-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Eczema is a common skin condition. Although topical corticosteroids have been a first-line treatment for eczema for decades, there are uncertainties over their optimal... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Eczema is a common skin condition. Although topical corticosteroids have been a first-line treatment for eczema for decades, there are uncertainties over their optimal use.
OBJECTIVES
To establish the effectiveness and safety of different ways of using topical corticosteroids for treating eczema.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched databases to January 2021 (Cochrane Skin Specialised Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; GREAT) and five clinical trials registers. We checked bibliographies from included trials to identify further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials in adults and children with eczema that compared at least two strategies of topical corticosteroid use. We excluded placebo comparisons, other than for trials that evaluated proactive versus reactive treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods, with GRADE certainty of evidence for key findings. Primary outcomes were changes in clinician-reported signs and relevant local adverse events. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported symptoms and relevant systemic adverse events. For local adverse events, we prioritised abnormal skin thinning as a key area of concern for healthcare professionals and patients.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 104 trials (8443 participants). Most trials were conducted in high-income countries (81/104), most likely in outpatient or other hospital settings. We judged only one trial to be low risk of bias across all domains. Fifty-five trials had high risk of bias in at least one domain, mostly due to lack of blinding or missing outcome data. Stronger-potency versus weaker-potency topical corticosteroids Sixty-three trials compared different potencies of topical corticosteroids: 12 moderate versus mild, 22 potent versus mild, 25 potent versus moderate, and 6 very potent versus potent. Trials were usually in children with moderate or severe eczema, where specified, lasting one to five weeks. The most reported outcome was Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) of clinician-reported signs of eczema. We pooled four trials that compared moderate- versus mild-potency topical corticosteroids (420 participants). Moderate-potency topical corticosteroids probably result in more participants achieving treatment success, defined as cleared or marked improvement on IGA (52% versus 34%; odds ratio (OR) 2.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 3.04; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled nine trials that compared potent versus mild-potency topical corticosteroids (392 participants). Potent topical corticosteroids probably result in a large increase in number achieving treatment success (70% versus 39%; OR 3.71, 95% CI 2.04 to 6.72; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled 15 trials that compared potent versus moderate-potency topical corticosteroids (1053 participants). There was insufficient evidence of a benefit of potent topical corticosteroids compared to moderate topical corticosteroids (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.89; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled three trials that compared very potent versus potent topical corticosteroids (216 participants). The evidence is uncertain with a wide confidence interval (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.09; low-certainty evidence). Twice daily or more versus once daily application We pooled 15 of 25 trials in this comparison (1821 participants, all reported IGA). The trials usually assessed adults and children with moderate or severe eczema, where specified, using potent topical corticosteroids, lasting two to six weeks. Applying potent topical corticosteroids only once a day probably does not decrease the number achieving treatment success compared to twice daily application (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.38; 15 trials, 1821 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Local adverse events Within the trials that tested 'treating eczema flare-up' strategies, we identified only 26 cases of abnormal skin thinning from 2266 participants (1% across 22 trials). Most cases were from the use of higher-potency topical corticosteroids (16 with very potent, 6 with potent, 2 with moderate and 2 with mild). We assessed this evidence as low certainty, except for very potent versus potent topical corticosteroids, which was very low-certainty evidence. Longer versus shorter-term duration of application for induction of remission No trials were identified. Twice weekly application (weekend, or 'proactive therapy') to prevent relapse (flare-ups) versus no topical corticosteroids/reactive application Nine trials assessed this comparison, generally lasting 16 to 20 weeks. We pooled seven trials that compared weekend (proactive) topical corticosteroids therapy versus no topical corticosteroids (1179 participants, children and adults with a range of eczema severities, though mainly moderate or severe). Weekend (proactive) therapy probably results in a large decrease in likelihood of a relapse from 58% to 25% (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57; 7 trials, 1149 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Local adverse events We did not identify any cases of abnormal skin thinning in seven trials that assessed skin thinning (1050 participants) at the end of treatment. We assessed this evidence as low certainty. Other comparisons Other comparisons included newer versus older preparations of topical corticosteroids (15 trials), cream versus ointment (7 trials), topical corticosteroids with wet wrap versus no wet wrap (6 trials), number of days per week applied (4 trials), different concentrations of the same topical corticosteroids (2 trials), time of day applied (2 trials), topical corticosteroids alternating with topical calcineurin inhibitors versus topical corticosteroids alone (1 trial), application to wet versus dry skin (1 trial) and application before versus after emollient (1 trial). No trials compared branded versus generic topical corticosteroids and time between application of emollient and topical corticosteroids.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Potent and moderate topical corticosteroids are probably more effective than mild topical corticosteroids, primarily in moderate or severe eczema; however, there is uncertain evidence to support any advantage of very potent over potent topical corticosteroids. Effectiveness is similar between once daily and twice daily (or more) frequent use of potent topical corticosteroids to treat eczema flare-ups, and topical corticosteroids weekend (proactive) therapy is probably better than no topical corticosteroids/reactive use to prevent eczema relapse (flare-ups). Adverse events were not well reported and came largely from low- or very low-certainty, short-term trials. In trials that reported abnormal skin thinning, frequency was low overall and increased with increasing potency. We found no trials on the optimum duration of treatment of a flare, branded versus generic topical corticosteroids, and time to leave between application of topical corticosteroids and emollient. There is a need for longer-term trials, in people with mild eczema.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Child; Dermatologic Agents; Eczema; Emollients; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Immunoglobulin A; Recurrence
PubMed: 35275399
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013356.pub2 -
International Ophthalmology Jul 2022Psoriasis, which is a chronic, immune-mediated skin disease of unknown etiology, not only affects the skin, but also is linked to many systemic conditions such as... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Psoriasis, which is a chronic, immune-mediated skin disease of unknown etiology, not only affects the skin, but also is linked to many systemic conditions such as arthritis, cardiovascular disease, depression, and malignancy. Although many types of eye involvement are encountered in psoriasis patients, dry eye is the first among them. Uveitis is an entity that can be associated with psoriasis and can cause severe vision loss as a result of late diagnosis, inadequate and inappropriate treatment. In this review, we aimed to shed light on the diagnosis, type, prognosis and treatment of uveitis in psoriasis patients by compiling current datas obtained from published studies and to guide the follow-up and treatment of these patients.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was done on PubMed using key words including "psoriasis", "psoriatic arthritis", "uveitis", "TNF- inhibitors", "HLA B27".
RESULTS
In the literature, the frequency, type and treatment of uveitis developing in the course of psoriatic arthritis are clearly defined. However, the coexistence of psoriasis and uveitis has not yet been clarified due to few numbers published studies and designs of these studies. Since we examined the existing studies, we determined that the coexistence of psoriasis and uveitis could be acute or insidious, and the probability and severity of uveitis increased as the severity of skin and joint involvement increased. In addition, we found that psoriasis-associated uveitis can be bilateral, chronic, severe progression and with a high recurrence rate.
CONCLUSION
The relations between non-arthritic psoriasis and uveitis have not yet been fully elucidated. Physicians who treat these diseases must be cautious, and refer their patients who have psoriasis to an ophthalmologist for periodic examination, even if they do not have eye symptoms. On the other hand, ophthalmologists must be careful in uveitis patients in terms of skin and joint involvement, and must not overlook the underlying disease.
Topics: HLA-B27 Antigen; Humans; Joints; Psoriasis; Skin; Uveitis
PubMed: 35048244
DOI: 10.1007/s10792-022-02225-5 -
International Wound Journal Dec 2016Advances in preoperative care, surgical techniques and technologies have enabled surgeons to achieve primary closure in a high percentage of surgical procedures.... (Review)
Review
Improving wound healing and preventing surgical site complications of closed surgical incisions: a possible role of Incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy. A systematic review of the literature.
Advances in preoperative care, surgical techniques and technologies have enabled surgeons to achieve primary closure in a high percentage of surgical procedures. However, often, underlying patient comorbidities in addition to surgical-related factors make the management of surgical wounds primary closure challenging because of the higher risk of developing complications. To date, extensive evidence exists, which demonstrate the benefits of negative pressure dressing in the treatment of open wounds; recently, Incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (INPWT) technology as delivered by Prevena™ (KCI USA, Inc., San Antonio, TX) and Pico (Smith & Nephew Inc, Andover, MA) systems has been the focus of a new investigation on possible prophylactic measures to prevent complications via application immediately after surgery in high-risk, clean, closed surgical incisions. A systematic review was performed to evaluate INPWT's effect on surgical sites healing by primary intention. The primary outcomes of interest are an understanding of INPWT functioning and mechanisms of action, extrapolated from animal and biomedical engineering studies and incidence of complications (infection, dehiscence, seroma, hematoma, skin and fat necrosis, skin and fascial dehiscence or blistering) and other variables influenced by applying INPWT (re-operation and re-hospitalization rates, time to dry wound, cost saving) extrapolated from human studies. A search was conducted for published articles in various databases including PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus Database from 2006 to March 2014. Supplemental searches were performed using reference lists and conference proceedings. Studies selection was based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria and data extraction regarding study quality, model investigated, epidemiological and clinical characteristics and type of surgery, and the outcomes were applied to all the articles included. 1 biomedical engineering study, 2 animal studies, 15 human studies for a total of 6 randomized controlled trials, 5 prospective cohort studies, 7 retrospective analyses, were included. Human studies investigated the outcomes of 1042 incisions on 1003 patients. The literature shows a decrease in the incidence of infection, sero-haematoma formation and on the re-operation rates when using INPWT. Lower level of evidence was found on dehiscence, decreased in some studies, and was inconsistent to make a conclusion. Because of limited studies, it is difficult to make any assertions on the other variables, suggesting a requirement for further studies for proper recommendations on INPWT.
Topics: Animals; Female; Humans; Male; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Prognosis; Quality Improvement; Risk Assessment; Surgical Wound; Surgical Wound Infection; Wound Healing
PubMed: 26424609
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.12492 -
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies 2019Headache is the most common neurological symptoms worldwide, as over 90% of people have noted at least one headache during their lifetime. Tension-type headaches,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Headache is the most common neurological symptoms worldwide, as over 90% of people have noted at least one headache during their lifetime. Tension-type headaches, cervicogenic headaches, and migraines are common types of headache which can have a significant impact on social, physical, and occupational functioning. Therapeutic management of headaches mainly includes physical therapy and pharmacological interventions. Dry needling is a relatively new therapeutic approach that uses a thin filiform needle without injectate to penetrate the skin and stimulate underlying tissues for the management of neuromusculoskeletal pain and movement impairments.The main objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of dry needling in comparison to other interventions on pain and disability in patients with tension-type headache, cervicogenic headache, and migraine.
METHODS/DESIGN
We will focus on clinical trials with concurrent control group(s) and comparative observational studies assessing the effect of dry needling in patients with tension-type headache, cervicogenic headache, and migraine. Electronic databases from relevant fields of research (PubMed/ Medline, Scopus, Embase®, PEDro, Web of Science, Ovid, AMED, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar) will be searched from inception to June 2019 using defined search terms. No restrictions for language of publication or geographic location will be applied. Moreover, grey literature, citation tracking, and reference lists scanning of the selected studies will be searched manually. Primary outcomes of this study are pain intensity and disability, and secondary outcomes are cervical spine ROM, frequency of headaches, health-related quality of life, and TrPs tenderness. Studies will be selected by three independent reviewers based on prespecified eligibility criteria. Three reviewers will independently extract data in each eligible study using a pre-piloted Microsoft Excel data extraction form. The assessment of risk of bias will be implemented using the Cochrane Back and Neck Review Group 13-item criteria and NOS. Direct meta-analysis will be performed using a fixed or random effects model to estimate effect size such as standardized mean difference (Morris's ) and 95% confidence intervals. Statistical heterogeneity will also be evaluated using the statistic and the χ test. All meta-analyses will be performed using Stata V.11 and V.14 softwares. The overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes will be assessed using GRADE.
DISCUSSION
All analyses in this study will be based on the previous published papers. Therefore, ethical approval and patient consent are not required. The findings of this study will provide important information on the value of dry needling for the management of tension-type headache, cervicogenic headache, and migraine.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019124125.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Adult; Disabled Persons; Dry Needling; Female; Humans; Male; Migraine Disorders; Post-Traumatic Headache; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Tension-Type Headache
PubMed: 31572570
DOI: 10.1186/s12998-019-0266-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Motor neuron disease (MND), also known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), is a progressive neurodegenerative condition that may cause dysphagia, as well as limb... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Motor neuron disease (MND), also known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), is a progressive neurodegenerative condition that may cause dysphagia, as well as limb weakness, dysarthria, emotional lability, and respiratory failure. Since normal salivary production is 0.5 L to 1.5 L daily, loss of salivary clearance due to dysphagia leads to salivary pooling and sialorrhea, often resulting in distress and inconvenience to people with MND. This is an update of a review first published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of treatments for sialorrhea in MND, including medications, radiotherapy and surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
On 27 August 2021, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. We checked the bibliographies of the identified randomized trials and contacted trial authors as needed. We contacted known experts in the field to identify further published and unpublished papers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, including cross-over trials, on any intervention for sialorrhea and related symptoms, compared with each other, placebo or no intervention, in people with ALS/MND.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified four RCTs involving 110 participants with MND who were described as having intractable sialorrhea or bulbar dysfunction. A well-designed study of botulinum toxin B compared to placebo injected into the parotid and submandibular glands of 20 participants showed that botulinum toxin B may produce participant-reported improvement in sialorrhea, but the confidence interval (CI) was also consistent with no effect. Six of nine participants in the botulinum group and two of nine participants in the placebo group reported improvement (risk ratio (RR) 3.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 11.08; 1 RCT; 18 participants; low-certainty evidence). An objective measure indicated that botulinum toxin B probably reduced saliva production (in mL/5 min) at eight weeks compared to placebo (MD -0.50, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.07; 18 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Botulinum toxin B may have little to no effect on quality of life, measured on the Schedule for Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life direct weighting scale (SEIQoL-DW; 0-100, higher values indicate better quality of life) (MD -2.50, 95% CI -17.34 to 12.34; 1 RCT; 17 participants; low-certainty evidence). The rate of adverse events may be similar with botulinum toxin B and placebo (20 participants; low-certainty evidence). Trialists did not consider any serious events to be related to treatment. A randomized pilot study of botulinum toxin A or radiotherapy in 20 participants, which was at high risk of bias, provided very low-certainty evidence on the primary outcome of the Drool Rating Scale (DRS; range 8 to 39 points, higher scores indicate worse drooling) at 12 weeks (effect size -4.8, 95% CI -10.59 to 0.92; P = 0.09; 1 RCT; 16 participants). Quality of life was not measured. Evidence for adverse events, measured immediately after treatment (RR 7.00, 95% CI 1.04 to 46.95; 20 participants), and after four weeks (when two people in each group had viscous saliva) was also very uncertain. A phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled cross-over study of 20 mg dextromethorphan hydrobromide and 10 mg quinidine sulfate (DMQ) found that DMQ may produce a participant-reported improvement in sialorrhea, indicated by a slight improvement (decrease) in mean scores for the primary outcome, the Center for Neurologic Study Bulbar Function Scale (CNS-BFS). Mean total CNS-BFS (range 21 (no symptoms) to 112 (maximum symptoms)) was 53.45 (standard error (SE) 1.07) for the DMQ treatment period and 59.31 (SE 1.10) for the placebo period (mean difference) MD -5.85, 95% CI -8.77 to -2.93) with a slight decrease in the CNS-BFS sialorrhea subscale score (range 7 (no symptoms) to 35 (maximum symptoms)) compared to placebo (MD -1.52, 95% CI -2.52 to -0.52) (1 RCT; 60 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The trial did not report an objective measure of saliva production or measure quality of life. The study was at an unclear risk of bias. Adverse events were similar to other trials of DMQ, and may occur at a similar rate as placebo (moderate-certainty evidence, 60 participants), with the most common side effects being constipation, diarrhea, nausea, and dizziness. Nausea and diarrhea on DMQ treatment resulted in one withdrawal. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over study of scopolamine (hyoscine), administered using a skin patch, involved 10 randomized participants, of whom eight provided efficacy data. The participants were unrepresentative of clinic cohorts under routine clinical care as they had feeding tubes and tracheostomy ventilation, and the study was at high risk of bias. The trial provided very low-certainty evidence on sialorrhea in the short term (7 days' treatment, measured on the Amyotrophic Lateral Scelerosis Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) saliva item (P = 0.572)), and the amount of saliva production in the short term, as indicated by the weight of a cotton roll (P = 0.674), or daily oral suction volume (P = 0.69). Quality of life was not measured. Adverse events evidence was also very uncertain. One person treated with scopolamine had a dry mouth and one died of aspiration pneumonia considered unrelated to treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is some low-certainty or moderate-certainty evidence for the use of botulinum toxin B injections to salivary glands and moderate-certainty evidence for the use of oral dextromethorphan with quinidine (DMQ) for the treatment of sialorrhea in MND. Evidence on radiotherapy versus botulinum toxin A injections, and scopolamine patches is too uncertain for any conclusions to be drawn. Further research is required on treatments for sialorrhea. Data are needed on the problem of sialorrhea in MND and its measurement, both by participant self-report measures and objective tests. These will allow the development of better RCTs.
Topics: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Deglutition Disorders; Diarrhea; Humans; Motor Neuron Disease; Nausea; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Saliva; Scopolamine Derivatives; Sialorrhea
PubMed: 35593746
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006981.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Eczema and food allergy are common health conditions that usually begin in early childhood and often occur together in the same people. They can be associated with an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Eczema and food allergy are common health conditions that usually begin in early childhood and often occur together in the same people. They can be associated with an impaired skin barrier in early infancy. It is unclear whether trying to prevent or reverse an impaired skin barrier soon after birth is effective in preventing eczema or food allergy.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective To assess effects of skin care interventions, such as emollients, for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy in infants Secondary objective To identify features of study populations such as age, hereditary risk, and adherence to interventions that are associated with the greatest treatment benefit or harm for both eczema and food allergy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to July 2020: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers and checked reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We contacted field experts to identify planned trials and to seek information about unpublished or incomplete trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs of skin care interventions that could potentially enhance skin barrier function, reduce dryness, or reduce subclinical inflammation in healthy term (> 37 weeks) infants (0 to 12 months) without pre-existing diagnosis of eczema, food allergy, or other skin condition were included. Comparison was standard care in the locality or no treatment. Types of skin care interventions included moisturisers/emollients; bathing products; advice regarding reducing soap exposure and bathing frequency; and use of water softeners. No minimum follow-up was required.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This is a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and primary analyses used the IPD dataset. Primary outcomes were cumulative incidence of eczema and cumulative incidence of immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated food allergy by one to three years, both measured by the closest available time point to two years. Secondary outcomes included adverse events during the intervention period; eczema severity (clinician-assessed); parent report of eczema severity; time to onset of eczema; parent report of immediate food allergy; and allergic sensitisation to food or inhalant allergen.
MAIN RESULTS
This review identified 33 RCTs, comprising 25,827 participants. A total of 17 studies, randomising 5823 participants, reported information on one or more outcomes specified in this review. Eleven studies randomising 5217 participants, with 10 of these studies providing IPD, were included in one or more meta-analysis (range 2 to 9 studies per individual meta-analysis). Most studies were conducted at children's hospitals. All interventions were compared against no skin care intervention or local standard care. Of the 17 studies that reported our outcomes, 13 assessed emollients. Twenty-five studies, including all those contributing data to meta-analyses, randomised newborns up to age three weeks to receive a skin care intervention or standard infant skin care. Eight of the 11 studies contributing to meta-analyses recruited infants at high risk of developing eczema or food allergy, although definition of high risk varied between studies. Durations of intervention and follow-up ranged from 24 hours to two years. We assessed most of this review's evidence as low certainty or had some concerns of risk of bias. A rating of some concerns was most often due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors or significant missing data, which could have impacted outcome measurement but was judged unlikely to have done so. Evidence for the primary food allergy outcome was rated as high risk of bias due to inclusion of only one trial where findings varied when different assumptions were made about missing data. Skin care interventions during infancy probably do not change risk of eczema by one to two years of age (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.31; moderate-certainty evidence; 3075 participants, 7 trials) nor time to onset of eczema (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence; 3349 participants, 9 trials). It is unclear whether skin care interventions during infancy change risk of IgE-mediated food allergy by one to two years of age (RR 2.53, 95% CI 0.99 to 6.47; 996 participants, 1 trial) or allergic sensitisation to a food allergen at age one to two years (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.69; 1055 participants, 2 trials) due to very low-certainty evidence for these outcomes. Skin care interventions during infancy may slightly increase risk of parent report of immediate reaction to a common food allergen at two years (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.61; low-certainty evidence; 1171 participants, 1 trial). However, this was only seen for cow's milk, and may be unreliable due to significant over-reporting of cow's milk allergy in infants. Skin care interventions during infancy probably increase risk of skin infection over the intervention period (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.77; moderate-certainty evidence; 2728 participants, 6 trials) and may increase risk of infant slippage over the intervention period (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.99; low-certainty evidence; 2538 participants, 4 trials) or stinging/allergic reactions to moisturisers (RR 2.24, 95% 0.67 to 7.43; low-certainty evidence; 343 participants, 4 trials), although confidence intervals for slippages and stinging/allergic reactions are wide and include the possibility of no effect or reduced risk. Preplanned subgroup analyses show that effects of interventions were not influenced by age, duration of intervention, hereditary risk, FLG mutation, or classification of intervention type for risk of developing eczema. We could not evaluate these effects on risk of food allergy. Evidence was insufficient to show whether adherence to interventions influenced the relationship between skin care interventions and risk of developing eczema or food allergy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Skin care interventions such as emollients during the first year of life in healthy infants are probably not effective for preventing eczema, and probably increase risk of skin infection. Effects of skin care interventions on risk of food allergy are uncertain. Further work is needed to understand whether different approaches to infant skin care might promote or prevent eczema and to evaluate effects on food allergy based on robust outcome assessments.
Topics: Bias; Eczema; Emollients; Female; Filaggrin Proteins; Food Hypersensitivity; Humans; Hypersensitivity, Immediate; Immunoglobulin E; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Milk Hypersensitivity; Skin Care; Skin Diseases, Infectious; Soaps
PubMed: 33545739
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013534.pub2 -
Journal of Ethnopharmacology Jun 2020Withania somnifera popularly known as Aswagandha or Indian Ginseng/Poison Gooseberry have thousands years of history of use in Indian traditional medicine. Besides,...
ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE
Withania somnifera popularly known as Aswagandha or Indian Ginseng/Poison Gooseberry have thousands years of history of use in Indian traditional medicine. Besides, finding place root of the plant as Indian Ginseng, Ayurveda also uses root of this plant as general health tonic, adaptogenic, nootropic, immunomodulatory etc. With its widespread and growing use, it becomes prudent to scientifically evaluate and document both the efficacy and safety of this plant in humans.
AIM OF THE STUDY
Aswagnadha root is rapidly gaining popularity abroad for use as medicine. Current article attempts to primarily review the human efficacy and safety of Aswagandha generated through clinical trials.
METHODS
A systematic search both for indexed and non-indexed literature was made for W. somnifera using various search engines and databases and the details of research articles pertaining to all clinical trials/human studies, animal studies addressing safety issues of CNS, CVS, general toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, reproductive safety and herb-drug interactions were reviewed and compiled comprehensively from full texts.
RESULTS
A total of 69 (39 pre-clinical and 30 clinical) studies documenting efficacy and safety aspects were identified and the desired information of these studies is comprehensively presented in this review. Retrieved thirty(30) human studies demonstrated reasonable efficacy of root preparations in subclinical hypothyroidism (1), schizophrenia (3), chronic stress (2), insomnia (2), anxiety (1), memory and cognitive improvement (2), obsessive-compulsive disorder (1), rheumatoid arthritis (2), type-2 diabetes (2), male infertility (6), fertility promotion activity in females (1), adaptogenic (3), growth promoter in children (3) and chemotherapy adjuvant (1). Reasonable safety of root preparations of Aswagandha has been established by these retrieved 30 human trials. No serious adverse events or any changes in haematological, biochemical or vital parameters were reported in these human studies. Only mild and mainly transient type adverse events of somnolence, epigastric pain/discomfort and loose stools were reported as most common (>5%); and giddiness, drowsiness, hallucinogenic, vertigo, nasal congestion (rhinitis), cough, cold, decreased appetite, nausea, constipation, dry mouth, hyperactivity, nocturnal cramps, blurring of vision, hyperacidity, skin rash and weight gain were reported as less common adverse events. Pre-clinical chronic toxicity studies conducted up to 8 months also found root extracts to be safe. No mutagenicity or genotoxicity was reported for the root; only mild CNS depression and increase in thyroxine (T4) levels were reported with rootby some studies. Further, there was no in vitro and in vivo inhibition seen for CYP3A4 and CYP2D6, the two major hepatic drug metabolizing enzymes.
CONCLUSION
Root of the Ayurvedic drug W. somnifera (Aswagandha) appears a promising safe and effective traditional medicine for management of schizophrenia, chronic stress, insomnia, anxiety, memory/cognitive enhancement, obsessive-compulsive disorder, rheumatoid arthritis, type-2 diabetes and male infertility, and bears fertility promotion activity in females adaptogenic, growth promoter activity in children and as adjuvant for reduction of fatigue and improvement in quality of life among cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Properly designed, randomized-controlled, large-size, prospective trials with standardized preparations are needed to ascertain efficacy of Aswagandha root in previously studied and other new indications.
Topics: Herb-Drug Interactions; Humans; Patient Safety; Plant Extracts; Plant Roots; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Withania
PubMed: 32201301
DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2020.112768 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jan 2024Atopic dermatitis is a chronic relapsing inflammatory skin condition. One of the most common skin disorders in children, atopic dermatitis typically manifests before the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis is a chronic relapsing inflammatory skin condition. One of the most common skin disorders in children, atopic dermatitis typically manifests before the age of 5 years, but it can develop at any age. Atopic dermatitis is characterised by dry, inflamed skin accompanied by intense itchiness (pruritus).
OBJECTIVES
To appraise the clinical and cost effectiveness of abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib within their marketing authorisations as alternative therapies for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis compared to systemic immunosuppressants (first-line ciclosporin A or second-line dupilumab and baricitinib).
DATA SOURCES
Studies were identified from an existing systematic review (search date 2019) and update searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) to November 2021, from bibliographies of retrieved studies, clinical trial registers and evidence provided by the sponsoring companies of the treatments under review.
METHODS
A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness literature was carried out and a network meta-analysis undertaken for adults and adolescents at different steps of the treatment pathway. The primary outcome of interest was a combined response of Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4; where this was consistently unavailable for a step in the pathway, an analysis of Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 was conducted. A de novo economic model was developed to assess cost effectiveness from the perspective of the National Health Service in England. The model structure was informed through systematic review of the economic literature and by consulting clinical experts. Effectiveness data were obtained from the network meta-analysis. Costs and utilities were obtained from the evidence provided by sponsoring companies and standard UK sources.
RESULTS
Network meta-analyses indicate that abrocitinib 200 mg and upadacitinib 30 mg may be more effective, and tralokinumab may be less effective than dupilumab and baricitinib as second-line systemic therapies. Abrocitinib 100 mg and upadacitinib 15 mg have a more similar effectiveness to dupilumab. Upadacitinib 30 and 15 mg are likely to be more effective than ciclosporin A as a first-line therapy. Upadacitinib 15 mg, abrocitinib 200 and 100 mg may be more effective than dupilumab in adolescents. The cost effectiveness of abrocitinib and upadacitinib for both doses is dependent on the subgroup of interest. Tralokinumab can be considered cost-effective as a second-line systemic therapy owing to greater cost savings per quality-adjusted life-year lost.
CONCLUSIONS
The primary strength of the analysis of the three new drugs compared with current practice for each of the subpopulations is the consistent approach to the assessment of clinical and cost effectiveness. However, the conclusions are limited by the high uncertainty around the clinical effectiveness and lack of data for the primary outcome for comparisons with baricitinib and for the adolescent and adult first-line populations.
FUTURE WORK AND LIMITATIONS
The most significant limitation that Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4 could not be obtained for the adolescent and adult first-line systemic treatment populations is due to a paucity of data for dupilumab and ciclosporin A. A comparison of the new drugs against one another in addition to current practice would be beneficial to provide a robust view on which treatments are the most cost-effective.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021266219.
FUNDING
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: 135138) and is published in full in ; Vol. 28, No. 4. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Topics: Child; Adult; Adolescent; Humans; Child, Preschool; Dermatitis, Atopic; Cyclosporine; State Medicine; Treatment Outcome; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Eczema; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Purines; Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring; Sulfonamides; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Azetidines
PubMed: 38343072
DOI: 10.3310/LEXB9006 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2015There is evidence that water-loss dehydration is common in older people and associated with many causes of morbidity and mortality. However, it is unclear what clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is evidence that water-loss dehydration is common in older people and associated with many causes of morbidity and mortality. However, it is unclear what clinical symptoms, signs and tests may be used to identify early dehydration in older people, so that support can be mobilised to improve hydration before health and well-being are compromised.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of state (one time), minimally invasive clinical symptoms, signs and tests to be used as screening tests for detecting water-loss dehydration in older people by systematically reviewing studies that have measured a reference standard and at least one index test in people aged 65 years and over. Water-loss dehydration was defined primarily as including everyone with either impending or current water-loss dehydration (including all those with serum osmolality ≥ 295 mOsm/kg as being dehydrated).
SEARCH METHODS
Structured search strategies were developed for MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL, LILACS, DARE and HTA databases (The Cochrane Library), and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Reference lists of included studies and identified relevant reviews were checked. Authors of included studies were contacted for details of further studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Titles and abstracts were scanned and all potentially relevant studies obtained in full text. Inclusion of full text studies was assessed independently in duplicate, and disagreements resolved by a third author. We wrote to authors of all studies that appeared to have collected data on at least one reference standard and at least one index test, and in at least 10 people aged ≥ 65 years, even where no comparative analysis has been published, requesting original dataset so we could create 2 x 2 tables.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Diagnostic accuracy of each test was assessed against the best available reference standard for water-loss dehydration (serum or plasma osmolality cut-off ≥ 295 mOsm/kg, serum osmolarity or weight change) within each study. For each index test study data were presented in forest plots of sensitivity and specificity. The primary target condition was water-loss dehydration (including either impending or current water-loss dehydration). Secondary target conditions were intended as current (> 300 mOsm/kg) and impending (295 to 300 mOsm/kg) water-loss dehydration, but restricted to current dehydration in the final review.We conducted bivariate random-effects meta-analyses (Stata/IC, StataCorp) for index tests where there were at least four studies and study datasets could be pooled to construct sensitivity and specificity summary estimates. We assigned the same approach for index tests with continuous outcome data for each of three pre-specified cut-off points investigated.Pre-set minimum sensitivity of a useful test was 60%, minimum specificity 75%. As pre-specifying three cut-offs for each continuous test may have led to missing a cut-off with useful sensitivity and specificity, we conducted post-hoc exploratory analyses to create receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves where there appeared some possibility of a useful cut-off missed by the original three. These analyses enabled assessment of which tests may be worth assessing in further research. A further exploratory analysis assessed the value of combining the best two index tests where each had some individual predictive ability.
MAIN RESULTS
There were few published studies of the diagnostic accuracy of state (one time), minimally invasive clinical symptoms, signs or tests to be used as screening tests for detecting water-loss dehydration in older people. Therefore, to complete this review we sought, analysed and included raw datasets that included a reference standard and an index test in people aged ≥ 65 years.We included three studies with published diagnostic accuracy data and a further 21 studies provided datasets that we analysed. We assessed 67 tests (at three cut-offs for each continuous outcome) for diagnostic accuracy of water-loss dehydration (primary target condition) and of current dehydration (secondary target condition).Only three tests showed any ability to diagnose water-loss dehydration (including both impending and current water-loss dehydration) as stand-alone tests: expressing fatigue (sensitivity 0.71 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.96), specificity 0.75 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.85), in one study with 71 participants, but two additional studies had lower sensitivity); missing drinks between meals (sensitivity 1.00 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.00), specificity 0.77 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.86), in one study with 71 participants) and BIA resistance at 50 kHz (sensitivities 1.00 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.00) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.90) and specificities of 1.00 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.00) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.99) in 15 and 22 people respectively for two studies, but with sensitivities of 0.54 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.81) and 0.69 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.79) and specificities of 0.50 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.84) and 0.19 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.21) in 21 and 1947 people respectively in two other studies). In post-hoc ROC plots drinks intake, urine osmolality and axillial moisture also showed limited diagnostic accuracy. No test was consistently useful in more than one study.Combining two tests so that an individual both missed some drinks between meals and expressed fatigue was sensitive at 0.71 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.96) and specific at 0.92 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.97).There was sufficient evidence to suggest that several stand-alone tests often used to assess dehydration in older people (including fluid intake, urine specific gravity, urine colour, urine volume, heart rate, dry mouth, feeling thirsty and BIA assessment of intracellular water or extracellular water) are not useful, and should not be relied on individually as ways of assessing presence or absence of dehydration in older people.No tests were found consistently useful in diagnosing current water-loss dehydration.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence of the diagnostic utility of any individual clinical symptom, sign or test or combination of tests to indicate water-loss dehydration in older people. Individual tests should not be used in this population to indicate dehydration; they miss a high proportion of people with dehydration, and wrongly label those who are adequately hydrated.Promising tests identified by this review need to be further assessed, as do new methods in development. Combining several tests may improve diagnostic accuracy.
Topics: Aged; Dehydration; Drinking Water; Electric Impedance; Female; Humans; Male; Mouth Diseases; Osmolar Concentration; Sensitivity and Specificity; Skin Physiological Phenomena; Symptom Assessment; Urine
PubMed: 25924806
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009647.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is the major cause of evaporative dry eye disease, which is the more prevalent form of dry eye disease. Intense pulsed light (IPL)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is the major cause of evaporative dry eye disease, which is the more prevalent form of dry eye disease. Intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy, involving treatment of the skin near the eyelids, has emerged as a potential treatment for MGD.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intense pulsed light (IPL) for the management dry eye disease resulting from meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase Ovid and three trial registers for eligible clinical trials on 1 August 2019. There were no restrictions on publication status, date or language.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) studying the effectiveness or safety of IPL for treating MGD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Our outcomes of interest were the change from baseline in subjective dry eye symptoms, adverse events, changes to lipid layer thickness, tear break-up time (TBUT), tear osmolarity, eyelid irregularity, eyelid telangiectasia, meibomian gland orifice plugging, meibomian gland dropout, corneal sodium fluorescein staining and conjunctival lissamine green staining. Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text articles, extracted data from eligible RCTs and judged the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. We reached consensus on any disagreements by discussion. We summarised the overall certainty of the evidence using the GRADE Working Group approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs, one from New Zealand, one from Japan and one from China, published between 2015 and 2019. Together, these trials enrolled 114 adults (228 eyes). Two studies used a paired-eye (inter-eye comparison) design to evaluate the effects of a sham (control) IPL treatment relative to an actual IPL treatment. One study randomised individuals to either an IPL intervention combined with meibomian gland expression (MGX), or MGX alone (standard therapy). The study follow-up periods ranged from 45 days to nine months. None of the trials were at low risk of bias in all seven domains. The first authors of two included studies were in receipt of funding from patents or the manufacturers of IPL devices. The funding sources and declaration of interests were not given in the report of the third included trial. All three trials evaluated the effect of IPL on dry eye symptoms, quantified using the Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) questionnaire. Pooling data from two trials that used a paired-eye design, the summary estimate for these studies indicated little to no reduction in dry eye symptoms with IPL relative to a sham intervention (mean difference (MD) -0.33 units, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.56 to 1.89; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 144 eyes). The other study was not pooled as it had a unit-of-analysis error, but reported a reduction in symptoms in favour of IPL (MD -4.60, 95% CI -6.72 to -2.48; 84 eyes). The body of evidence for this outcome was of very low certainty, so we are uncertain about the effect of IPL on dry eye symptoms. There were no relevant combinable data for any of the other secondary outcomes, thus the effect of IPL on clinical parameters relevant to dry eye disease are currently unclear. For sodium fluorescein TBUT, two studies indicated that there may be an improvement in favour of IPL (MD 2.02 seconds, 95% CI 0.87 to 3.17; MD 2.40 seconds, 95% CI 2.27 to 2.53; 172 eyes total; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of IPL on non-invasive tear break-up time (MD 5.51 seconds, 95% CI 0.79 to 10.23; MD 3.20, 95% CI 3.09 to 3.31 seconds; two studies; 140 eyes total; very low-certainty evidence). For tear osmolarity, one study indicated that there may be an improvement in favour of IPL (MD -7.00 mOsmol/L, 95% -12.97 to -1.03; 56 eyes; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of IPL on meibomian gland orifice plugging (MD -1.20 clinical units, 95% CI -1.24 to -1.16; 84 eyes; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of IPL on corneal sodium fluorescein staining. One study reported no evidence of a difference between the IPL and sham intervention arms at three months of follow-up (P = 0.409), and a second study reported data favouring IPL (MD -1.00 units, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.93 units; 172 eyes in total; very low-certainty evidence). We considered the incidence of adverse events at the study endpoint, as a measure of safety. As most trials did not specifically report adverse events, the safety of IPL as a treatment for MGD could also not be determined with any certainty. Very low-certainty results from individual studies suggest some adverse effects that may be experienced by participants, include mild pain and burning, and the potential for partially losing eyelashes (due to clinician error).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review finds a scarcity of RCT evidence relating to the effectiveness and safety of IPL as a treatment for MGD. Whether IPL is of value for modifying the symptoms or signs of evaporative dry eye disease is currently uncertain. Due to a lack of comprehensive reporting of adverse events, the safety profile of IPL in this patient population is also unclear. The current limitations in the evidence base should be considered by clinicians using this intervention to treat MGD, and outlined to individuals potentially undergoing this procedure with the intent of treating dry eye disease. The results of the 14 RCTs currently in progress will be of major importance for establishing a more definitive answer regarding the effectiveness and safety of IPL for treating MGD. We intend to update this review when results from these trials become available.
Topics: Dry Eye Syndromes; Humans; Intense Pulsed Light Therapy; Meibomian Gland Dysfunction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32182637
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013559