scholarly journals Analgesic Efficacy and Safety of Local Infiltration Following Lumbar Decompression Surgery: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (24) ◽  
pp. 5936
Author(s):  
Georgia Tsaousi ◽  
Parmenion P. Tsitsopoulos ◽  
Chryssa Pourzitaki ◽  
Eleftheria Palaska ◽  
Rafael Badenes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Analgesic Efficacy ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Wound Infiltration ◽  
Randomized Controlled

This systematic review aims to appraise available clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of wound infiltration with adjuvants to local anesthetics (LAs) for pain control after lumbar spine surgery. A database search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) pertinent to wound infiltration with analgesics or miscellaneous drugs adjunctive to LAs compared with sole LAs or placebo. The outcomes of interest were postoperative rescue analgesic consumption, pain intensity, time to first analgesic request, and the occurrence of adverse events. Twelve double-blind RCTs enrolling 925 patients were selected for qualitative analysis. Most studies were of moderate-to-good methodological quality. Dexmedetomidine reduced analgesic requirements and pain intensity within 24 h postoperatively, while prolonged pain relief was reported by one RCT involving adjunctive clonidine. Data on local magnesium seem promising yet difficult to interpret. No clear analgesic superiority could be attributed to steroids. Τramadol co-infiltration was equally effective as sole tramadol but superior to LAs. No serious adverse events were reported. Due to methodological inconsistencies and lack of robust data, no definite conclusions could be drawn on the analgesic effect of local infiltrates in patients undergoing lumbar surgery. The probable positive analgesic efficacy of adjunctive dexmedetomidine and magnesium needs further evaluation.

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Steroidal Anti-Androgens in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammed Rashid ◽  
Madhan Ramesh ◽  
K. Shamshavali ◽  
Amit Dang ◽  
Himanshu Patel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the sixth primary cause of cancer death. However, conflicts are present about the efficacy and safety of Non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAA) for its treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of NSAAs versus any comparator for the treatment of advanced or metastatic PCa (mPCa). Methodology: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched. References of included studies and clinicaltrials.gov were also searched for relevant studies. Only English language studies after 1990 were considered for review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of NSAAs as compared with any other comparator including surgery or chemotherapy in mPCa patients were included. The outcomes include efficacy, safety and the tolerability of the treatment. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used for quality assessment. Two authors were independently involved in the selection, extraction and quality assessment of included studies and disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third reviewer. Results: Fifty-eight out of 1307 non-duplicate RCTs with 29154 patients were considered for the review. NSAA showed significantly better progression-free survival [PFS] (Hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.78; P=0.0001), time to distant metastasis or death [TTD] (HR, 0.80; 95% CI 0.73-0.91; p<0.0001), objective response (Odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI 1.06-2.54; P=0.03) and clinical benefits (OR, 1.33; 95% CI 1.08-1.63; P=0.006) as compared to the control group. There was no significant difference observed between the groups in terms of overall survival (HR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.87-1.03; P=0.18) and time to progression (HR, 0.93; 95% CI 0.77-1.11; P=0.43). Treatment-related adverse events were more with the NSAA group, but the discontinuation due to lack of efficacy reason was 43% significantly lesser than the control group in patients with mPCa. Rest of the outcomes were appeared to be non-significant. Conclusion: Treatment with NSAA was appeared to be better efficacious with respect to PFS, TTD, and response rate with considerable adverse events when compared to the control group in patients with metastatic PCa.

Inhaled Levodopa (CVT-301) for the Treatment of Parkinson Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
pp. 10.1212/CPJ.0000000000001143
Author(s):  
Glenardi Glenardi ◽  
Tutwuri Handayani ◽  
Jimmy Barus ◽  
Ghea Mangkuliguna
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Respiratory Symptoms ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Motor Fluctuation ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Improve Motor Function

ABSTRACTPurposeof Review: To investigate the efficacy and safety of CVT-301 for motor fluctuation in Parkinson’s disease (PD).Recent Findings:This study demonstrated that the CVT-301 group had a higher proportion of patients achieving an ON state than the placebo group (OR=2.68; 95% CI: 1.86-3.86; p<0.00001). Moreover, CVT-301 had also shown to improve motor function by UPDRS-III score (SMD=3.83; 95% CI: 2.44-5.23; p<0.00001) and promote an overall improvement of PD by PGIC self-rating (OR=2.95; 95% CI: 1.78-4.9; p<0.00001). The most common adverse events encountered were respiratory symptoms (OR=12.18; 95% CI: 5.01-29.62; p<0.00001) and nausea (OR=3.95; 95% CI: 1.01-15.41; p=0.05).Summary:CVT-301 had the potential to be an alternative or even a preferred treatment for motor fluctuation in PD patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document