METHODS: A cross-sectional, anonymous US national online survey was conducted among 8049 Kratom users in October, 2016 to obtain demographic, health, and Kratom use pattern information.
RESULTS: People who use Kratom to mitigate illicit drug dependence self-reported less pain and better overall health than individuals who used Kratom for acute/chronic pain. Self-reported improvements in pre-existing mental health symptoms (attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder/attention deficit disorder, anxiety, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression) attributed to Kratom use were greater than those related to somatic symptoms (back pain, rheumatoid arthritis, acute pain, chronic pain, fibromyalgia). Demographic variables, including female sex, older age, employment status, and insurance coverage correlated with increased likelihood of Kratom use.
CONCLUSIONS: Kratom use may serve as a self-treatment strategy for a diverse population of patients with pre-existing health diagnoses. Healthcare providers need to be engaging with patients to address safety concerns and potential limitations of its use in clinical practice for specific health conditions.
OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to determine the clinical effects and safety of D. scandens for musculoskeletal pain treatment compared with standard regimen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).
METHODS: International and Thai databases were searched from inception through August 2015. Comparative randomized controlled trials investigating oral D. scandens for musculoskeletal pain were included. Outcomes of interest included level of pain and adverse event. Mean changes of the outcomes from baseline were compared between D. scandens and NSAIDs by calculating mean difference.
RESULTS: From 42 articles identified, 4 studies involving a total of 414 patients were included for efficacy analysis. The effects of oral D. scandens on reducing pain score were no different from those of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs at any time points (3, 7, 14 days and overall). The overall pain reduction in the D. scandens group was not inferior to treatment with NSAIDs (weighted mean difference 0.06; 95% CI: -0.20, 0.31) without evident of heterogeneity (I(2)=0.00%, p=0.768). When compared, the adverse events (AEs) of D. scandens showed no different relative risk with NSAIDs. The major adverse events were gastrointestinal symptoms.
CONCLUSION: D. scandens may be considered as an alternative for musculoskeletal pain reduction.
CASE PRESENTATION: We herein describe a 47-year-old woman with recurrent chest pain for 3 years. The cause of her chest pain remained elusive despite extensive investigations including comprehensive cardiac work-up. She was referred to the neurology clinic for one episode of confusion. Video-electroencephalographic monitoring detected unequivocal ictal changes during her habitual chest pain events. She has remained chest pain (seizure) free with a single antiseizure drug.
CONCLUSIONS: This case underlines the importance of epilepsy as a rare yet treatable cause of recurrent chest pain. Further studies are required to determine the pathophysiology of ictal chest pain.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial involved treatment-naïve H. pylori-positive patients. Ninety patients received standard triple therapy for 2 weeks before receiving either a probiotic or placebo for 4 weeks. The posttreatment eradication rate was assessed via a 14 C urea breath test in Week 8. The Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) questionnaire and an interview on treatment adverse effects were conducted during this study.
RESULTS: The eradication rate was higher in the probiotic group than in the placebo group, with a 22.2% difference in the intention-to-treat analysis (91.1% vs. 68.9%; p = 0.007) and 24.3% difference in the per-protocol analysis (93.2% vs. 68.9%; p = 0.007). The probiotic group showed significant pre- to post-treatment reductions in indigestion, constipation, abdominal pain, and total GSRS scores. The probiotic group showed significantly greater reductions in GSRS scores than the placebo group: indigestion (4.34 ± 5.00 vs. 1.78 ± 5.64; p = 0.026), abdominal pain (2.64 ± 2.88 vs. 0.89 ± 3.11; p = 0.007), constipation (2.34 ± 3.91 vs. 0.64 ± 2.92; p = 0.023), and total score (12.41 ± 12.19 vs. 4.24 ± 13.72; p = 0.004). The probiotic group reported significantly fewer adverse headache (0% vs. 15.6%; p = 0.012) and abdominal pain (0% vs. 13.3%; p = 0.026) effects.
CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant increase in H. pylori eradication rate and attenuation of symptoms and adverse treatment effects when L. reuteri was given as an adjunct treatment.
DESIGN: Network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science from database inception to January 2022.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing exercise therapy with oral NSAIDs and paracetamol directly or indirectly in knee or hip OA.
RESULTS: A total of n=152 RCTs (17 431 participants) were included. For pain relief, there was no difference between exercise and oral NSAIDs and paracetamol at or nearest to 4 (standardised mean difference (SMD)=-0.12, 95% credibility interval (CrI) -1.74 to 1.50; n=47 RCTs), 8 (SMD=0.22, 95% CrI -0.05 to 0.49; n=2 RCTs) and 24 weeks (SMD=0.17, 95% CrI -0.77 to 1.12; n=9 RCTs). Similarly, there was no difference between exercise and oral NSAIDs and paracetamol in functional improvement at or nearest to 4 (SMD=0.09, 95% CrI -1.69 to 1.85; n=40 RCTs), 8 (SMD=0.06, 95% CrI -0.20 to 0.33; n=2 RCTs) and 24 weeks (SMD=0.05, 95% CrI -1.15 to 1.24; n=9 RCTs).
CONCLUSIONS: Exercise has similar effects on pain and function to that of oral NSAIDs and paracetamol. Given its excellent safety profile, exercise should be given more prominence in clinical care, especially in older people with comorbidity or at higher risk of adverse events related to NSAIDs and paracetamol.CRD42019135166.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This 12-week randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study aims to evaluate the efficacy of the standardised water extract of EL known as Physta in increasing the quality of life of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. The study involves 150 women aged 40-55 years who score more than 61 on the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) assessment. These participants will be randomised into three groups, receiving Physta at either 50 mg or 100 mg or a placebo. The outcomes measures include mood state, quality of life, fatigue, sleep quality, sexual function and pain score assessed using Profile of Mood State, MENQOL, Chalder Fatigue Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Female Sexual Function Index and the Brief Pain Inventory questionnaires, respectively. The secondary outcome of the study includes full blood analysis, urine analysis, female reproductive hormone profiling, inflammatory and oxidative stress biomarkers analysis.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The research protocol of the study was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM/PPI/111/8/JEP-2021-898). The findings will be disseminated to participants, healthcare professionals and researchers via conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622001341718.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Faculty of Dentistry, Melaka-Manipal Medical College among 3(rd) and 4(th) year BDS students. A total of 145 dental students, who consented, participate in the study. Students were divided into 14 groups. Nine online sessions followed by nine face-to-face discussions were held. Each session addressed topics related to oral lesions and orofacial pain with pharmacological applications. After each week, students were asked to reflect on blended learning. On completion of 9 weeks, reflections were collected and analyzed.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Qualitative analysis was done using thematic analysis model suggested by Braun and Clarke.
RESULTS: The four main themes were identified, namely, merits of blended learning, skill in writing prescription for oral diseases, dosages of drugs, and identification of strengths and weakness. In general, the participants had a positive feedback regarding blended learning. Students felt more confident in drug selection and prescription writing. They could recollect the doses better after the online and face-to-face sessions. Most interestingly, the students reflected that they are able to identify their strength and weakness after the blended learning sessions.
CONCLUSIONS: Blended learning module was successfully implemented for reinforcing dental pharmacology. The results obtained in this study enable us to plan future comparative studies to know the effectiveness of blended learning in dental pharmacology.