Dataset Information

Treatment efficacy for non-cardiovascular chest pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Non-cardiovascular chest pain (NCCP) leads to impaired quality of life and is associated with a high disease burden. Upon ruling out cardiovascular disease, only vague recommendations exist for further treatment.

Objectives

To summarize treatment efficacy for patients presenting with NCCP.

Methods

Systematic review and meta-analysis. In July 2013, Medline, Web of Knowledge, Embase, EBSCOhost, Cochrane Reviews and Trials, and Scopus were searched. Hand and bibliography searches were also conducted. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating non-surgical treatments in patients with NCCP were included. Exclusion criteria were poor study quality and small sample size (<10 patients per group).

Results

Thirty eligible RCT's were included. Most studies assessed PPI efficacy for gastroesophageal reflux disorders (GERD, n?=?10). Two RCTs included musculoskeletal chest pain, seven psychotropic drugs, and eleven various psychological interventions. Study quality was high in five RCTs and acceptable in 25. PPI treatment in patients with GERD (5 RCTs, 192 patients) was more effective than placebo [pooled OR 11.7 (95% CI 5.5 to 25.0, heterogeneity I2?=?6.1%)]. The pooled OR in GERD negative patients (4 RCTs, 156 patients) was 0.8 (95% CI 0.2 to 2.8, heterogeneity I2?=?50.4%). In musculoskeletal NCCP (2 RCTs, 229 patients) manual therapy was more effective than usual care but not than home exercise [pooled mean difference 0.5 (95% CI -0.3 to 1.3, heterogeneity I2?=?46.2%)]. The findings for cognitive behavioral treatment, serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants were mixed. Most evidence was available for cognitive behavioral treatment interventions.

Limitations

Only a small number of studies were available.

Conclusions

Timely diagnostic evaluation and treatment of the disease underlying NCCP is important. For patients with suspected GERD, high-dose treatment with PPI is effective. Only limited evidence was available for most prevalent diseases manifesting with chest pain. In patients with idiopathic NCCP, treatments based on cognitive behavioral principles might be considered.

SUBMITTER: Burgstaller JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4128723 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Treatment efficacy for non-cardiovascular chest pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Burgstaller Jakob M JM Jenni Boris F BF Steurer Johann J Held Ulrike U Wertli Maria M MM

PloS one 20140811 8

<h4>Background</h4>Non-cardiovascular chest pain (NCCP) leads to impaired quality of life and is associated with a high disease burden. Upon ruling out cardiovascular disease, only vague recommendations exist for further treatment.<h4>Objectives</h4>To summarize treatment efficacy for patients presenting with NCCP.<h4>Methods</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis. In July 2013, Medline, Web of Knowledge, Embase, EBSCOhost, Cochrane Reviews and Trials, and Scopus were searched. Hand and bibliog ...[more]

PMID: 25111147

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo review interventions to reduce long term opioid treatment in people with chronic non-cancer pain, considering efficacy on dose reduction and discontinuation, pain, function, quality of life, withdrawal symptoms, substance use, and adverse events.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies of interventions.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library searched from inception to July 2021. Reference lists and previous reviews were also searched and experts were contacted.Eligibility criteria for study selectionOriginal research in English. Case reports and cross sectional studies were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for randomised and non-randomised studies (RoB 2 and ROBINS-I). Authors grouped interventions into five categories (pain self-management, complementary and alternative medicine, pharmacological and biomedical devices and interventions, opioid replacement treatment, and deprescription methods), estimated pooled effects using random effects meta-analytical models, and appraised the certainty of evidence using GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation).ResultsOf 166 studies meeting inclusion criteria, 130 (78%) were considered at critical risk of bias and were excluded from the evidence synthesis. Of the 36 included studies, few had comparable treatment arms and sample sizes were generally small. Consequently, the certainty of the evidence was low or very low for more than 90% (41/44) of GRADE outcomes, including for all non-opioid patient outcomes. Despite these limitations, evidence of moderate certainty indicated that interventions to support prescribers' adherence to guidelines increased the likelihood of patients discontinuing opioid treatment (adjusted odds ratio 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 2.1), and that these prescriber interventions as well as pain self-management programmes reduced opioid dose more than controls (intervention v control, mean difference -6.8 mg (standard error 1.6) daily oral morphine equivalent, P<0.001; pain programme v control, -14.31 mg daily oral morphine equivalent, 95% confidence interval -21.57 to -7.05).ConclusionsEvidence on the reduction of long term opioid treatment for chronic pain continues to be constrained by poor study methodology. Of particular concern is the lack of evidence relating to possible harms. Agreed standards for designing and reporting studies on the reduction of opioid treatment are urgently needed.Review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020140943.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for back and osteoarthritis pain compared with placebo.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 15 November and updated on 12 May 2020.Eligibility criteria for study selectionRandomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy or safety, or both of any antidepressant drug with placebo (active or inert) in participants with low back or neck pain, sciatica, or hip or knee osteoarthritis.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data. Pain and disability were primary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). A random effects model was used to calculate weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Safety (any adverse event, serious adverse events, and proportion of participants who withdrew from trials owing to adverse events) was a secondary outcome. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) framework.Results33 trials (5318 participants) were included. Moderate certainty evidence showed that serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) reduced back pain (mean difference -5.30, 95% confidence interval -7.31 to -3.30) at 3-13 weeks and low certainty evidence that SNRIs reduced osteoarthritis pain (-9.72, -12.75 to -6.69) at 3-13 weeks. Very low certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced sciatica at two weeks or less (-18.60, -31.87 to -5.33) but not at 3-13 weeks (-17.50, -42.90 to 7.89). Low to very low certainty evidence showed that tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) did not reduce sciatica at two weeks or less (-7.55, -18.25 to 3.15) but did at 3-13 weeks (-15.95, -31.52 to -0.39) and 3-12 months (-27.0, -36.11 to -17.89). Moderate certainty evidence showed that SNRIs reduced disability from back pain at 3-13 weeks (-3.55, -5.22 to -1.88) and disability due to osteoarthritis at two weeks or less (-5.10, -7.31 to -2.89), with low certainty evidence at 3-13 weeks (-6.07, -8.13 to -4.02). TCAs and other antidepressants did not reduce pain or disability from back pain.ConclusionModerate certainty evidence shows that the effect of SNRIs on pain and disability scores is small and not clinically important for back pain, but a clinically important effect cannot be excluded for osteoarthritis. TCAs and SNRIs might be effective for sciatica, but the certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020158521.

Project description:BackgroundFor patients with chronic, non-cancer pain, traditional pain-relieving medications include opioids, which have shown benefits but are associated with increased risks of addiction and adverse effects. Medical cannabis has emerged as a treatment alternative for managing these patients and there has been a rise in the number of randomized clinical trials in recent years; therefore, a systematic review of the evidence was warranted.ObjectiveTo analyze the evidence surrounding the benefits and harms of medical cannabinoids in the treatment of chronic, non-cancer-related pain.DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Databases.Eligibility criteriaEnglish language randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic, non-cancer-related pain.Data extraction and synthesisStudy quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. All stages were conducted independently by a team of 6 reviewers. Data were pooled through meta-analysis with different durations of treatment (2 weeks, 2 months, 6 months) and stratified by route of administration (smoked, oromucosal, oral), conditions, and type of cannabinoids.Main outcomes and measuresPatient-reported pain and adverse events (AEs).ResultsThirty-six trials (4006 participants) were included, examining smoked cannabis (4 trials), oromucosal cannabis sprays (14 trials), and oral cannabinoids (18 trials). Compared with placebo, cannabinoids showed a significant reduction in pain which was greatest with treatment duration of 2 to 8 weeks (weighted mean difference on a 0-10 pain visual analogue scale -0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.96 to -0.40, I 2 = 8%, P < .00001; n = 16 trials). When stratified by route of administration, pain condition, and type of cannabinoids, oral cannabinoids had a larger reduction in pain compared with placebo relative to oromucosal and smoked formulations but the difference was not significant (P[interaction] > .05 in all the 3 durations of treatment); cannabinoids had a smaller reduction in pain due to multiple sclerosis compared with placebo relative to other neuropathic pain (P[interaction] = .05) within 2 weeks and the difference was not significant relative to pain due to rheumatic arthritis; nabilone had a greater reduction in pain compared with placebo relative to other types of cannabinoids longer than 2 weeks of treatment but the difference was not significant (P[interaction] > .05). Serious AEs were rare, and similar across the cannabinoid (74 out of 2176, 3.4%) and placebo groups (53 out of 1640, 3.2%). There was an increased risk of non-serious AEs with cannabinoids compared with placebo.ConclusionsThere was moderate evidence to support cannabinoids in treating chronic, non-cancer pain at 2 weeks. Similar results were observed at later time points, but the confidence in effect is low. There is little evidence that cannabinoids increase the risk of experiencing serious AEs, although non-serious AEs may be common in the short-term period following use.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy of treatment options to reduce osteoporotic fracture risk in men.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.SettingRandomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of a treatment for osteoporosis or low bone mineral density for adult men and reported fracture outcomes.ParticipantsMen.MeasurementsPubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies. Information was extracted from included studies on participant sociodemographic characteristics, number of male participants, treatment evaluated, comparator for evaluated treatment, study duration, and fracture outcomes. Risk of bias of individual studies was assessed using measures recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration.ResultsTwenty-four articles reporting results for 22 studies (including 4,868 male participants) met strict inclusion criteria. Fixed-effects meta-analyses using the Mantel-Haenszel method demonstrated significantly lower risk of vertebral fractures with alendronate (relative risk (RR) = 0.328, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.155-0.692) and risedronate (RR = 0.428, 95% CI = 0.245-0.746) but not with calcitonin (RR = 0.272, 95% CI = 0.046-1.608) or denosumab (RR = 0.256, 95% CI = 0.029-2.238) than in controls. For bisphosphonates as a treatment category, meta-analyses demonstrated significantly lower risk of vertebral fractures (RR = 0.368, 95% CI = 0.252-0.537) and nonvertebral fractures (RR = 0.604, 95% CI = 0.404-0.904) than in controls. The meta-analysis finding that bisphosphonates significantly reduce nonvertebral fracture risk was not robust to sensitivity analysis.ConclusionBisphosphonates reduce the risk of vertebral and possibly nonvertebral fractures for men with osteoporosis. Further studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of bisphosphonates for reducing nonvertebral fracture risk and the efficacy of nonbisphosphonates for reducing vertebral and nonvertebral fracture risk in men with osteoporosis.

Dataset Information

Treatment efficacy for non-cardiovascular chest pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Limitations

Conclusions

Publications

Treatment efficacy for non-cardiovascular chest pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets