Efficacy of topical cadexomer iodine treatment in chronic wounds: Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative clinical trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Woo K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8450789 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Studies demonstrating the effectiveness of hydrosurgery for chronic wounds are extremely limited. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of hydrosurgery compared with conventional debridement in chronic wounds, skin ulcers, and non-acute wounds. This PROSPERO-registered review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. Abstracts of all studies were screened independently by two reviewers. The bias of prospective randomised controlled studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias and RevMan 5.4 software, whereas the bias of retrospective comparative studies was evaluated using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-randomised Studies. Two prospective randomised controlled trials, two retrospective comparative studies, and three prospective non-comparative studies were included. Hydrosurgery enabled rapid debridement. The Versajet Hydrosurgery System saved 8.87 minutes compared with the conventional methods. Similarly, the debridement quality was high with this system. The debridement number needed to achieve adequate wound beds was fewer in the hydrosurgery group than in the conventional group. These superiorities lead to subsequent success and cost-effectiveness. As there were only two prospective randomised controlled studies, and much information was missing, the risk of bias was unclear. This review confirmed that hydrosurgery is useful for the debridement of chronic wounds, considering the procedural speed and quality.
| S-EPMC8244081 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide. We conducted network meta-regression within a Bayesian framework to compare and rank different treatment strategies for HCC through direct and indirect evidence from international studies. METHODS AND ANALYSES:We pooled the OR for 1-year, 3-year and 5-year overall survival, based on lesions of size ? 3?cm, 3-5?cm and ?5?cm, using five therapeutic options including resection (RES), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), microwave ablation (MWA), transcatheter arterial chemoembolisation (TACE) plus RFA (TR) and percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI). RESULTS:We identified 74 studies, including 26?944 patients. After adjustment for study design, and in the full sample of studies, the treatments were ranked in order of greatest to least benefit as follows for 5?year survival: (1) RES, (2) TR, (3) RFA, (4) MWA and (5) PEI. The ranks were similar for 1- and 3-year survival, with RES and TR being the highest ranking treatments. In both smaller (<3?cm) and larger tumours (3-5?cm), RES and TR were also the two highest ranking treatments. There was little evidence of inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence. CONCLUSION:The comparison of different treatment strategies for HCC indicated that RES is associated with longer survival. However, many of the between-treatment comparisons were not statistically significant and, for now, selection of strategies for treatment will depend on patient and disease characteristics. Additionally, much of the evidence was provided by non-randomised studies and knowledge gaps still exist. More head-to-head comparisons between both RES and TR, or other approaches, will be necessary to confirm these findings.
| S-EPMC6196801 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background: Venous, arterial, diabetic and pressure ulcers, collectively known as chronic wounds, negatively impact individuals across psychological, social and financial domains. Chronic wounds can be painful and the nature, frequency and impact of pain can differ depending on wound aetiology, wound state and on numerous patient factors. While systemic pharmaceutical agents have some effect in managing pain, there is a need to examine topical agents applied to the wound bed for pain relief. The objective of this study is to examine and synthesise existing literature on the effectiveness of topical agents in managing pain in venous, diabetic, pressure, arterial and mixed venous/arterial ulcers. Methods: We will use Cochrane Systematic Review methodology to identify and synthesise eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of topical agents in reducing pain in chronic wounds. Embase, Medline, PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science will be searched from inception to end of June 2022 without language limits. We will independently extract data on the pharmaceutical agent, participant demographics, aetiology, condition of the wound, and type, nature and frequency of pain using a pre-designed data extraction form. Subgroup and sensitivity analysis will be performed to address heterogeneity across studies if appropriate. Further stratification and analyses will be based on included study variables and outcomes. Discussion: Wound pain is primarily managed via systemic pharmaceutical agents. However, patients express reluctance regarding systemic analgesic drugs, fearing addiction. Additionally, persons with chronic wounds have co-morbidities including hypertension, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease and are already taking multiple medications. Topical analgesia can potentially mitigate some of the perceived disadvantages of systemic agents but the available range of these agents and their effectiveness in managing pain in chronic wounds is not so well understood. This review will focus on such agents across a range of the most common chronic wounds.
| S-EPMC9445559 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and tolerability of topical pimecrolimus and tacrolimus compared with other treatments for atopic dermatitis. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches of the Cochrane Library, Medline, and Embase. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials of topical pimecrolimus or tacrolimus reporting efficacy outcomes or tolerability. DATA EXTRACTION: EFFICACY: investigators' global assessment of response; patients' global assessment of response; proportions of patients with flares of atopic dermatitis; and improvements in quality of life. Tolerability: overall rates of withdrawal; withdrawal due to adverse events; and proportions of patients with burning of the skin and skin infections. DATA SYNTHESIS: 4186 of 6897 participants in 25 randomised controlled trials received pimecrolimus or tacrolimus. Both drugs were significantly more effective than a vehicle control. Tacrolimus 0.1% was as effective as potent topical corticosteroids at three weeks and more effective than combined treatment with hydrocortisone butyrate 0.1% (potent used on trunk) plus hydrocortisone acetate 1% (weak used on face) at 12 weeks (number needed to treat (NNT) = 6). Tacrolimus 0.1% was also more effective than hydrocortisone acetate 1% (NNT = 4). In comparison, tacrolimus 0.03% was more effective than hydrocortisone acetate 1% (NNT = 5) but less effective than hydrocortisone butyrate 0.1% (NNT = -8). Direct comparisons of tacrolimus 0.03% and tacrolimus 0.1% consistently favoured the higher strength formulation, but efficacy differed significantly between the two strengths only after 12 weeks' treatment (rate ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 0.99). Pimecrolimus was far less effective than betamethasone valerate 0.1% (NNT = -3 at three weeks). Pimecrolimus and tacrolimus caused significantly more skin burning than topical corticosteroids. Rates of skin infections in any of the comparisons did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Both topical pimecrolimus and topical tacrolimus are more effective than placebo treatments for atopic dermatitis, but in the absence of studies that show long term safety gains, any advantage over topical corticosteroids is unclear. Topical tacrolimus is similar to potent topical corticosteroids and may have a place for long term use in patients with resistant atopic dermatitis on sites where side effects from topical corticosteroids might develop quickly. In the absence of key comparisons with mild corticosteroids, the clinical need for topical pimecrolimus is unclear. The usefulness of either treatment in patients who have failed to respond adequately to topical corticosteroids is also unclear.
| S-EPMC552812 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy and safety of topical rubefacients containing salicylates in acute and chronic pain.Data sourcesElectronic databases and manufacturers of salicylates.Study selectionRandomised double blind trials comparing topical rubefacients with placebo or another active treatment, in adults with acute or chronic pain, and reporting dichotomous information, around a 50% reduction in pain, and analyses at one week for acute conditions and two weeks for chronic conditions.Data extractionRelative benefit and number needed to treat, analysis of adverse events, and withdrawals.Data synthesisThree double blind placebo controlled trials had information on 182 patients with acute conditions. Topical salicylate was significantly better than placebo (relative benefit 3.6, 95% confidence interval 2.4 to 5.6; number needed to treat 2.1, 1.7 to 2.8). Six double blind placebo controlled trials had information on 429 patients with chronic conditions. Topical salicylate was significantly better than placebo (relative benefit 1.5, 1.3 to 1.9; number needed to treat 5.3, 3.6 to 10.2), but larger, more valid studies were without significant effect. Local adverse events and withdrawals were generally rare in trials that reported them.ConclusionsBased on limited information, topically applied rubefacients containing salicylates may be efficacious in the treatment of acute pain. Trials of musculoskeletal and arthritic pain suggested moderate to poor efficacy. Adverse events were rare in studies of acute pain and poorly reported in those of chronic pain. Efficacy estimates for rubefacients are unreliable owing to a lack of good clinical trials.
| S-EPMC404501 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCalcineurin inhibitors, novel topical immunomodulators, may constitute a superior alternative for glucocorticosteroids in atopic dermatitis (AD) topical treatment.AimDetermination of efficacy and safety of each topical calcineurin inhibitor (TCI) formulation, 0.3% or 0.1% tacrolimus and 1% pimecrolimus, for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in comparison with glucocorticosteroids.Material and methodsCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, GREAT database, trials registers and reference lists were searched up to February 2018. Randomised controlled trials of TCI, compared to corticosteroids (TCS), reporting efficacy or safety outcomes were selected. Quality of trials and evidence of each outcome were evaluated according to Cochrane Collaboration recommendations and tools. The primary outcomes were physician's global assessment of improvement and occurrence of adverse events (AEs).ResultsFourteen trials involving 7376 children and adults with AD were included. Calcineurin inhibitors were significantly more effective than various potency TCS, neither least potent to lower mid-strength nor mid-strength to potent TCS (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.06-1.44). The major AEs were skin burning and pruritus, their incidence was higher in TCI treatment (RR = 3.32, 95% CI: 2.90-3.80; RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.34-1.80).ConclusionsCalcineurin inhibitors seem to be more effective and contrarily they elicit more AEs than TCS.
| S-EPMC6986278 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionLamivudine and emtricitabine are considered equivalent by several guidelines, but evidence of comparable efficacy is conflicting.MethodsWe searched two databases up to June 30 2013 to identify randomized and quasi-randomized trials in which lamivudine and emtricitabine were used as part of combination antiretroviral therapy for treatment-naïve or experienced HIV-positive adult patients. We only included trials where partner drugs in the regimen were identical or could be considered to be comparable. We allowed for comparisons between tenofovir and abacavir provided the study population did not begin treatment with a viral load >100,000 copies/ml.Results12 trials contributed 15 different randomized comparisons providing data on 2251 patients receiving lamivudine and 2662 patients receiving emtricitabine. Treatment success was not significantly different in any of the 12 trials. In the three trials that directly compared lamivudine and emtricitabine, the relative risk for achieving treatment success was non-significant (RR 1.03 95%CI 0.96-1.10). For all trials combined, the pooled relative risk for treatment success was not significantly different (RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.97-1.02). No heterogeneity was observed (I (2) = 0). Similarly, there was no difference in the pooled relative risk for treatment failure (RR 1.08, 95%CI 0.94-1.22, I (2) = 3.4%).ConclusionsThe findings of this systematic review suggest that lamivudine and emtricitabine are clinically equivalent.
| S-EPMC3823593 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Unlabelled: A previous systematic review reported that topical NSAIDs were effective in relieving pain in chronic conditions like osteoarthritis and tendinitis. More trials, a better understanding of trial quality and bias, and a reclassification of certain drugs necessitate a new review.MethodsStudies were identified by searching electronic databases, and writing to manufacturers. We identified randomised, double blind trials comparing topical NSAID with either placebo or another active treatment, in adults with chronic pain. The primary outcome was a reduction in pain of approximately 50% at two weeks, and secondary outcomes were local and systemic adverse events and adverse event-related withdrawals. Relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat (NNT), and relative harm and number-needed-to-harm (NNH) were calculated, and the effects of trial quality, validity and size, outcome reported, and condition treated, were examined by sensitivity analyses.ResultsTwelve new trials were added to 13 trials from a previous review. Fourteen double blind placebo-controlled trials had information from almost 1,500 patients. Topical NSAID was significantly better than placebo with relative benefit 1.9 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 2.2), NNT 4.6 (95% confidence interval 3.8 to 5.9). Results were not affected by trial quality, validity or size, outcome reported, or condition treated. Three trials with 764 patients comparing a topical with an oral NSAID found no difference in efficacy. Local adverse events (6%), systemic adverse events (3%), or the numbers withdrawing due to an adverse event were the same for topical NSAID and placebo.ConclusionsTopical NSAIDs were effective and safe in treating chronic musculoskeletal conditions for two weeks. Larger and longer trials are necessary to fully elucidate the place of topical NSAIDs in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC516039 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy and safety of topically applied capsaicin for chronic pain from neuropathic or musculoskeletal disorders.Data sourcesCochrane Library, Medline, Embase, PubMed, an in-house database, and contact with manufacturers of topical capsaicin.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials comparing topically applied capsaicin with placebo or another treatment in adults with chronic pain.Data extractionPrimary outcome was dichotomous information for the number of patients with about a 50% reduction in pain. Outcomes were extracted at four weeks for musculoskeletal conditions and eight weeks for neuropathic conditions. Secondary outcomes were adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events.Data synthesisSix double blind placebo controlled trials (656 patients) were pooled for analysis of neuropathic conditions. The relative benefit from topical capsaicin 0.075% compared with placebo was 1.4 (95% confidence interval 1.2 to 1.7) and the number needed to treat was 5.7 (4.0 to 10.0). Three double blind placebo controlled trials (368 patients) were pooled for analysis of musculoskeletal conditions. The relative benefit from topical capsaicin 0.025% or plaster compared with placebo was 1.5 (1.1 to 2.0) and the number needed to treat was 8.1 (4.6 to 34). Around one third of patients experienced local adverse events with capsaicin, which would not have been the case with placebo.ConclusionsAlthough topically applied capsaicin has moderate to poor efficacy in the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal or neuropathic pain, it may be useful as an adjunct or sole therapy for a small number of patients who are unresponsive to, or intolerant of, other treatments.
| S-EPMC404499 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To identify the efficacy of auricular acupressure on pain and disability for chronic LBP by systematic review.A search of randomized controlled trials was conducted in four English medical electronic databases and three Chinese databases. Two reviewers independently retrieved related studies, assessed the methodological quality, and extracted data with a standardized data form. Meta-analyses were performed using all time-points meta-analysis.A total of 7 trials met the inclusion criteria, of which 4 had the low risk of bias. The findings of this study showed that, for the immediate effect, auricular acupressure had large, significant effects in improving pain within 12 weeks. As for the follow-up effect, the pooled estimates also showed promising effect at 4-week follow-up after 4-week intervention (standardized mean difference = -1.13, 95% CI (-1.70, -0.56), P < 0.001). But, for the disability level, the therapeutic effect was not significant (mean difference = -1.99, 95% CI (-4.93, 0.95), P = 0.18). No serious adverse effects were recorded.The encouraging evidence of this study indicates that it is recommended to provide auricular acupressure to patients with chronic low back pain. However, a more accurate estimate of the effect will require further rigorously designed large-scale RCTs on chronic LBP for improving pain and disability.
| S-EPMC5539928 | biostudies-other