MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3094374891 · doi:10.1111/acem.14158

Hot Off the Press: Antacid Monotherapy for Pain

2020· letter· en· W3094374891 sur OpenAlexaff
Christopher Bond, Justin Morgenstern, Corey Heitz, William K. Milne

Notice bibliographique

RevueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2020
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Établissements canadiensWestern UniversityMarkham Stouffville HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAntacidMedicineLidocaineAnticholinergicAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialGastroenterologyInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) with epigastric pain are typically treated with an antacid, either alone or combined with other medications. Such medications include viscous lidocaine, an antihistamine, a proton pump inhibitor, or an anticholinergic.1, 2 There are mixed results from studies with varying methodologic quality examining acute dyspepsia management in the ED. One single-blind study comparing 30 mL of antacid with or without 15 mL of viscous lidocaine found that the addition of lidocaine significantly increased pain relief, decreasing the patient pain score by 40 mm compared to 9 mm with antacid monotherapy.3 Another single-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing antacid plus either benzocaine solution or viscous lidocaine found no statistical difference between the two interventions; however, there was no antacid monotherapy group.4 A larger, double-blind RCT of 113 patients compared 30 mL of antacid monotherapy, antacid with 10 mL of an anticholinergic, and antacid with anticholinergic and 10 mL of 2% viscous lidocaine. This study found that all treatments had clinical efficacy and there was no statistical difference in pain relief between the three treatment groups. The study’s conclusion was to recommend antacid monotherapy.5 This double-blind RCT evaluated adult patients presenting to the ED with epigastric pain or dyspepsia. There were three treatment arms; viscous lidocaine plus antacid mixture, lidocaine solution plus antacid mixture, and antacid given alone. Ultimately there was no difference in analgesic efficacy between antacid monotherapy and lidocaine antacid combinations. The antacid monotherapy was more palatable and acceptable to patients. This study was performed in the ED of a single tertiary-care urban hospital in Melbourne, Australia. It asks a clear and sensible question and study participants were adequately randomized with concealed allocation. Patients were enrolled prospectively based on the clinician providing an antacid therapy. Although this ultimately resulted in some patients having a nongastrointestinal cause of pain, it resulted in a more pragmatic study. Participants were analyzed in an intention-to-treat fashion and all groups were treated equally except for the intervention. Follow-up was complete and all patient important outcomes were considered. The primary limitations of this study are recruitment and participant awareness of group allocation. Participants and nursing staff were aware of group allocation because of the different taste and appearance of lidocaine containing solutions as compared with antacid monotherapy. However, physicians and data analysts were still blinded to group allocation. While nurses were unblinded to the drug being given, to test the secondary outcomes of taste, palatability, and overall acceptability, it was decided not to try and alter the treatments through food colorings or other methods. Study participants were not recruited overnight which may have also resulted in selection bias. The trial enrolled 94 patients and 89 could be analyzed (30 viscous, 31 solution, and 28 antacid group). The mean age was in the early 40s, and 80% of patients were discharged with a gastrointestinal diagnosis. All three treatments were effective and there was no statistical difference between groups. The primary outcome of clinically important analgesia with a >13-mm reduction in pain on a visual analog scale was achieved in the lidocaine solution with antacid and antacid monotherapy groups at 30 minutes (17 and 20 mm). Viscous lidocaine with antacid had a 9-mm reduction in pain, which was below the defined clinically important analgesia threshold, but there was not a statistically significant difference between treatments. Secondary outcomes included pain reduction at 60 minutes, which was achieved and clinically significant in all groups (21, 26, and 32 mm). The most frequent adverse effect was oral numbness (20% for viscous lidocaine and 26% for lidocaine solution). Two patients in the viscous arm reported dizziness and tiredness (7%), and four patients in the solution arm reported cough, nausea, and dizziness (13%). One patient in the antacid arm reported a dry mouth (4%). Participants found antacid monotherapy to be the most palatable solution, with statistically significant differences in taste, bitterness, and overall acceptability. Although a small single-center study cannot provide definitive answers, there does not appear to be any benefit from adding lidocaine to an antacid, and patients like it less. Based on these results, we generally prescribe antacid monotherapy but recognize that there may be room for more research in this area. Are you using GI cocktail for treating patients presenting with epigastric pain? Nope! Haven’t used it in years based on prior study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14585449/ this study, despite limitations, strengthened this practice https://foamcast.org/2020/07/16/stop-giving-lidocaine-in-gi-cocktails/ Brilliant example of @UniMelbMDHS #medstudentresearch changing practice. No need to add a liquid anaesthetic for dyspepsia. #SGEMHOP I had heard of this study but couldn't find it! Dr. Milne, you're going to be fairly popular with a group of pharmacy technicians soon. Interesting study- but it should be noted that this may not be a case of medical reversal so much as it is changing disease states. In the 80s and 90s, the most common operation in America was for peptic ulcer disease, and such operations are now unheard of. In the modern era, when almost all patients with any epigastric pain are started on PPI therapy as outpatients already, and with true ulcers being less frequent, perhaps the classic teaching is no longer more effective in the modern population. Use antacid monotherapy, rather than mixtures with lidocaine, for dyspepsia in the ED.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,011
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,038

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0110,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,078
Tête enseignante GPT0,358
Écart entre enseignants0,280 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAcademic Emergency MedicineMême sujetGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsTravaux en français237 207