Comparison of Amitriptyline and US Food and Drug Administration-Approved Treatments for Fibromyalgia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Importance: Amitriptyline is an established medication used off-label for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran are the only pharmacological agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat fibromyalgia. Objective: To investigate the comparative effectiveness and acceptability associated with pharmacological treatment options for fibromyalgia. Data Sources: Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov were conducted on November 20, 2018, and updated on July 29, 2020. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing amitriptyline or any FDA-approved doses of investigated drugs. Data Extraction and Synthesis: This study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline. Four independent reviewers extracted data using a standardized data extraction sheet and assessed quality of RCTs. A random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to January 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Comparative effectiveness and acceptability (defined as discontinuation of treatment owing to adverse drug reactions) associated with amitriptyline (off-label), pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran (on-label) in reducing fibromyalgia symptoms. The following doses were compared: 60-mg and 120-mg duloxetine; 150-mg, 300-mg, 450-mg, and 600-mg pregabalin; 100-mg and 200-mg milnacipran; and amitriptyline. Effect sizes are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs). Findings were considered statistically significant when the 95% CrI did not include the null value (0 for SMD and 1 for OR). Relative treatment ranking using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was also evaluated. Results: A total of 36 studies (11 930 patients) were included. The mean (SD) age of patients was 48.4 (10.4) years, and 11 261 patients (94.4%) were women. Compared with placebo, amitriptyline was associated with reduced sleep disturbances (SMD, -0.97; 95% CrI, -1.10 to -0.83), fatigue (SMD, -0.64; 95% CrI, -0.75 to -0.53), and improved quality of life (SMD, -0.80; 95% CrI, -0.94 to -0.65). Duloxetine 120 mg was associated with the highest improvement in pain (SMD, -0.33; 95% CrI, -0.36 to -0.30) and depression (SMD, -0.25; 95% CrI, -0.32 to -0.17) vs placebo. All treatments were associated with inferior acceptability (higher dropout rate) than placebo, except amitriptyline (OR, 0.78; 95% CrI, 0.31 to 1.66). According to the SUCRA-based relative ranking of treatments, duloxetine 120 mg was associated with higher efficacy for treating pain and depression, while amitriptyline was associated with higher efficacy for improving sleep, fatigue, and overall quality of life. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that clinicians should consider how treatments could be tailored to individual symptoms, weighing the benefits and acceptability, when prescribing medications to patients with fibromyalgia.

Minimally invasive versus open surgery for the correction of adult degenerative scoliosis: a systematic review.

While open surgery has been the primary surgical approach for adult degenerative scoliosis, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) represents an alternative option and appears to be associated with reduced morbidity. Given the lack of consensus, we aimed to conduct a systematic review on available literature comparing MIS versus open surgery for adult degenerative scoliosis. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched through December 16, 2019, for studies that compared both MIS and open surgery in patients with degenerative scoliosis. Four cohort studies reporting on 350 patients met the inclusion criteria. In two studies, patients undergoing open surgery were younger and had more severe disease at baseline as compared with MIS. Patients who underwent MIS had less blood loss, shorter length of stay, and a reduced rate of complications and infections. Both MIS and open surgery resulted in a significant change in pain and disability scores and both approaches provided significant correction of deformity in all studies, although open surgery was associated with a greater change in pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL) and sagittal vertical axis (SVA) in two and three studies, respectively. In patients with adult degenerative scoliosis undergoing surgery, both MIS and open approaches appeared to offer comparable improvements in pain and function. However, MIS was associated with better safety outcomes, while open surgery provided greater correction of spinal deformity. Further studies are needed to identify specific subset of patients who may benefit from one approach versus the other.

The safety and efficacy of steroid treatment for acute spinal cord injury: A Systematic Review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The role for steroids in acute spinal cord injury (ASCI) remains unclear; while some studies have demonstrated the risks of steroids outweigh the benefits,a meta-analyses conducted on heterogeneous patient populations have shown significant motor improvement at short-term but not at long-term follow-up. Given the heterogeneity of the patient population in previous meta-analyses and the publication of a recent trial not included in these meta-analyses, we sought to re-assess and update the safety and short-term and long-term efficacy of steroid treatment following ASCI in a more homogeneous patient population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library through June 2019 for studies evaluating the utility of steroids within the first 8 h following ASCI. Neurological and safety outcomes were extracted for patients treated and not treated with steroids. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using the random-effects model. RESULTS: Twelve studies, including five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and seven observational studies (OBSs), were meta-analyzed. Overall, methylprednisolone was not associated with significant short-term or long-term improvements in motor or neurological scores based on RCTs or OBSs. An increased risk of hyperglycemia was shown in both RCTs (RR: 13.7; 95% CI: 1.93, 97.4; 1 study) and OBSs (RR: 2.9; 95% CI: 1.55, 5.41; 1 study). Risk for pneumonia was increased with steroids; while this increase was not statistically significant in the RCTs (pooled RR: 1.16; 95% C.I: 0.59, 2.29; 3 studies), it reached statistical significance in the OBSs (pooled RR: 2.00; 95% C.I: 1.32, 3.02; 6 studies). There was no statistically significant increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, decubitus ulcers, surgical site infections, sepsis, atelectasis, venous thromboembolism, urinary tract infections, or mortality among steroid-treated ASCI patients compared to untreated controls in either RCTs or OBSs. CONCLUSIONS: Methylprednisolone therapy within the first 8 h following ASCI failed to show a statistically significant short-term or long-term improvement in patients' overall motor or neurological scores compared to controls who were not administered steroids. For the same comparison, there was an increased risk of pneumonia and hyperglycemia compared to controls. Routine use of methylprednisone following ASCI should be carefully considered in the context of these results.

EMPADE Study: Evaluation of Medical Prescriptions and Adverse Drug Events in COPD Patients Admitted to Intensive Care Unit.

INTRODUCTION: Inappropriate drug usage may preclude ideal benefit due to increased medical cost, antimicrobial resistance, adverse effects and mortality. Therefore drug utilization studies have become a plausible means in evaluating the healthcare systems. COPD management usually involves more than one drug which may escalate the risk of ADEs (adverse drug events). AIM: The present study was aimed at assessing the current drug practice and ADEs in COPD management in ICU. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1,044 patients admitted for the treatment of COPD were included in the study. Their prescriptions were recorded for evaluation of drug utilization and patients were counseled for assessing ADEs. Results were evaluated by Chi-square test and percentages. RESULT: All-embracing 15,360 drugs were prescribed at an average of 14.71 drugs per patient, wherein ß2-agonists were extensively prescribed agents followed by inhaled-corticosteroids and anti-cholinergics. 372 ADEs were reported in 252 patients, wherein restlessness was the most frequent ADE and theophylline was found to be associated with highest cases of ADEs. CONCLUSION: Practitioners should prescribe least number of drugs to mitigate the likelihood of adverse outcomes in patients due to numerous drugs usage, which may be achieved by following GOLD guidelines. The present work may help in improving the current management of COPD by rectifying the flaws delineated in this article.