-
Journal of the American Heart... Aug 2020Background Bempedoic acid (BA) is a novel lipid-lowering drug. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of BA compared with standard... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Background Bempedoic acid (BA) is a novel lipid-lowering drug. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of BA compared with standard treatment in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Methods and Results Studies were systematically searched in the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE databases. Efficacy outcome was represented by percentage changes (mean difference [MD] with pertinent 95% CIs) in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and hs-CRP (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein) in BA patients and controls. Seven studies were included (2767 BA-treated patients and 1469 controls), showing a more significant reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD, -17.5%; 95% CI, -22.9% to -12.0%), total cholesterol (MD, -10.9%; 95% CI, -13.3% to -8.5%), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD, -12.3%; 95% CI, -15.3% to -9.20%), apolipoprotein B (MD, -10.6%; 95% CI, -13.2% to -8.02%), and hs-CRP (MD, -13.2%; 95% CI, -16.7% to -9.79%) in BA-treated patients compared with controls. Results were confirmed when separately analyzing studies on patients with high cardiovascular risk, studies on statin-intolerant patients, and studies on patients with hypercholesterolemia on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. BA-treated subjects reported a higher rate of treatment discontinuation caused by adverse effects, of gout flare, and of increase in uric acid compared with controls. On the other hand, BA-treated patients showed a lower incidence of new-onset diabetes mellitus than controls. Conclusions BA is associated with a significant reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and hs-CRP compared with standard treatment. Documented efficacy is accompanied by an acceptable safety profile.
Topics: Dicarboxylic Acids; Fatty Acids; Humans; Hypercholesterolemia; Hypolipidemic Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32689862
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.119.016262 -
Annales de Chirurgie Plastique Et... Aug 2017The management of hidradenitis suppurativa is multidisciplinary, involving general measures, medical treatment and surgery. Non-surgical treatments, often first-line... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The management of hidradenitis suppurativa is multidisciplinary, involving general measures, medical treatment and surgery. Non-surgical treatments, often first-line procedures, mainly concern forms of low-to-moderate severity or, conversely, very severe forms in non-operable patients or those refusing surgery. While many treatments have been attempted, few randomized controlled trials have been conducted, so the choice of treatments is most often based on the personal experience of the clinicians. The objective of this systematic review is to propose a synthetic analysis of the currently available non-surgical procedures.
METHODS
This systematic review of the literature was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA criteria. We searched for articles in the Medline, PubMed Central, Embase and Cochrane databases published between January 2005 and September 2015.
RESULTS
Sixty-four articles were included. They generally had a low level of evidence; indeed, the majority of them were retrospective observational studies. They involved biotherapy (44%), dynamic phototherapy (16%), antibiotics (11%), Laser (8%), retinoids (6%) and immunosuppressive therapies, anti-inflammatory drugs, zinc, metformin, gammaglobulins and fumarates.
CONCLUSIONS
None of the non-surgical treatments can treat all stages of the disease and offer long-term remission. Antibiotics and biotherapy seem to have real effectiveness but their effect remains suspensive and the disease is almost certain to reappear once they are stopped. As regards antibiotics, no association has shown their superiority in a study with a high level of evidence. And while some biotherapies seem quite effective, due to their side effects they should be reserved for moderate-to-severe, resistant or inoperable forms of the disease. Randomized controlled studies are needed before valid conclusions can be drawn. In the resistant or disabling forms, it is consequently advisable to orientate to the greatest possible extent towards radical surgery, which is the only treatment allowing hope for cure.
Topics: Androgen Antagonists; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Biological Products; Dermatologic Agents; Fumarates; Hidradenitis Suppurativa; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Immunoglobulins; Immunosuppressive Agents; Laser Therapy; Metformin; Phototherapy; Retinoids
PubMed: 28457725
DOI: 10.1016/j.anplas.2017.03.012 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Inflammatory bowel disease affects approximately seven million people globally. Iron deficiency anaemia can occur as a common systemic manifestation, with a prevalence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Inflammatory bowel disease affects approximately seven million people globally. Iron deficiency anaemia can occur as a common systemic manifestation, with a prevalence of up to 90%, which can significantly affect quality of life, both during periods of active disease or in remission. It is important that iron deficiency anaemia is treated effectively and not be assumed to be a normal finding of inflammatory bowel disease. The various routes of iron administration, doses and preparations present varying advantages and disadvantages, and a significant proportion of people experience adverse effects with current therapies. Currently, no consensus has been reached amongst physicians as to which treatment path is most beneficial.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the interventions for the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in people with inflammatory bowel disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases on 21st November 2019. We also contacted experts in the field and searched references of trials for any additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness and safety of iron administration interventions compared to other iron administration interventions or placebo in the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in inflammatory bowel disease. We considered both adults and children, with studies reporting outcomes of clinical, endoscopic, histologic or surgical remission as defined by study authors.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment of included studies. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 studies (1670 randomised participants) that met the inclusion criteria. The studies compared intravenous iron sucrose vs oral iron sulphate (2 studies); oral iron sulphate vs oral iron hydroxide polymaltose complex (1 study); oral iron fumarate vs intravenous iron sucrose (1 study); intravenous ferric carboxymaltose vs intravenous iron sucrose (1 study); erythropoietin injection + intravenous iron sucrose vs intravenous iron sucrose + injection placebo (1 study); oral ferric maltol vs oral placebo (1 study); oral ferric maltol vs intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (1 study); intravenous ferric carboxymaltose vs oral iron sulphate (1 study); intravenous iron isomaltoside vs oral iron sulphate (1 study); erythropoietin injection vs oral placebo (1 study). All studies compared participants with CD and UC together, as well as considering a range of disease activity states. The primary outcome of number of responders, when defined, was stated to be an increase in haemoglobin of 20 g/L in all but two studies in which an increase in 10g/L was used. In one study comparing intravenous ferric carboxymaltose and intravenous iron sucrose, moderate-certainty evidence was found that intravenous ferric carboxymaltose was probably superior to intravenous iron sucrose, although there were responders in both groups (150/244 versus 118/239, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.46, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 9). In one study comparing oral ferric maltol to placebo, there was low-certainty evidence of superiority of the iron (36/64 versus 0/64, RR 73.00, 95% CI 4.58 to 1164.36). There were no other direct comparisons that found any difference in the primary outcomes, although certainty was low and very low for all outcomes, due to imprecision from sparse data and risk of bias varying between moderate and high risk. The reporting of secondary outcomes was inconsistent. The most common was the occurrence of serious adverse events or those requiring withdrawal of therapy. In no comparisons was there a difference seen between any of the intervention agents being studied, although the certainty was very low for all comparisons made, due to risk of bias and significant imprecision due to the low numbers of events. Time to remission, histological and biochemical outcomes were sparsely reported in the studies. None of the other secondary outcomes were reported in any of the studies. An analysis of all intravenous iron preparations to all oral iron preparations showed that intravenous administration may lead to more responders (368/554 versus 205/373, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31, NNTB = 11, low-certainty due to risk of bias and inconsistency). Withdrawals due to adverse events may be greater in oral iron preparations vs intravenous (15/554 versus 31/373, RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.74, low-certainty due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Intravenous ferric carboxymaltose probably leads to more people having resolution of IDA (iron deficiency anaemia) than intravenous iron sucrose. Oral ferric maltol may lead to more people having resolution of IDA than placebo. We are unable to draw conclusions on which of the other treatments is most effective in IDA with IBD (inflammatory bowel disease) due to low numbers of studies in each comparison area and clinical heterogeneity within the studies. Therefore, there are no other conclusions regarding the treatments that can be made and certainty of all findings are low or very low. Overall, intravenous iron delivery probably leads to greater response in patients compared with oral iron, with a NNTB (number needed to treat) of 11. Whilst no serious adverse events were specifically elicited with any of the treatments studied, the numbers of reported events were low and the certainty of these findings very low for all comparisons, so no conclusions can be drawn. There may be more withdrawals due to such events when oral is compared with intravenous iron delivery. Other outcomes were poorly reported and once again no conclusions can be made as to the impact of IDA on any of these outcomes. Given the widespread use of many of these treatments in practice and the only guideline that exists recommending the use of intravenous iron in favour of oral iron, research to investigate this key issue is clearly needed. Considering the current ongoing trials identified in this review, these are more focussed on the impact in specific patient groups (young people) or on other symptoms (such as fatigue). Therefore, there is a need for studies to be performed to fill this evidence gap.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Anemia, Iron-Deficiency; Bias; Colitis, Ulcerative; Crohn Disease; Disaccharides; Erythropoietin; Ferric Compounds; Ferric Oxide, Saccharated; Fumarates; Hematinics; Humans; Iron Compounds; Maltose; Middle Aged; Placebos; Pyrones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 33471939
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013529.pub2 -
BMJ Open Feb 2022Bempedoic acid (BA) is a novel oral low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering drug. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess efficacy and safety for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Bempedoic acid (BA) is a novel oral low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering drug. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess efficacy and safety for clinical outcomes in high cardiovascular (CV) risk patients.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Clinical Trial Results and the American College of Cardiology web site were searched.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of BA versus placebo in high CV risk patients reporting clinical outcomes were included.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Primary efficacy outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, CV mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI). Safety outcomes included new onset or worsening of diabetes mellitus (DM), muscular disorders, gout and worsening of renal function.
RESULTS
Six RCTs with a total of 3956 patients and follow-ups of four to 52 weeks were identified. Heterogeneity mainly derived from differing follow-up duration and baseline CV risk. No difference in MACE (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.15), all-cause mortality (OR 2.37; CI 0.80 to 6.99) and CV mortality (OR 1.66; CI 0.45 to 6.04) for BA versus placebo was observed. BA showed beneficial trends for non-fatal MI (OR 0.57; CI 0.32 to 1.00) and was associated with a lower risk of new-onset or worsening of DM (OR 0.68; CI 0.49 to 0.94), but higher risk of gout (OR 3.29; CI 1.28 to 8.46) and a trend for muscular disorders (OR 2.60; CI 1.15 to 5.91) and worsening of renal function (OR 4.24; CI 0.98 to 18.39).
CONCLUSION
BA in high CV risk patients showed no significant effects on major CV outcomes in short-term follow-up. Unfavourable effects on muscular disorders, renal function and gout sound a note of caution. Hence, further studies with longer term follow-up in carefully selected populations are needed to clarify the risk/benefit ratio of this novel therapy.
Topics: Cholesterol, LDL; Dicarboxylic Acids; Fatty Acids; Humans; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35210334
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048893 -
European Journal of Preventive... Jul 2021Bempedoic acid is a novel oral drug, which has been increasingly researched to play an important role in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia recently. However, results... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
Bempedoic acid is a novel oral drug, which has been increasingly researched to play an important role in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia recently. However, results from original studies were inconsistent and inconclusive. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to quantitatively appraise the efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus were searched from inception to 30 January 2020. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid with placebo in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Results from trials were presented as mean differences or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were pooled by random or fixed effects model. The risk of bias and heterogeneity among trials were also assessed and analyzed.
RESULTS
Pooled analysis of 10 eligible trials showed that bempedoic acid treatment resulted in greater lowering of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level than the placebo group (mean difference -23.16%, 95% CI -26.92% to -19.04%). We also found that improvements in lipid parameters and biomarkers were still maintained at weeks 24 and 52 from the long-term trials. As for safety, bempedoic acid did not increase the risk of overall adverse events (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18). However, the incidence of adverse events leading to discontinuation was higher in the bempedoic acid group (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.82).
CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence from randomized controlled trials suggests that bempedoic acid provides a well-tolerated and effective therapeutic option for lipid lowering in patients with hyperlipidemia.
Topics: Dicarboxylic Acids; Fatty Acids; Humans; Hypercholesterolemia; Hyperlipidemias; Hypolipidemic Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34298558
DOI: 10.1177/2047487320930585 -
Cardiovascular Diabetology Aug 2020Bempedoic acid is an oral, once-daily, first-in-class drug being developed for the treatment of hyperlipidemia. However, evidence of bempedoic acid use for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Bempedoic acid is an oral, once-daily, first-in-class drug being developed for the treatment of hyperlipidemia. However, evidence of bempedoic acid use for the prevention of cardiovascular events and diabetes is lacking. Thus, we aim to evaluate the benefit and safety of bempedoic acid use for the prevention of cardiovascular events and diabetes.
METHODS
We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials with no language restriction from inception until March 3, 2020. Pairs of reviewers independently identified randomized controlled trials comparing the use of bempedoic acid with placebo or no treatment for primary prevention of cardiovascular events in statin-intolerant patients with hypercholesterolemia. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events, and percent change in LDL-C.
RESULTS
We identified 11 trials including a total of 4391 participants. Bempedoic acid use was associated with a reduction in composite cardiovascular outcome (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56-0.99; I = 0%). Bempedoic acid reduced LDL-C levels (MD - 22.91, 95% CI - 27.35 to - 18.47; I = 99%), and similarly reduced CRP levels (MD -24.70, 95% CI - 32.10 to - 17.30; I = 53%). Bempedoic acid was associated with a reduction in rates of new-onset or worsening diabetes (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44-0.96; I = 23%).
CONCLUSIONS
Bempedoic acid in patients with hypercholesterolemia was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events and diabetes.
Topics: Aged; Biomarkers; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol, LDL; Diabetes Mellitus; Dicarboxylic Acids; Down-Regulation; Fatty Acids; Female; Humans; Hypercholesterolemia; Hypolipidemic Agents; Male; Middle Aged; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32787939
DOI: 10.1186/s12933-020-01101-9 -
Oral Diseases Apr 2023To assess the efficacy of topical sialogogue spray containing malic acid 1% for treating xerostomia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of topical sialogogue spray containing malic acid 1% for treating xerostomia.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and Web of Science databases. Literature search, screening, study selection, data collection, data extraction and assessment of bias risk were independently conducted by two reviewers. The study appraisal was performed by Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing bias risk. The systematic review registration number was PROSPERO-CRD42021241322. All statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager version 5.4.
RESULTS
Five original articles involving 244 patients with xerostomia who received topical sialogogue spray (malic acid 1%) or placebo for two weeks were included in this review. Based on the questionnaire survey, the topical sialogogue spray (malic acid 1%) improved the symptoms of dry mouth significantly better than the placebo, which was reflected in the Dry Mouth Questionnaire (DMQ), Xerostomia Inventory (XI) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores. Regarding the increase in unstimulated and stimulated saliva flow rates, the intervention group was also better than the placebo group after a two-week course of treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the included studies are limited, our results show that topical sialogogue spray (malic acid 1%) is an effective method for the treatment of xerostomia. Additional randomised controlled trials in the future are needed to provide high-quality evidence of this therapy and to improve clinical practice guidelines.
Topics: Humans; Xerostomia; Malates; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 34954846
DOI: 10.1111/odi.14116 -
Journal of Cellular Physiology Feb 2018Currently, a liver biopsy remains the only reliable way to precisely diagnose non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and establish the severity of liver injury,... (Review)
Review
Currently, a liver biopsy remains the only reliable way to precisely diagnose non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and establish the severity of liver injury, presence of fibrosis, and architecture remodeling. However, the cost and the intrinsic invasive procedure of a liver biopsy rules it out as a gold standard diagnostic test, and the imaging test are not the best choice due to the price, and currently is being refined. The lack of a biomarker of NAFLD pushes to develop this new line of research. The aim of the present systematic review is to clarify and update all the NAFLD biomarkers described in the literature until recently. We highlight α-ketoglutarate and CK18-F as currently the best potential biomarker of NAFLD. However, due to methodological differences, we propose the implementation of international, multicenter, multiethnic studies with larger population size, and biopsy proven NAFLD diagnosis to analyze and compare α-ketoglutarate and CK18-F as potential biomarkers of the silent evolution of NAFLD.
Topics: Animals; Biomarkers; Biopsy; Humans; Keratin-18; Ketoglutaric Acids; Liver; Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; Predictive Value of Tests; Prognosis; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 28063221
DOI: 10.1002/jcp.25779 -
The British Journal of Dermatology Aug 2016Fumaric acid esters (FAEs) are increasingly used as a systemic treatment for psoriasis, but there are still uncertainties regarding their suitability. The objective of... (Review)
Review
Fumaric acid esters (FAEs) are increasingly used as a systemic treatment for psoriasis, but there are still uncertainties regarding their suitability. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the evidence for the efficacy and safety of FAEs in psoriasis treatment. A systematic literature search was performed in seven databases up to 17 August 2015. Inclusion criteria were studies that reported clinical effects of FAEs in patients with psoriasis without restrictions in study design, language or publication date. Methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and overall level of quality were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, respectively. A total of 68 articles were included. There were seven RCTs (total 449 patients) that had an unclear risk of bias and were too clinically heterogeneous to allow a meta-analysis. Overall, mean Psoriasis Area and Severity Index decreased by 42-65% following 12-16 weeks of treatment. There were 37 observational studies (a total of 3457 patients) that supported the RCT findings, but most were uncontrolled with a high risk of bias. Commonly reported adverse events included gastrointestinal complaints and flushing, leading to treatment withdrawal in 6-40% of patients. Several case-reports described rare adverse events, such as renal Fanconi syndrome and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. There was a lack of studies focusing on long-term use and comparisons with other treatments. This review concluded that there is low-quality evidence to recommend the use of oral FAEs to treat plaque psoriasis in adult patients. Studies focusing on long-term safety and comparison with systemic psoriasis treatments could lead to a better understanding of the role of FAEs as a treatment for psoriasis.
Topics: Dermatologic Agents; Fumarates; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Patient Safety; Psoriasis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26919824
DOI: 10.1111/bjd.14500 -
Archivio Italiano Di Urologia,... Mar 2016To analyze the clinical evidence on the efficacy of phytotherapy in the treatment of calculi in the urinary tract. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To analyze the clinical evidence on the efficacy of phytotherapy in the treatment of calculi in the urinary tract.
METHODS
To be eligible, full-length articles should include the results of randomized controlled trials enrolling patients affected by urolithiasis, reporting any comparison between an experimental herbal agent versus placebo or any active comparator, aimed at preventing the formation or facilitating the dissolution of calculi in any portion of the urinary tract. Fifteen databases were searched for relevant references. The primary outcomes investigated were (i) the reduction of stone size and/or number and (ii) the urinary excretion rates of calcium, urate, or oxalate. The secondary outcome of the review was the adverse effects (AE) of treatment. Risk of bias (ROB) and quality of the evidence were assessed according to Cochrane and GRADE guidelines. We performed a random-effect meta-analysis.
RESULTS
541 articles were retrieved and 16 studies were finally confirmed as eligible. Multiple Cochrane ROB tool items were rated as having high risk of bias in each analyzed trial report. Pooled analysis of continuous data could be performed for three different comparisons: (i) phytotherapy versus citrate as single agent (ii) phytotherapy versus placebo, (iii) preparation of Didymocarpus pedicellata (DP)--combined with other herbal agents--versus placebo. Results showed that citrate is superior to phytotherapy in significantly decreasing both the size of urinary stones (mean difference: phytotherapy, 0.42 mm higher; 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.6; Z = 4.42, P < 0.0001; I2 = 30%) and the urinary excretion rate of urate (mean difference: 42.32 mg/24h higher, 95% CI: 19.44 to 65.19; Z = 3.63, P = 0.0003; I2 = 96%), assessed after 3 months on-therapy. No significant differences in the excretion rates of urinary calcium or oxalate were found. The DP preparation was superior to placebo in inducing total clearance (risk ratio: 6.19, 95% CI: 2.60 to 14.74; Z = 4.12, P < 0.0001; I2 = 0%) and size reduction (mean difference: DP preparation, 4.93 mm lower; 95% CI: -9.18 to -0.67; Z = 2.27, P = 0.02; I2 = 99%) of renal and ureteral stones after 3 months of therapy. No significant differences in the inter-arm variation of excretion rates of urinary calcium or urate were found as result of the pooled phytotherapy-placebo comparison. Herbal remedies were in general devoid of side effects and in few cases citrate appeared to induce GI disturbances in a higher fraction of patients. Most reports did not provide inferential data concerning AE, and meta-analysis was not feasible.
CONCLUSIONS
Citrate is more effective than phytotherapy in decreasing the size of existing calculi in the urinary tract and in decreasing the urinary excretion rate of uric acid. A preparation containing Didymocarpus pedicellata combined with other herbal agents induces stone size reduction and clearance significantly better than placebo. Mayor limitations in the applicability of these results are the low quality of the evidence and the multiple sources of bias assessed in the studies included in the present review.
Topics: Calcium; Citric Acid; Humans; Oxalic Acid; Phytotherapy; Plant Preparations; Plants, Medicinal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Uric Acid; Urinary Calculi
PubMed: 27072174
DOI: 10.4081/aiua.2016.1.38