Dataset Information

Analgesic Efficacy of Melatonin: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials have reported controversial findings regarding the effects of melatonin on pain reduction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of melatonin on pain among adults using a meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RDBPCTs). PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the bibliographies of relevant articles were searched up to February 2020. Two of the authors independently evaluated eligibility of the studies based on the pre-determined criteria and extracted data. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the pain score change were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis. Out of 463 that met the initial criteria, a total of 30 trials, which involved 1967 participants with 983 in an intervention group and 984 in a control group, were included in the final analysis. In a random-effects meta-analysis, the use of melatonin reduced chronic pain in all the trials (5 studies, SMD -0.65, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.34, I2 = 57.2%) and high-quality trials (4 studies, SMD -0.62, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.23, I2 = 49.3%). Moreover, the use of melatonin significantly reduced acute postoperative pain (11 studies, SMD -0.82, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.25, I2 = 93.0%). However, the subgroup meta-analysis of high-quality RDBPCTs showed no significant association between them (6 studies, SMD -0.21, 95 % CI -0.66 to 0.24, I2 = 82.4%). The current study suggests that melatonin might be used in treatment of chronic pain, while there is no sufficient evidence for acute postoperative or procedural pain. Further trials are warranted to confirm its analgesic effect.

SUBMITTER: Oh SN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7291209 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Analgesic Efficacy of Melatonin: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trials.

Oh Si Nae SN Myung Seung-Kwon SK Jho Hyun Jung HJ

Journal of clinical medicine 20200521 5

Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials have reported controversial findings regarding the effects of melatonin on pain reduction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of melatonin on pain among adults using a meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RDBPCTs). PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the bibliographies of relevant articles were searched up to February 2020. Two of the authors independently evaluate ...[more]

PMID: 32455582

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a debitlitating, chronic, progressive neurodegenerative disorder without modifying therapy. Here, we aimed to evaluate the available evidence of herbal medicine (HM) formulas for patients with PD according to randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials. Methods: HM formulas for PD were searched in eight main databases from their inception to February 2018. The methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Fourteen trials with Seventeen comparisons comprising 1,311 patients were identified. Compared with placebo groups, HM paratherapy (n = 16 comparisons) showed significant better effects in the assessments of total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) (WMD: -5.43, 95% CI:-8.01 to -2.86; P < 0.0001), UPDRS I (WMD: -0.30, 95% CI: -0.54 to -0.06; P = 0.02), UPDRS II (WMD: -2.21, 95% CI: -3.19 to -1.22; P < 0.0001), UPDRS III (WMD: -3.26, 95% CI:-4.36 to -2.16; P < 0.00001), Parkinson's Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire (p < 0.01) and Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 (WMD: -7.65, 95% CI: -11.46 to -3.83; p < 0.0001), Non-motor Symptoms Questionnaire (p < 0.01) and Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (WMD: -9.19, 95% CI: -13.11 to -5.28; P < 0.00001), Parkinson's Disease Sleep Scale (WMD: 10.69, 95% CI: 8.86 to 12.53; P < 0.00001), and Hamilton depression rating scale (WMD: -5.87, 95% CI: -7.06 to -4.68; P < 0.00001). The efficiency of HM monotherapy (n = 1 comparison) was not superior to the placebo according to UPDRS II, UPDRS III and total UPDRS score in PD patients who never received levodopa treatment, all P > 0.05. HM formulas paratherapy were generally safe and well tolerated for PD patients (RR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.80; P = 0.009). Conclusion: The findings of present study supported the complementary use of HM paratherapy for PD patients, whereas the question on the efficacy of HM monotherapy in alleviating PD symptoms is still open.

Project description:Gastrointestinal (GI) dysmotility is a common complication in acute, critically ill, postoperative, and chronic patients that may lead to impaired nutrient delivery, poor clinical, and patient-reported outcomes. Several pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions to treat GI dysmotility were investigated in dozens of clinical studies. However, they often yielded conflicting results, at least in part, because various (nonstandardized) definitions of GI dysmotility were used and methodological quality of studies was poor. While a universally accepted definition of GI dysmotility is yet to be developed, a systematic analysis of data derived from double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials may provide robust data on absolute and relative effectiveness of various interventions as the study outcome (GI motility) was assessed in the least biased manner.To systematically review data from double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials to determine and compare the effectiveness of interventions that affect GI motility.Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and EMBASE) were searched. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis. The summary estimates were reported as mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).A total of 38 double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials involving 2371 patients were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. These studies investigated a total of 20 different interventions, of which 6 interventions were meta-analyzed. Of them, the use of dopamine receptor antagonists (MD, -8.99; 95% CI, -17.72 to -0.27; P = 0.04) and macrolides (MD, -26.04; 95% CI, -51.25 to -0.82; P = 0.04) significantly improved GI motility compared with the placebo group. The use of botulism toxin significantly impaired GI motility compared with the placebo group (MD, 5.31; 95% CI, -0.04 to 10.67; P = 0.05). Other interventions (dietary factors, probiotics, hormones) did not affect GI motility.Based on the best available data and taking into account the safety profile of each class of intervention, dopamine receptor antagonists and macrolides significantly improve GI motility and are medications of choice in treating GI dysmotility.

Project description:Desmetramadol is an investigational analgesic consisting of (+) and (-) enantiomers of the tramadol metabolite O-desmethyltramadol (M1). Tramadol is racemic and exerts analgesia by monoaminergic effects of (-)-tramadol and (-)-M1, and by the opioid (+)-M1. Tramadol labeling indicates cytochrome P450 (CYP) isozyme 2D6 ultrarapid metabolizer can produce dangerous (+)-M1 levels, and CYP2D6 poor metabolizers insufficient (+)-M1 for analgesia. We hypothesized that desmetramadol could provide the safety and analgesia of tramadol without its metabolic liabilities. We conducted consecutive double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 3 segment cross-over trials A and B to investigate the steady-state pharmacokinetics and analgesia of 20 mg desmetramadol and 50 mg tramadol in 103 healthy participants without (n?=?43) and with (n?=?60) cotreatment with the CYP inhibitor paroxetine. In the absence of CYP inhibition (trial A), 20 mg desmetramadol and 50 mg tramadol dosed every 6 hours gave equivalent steady-state (+)-M1, similar adverse events, and analgesia significantly greater than placebo, but equal to each other. In trial B, CYP inhibition significantly depressed tramadol steady-state (+)-M1, reduced its adverse events, and led to insignificant analgesia comparable with placebo. In contrast, CYP inhibition in trial B had no deleterious effect on desmetramadol (+)-M1 or (-)-M1, which gave significant analgesia as in trial A and superior to tramadol (P?=?.003). Desmetramadol has the safety and efficacy of tramadol without its metabolic liabilities. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV REGISTRATIONS: NCT02205554, NCT03312777 PERSPECTIVE: To our knowledge, this is the first study of desmetramadol in humans and the first to show it provides the same safety and analgesia as tramadol, but without tramadol's metabolic liabilities and related drug-drug interactions. Desmetramadol could potentially offer expanded safety and usefulness to clinicians seeking an alternative to schedule II opioids.

Project description:BackgroundThere is growing interest in glutamatergic agents as a treatment for depression, especially intranasal ketamine, which has become a hot topic in recent years. We aim to assess the efficacy and safety of intranasal ketamine in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), especially treatment-resistant depression (TRD).MethodsWe searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library until April 1, 2020 to identify double-blind, randomized controlled trials with allocation concealment evaluating intranasal ketamine in major depressive episodes. Clinical remission, response, and depressive symptoms were extracted by two independent raters. The outcome measures were Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score improved from baseline, clinical response and remission, dissociative symptoms, and common adverse events. The analyses employed a random-effects model.ResultsData were synthesized from five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) employing an intranasal esketamine and one RCT employing intranasal ketamine, representing 840 subjects in parallel arms, and 18 subjects in cross-over designs (n = 858 with MDD, n = 792 with TRD). The weighted mean difference of MADRS score was observed to decrease by 6.16 (95% CI 4.44-7.88) in 2-4 h, 9.96 (95% CI 8.97-10.95) in 24 h, and 4.09 (95% CI 2.18-6.00) in 28 day. The pooled relative risk (RR) was 3.55 (95% CI 1.5-8.38, z = 2.89, and p < 0.001) for clinical remission and 3.22 (95% CI 1.85-5.61, z = 4.14, and p < 0.001) for clinical response at 24 h, while the pooled RR was 1.7 (95% CI 1.28-2.24, z = 3.72, and p < 0.001) for clinical remission and 1.48 (95% CI 1.17-1.86, z = 3.28, and p < 0.001) for clinical response at 28 day. Intranasal ketamine was associated with the occurrence of transient dissociative symptoms and common adverse events, but no persistent psychoses or affective switches.ConclusionOur meta-analysis suggests that repeated intranasal ketamine conducted a fast-onset antidepression effect in unipolar depression, while the mild and transient adverse effects were acceptable.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO, CRD42020196856.

Project description:Background Acupoint application of herbal medicine (AAHM) has been widely used in China. At present, there is no systematic review of AAHM versus placebo in the treatment of asthma. This systematic review aims to assess the efficacy of AAHM for asthma. Methods Searches were conducted in five English databases and four Chinese databases from their inceptions until December 2020. Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials were screened, and included studies evaluated routine pharmacotherapy (RP) plus AAHM versus RP plus placebo or AAHM versus placebo. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) were performed to evaluate the methodological quality and quality of evidence separately. Results Sixteen studies involving 1,730 participants were included in this review. Compared with placebo plus RP, participants receiving long-term AAHM plus RP showed improvement in asthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ) with moderate-quality evidence (MD 6.53 points, 95% CI 2.70 to 10.36). Low-quality evidence indicated that AAHM plus RP was associated with improved FEV1 (%) compared with placebo plus RP, whether long- or short-term use (MD 11.80%, 95% CI 2.84 to 20.76; MD 10.57%, 95% CI 8.40 to 12.74; respectively). Moderate-quality evidence showed that participants receiving short-term AAHM were associated with a higher AQLQ score (MD 6.57 points, 95% CI 3.76 to 9.38) and a lower frequency of acute exacerbations (MD –1.84, 95% CI –2.32 to –1.36) compared with placebo. Low-quality evidence also indicated that AAHM was associated with improved FEV1 (L) compared with placebo, whether long- or short-term use (MD 0.35 litres, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.67; MD 0.66 litres, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.73; respectively). Conclusions Moderate-quality evidence is promising that AAHM can improve the quality of life and reduce acute exacerbations in patients with asthma. AAHM also shows a positive role in improving lung function, but the evidence is so indefinite due to low quality.

Dataset Information

Analgesic Efficacy of Melatonin: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trials.

Publications

Analgesic Efficacy of Melatonin: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets