Intravenous ibuprofen in postoperative pain and fever management in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Pengxiang Zhou, Lu Chen, Ente Wang, Lanzhi He, Shuxia Tian, Suodi Zhai
{"title":"Intravenous ibuprofen in postoperative pain and fever management in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Pengxiang Zhou,&nbsp;Lu Chen,&nbsp;Ente Wang,&nbsp;Lanzhi He,&nbsp;Shuxia Tian,&nbsp;Suodi Zhai","doi":"10.1002/prp2.1123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of multiple or single-dosage intravenous ibuprofen (IVIB) in managing postoperative pain and fever in adults who are unable to take oral medications. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IVIB with placebo or other analgesic and antipyretic medications for postoperative pain and fever management. Data were collected from 8 main databases from the inception to June 2022. Risk of bias assessment was performed, and the GRADE methodology was used to assess the certainty of pooled evidence. Primary outcomes included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores within 24 h postoperative and reduction of temperature. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate the mean difference (MD) or risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs. As a result, a total of twenty-three RCTs with 3716 participants were included. For postoperative pain, with moderate-to-low certainty evidence, IVIB was associated with lower postoperative VAS scores than placebo, with MD ranging from -3.53 (95% CI, -4.32 to -2.75) at 0 min to -0.96 (95% CI, -1.35 to -0.57) at 24 h. Compared with intravenous acetaminophen, IVIB demonstrated lower VAS scores (MD, -1.54 at 0 min; -0.36 at 24 h). For fever, IVIB showed satisfactory antipyretic efficiency in a short period of time, but no difference was observed between IVIB and intravenous acetaminophen. IVIB was well-tolerated for both pain and fever management. In conclusion, moderate-to-low certainty evidence supports the use of IVIB for adults with postoperative pain and fever who are unable to take oral medications.</p>","PeriodicalId":19948,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacology Research & Perspectives","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/c9/fa/PRP2-11-e01123.PMC10395276.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacology Research & Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/prp2.1123","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of multiple or single-dosage intravenous ibuprofen (IVIB) in managing postoperative pain and fever in adults who are unable to take oral medications. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IVIB with placebo or other analgesic and antipyretic medications for postoperative pain and fever management. Data were collected from 8 main databases from the inception to June 2022. Risk of bias assessment was performed, and the GRADE methodology was used to assess the certainty of pooled evidence. Primary outcomes included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores within 24 h postoperative and reduction of temperature. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate the mean difference (MD) or risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs. As a result, a total of twenty-three RCTs with 3716 participants were included. For postoperative pain, with moderate-to-low certainty evidence, IVIB was associated with lower postoperative VAS scores than placebo, with MD ranging from -3.53 (95% CI, -4.32 to -2.75) at 0 min to -0.96 (95% CI, -1.35 to -0.57) at 24 h. Compared with intravenous acetaminophen, IVIB demonstrated lower VAS scores (MD, -1.54 at 0 min; -0.36 at 24 h). For fever, IVIB showed satisfactory antipyretic efficiency in a short period of time, but no difference was observed between IVIB and intravenous acetaminophen. IVIB was well-tolerated for both pain and fever management. In conclusion, moderate-to-low certainty evidence supports the use of IVIB for adults with postoperative pain and fever who are unable to take oral medications.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

静脉注射布洛芬治疗成人术后疼痛和发热:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
本研究旨在评估多次或单次静脉注射布洛芬(IVIB)治疗无法口服药物的成人术后疼痛和发热的疗效和安全性。在随机对照试验(rct)的基础上,对IVIB与安慰剂或其他镇痛和解热药物进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,以治疗术后疼痛和发烧。数据收集自项目启动至2022年6月期间的8个主要数据库。进行偏倚风险评估,并使用GRADE方法评估合并证据的确定性。主要结果包括术后24 h内视觉模拟评分(VAS)和体温下降。进行meta分析以计算平均差异(MD)或风险比(RR)和95% ci。结果,共纳入23项随机对照试验,共3716名受试者。对于术后疼痛,有中等到低确定性证据表明,IVIB与术后VAS评分相关,其MD范围为0分钟时的-3.53 (95% CI, -4.32至-2.75)至24小时时的-0.96 (95% CI, -1.35至-0.57)。与静脉注射对乙酰氨基酚相比,IVIB的VAS评分较低(MD, 0 min时-1.54;-0.36, 24小时)。对于发热,IVIB在短时间内表现出满意的退热效果,但IVIB与静脉注射对乙酰氨基酚之间无差异。IVIB对疼痛和发热管理均具有良好的耐受性。总之,中等至低确定性证据支持对术后疼痛和发热且无法口服药物的成人使用IVIB。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
Pharmacology Research & Perspectives Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-General Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.80%
发文量
120
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: PR&P is jointly published by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (ASPET), the British Pharmacological Society (BPS), and Wiley. PR&P is a bi-monthly open access journal that publishes a range of article types, including: target validation (preclinical papers that show a hypothesis is incorrect or papers on drugs that have failed in early clinical development); drug discovery reviews (strategy, hypotheses, and data resulting in a successful therapeutic drug); frontiers in translational medicine (drug and target validation for an unmet therapeutic need); pharmacological hypotheses (reviews that are oriented to inform a novel hypothesis); and replication studies (work that refutes key findings [failed replication] and work that validates key findings). PR&P publishes papers submitted directly to the journal and those referred from the journals of ASPET and the BPS
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信