Topical preparations for the treatment of mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acne is very common and can have a substantial impact on wellbeing. Guidelines suggest first-line management with topical treatments, but there is little evidence regarding which treatments are most effective. OBJECTIVES: To identify the most effective and best tolerated topical treatments for acne using network meta-analysis. METHODS: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and World Health Organization Trials Registry were searched from inception to June 2020 for randomized trials that included participants with mild/moderate acne. Primary outcomes were self-reported improvement in acne, and trial withdrawal. Secondary outcomes included change in lesion counts, Investigator's Global Assessment, change in quality of life and total number of adverse events. Network meta-analysis was undertaken using a frequentist approach. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and confidence in evidence was assessed using CINeMA. RESULTS: A total of 81 papers were included, reporting 40 trials with a total of 18 089 participants. Patient Global Assessment of Improvement was reported in 11 trials. Based on the pooled network estimates, compared with vehicle, benzoyl peroxide (BPO) was effective (35% vs. 26%) for improving self-reported acne. The combinations of BPO with adapalene (54% vs. 35%) or with clindamycin (49% vs. 35%) were ranked more effective than BPO alone. The withdrawal of participants from the trial was reported in 35 trials. The number of patients withdrawing owing to adverse events was low for all treatments. Rates of withdrawal were slightly higher for BPO with adapalene (2·5%) or clindamycin (2·7%) than BPO (1·6%) or adapalene alone (1·0%). Overall confidence in the evidence was low. CONCLUSIONS: Adapalene in combination with BPO may be the most effective treatment for acne but with a slightly higher incidence of withdrawal than monotherapy. Inconsistent reporting of trial results precluded firmer conclusions.

Management of frozen shoulder: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Frozen shoulder is condition in which movement of the shoulder becomes restricted. It can be described as either primary (idiopathic) whereby the aetiology is unknown, or secondary, when it can be attributed to another cause. It is commonly a self-limiting condition, of approximately 1 to 3 years' duration, though incomplete resolution can occur. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for primary frozen shoulder, identify the most appropriate intervention by stage of condition and highlight any gaps in the evidence. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review was conducted. Nineteen databases and other sources including the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Science Citation Index, BIOSIS Previews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) were searched up to March 2010 and EMBASE and MEDLINE up to January 2011, without language restrictions. MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched in June 2010 for studies of patients' views about treatment. REVIEW METHODS: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating physical therapies, arthrographic distension, steroid injection, sodium hyaluronate injection, manipulation under anaesthesia, capsular release or watchful waiting, alone or in combination were eligible for inclusion. Patients with primary frozen shoulder (with or without diabetes) were included. Quasi-experimental studies were included in the absence of RCTs and case series for manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) and capsular release only. Full economic evaluations meeting the intervention and population inclusion criteria of the clinical review were included. Two researchers independently screened studies for relevance based on the inclusion criteria. One reviewer extracted data and assessed study quality; this was checked by a second reviewer. The main outcomes of interest were pain, range of movement, function and disability, quality of life and adverse events. The analysis comprised a narrative synthesis and pair-wise meta-analysis. A mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) was also undertaken. An economic decision model was intended, but was found to be implausible because of a lack of available evidence. Resource use was estimated from clinical advisors and combined with quality-adjusted life-years obtained through mapping to present tentative cost-effectiveness results. RESULTS: Thirty-one clinical effectiveness studies and one economic evaluation were included. The clinical effectiveness studies evaluated steroid injection, sodium hyaluronate, supervised neglect, physical therapy (mainly physiotherapy), acupuncture, MUA, distension and capsular release. Many of the studies identified were at high risk of bias. Because of variation in the interventions and comparators few studies could be pooled in a meta-analysis. Based on single RCTs, and for some outcomes only, short-wave diathermy may be more effective than home exercise. High-grade mobilisation may be more effective than low-grade mobilisation in a population in which most patients have already had treatment. Data from two RCTs showed that there may be benefit from adding a single intra-articular steroid injection to home exercise in patients with frozen shoulder of < 6 months' duration. The same two trials showed that there may be benefit from adding physiotherapy (including mobilisation) to a single steroid injection. Based on a network of nine studies the MTC found that steroid combined with physiotherapy was the only treatment showing a statistically and clinically significant beneficial treatment effect compared with placebo for short-term pain (standardised mean difference -1.58, 95% credible interval -2.96 to -0.42). This analysis was based on only a subset of the evidence, which may explain why the findings are only partly supportive of the main analysis. No studies of patients' views about the treatments were identified. Average costs ranged from £36.16 for unguided steroid injections to £2204 for capsular release. The findings of the mapping suggest a positive relationship between outcome and European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) score: a decreasing visual analogue scale score (less pain) was accompanied by an increasing (better) EQ-5D score. The one published economic evaluation suggested that low-grade mobilisation may be more cost-effective than high-grade mobilisation. Our tentative cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that steroid alone may be more cost-effective than steroid plus physiotherapy or physiotherapy alone. These results are very uncertain. LIMITATIONS: The key limitation was the lack of data available. It was not possible to undertake the planned synthesis exploring the influence of stage of frozen shoulder or the presence of diabetes on treatment effect. As a result of study diversity and poor reporting of outcome data there were few instances where the planned quantitative synthesis was possible or appropriate. Most of the included studies had a small number of participants and may have been underpowered. The lack of available data made the development of a decision-analytic model implausible. We found little evidence on treatment related to stage of condition, treatment pathways, the impact on quality of life, associated resource use and no information on utilities. Without making a number of questionable assumptions modelling was not possible. CONCLUSIONS: There was limited clinical evidence on the effectiveness of treatments for primary frozen shoulder. The economic evidence was so limited that no conclusions can be made about the cost-effectiveness of the different treatments. High-quality primary research is required.

Paracetamol and selective and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the reduction in morphine-related side-effects after major surgery: a systematic review.

Non-opioid analgesics, paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or cyclo-oxygenase 2 (COX-2) inhibitors are often given along with morphine as part of multimodal analgesia after major surgery. We have undertaken a systematic review and a mixed treatment comparison (MTC) analysis in order to determine explicitly which class of non-opioid analgesic, paracetamol, NSAIDs, or COX-2 inhibitors is the most effective in reducing morphine consumption and morphine-related adverse effects. Sixty relevant studies were identified. The MTC found that when paracetamol, NSAIDs, or COX-2 inhibitors were added to patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) morphine, there was a statistically significant reduction in morphine consumption: paracetamol [mean difference (MD) -6.34 mg; 95% credibility interval (CrI) -9.02, -3.65], NSAIDs (MD -10.18; 95% CrI -11.65, -8.72), and COX-2 inhibitors (MD -10.92; 95% CrI -12.77, -9.08). There was a significant reduction in nausea and postoperative nausea and vomiting with NSAIDs compared with placebo (odds ratio 0.70; 95% CrI 0.53, 0.88) but not for paracetamol or COX-2 inhibitors, nor for NSAIDs compared with paracetamol or COX-2 inhibitors. There was no statistically significant difference in sedation between any intervention and comparator. On the basis of six trials (n=695), 2.4% of participants receiving an NSAID experienced surgical-related bleeding compared with 0.4% with placebo. The MTC found that there is a decrease in 24 h morphine consumption when paracetamol, NSAID, or COX-2 inhibitors are given in addition to PCA morphine after surgery, with no clear difference between them. Similarly, the benefits in terms of reduction in morphine-related adverse effects do not strongly favour one of the three non-opioid analgesics.

Dronedarone for the treatment of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dronedarone for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter based upon a review of the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The population considered in the submission were adult clinically stable patients with a recent history of or current non-permanent AF. Comparators were the current available anti-arrhythmic drugs: class 1c agents (flecainide and propafenone), sotalol and amiodarone. Outcomes were AF recurrence, all-cause mortality, stroke, treatment discontinuations (due to any cause or due to adverse events) and serious adverse events. The main evidence came from four phase III randomised controlled trials, direct and indirect meta-analyses from a systematic review, and a synthesis of the direct and indirect evidence using a mixed-treatment comparison. Overall, the results from the different synthesis approaches showed that the odds of AF recurrence appeared statistically significantly lower with dronedarone and other anti-arrhythmic drugs than with non-active control, and that the odds of AF recurrence are statistically significantly higher for dronedarone than for amiodarone. However, the results for outcomes of all-cause mortality, stroke and treatment discontinuations and serious adverse events were all uncertain. A discrete event simulation model was used to evaluate dronedarone versus antiarrhythmic drugs and standard therapy alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of dronedarone was relatively robust and less than 20,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year. Exploratory work undertaken by the ERG identified that the main drivers of cost-effectiveness were the benefits assigned to dronedarone for all-cause mortality and stroke. Dronedarone is not cost-effective relative to its comparators when the only effect of treatment is a reduction in AF recurrences. In conclusion, uncertainties remain in the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dronedarone. In particular, the clinical evidence for the major drivers of cost-effectiveness (all-cause mortality and stroke), and consequently the additional benefits attributed in the economic model to dronedarone compared to other anti-arrhythmic drugs are highly uncertain. The final guidance, issued by NICE on 25 August 2010, states that: Dronedarone is recommended as an option for the treatment of non-permanent atrial fibrillation only in people: whose atrial fibrillation is not controlled by first-line therapy (usually including beta-blockers), that is, as a second-line treatment option, and who have at least one of the following cardiovascular risk factors: - hypertension requiring drugs of at least two different classes, diabetes mellitus, previous transient ischaemic attack, stroke or systemic embolism, left atrial diameter of 50 mm or greater, left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% (noting that the summary of product characteristics [SPC] does not recommend dronedarone for people with left ventricular ejection fraction less than 35% because of limited experience of using it in this group) or age 70 years or older, and who do not have unstable New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV heart failure. Furthermore, 'People who do not meet the criteria above who are currently receiving dronedarone should have the option to continue treatment until they and their clinicians consider it appropriate to stop'.

Paracetamol and selective and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the reduction of morphine-related side effects after major surgery: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To determine which class of non-opioid analgesics - paracetamol (acetaminophen), NSAIDs or COX-2 inhibitors - is the most effective at reducing morphine consumption and associated adverse effects when used as part of multimodal analgesia following major surgery. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases, searched from January 2003 to February 2009 and updating an earlier review. REVIEW METHODS: Randomised controlled trials comparing paracetamol, NSAIDs or COX-2 inhibitors to each other or placebo, in adults receiving patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with morphine following major surgery, were included. The COX-2 inhibitors rofecoxib and valdecoxib were excluded. Only trials that reported 24-hour morphine consumption were included. Other outcomes of interest were morphine-related adverse effects and adverse effects related to the non-opioids. Adequacy of randomisation, concealment of allocation, double blinding, and the flow of patients within the trial was assessed. The main analysis was a mixed treatment comparison (MTC) evaluating the relative effects of the four treatment classes. Four main outcomes were prioritised: 24-hour morphine consumption, sedation, nausea and vomiting, and surgical bleeding. Studies reporting nausea alone were pooled with studies reporting postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Comparisons were described as statistically significant (at 5% level) when the credibility interval (CrI) did not cross 1 for odds ratio (OR) and zero for mean difference (MD). Trials making direct comparisons between the active interventions were also pooled in a meta-analysis using a random effects model. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effects of study quality, individual drugs, and baseline morphine consumption. RESULTS: Sixty relevant studies were identified. When paracetamol, NSAIDs or COX-2 inhibitors were added to PCA morphine, there was a statistically significant reduction in morphine consumption: paracetamol (MD -6.34 mg; 95% CrI -9.02 to -3.65); NSAIDs (MD -10.18; 95% CrI -11.65 to -8.72); and COX-2 inhibitors (MD -10.92; 95% CrI -12.77 to -9.08). NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors were both significantly better than paracetamol, and there was no significant difference between NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors (MD -0.74; 95% CrI -3.03 to 1.56). There was a significant reduction in nausea and PONV with NSAIDs compared to placebo (OR 0.70; 95% CrI 0.53 to 0.88) but not for paracetamol or COX-2 inhibitors, nor for NSAIDs compared to paracetamol or COX-2 inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: 24-hour morphine consumption decreased by 6.3 mg to 10.9 mg, compared to placebo, when paracetamol, NSAID or COX-2 inhibitors were added to PCA morphine following surgery. Differences in effect between the three drug classes were small and unlikely to be of clinical significance. There does not appear to be a strong case for recommending routine addition of any of the three non-opioids to PCA morphine in the 24 hours immediately after surgery, or for favouring one drug class above the others.