Interventions for the symptoms and signs resulting from jellyfish stings.
Journal
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 06 2023
05 06 2023
Historique:
pmc-release:
05
06
2024
medline:
6
6
2023
pubmed:
5
6
2023
entrez:
5
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Jellyfish envenomation is common in many coastal regions and varies in severity depending upon the species. Stings cause a variety of symptoms and signs including pain, dermatological reactions, and, in some species, Irukandji syndrome (which may include abdominal/back/chest pain, tachycardia, hypertension, cardiac phenomena, and, rarely, death). Many treatments have been suggested for these symptoms, but their effectiveness is unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2013. To determine the benefits and harms associated with the use of any intervention, in both adults and children, for the treatment of jellyfish stings, as assessed by randomised and quasi-randomised trials. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science up to 27 October 2022. We searched clinical trials registers and the grey literature, and conducted forward-citation searching of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of any intervention given to treat stings from any species of jellyfish stings. Interventions were compared to another active intervention, placebo, or no treatment. If co-interventions were used, we included the study only if the co-intervention was used in each group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies (six RCTs and three quasi-RCTs) involving a total of 574 participants. We found one ongoing study. Participants were either stung accidentally, or were healthy volunteers exposed to stings in a laboratory setting. Type of jellyfish could not be confirmed in beach settings and was determined by investigators using participant and local information. We categorised interventions into comparison groups: hot versus cold applications; topical applications. A third comparison of parenteral administration included no relevant outcome data: a single study (39 participants) evaluated intravenous magnesium sulfate after stings from jellyfish that cause Irukandji syndrome (Carukia). No studies assessed a fourth comparison group of pressure immobilisation bandages. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to very serious risk of bias, serious and very serious imprecision, and serious inconsistency in some results. Application of heat versus application of cold Four studies involved accidental stings treated on the beach or in hospital. Jellyfish were described as bluebottles (Physalia; location: Australia), and box jellyfish that do not cause Irukandji syndrome (Hawaiian box jellyfish (Carybdea alata) and major box jellyfish (Chironex fleckeri, location: Australia)). Treatments were applied with hot packs or hot water (showers, baths, buckets, or hoses), or ice packs or cold packs. The evidence for all outcomes was of very low certainty, thus we are unsure whether heat compared to cold leads to at least a clinically significant reduction in pain within six hours of stings from Physalia (risk ratio (RR) 2.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 3.56; 2 studies, 142 participants) or Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 4.94; 2 studies, 71 participants). We are unsure whether there is a difference in adverse events due to treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.19; 2 studies, 142 participants); these were minor adverse events reported for Physalia stings. We are also unsure whether either treatment leads to a clinically significant reduction in pain in the first hour (Physalia: RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.71 to 4.15; 1 study, 88 participants; Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.89; 1 study, 42 participants) or cessation of pain at the end of treatment (Physalia: RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.27; 1 study, 54 participants; Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri: RR 3.54, 95% CI 0.82 to 15.31; 1 study, 29 participants). Evidence for retreatment with the same intervention was only available for Physalia, with similar uncertain findings (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.90; 1 study, 96 participants), as was the case for retreatment with the alternative hot or cold application after Physalia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.82; 1 study, 54 participants) and Chironex fleckeri stings (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.02 to 11.17; 1 study, 42 participants). Evidence for dermatological signs (itchiness or rash) was available only at 24 hours for Physalia stings (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.65; 2 studies, 98 participants). Topical applications One study (62 participants) included accidental stings from Hawaiian box jellyfish (Carybdea alata) treated on the beach with fresh water, seawater, Sting Aid (a commercial product), or Adolph's (papain) meat tenderiser. In another study, healthy volunteers (97 participants) were stung with an Indonesian sea nettle (Chrysaora chinensis from Malaysia) in a laboratory setting and treated with isopropyl alcohol, ammonia, heated water, acetic acid, or sodium bicarbonate. Two other eligible studies (Carybdea alata and Physalia stings) did not measure the outcomes of this review. The evidence for all outcomes was of very low certainty, thus we could not be certain whether or not topical applications provided at least a clinically significant reduction in pain (1 study, 62 participants with Carybdea alata stings, reported only as cessation of pain). For adverse events due to treatment, one study (Chrysaora chinensis stings) withdrew ammonia as a treatment following a first-degree burn in one participant. No studies evaluated clinically significant reduction in pain, retreatment with the same or the alternative treatment, or dermatological signs. Few studies contributed data to this review, and those that did contribute varied in types of treatment, settings, and range of jellyfish species. We are unsure of the effectiveness of any of the treatments evaluated in this review given the very low certainty of all the evidence. This updated review includes two new studies (with 139 additional participants). The findings are consistent with the previous review.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Jellyfish envenomation is common in many coastal regions and varies in severity depending upon the species. Stings cause a variety of symptoms and signs including pain, dermatological reactions, and, in some species, Irukandji syndrome (which may include abdominal/back/chest pain, tachycardia, hypertension, cardiac phenomena, and, rarely, death). Many treatments have been suggested for these symptoms, but their effectiveness is unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the benefits and harms associated with the use of any intervention, in both adults and children, for the treatment of jellyfish stings, as assessed by randomised and quasi-randomised trials.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science up to 27 October 2022. We searched clinical trials registers and the grey literature, and conducted forward-citation searching of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of any intervention given to treat stings from any species of jellyfish stings. Interventions were compared to another active intervention, placebo, or no treatment. If co-interventions were used, we included the study only if the co-intervention was used in each group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies (six RCTs and three quasi-RCTs) involving a total of 574 participants. We found one ongoing study. Participants were either stung accidentally, or were healthy volunteers exposed to stings in a laboratory setting. Type of jellyfish could not be confirmed in beach settings and was determined by investigators using participant and local information. We categorised interventions into comparison groups: hot versus cold applications; topical applications. A third comparison of parenteral administration included no relevant outcome data: a single study (39 participants) evaluated intravenous magnesium sulfate after stings from jellyfish that cause Irukandji syndrome (Carukia). No studies assessed a fourth comparison group of pressure immobilisation bandages. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to very serious risk of bias, serious and very serious imprecision, and serious inconsistency in some results. Application of heat versus application of cold Four studies involved accidental stings treated on the beach or in hospital. Jellyfish were described as bluebottles (Physalia; location: Australia), and box jellyfish that do not cause Irukandji syndrome (Hawaiian box jellyfish (Carybdea alata) and major box jellyfish (Chironex fleckeri, location: Australia)). Treatments were applied with hot packs or hot water (showers, baths, buckets, or hoses), or ice packs or cold packs. The evidence for all outcomes was of very low certainty, thus we are unsure whether heat compared to cold leads to at least a clinically significant reduction in pain within six hours of stings from Physalia (risk ratio (RR) 2.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 3.56; 2 studies, 142 participants) or Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 4.94; 2 studies, 71 participants). We are unsure whether there is a difference in adverse events due to treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.19; 2 studies, 142 participants); these were minor adverse events reported for Physalia stings. We are also unsure whether either treatment leads to a clinically significant reduction in pain in the first hour (Physalia: RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.71 to 4.15; 1 study, 88 participants; Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.89; 1 study, 42 participants) or cessation of pain at the end of treatment (Physalia: RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.27; 1 study, 54 participants; Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri: RR 3.54, 95% CI 0.82 to 15.31; 1 study, 29 participants). Evidence for retreatment with the same intervention was only available for Physalia, with similar uncertain findings (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.90; 1 study, 96 participants), as was the case for retreatment with the alternative hot or cold application after Physalia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.82; 1 study, 54 participants) and Chironex fleckeri stings (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.02 to 11.17; 1 study, 42 participants). Evidence for dermatological signs (itchiness or rash) was available only at 24 hours for Physalia stings (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.65; 2 studies, 98 participants). Topical applications One study (62 participants) included accidental stings from Hawaiian box jellyfish (Carybdea alata) treated on the beach with fresh water, seawater, Sting Aid (a commercial product), or Adolph's (papain) meat tenderiser. In another study, healthy volunteers (97 participants) were stung with an Indonesian sea nettle (Chrysaora chinensis from Malaysia) in a laboratory setting and treated with isopropyl alcohol, ammonia, heated water, acetic acid, or sodium bicarbonate. Two other eligible studies (Carybdea alata and Physalia stings) did not measure the outcomes of this review. The evidence for all outcomes was of very low certainty, thus we could not be certain whether or not topical applications provided at least a clinically significant reduction in pain (1 study, 62 participants with Carybdea alata stings, reported only as cessation of pain). For adverse events due to treatment, one study (Chrysaora chinensis stings) withdrew ammonia as a treatment following a first-degree burn in one participant. No studies evaluated clinically significant reduction in pain, retreatment with the same or the alternative treatment, or dermatological signs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Few studies contributed data to this review, and those that did contribute varied in types of treatment, settings, and range of jellyfish species. We are unsure of the effectiveness of any of the treatments evaluated in this review given the very low certainty of all the evidence. This updated review includes two new studies (with 139 additional participants). The findings are consistent with the previous review.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37272501
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009688.pub3
pmc: PMC10240560
doi:
Substances chimiques
Ammonia
7664-41-7
Acetic Acid
Q40Q9N063P
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
CD009688Commentaires et corrections
Type : UpdateOf
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Références
Med J Aust. 2005 Dec 5-19;183(11-12):631-6
pubmed: 16336157
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Dec 09;(12):CD009688
pubmed: 24318773
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jul 10;19(14):
pubmed: 35886286
PLoS One. 2022 Aug 4;17(8):e0272359
pubmed: 35925949
Med J Aust. 2003 Apr 21;178(8):411
pubmed: 12697017
Allergy Asthma Proc. 2020 May 1;41(3):158-166
pubmed: 32375959
Med J Aust. 1980 Oct 4;2(7):394-5
pubmed: 6109229
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Dec;64(12):1283-93
pubmed: 21839614
Med J Aust. 2001 Dec 3-17;175(11-12):652-5
pubmed: 11837877
Med J Aust. 1980 Jan 12;1(1):15-20
pubmed: 6102347
Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol. 2010 May;151(4):426-30
pubmed: 20116454
Med J Aust. 2006 Apr 3;184(7):329-33
pubmed: 16584366
Toxins (Basel). 2017 Mar 15;9(3):
pubmed: 28294982
Aust Fam Physician. 2013 Jun;42(6):401-2
pubmed: 23781548
Am J Emerg Med. 2002 Nov;20(7):624-6
pubmed: 12442242
Ann Emerg Med. 2015 Apr;65(4):432-3
pubmed: 25441243
Wilderness Environ Med. 2016 Mar;27(1):25-38
pubmed: 26827260
Toxins (Basel). 2013 Aug 02;5(8):1343-52
pubmed: 23917333
Med J Aust. 2017 Apr 3;206(6):258-261
pubmed: 28359008
Med J Aust. 2003 Jan 6;178(1):38-41
pubmed: 12492390
Diving Hyperb Med. 2014 Mar;44(1):30-4
pubmed: 24687483
Toxins (Basel). 2016 Apr 01;8(4):97
pubmed: 27043628
Ann Emerg Med. 2001 Dec;38(6):639-43
pubmed: 11719742
Mar Drugs. 2016 Jul 08;14(7):
pubmed: 27399728
Med J Aust. 2017 Oct 16;207(8):362
pubmed: 29020912
Med J Aust. 2000 Dec 4-18;173(11-12):650-2
pubmed: 11379519
Toxicol Lett. 2007 Jan 10;168(1):13-20
pubmed: 17141433
Emerg Med Australas. 2016 Dec;28(6):756-757
pubmed: 27659905
Aust Fam Physician. 2013 Aug;42(8):522
pubmed: 24133704
Hawaii Med J. 2001 Apr;60(4):100-7
pubmed: 11383098
Am Fam Physician. 2014 May 15;89(10):Online
pubmed: 24866223
Ann Emerg Med. 2012 Oct;60(4):399-414
pubmed: 22677532
Ann Emerg Med. 1989 Mar;18(3):312-5
pubmed: 2564268
Med J Aust. 2017 Oct 16;207(8):362
pubmed: 29020913
Mar Drugs. 2013 Feb 22;11(2):523-50
pubmed: 23434796
BMJ. 2008 May 3;336(7651):995-8
pubmed: 18456631
Hawaii Med J. 2001 Aug;60(8):205-7, 210
pubmed: 11573317
Emerg Med Australas. 2012 Oct;24(5):560-5
pubmed: 23039299
Toxicon. 2016 Jan;109:26-32
pubmed: 26541574
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120