Study Design: prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial; Objective: To compare the efficacy of peribulbar block augmentated with sodium bicarbonate to that augmented with sodium hyaluronate; Subjects: 99 eyes from 94 patients undergoing cataract surgery divided into 3 groups receiving either anesthetic alone, anesthetic with bicarbonate, or anesthetic with hyaluronidase; Observation Parameters: (1) lid and ocular sensitivity to pain immediately after anesthetic injection, 30 minutes after injection and immediately after surgery, (2) onset and duration of lid and ocular analgesia and akinesia, (3) complications, and (4) the need for supplemental injections; Data Analysis: Mean onset of analgesia and akinesia, pain scores and motion scores were determined. F-test ANOVA followed by post-hoc tests (- LSD and Duncans Multiple Range Test) were used to analyze continuous data. Kruskall-Wallis test ANOVA followed by pair-wise comparison using Mann-Whitney U tests were used to analyze ordinal data. Chi square was used to analyze nominal data. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test was used for within group analysis after data splitting. Relative risk, relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, and number needed to treat, were also computed. Conclusion: Peribulbar blockade using sodium bicarbonate as adjunct was found to be as effective as that which was augmented with hyaluronidase. Anesthetic solutions with additives (sodium bicarbonate or hyaluronidase) were found to be superior to pure anesthetics in terms of latency, intensity of analgesia, and degree of akinesia.
Human ; Aged ; Middle Aged ; CATARACT SURGERY ; CATARACT EXTRACTION ; SODIUM BICARBONATE ; BICARBONATES AND SODIUM ;

Background: Migraine headaches are the second leading cause of disability worldwide and are responsible for significant morbidity, reduction in the quality of life, and loss of productivity on a global scale. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of ketamine on migraines and other primary headache disorders compared to placebo and other active interventions, such as midazolam, metoclopramide/diphenhydramine, and prochlorperazine/diphenhydramine. Methods: An electronic search of databases published up to February 2021, including Medline via PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, a hand search of the bibliographies of the included studies, as well as literature and systematic reviews found through the search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating ketamine in the treatment of migraine/headache disorders compared to the placebo. The authors assessed the risk of bias according to the Cochrane Handbook guidelines. Results: The initial search strategy yielded 398 unduplicated references, which were independently assessed by three review authors. After evaluation, this number was reduced to five RCTs (two unclear risk of bias and three high risk of bias). The total number of patients in all the studies was 193. Due to the high risk of bias, small sample size, heterogeneity of the outcomes reported, and heterogeneity of the comparison groups, the quality of the evidence was very low. One RCT reported that intranasal ketamine was superior to intranasal midazolam in improving the aura attack severity, but not duration, while another reported that intranasal ketamine was not superior to metoclopramide and diphenhydramine in reducing the headache severity. In one trial, subcutaneous ketamine was superior to saline in migraine severity reduction; however, intravenous (I.V.) ketamine was inferior to I.V. prochlorperazine and diphenhydramine in another study. Conclusion Further double-blind controlled studies are needed to assess the efficacy of ketamine in treating acute and chronic refractory migraines and other primary headaches using intranasal and subcutaneous routes. These studies should include a long-term follow-up and different ketamine dosages in diagnosed patients following international standards for diagnosing headache/migraine.

Background: Migraine headaches are the second leading cause of disability worldwide and are responsible for significant morbidity, reduction in the quality of life, and loss of productivity on a global scale. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of ketamine on migraines and other primary headache disorders compared to placebo and other active interventions, such as midazolam, metoclopramide/diphenhydramine, and prochlorperazine/diphenhydramine. Methods: An electronic search of databases published up to February 2021, including Medline via PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, a hand search of the bibliographies of the included studies, as well as literature and systematic reviews found through the search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating ketamine in the treatment of migraine/headache disorders compared to the placebo. The authors assessed the risk of bias according to the Cochrane Handbook guidelines. Results: The initial search strategy yielded 398 unduplicated references, which were independently assessed by three review authors. After evaluation, this number was reduced to five RCTs (two unclear risk of bias and three high risk of bias). The total number of patients in all the studies was 193. Due to the high risk of bias, small sample size, heterogeneity of the outcomes reported, and heterogeneity of the comparison groups, the quality of the evidence was very low. One RCT reported that intranasal ketamine was superior to intranasal midazolam in improving the aura attack severity, but not duration, while another reported that intranasal ketamine was not superior to metoclopramide and diphenhydramine in reducing the headache severity. In one trial, subcutaneous ketamine was superior to saline in migraine severity reduction; however, intravenous (I.V.) ketamine was inferior to I.V. prochlorperazine and diphenhydramine in another study. Conclusion Further double-blind controlled studies are needed to assess the efficacy of ketamine in treating acute and chronic refractory migraines and other primary headaches using intranasal and subcutaneous routes. These studies should include a long-term follow-up and different ketamine dosages in diagnosed patients following international standards for diagnosing headache/migraine.

Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is a chronic oral disorder of unknown etiology which presents therapeutic challenges. Alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) has been studied as a potential treatment for BMS. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of ALA compared to that of placebo or other interventions in individuals with BMS. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) using ALA to treat BMS were identified from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science up to February 3, 2021.The assessment of the risk of bias in the included studies was based on the Cochrane guidelines. The primary outcome evaluated was the visual analog scale (VAS) pain intensity. ALA was compared with placebo, clonazepam, gabapentin, pregabalin, ALA plus gabapentin, capsaicin, Biotène®, and laser therapy. Altogether, 137 records were scanned for inclusion/exclusion, and nine RCTs (two unclear and seven at high risk of bias) were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses, with a total of 594 patients with BMS included in this review. All studies reported an improvement in VAS pain scores ranging from -0.72 to -2.77. Meta-analysis results showed a non-significant reduction in pain intensity for ALA (P = 0.616) compared to that of placebo on a VAS of 0–10. Patients taking ALA were 1.923 times more likely to show an improvement in self-reported BMS symptoms (P = 0.031) than those in the placebo group. Clonazepam and pregabalin showed a significant VAS pain reduction of 4.08 and 4.68 (P < 0.001), respectively, compared to that with ALA. Although ALA intervention provided a non-significant improvement in the pain score and was more likely to produce a reduction in BMS symptoms, the evidence was of low quality. Further research is needed to establish clear guidelines for the use of ALA for BMS treatment.

Executive Summary This Clinical Practice Guideline for the Periodic Health Examination (Pediatric Immunization) is an output from the joint undertaking of the Department of Health and National Institutes of Health-Institute of Clinical Epidemiology. This clinical practice guideline is a systematic synthesis of scientific evidence on immunization for the prevention of human papilloma virus (HPV) infection, influenza, typhoid fever, Japanese encephalitis, poliomyelitis, meningococcal infection, and Hepatitis A in the pediatric population. The CPG provides nine (9) recommendations on prioritized questions regarding the relevant vaccines for preventing these seven (7) diseases. Recommendations are based on the appraisal of the best available evidence on each of the eight identified clinical questions. The CPG is intended to be used by general practitioners and specialists in the primary care setting, policy makers, employers and administrators, allied health practitioners and even patients. The guideline development process followed the widely accepted Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or the GRADE approach including GRADE Adolopment, a systematic process of adapting evidence summaries and the GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework. 1,2 It includes 1) identification of critical questions and critical outcomes, 2) retrieval of current evidence, 3) assessment and synthesis of the evidence base for these critical questions, 4) formulation of draft recommendations, 5) convening of a multi-sectoral stakeholder panel to discuss values and preferences and assess the strength of the recommendations, and 6) planning for dissemination, implementation, impact evaluation and updating. The recommendations in this CPG shall hold and will be updated after 3 years or when new evidence arise.

Background. The University of the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital (UP-PGH) was designated as a COVID Referral Center for one cluster in Metro Manila during the pandemic. We reviewed and described how UP-PGH prepared for this endeavor. This can serve as reference for similar events in the future. Methods. We conducted a qualitative cross-sectional study with 20 key informant interviews and 5 focus group discussions involving 32 hospital front liners. All proceedings were transcribed and analyzed manually following the conceptual framework. Minutes of meetings, memoranda, and other official materials and communications were also reviewed. Results. The salient points of both internal (operations, structure, staff, supplies, and continuation of regular services) and external aspects (relation with other hospitals, the local government, the national health authority, and the general public) were enumerated and elaborated. Both best practices and areas needing improvement were identified. Conclusion and Recommendations. The UP-PGH tried its best to prepare and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic by protecting its hospital personnel and delivering evidence-based and quality care to patients. The response was not a perfect one and there were certain aspects for improvement.
Pandemics ; Referral and Consultation ; Qualitative Research

Background: To respond to the pandemic, many societies, including the American Society for Radiation Therapy (ASTRO), the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Philippine Radiation Oncology Society (PROS), recommended guidelines to allow for continued safe delivery of oncologic services. Yet, the delivery of radiotherapy during the COVID-19 pandemic remains a challenge. Objective: To describe the situation of radiotherapy delivery in Metro Manila (NCR) during the COVID-19-related quarantine. Specifically, the objectives were to determine: (1) how the radiotherapy providers implemented the recommended changes, (2) if these implemented changes allowed the hospitals to operate with pre-COVID capacities, and (3) the causative factors of treatment interruptions if these were present. Additionally, in the face of treatment interruptions, the authors sought to put forth recommendations to decrease treatment interruptions. Methods: Investigators gathered data on the prevailing situation of RT services in their respective institutions during the strictest period of quarantine — Enhanced Community Quarantine (ECQ). Patients aged 18-70 years old who missed at least one fraction during the ECQ from March 16 – April 15, 2020, were invited to participate in a phone survey to determine factors contributing to treatment interruptions. Results: All the institutions implemented global recommendations to adapt to the pandemic, including infection control measures, telemedicine, and modification of RT plans. Despite this, most institutions had increased treatment interruptions during ECQ. The percentage of patients with interruptions was also much higher during the ECQ (66.37%) than during the pre-COVID month (30.56%). Among 142 patients unable to continue treatment, there were no significant differences in demographic variable and oncologic profile rates. The majority were more worried about getting COVID-19 than missing RT. The most common factor for treatment interruptions was transportation, followed by fear of getting COVID-19. Conclusion Compliance with global recommendations is not enough to ensure that the patients who require radiotherapy will receive it. Based on institutional and patient results, the causative factors of interruptions included suspension of services, lack of transportation, and anxiety of patients and staff. Especially in low-resource settings, recommendations are to use available resources as efficiently as possible by having an organized referral system, providing transportation or nearby accommodation for patients and staff, and communicating effectively to reassure patients that radiotherapy can be continued safely.
radiotherapy ; radiation therapy ; radiation oncology