OBJECTIVE: This scoping review explores strategies for alleviating pain while administering ILCSIs for hypertrophic scarring and keloid management. ILCSI is a second-line treatment for HTSs and a first-line treatment for keloids.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: This scoping review included studies where HTSs and keloids were treated with ILCSI and considered diverse demographics and injection methods. This review excludes other methods of corticosteroid drug delivery where injection is not involved and where the pain assessed is unrelated to injection or infiltration of the scar.
SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: This review systematically searched critical databases from inception to December 2023, including ScienceDirect, PubMed and Web of Science, and handpicked articles traced from available review papers. Only English-language publications focused on pain management during ILCSIs for HTSs and keloids were included. All levels of scientific evidence were considered. An in-depth evaluation of the injection technique, type of analgesia or anaesthesia administered, effectiveness of pain management and overall treatment outcomes was conducted.
CHARTING METHODS: Citations were compiled in an Excel spreadsheet, with three authors screening the titles and abstracts based on inclusion criteria. Decisions were finalised collaboratively, exclusions were documented and results were presented using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram.
RESULTS: 16 prospective studies, 2 retrospective studies, 1 case study and 15 journal articles were included. These studies examined ILCSI for hypertrophic scarring and keloid treatment. No differences in pain intensity between HTSs and keloids were reported. 11 studies systematically explored pain reduction methods such as topical analgesia, cryoanaesthesia, mixing triamcinolone acetonide with local analgesics, slow infiltration techniques, vibration analgesia and needle-free injectors.
CONCLUSION: Pain can significantly impact patient compliance and treatment outcomes. This review offers a foundational reference for healthcare providers and researchers in the field of scar management, providing insights into current practices and highlighting areas for future research and development.
METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study that took place in a Malaysian tertiary hospital. Patients ≥ 65 years old with at least one medication on admission were recruited. The patients' prehospitalization medications were reviewed to identify PIMs/PPOs using version 2 of the STOPP/START criteria. HRQoL was assessed using the EuroQol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) and EuroQol-visual analog scale (EQ-VAS). The association between the presence of PIM/PPO and the patients' HRQoL was analyzed using Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests. Multiple linear regression models were applied to determine the effect of exposure to PIM/PPO on the patients' HRQoL, adjusting for confounders.
RESULTS: Out of 517 patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 502 patients (97%) accepted to be involved in the study and completed the HRQoL questionnaire. The mean (SD) age was 72.4 (5.9) years. 393 (78.3%) of the patients had problems in at least one EQ-5D dimension with pain/discomfort problem being the most reported complaint. The mean (SD) values of the EQ-5D index and the EQ-VAS were 0.734 (0.214) and 59.6 (14.2), respectively, which are lower than those seen in the general Malaysian population. PIM and PPO were found in 28.5% and 45.6% of the patients, respectively. No significant differences were found in the EQ-5D dimensions, EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS between patients who had PIM/PPO and those who did not. Age, sex, and comorbidities were significantly associated with the patients' HRQoL.
CONCLUSION: PIM and PPO are not uncommon among hospitalized elderly patients; however, it does not significantly affect their HRQoL as measured by the EQ-5D-3L instrument.
METHODS: A parallel-group unblinded randomized controlled trial involving 300 patients was conducted in two hospital orthopedics clinics in Malaysia. Patients were randomly assigned to receive cognitive behavioral-based group therapy (n = 150) or no further intervention (n = 150). The primary outcome was the change from baseline in knee pain as determined by the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at 6 months. The data collected were analyzed by covariate-adjusted mixed design repeated measures analysis of variance. All analyses were performed under the terms of intention-to-treat.
RESULTS: At 6 months, mean change from baseline in the KOOS knee pain score was 0.6 points (95% CI -1.73 to 2.94) in the control group and 8.9 points (95% CI 6.62 to 11.23) (denoting less knee pain intensity) in the intervention group (significant treatment effect p < 0.0001). Patients treated with such an approach also experienced significant improvement in functional ability when performing activities of daily living and had improved ability to cope with depression, anxiety and pain catastrophizing.
CONCLUSION: The intervention module delivered by healthcare professionals had a sustained effect on knee OA pain and functionality over 6 months, thereby leading to an overall improvement in psychological well-being, thus benefitting most of the Malaysian knee OA patients.
PURPOSE: This work aimed to ensure brain availability of nalbuphine via the nasal route.
METHOD: Chitosan based nanoparticles loaded with nalbuphine were successfully prepared using ionic gelation method and characterised.
RESULT: SEM results revealed that the nanoparticles were spherical in shape, with an average size of 192.4 ± 11.6 nm. Zeta potential and entrapment efficiency was found 32.8 mV and 88.43 ± 7.75%, respectively. The X-ray diffractometry and DSC results unravel a profound understanding on the physical and thermal characteristics. The in-vitro release of nalbuphine from the nanoparticles was biphasic, with an initial burst release followed by a slow-release profile. In-vitro cell study on HEK-293 cells and microscopic images of brain tissue confirmed the safety profile of formulation. In-vivo efficacy studies on animal confirmed the effectiveness of developed intranasal formulation as compared to the standard therapy. The in-vivo pharmacokinetic studies showed that the prepared nanoparticles were able to efficiently deliver nalbuphine to the brain in comparison to the other body organs. Gamma scintigraphy images showed retention of the drug in the brain. Furthermore, the efficacy studies confirmed that the nanoparticles were found significantly more effective than the marketed formulation in pain management.