysis. From the latter, only five lasted for at least 12 weeks and only six complied with the required data for complete analysis. CT has been adopted for years without robust evidence. Efforts have been made to achieve better-quality evidence, but the quality has not improved over the years. In this regard, guidelines for NP should attempt to make recommendations about CT research, prioritizing which combinations to analyze.

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (16) ◽  
pp. 3533
Author(s):  
Ancor Serrano Afonso ◽  
Thiago Carnaval ◽  
Sebastià Videla Cés

Pharmacological treatment is not very effective for neuropathic pain (NP). A progressive decrease in the estimated effect of NP drugs has been reported, giving rise to an increase in the use of the multimodal analgesic approach. We performed a new independent review to assess whether more and better-quality evidence has become available since the last systematic review. We evaluated the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of double-blinded randomized controlled trials involving only adult participants and comparing combination therapy (CT: ≥2 drugs) with a placebo and/or at least one other comparator with an NP indication. The primary outcome assessed was the proportion of participants reporting ≥50% pain reductions from baseline. The secondary outcome assessed was the proportion of drop-outs due to treatment-emergent adverse events. After removing duplicates, 2323 citations were screened, with 164 articles assessed for eligibility, from which 16 were included for qualitative analysis. From the latter, only five lasted for at least 12 weeks and only six complied with the required data for complete analysis. CT has been adopted for years without robust evidence. Efforts have been made to achieve better-quality evidence, but the quality has not improved over the years. In this regard, guidelines for NP should attempt to make recommendations about CT research, prioritizing which combinations to analyze.


Author(s):  
Ancor Serrano Afonso ◽  
Thiago Carnaval ◽  
Sebastiá Videla Cés

Pharmacological treatment is poorly effective for neuropathic pain (NP). A progressive decrease in the estimated effect of NP drugs has been reported, giving rise to an increase in multimodal analgesic approach. We performed a systematic review to assess whether there is more and better-quality evidence available since the last review. We evaluated the efficacy, tolerability and safety of double-blind randomized controlled trials involving only adult participants comparing combination therapy (CT: ≥ 2 drugs) to placebo and/or at least one other comparator with NP indication. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants reporting ≥ 50% pain reduction from baseline. Secondary outcome was the proportion of drop-outs due to treatment-emergent-adverse-events. After removing duplicates, 2323 citations were screened. 164 articles were assessed for eligibility, from which 16 were included for qualitative analysis. From the latter, only 5 lasted for at least 12 weeks and only 6 complied with required data for complete analysis, but not for meta-analysis. CT has been adopted for years without robust evidence. Efforts to achieve better quality evidence have not improved over the years. In this regard, guidelines for NP should attempt to make recommendations on CT research, prioritizing which combinations to analyze.


2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (01) ◽  
pp. 49-55
Author(s):  
L. C. Hofbauer ◽  
D. Felsenberg ◽  
M. Amling ◽  
A. Kurth ◽  
P. Hadji

SummaryIt is important to understand compliance and persistence with medication use in the clinical practice of osteoporosis treatment. The purpose of this work is to describe the “intravenous ibandronate versus oral alendronate” (VIVA) study, a non-interventional trial to assess the compliance and persistence of osteopenic postmenopausal women with treatment via weekly oral alendronate or intravenous ibandronate (Bonviva®) every three months.4477 patients receiving ibandronate 3 mg i. v. quarterly and 1491 patients receiving alendronate 70 mg orally weekly were included in the study. Matched pairs of 901 subjects in each group were also generated. Matching was performed on the basis of age, body mass index, fracture history at study inclusion, prior treatment with bisphosphonates and the number of concomitant disorders. Secondary outcome measures of osteoporosis related fractures, mobility restriction and pain, analgesia, quality of life questionnaires as well as attitudes to medications were assessed. The primary outcome parameters of compliance and persistence will be tracked in these subjects.At baseline, the entire collectives differed significantly on body weight (less in ibandronate group), duration since osteo - porosis diagnosis (longer in ibandronate), and incidence of prior osteoporotic fracture (higher in ibandronate group). The matched-pairs differed only on mobility restriction and quality of life (both worse in ibandronate group).The results from the VIVA study trial will provide scientific rationale for clinical recommendations in the pharmacological treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.


2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward W. Holt ◽  
Kidist K. Yimam ◽  
Hanley Ma ◽  
Richard E. Shaw ◽  
Richard A. Sundberg ◽  
...  

Background & Aims: A number of factors have been identified that influence the yield of screeningcolonoscopy. The perceived tolerability of bowel preparation has not been studied as a predictor of quality outcomes in colonoscopy. We aimed to characterize the association between patient-perceived tolerability of bowel preparation and polyp detection during colonoscopy.Methods: We performed a cross-sectional cohort study of 413 consecutive adult patients presenting foroutpatient colonoscopy at two outpatient endoscopy centers at our institution. We developed a standardized questionnaire to assess the patient's experience with bowel preparation. Bowel preparation quality was measured using the validated Ottawa scale and colonoscopic findings were recorded for each patient. The primary outcome was polyp detection and the secondary outcome was the quality of bowel preparation.Results: Patient-reported clarity of effluent during bowel preparation correlated poorly with Ottawa score during colonoscopy, k=0.15. Female gender was an independent risk factor for a poorly tolerated bowel prep (OR 3.93, 95% CI 2.30 - 6.72, p<0.001). Report of a poorly tolerated bowel prep was independently associated with the primary outcome, polyp detection (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 - 0.84, p=0.02) and also with the secondary outcome, lower quality bowel preparation (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.17 - 4.9, p=0.02).Conclusions: A patient-perceived negative experience with bowel preparation independently predicted both a lower quality bowel preparation and a lower rate of polyp of detection. Assessment of the tolerability of bowel preparation before colonoscopy may be a clinically useful predictor of quality outcomes during colonoscopy.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S49-S50
Author(s):  
Bruce M Jones ◽  
Emily Plauche ◽  
Susan E Smith ◽  
Christopher M Bland

Abstract Background Penicillin allergy reconciliation is an important aspect of antimicrobial stewardship with ~10% of the population reporting a penicillin allergy. Our facility utilizes a Penicillin Allergy Reconciliation Program (PARP) led by an Infectious Diseases (ID) Pharmacist and pharmacy students to identify patients with penicillin allergies to reconcile and intervene when necessary. Information is collected by interview, electronic medical record (EMR) review, prescription outpatient fill history. This study evaluated reconciliations with and without a PARP in patients in a community health system. Methods This was a retrospective study that compared reconciliations performed on adult patients admitted at least once in 2019 with a self-reported penicillin allergy and ID physician consult at a hospital with a PARP (Institution 1) and one without a formal evaluation and intervention program (Institution 2) within the same community health system with same ID physicians. The primary outcome was documented reconciliation of a patient’s penicillin allergy during an inpatient visit in 2019. Reconciliation was defined as an edit or clarification (updating the severity, reaction, or comments section, as well as deleting) to a patient’s penicillin allergy in the EMR. The secondary outcome evaluated the percentage of total and ID consult patients with a penicillin allergy. Results There were 245 patients who met criteria and were included in the study, 113 from Institution 1 and 132 from Institution 2. For the primary outcome, there were 82 (72.6%) reconciliations at Institution 1 and 15 (11.4%) reconciliations at Institution 2 (p &lt; 0.001). Interventions at Institution 1 and 2 resulted in 74 EMR updates and 8 removals and 14 EMR updates and 1 removal, respectively. Reconciliation was performed on the same visit as the ID consult in 59/82 patients (72%) at Institution 1 and 11/15 patients (73.3%) at Institution 2. All reconciliations at Institution 2 were made by pharmacist (10) or nurses (5). For the secondary outcome, 10.9% of patients with an ID consult and 12.6% of all patients admitted in 2019 had a penicillin allergy (p=0.027). Conclusion A PARP led by an ID pharmacist and students was an effective method to perform penicillin allergy reconciliations, even in the presence of active ID consultation. Disclosures Bruce M. Jones, PharmD, BCPS, ALK-Abello (Research Grant or Support)Allergan/Abbvie (Speaker’s Bureau) Christopher M. Bland, PharMD, FCCP, FIDSA, BCPS, ALK Abello, Inc. (Grant/Research Support)Biomerieux (Consultant)Merck (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau)Tetraphase (Speaker’s Bureau)


2021 ◽  
pp. neurintsurg-2021-017341
Author(s):  
Devin V Bageac ◽  
Blake S Gershon ◽  
Jan Vargas ◽  
Maxim Mokin ◽  
Zeguang Ren ◽  
...  

BackgroundMost conventional 0.088 inch guide catheters cannot safely navigate intracranial vasculature. The objective of this study is to evaluate the safety of stroke thrombectomy using a novel 0.088 inch guide catheter designed for intracranial navigation.MethodsThis is a multicenter retrospective study, which included patients over 18 years old who underwent thrombectomy for anterior circulation large vessel occlusions. Technical outcomes for patients treated using the TracStar Large Distal Platform (TracStar LDP) or earlier generation TRX LDP were compared with a matched cohort of patients treated with other commonly used guide catheters. The primary outcome measure was device-related complications. Secondary outcome measures included guide catheter failure and time between groin puncture and clot engagement.ResultsEach study arm included 45 patients. The TracStar group was non-inferior to the control group with regard to device-related complications (6.8% vs 8.9%), and the average time to clot engagement was 8.89 min shorter (14.29 vs 23.18 min; p=0.0017). There were no statistically significant differences with regard to other technical outcomes, including time to recanalization (modified Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) ≥2B). The TracStar was successfully advanced into the intracranial internal carotid artery in 33 cases (73.33%); in three cases (6.67%), it was swapped for an alternate catheter. Successful reperfusion (mTICI 2B-3) was achieved in 95.56% of cases. Ninety-day follow-up data were available for 86.67% of patients, among whom 46.15% had an modified Rankin Score of 0–2%, and 10.26% were deceased.ConclusionsTracstar LDP is safe for use during stroke thrombectomy and was associated with decreased time to clot engagement. Intracranial access was regularly achieved.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Chichen Zhang ◽  
Shi Qiu ◽  
Haiyang Bian ◽  
Bowen Tian ◽  
Haoyuan Wang ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective: We evaluate the association between the Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII) and kidney stones. Design: We performed a cross-sectional analysis using data from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Dietary intake information was assessed using first 24-HR dietary recall interviews, and the Kidney Conditions was presented by questionnaire. The primary outcome was to investigate the association between DII and incidence of kidney stones, and the secondary outcome was to assess the association between DII and nephrolithiasis recurrence. Setting: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2007-2016. Participants: The study included 25984 NHANES participants, whose data on DII and kidney stones were available, of whom 2439 reported a history of kidney stones. Results: For the primary outcome, after fully multivariate adjustment, DII score is positively associated with the risk of kidney stones (OR = 1.07; 95% CI: [1.04–1.10]). Then, compared Q4 with Q1, a significant 38% increased likelihood of nephrolithiasis was observed. (OR=1.38; 95% CI: [1.19–1.60]). For the secondary outcome, the multivariate regression analysis showed that DII score is positively correlated with nephrolithiasis recurrence (OR=1.07; 95% CI: [1.00–1.15]). The results noted that higher DII scores (Q3 and Q4) are positively associated with a significant 48% and 61% increased risk of nephrolithiasis recurrence compared with the reference after fully multivariate adjustment. (OR=1.48; 95% CI: [1.07–2.05]; OR=1.61; 95% CI: [1.12–2.31]). Conclusions: Our findings revealed that increased intake of pro-inflammatory diet, as a higher DII score, is correlated with increased odds of kidney stones incidence and recurrence.


Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (10) ◽  
pp. 2398
Author(s):  
Matteo Serenari ◽  
Enrico Prosperi ◽  
Marc-Antoine Allard ◽  
Michele Paterno ◽  
Nicolas Golse ◽  
...  

Hepatic resection (HR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) may require secondary liver transplantation (SLT). However, a previous HR is supposed to worsen post-SLT outcomes. Data of patients treated by SLT between 2000 and 2018 at two tertiary referral centers were analyzed. The primary outcome of the study was to analyze the impact of HR on post-LT complications. A Comprehensive Complication Index ≥ 29.6 was chosen as cutoff. The secondary outcome was HCC-related death by means of competing-risk regression analysis. In the study period, 140 patients were included. Patients were transplanted in a median of 23 months after HR (IQR 14–41). Among all the features analyzed regarding the prior HR, only time interval between HR and SLT (time HR-SLT) was an independent predictor of severe complications after LT (OR = 0.98, p < 0.001). According to fractional polynomial regression, the probability of severe complications increased up to 15 months after HR (43%), then slowly decreased over time (OR = 0.88, p < 0.001). There was no significant association between HCC-related death and time HR-SLT at the multivariable competing risks regression model (SHR, 1.06; 95% CI: 0.69–1.62, p = 0.796). This study showed that time HR-SLT was key in predicting complications after LT, without affecting HCC-related death.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e045343
Author(s):  
Ray Moynihan ◽  
Sharon Sanders ◽  
Zoe A Michaleff ◽  
Anna Mae Scott ◽  
Justin Clark ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo determine the extent and nature of changes in utilisation of healthcare services during COVID-19 pandemic.DesignSystematic review.EligibilityEligible studies compared utilisation of services during COVID-19 pandemic to at least one comparable period in prior years. Services included visits, admissions, diagnostics and therapeutics. Studies were excluded if from single centres or studied only patients with COVID-19.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and preprints were searched, without language restrictions, until 10 August, using detailed searches with key concepts including COVID-19, health services and impact.Data analysisRisk of bias was assessed by adapting the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool, and a Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care tool. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics, graphical figures and narrative synthesis.Outcome measuresPrimary outcome was change in service utilisation between prepandemic and pandemic periods. Secondary outcome was the change in proportions of users of healthcare services with milder or more severe illness (eg, triage scores).Results3097 unique references were identified, and 81 studies across 20 countries included, reporting on >11 million services prepandemic and 6.9 million during pandemic. For the primary outcome, there were 143 estimates of changes, with a median 37% reduction in services overall (IQR −51% to −20%), comprising median reductions for visits of 42% (−53% to −32%), admissions 28% (−40% to −17%), diagnostics 31% (−53% to −24%) and for therapeutics 30% (−57% to −19%). Among 35 studies reporting secondary outcomes, there were 60 estimates, with 27 (45%) reporting larger reductions in utilisation among people with a milder spectrum of illness, and 33 (55%) reporting no difference.ConclusionsHealthcare utilisation decreased by about a third during the pandemic, with considerable variation, and with greater reductions among people with less severe illness. While addressing unmet need remains a priority, studies of health impacts of reductions may help health systems reduce unnecessary care in the postpandemic recovery.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020203729.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document