Is Homeopathic Arnica Effective for Postoperative Recovery? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled and Active Comparator Trials

Background: Homeopathic Arnica montana is used in surgery as prevention or treatment for the reduction of pain and other sequelae of surgery. Our aim was to perform a metaanalysis of clinical trials to assess efficacy of Arnica montana to reduce the inflammatory response after surgery.Method: We conducted a systematic review and metaanalysis, following a predefined protocol, of all studies on the use of homeopathic Arnica montana in surgery. We included all randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing homeopathic Arnica to a placebo or to another active comparator and calculated two quantitative metaanalyses and appropriate sensitivity analyses. We used “Hegde's g,” an effect size estimator which is equivalent to a standardized mean difference corrected for small sample bias. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42020131300.Results: Twenty-three publications reported on 29 different comparisons. One study had to be excluded because no data could be extracted, leaving 28 comparisons. Eighteen comparisons used placebo, nine comparisons an active control, and in one case Arnica was compared to no treatment. The metaanalysis of the placebo-controlled trials yielded an overall effect size of Hedge's g = 0.18 (95% confidence interval −0.007/0.373; p = 0.059). Active comparator trials yielded a highly heterogeneous significant effect size of g = 0.26. This is mainly due to the large effect size of nonrandomized studies, which converges against zero in the randomized trials.Conclusion: Homeopathic Arnica has a small effect size over and against placebo in preventing excessive hematoma and other sequelae of surgeries. The effect is comparable to that of anti-inflammatory substances.

A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Incidence of Serious or Severe Hypersensitivity Reactions after Administration of Ferric Derisomaltose and Ferric Carboxymaltose

Background and Aims Intravenous (IV) iron is the preferred treatment for patients with iron deficiency (ID) and iron deficiency anemia (IDA) in a variety of clinical situations. Although uncommon, administration of modern IV iron formulations can result in hypersensitivity reactions and, very rarely, anaphylactic reactions. The objective of the present study was to systematically review the literature to identify and analyze data on the incidence of serious or severe hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) after administration of different IV iron formulations. Methods A prospectively-registered systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify prospective, active comparator randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ferric derisomaltose (FDI) (also known as iron isomaltoside 1000) or ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) with other IV iron formulations or oral iron. The primary endpoint was the incidence of serious or severe hypersensitivity reactions occurring on the day or day after dosing of IV iron, based on pre-specified terms (MedDRA classification). Results Data were obtained from ten prospective, active comparator RCTs of FDI (N=3,474) and seven prospective, active comparator RCTs of FCM (N=2,683), two of which were head-to-head comparisons of FDI and FCM. The trials enrolled a total of 10,467 patients, of whom 6,157 were treated with either FDI or FCM. The number of patients experiencing any serious or severe hypersensitivity reactions was 5/3474 with FDI (0.14%) versus 29/2683 (1.08%) with FCM; Bayesian inference of proportions showed the reaction rates to be significantly lower with FDI relative to FCM (Figure). Conclusions To our knowledge, the present analysis represents the first SLR and meta-analysis of the incidence of serious or severe HSRs after administration of FDI vs FCM based on pre-specified MedDRA terms. The SLR conducted for the present meta-analysis, identified 15 prospective, head-to-head RCTs including 10,467 patients, of whom 3,474 and 2,683 were treated with FDI and FCM, respectively. The analysis demonstrated that serious or severe hypersensitivity reactions were uncommon with the newer high-dose IV iron formulations; and showed a significantly lower incidence of serious or severe hypersensitivity reactions with FDI compared to FCM. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Biggar: Vifor-Fresenius: Consultancy; Pharmacosmos: Consultancy; Medice: Consultancy. Pöhlmann: Pharmacosmos A/S: Consultancy. Pollock-Wilkins: Pharmacosmos A/S: Consultancy.

Ranitidine Use and Risk of Upper Gastrointestinal Cancers

Ranitidine was removed from several markets following discovery that the drug was contaminated with N-nitrosodimethylamine, a suspected human carcinogen. However, evidence of increased cancer risk following ranitidine use remains inconclusive. According to our a priori hypothesis, ranitidine increases the risk of esophageal, stomach, liver and pancreatic cancer. We used the nationwide Danish Prescription Registry, to create a cohort of incident ranitidine users with two active comparator cohorts comprising users of other histamine-2 receptor blockers (H2RBs) and users of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Record linkage allowed virtually complete follow-up through 2018. All Danish residents aged 18 years or older with a first prescription of ranitidine, other H2RBs or PPIs in 1996 through 2008. Incidence of esophageal, stomach, liver or pancreatic cancer. We used Cox analyses, with propensity-score weighting to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 10-year cumulative risk with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We ascertained 276 newly diagnosed esophageal, 342 stomach, 133 hepatocellular, and 517 pancreatic cancers among ranitidine users during follow-up (median 14 years). In comparison with use of other H2RBs or PPIs, we found no consistent evidence of increased HRs or excess 10-year cumulative risk of any upper gastrointestinal cancer following ranitidine use. We observed no association after restriction to subjects with at least 5 or 10 prescriptions or those with 10 prescriptions and at least 10 years of follow-up. Our large prospective study using high-quality prescription and cancer incidence data, with two active comparator groups, provided no compelling evidence that ranitidine increases the risk of upper gastrointestinal cancers.