-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Ulcerative colitis is an inflammatory condition affecting the colon, with an annual incidence of approximately 10 to 20 per 100,000 people. The majority of people with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ulcerative colitis is an inflammatory condition affecting the colon, with an annual incidence of approximately 10 to 20 per 100,000 people. The majority of people with ulcerative colitis can be put into remission, leaving a group who do not respond to first- or second-line therapies. There is a significant proportion of people who experience adverse effects with current therapies. Consequently, new alternatives for the treatment of ulcerative colitis are constantly being sought. Probiotics are live microbial feed supplements that may beneficially affect the host by improving intestinal microbial balance, enhancing gut barrier function and improving local immune response.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of probiotics compared with placebo or standard medical treatment (5-aminosalicylates, sulphasalazine or corticosteroids) for the induction of remission in people with active ulcerative colitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases on 31 October 2019. We contacted authors of relevant studies and manufacturers of probiotics regarding ongoing or unpublished trials that may be relevant to the review, and we searched ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched references of trials for any additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of probiotics compared to standard treatments or placebo in the induction of remission of active ulcerative colitis. 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 analysed data using Review Manager 5. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
In this review, we included 14 studies (865 randomised participants) that met the inclusion criteria. Twelve of the studies looked at adult participants and two studies looked at paediatric participants with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis, the average age was between 12.5 and 47.7 years. The studies compared probiotics to placebo, probiotics to 5-ASA and a combination of probiotics plus 5-ASA compared to 5-ASA alone. Seven studies used a single probiotic strain and seven used a mixture of strains. The studies ranged from two weeks to 52 weeks. The risk of bias was high for all except two studies due to allocation concealment, blinding of participants, incomplete reports of outcome data and selective reporting. This led to GRADE ratings of the evidence ranging from moderate to very low. Probiotics versus placebo Probiotics may induce clinical remission when compared to placebo (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.54; 9 studies, 594 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to imprecision and risk of bias, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5). Probiotics may lead to an improvement in clinical disease scores (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.63; 2 studies, 54 participants; downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). There may be little or no difference in minor adverse events, but the evidence is of very low certainty (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.59; 7 studies, 520 participants). Reported adverse events included abdominal bloating and discomfort. Probiotics did not lead to any serious adverse events in any of the seven studies that reported on it, however five adverse events were reported in the placebo arm of one study (RR 0.09, CI 0.01 to 1.66; 1 study, 526 participants; very low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to high risk of bias and imprecision). Probiotics may make little or no difference to withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.72; 4 studies, 401 participants; low-certainty evidence). Probiotics versus 5-ASA There may be little or no difference in the induction of remission with probiotics when compared to 5-ASA (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.16; 1 study, 116 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). There may be little or no difference in minor adverse events, but the evidence is of very low certainty (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.33; 1 study, 116 participants). Reported adverse events included abdominal pain, nausea, headache and mouth ulcers. There were no serious adverse events with probiotics, however perforated sigmoid diverticulum and respiratory failure in a patient with severe emphysema were reported in the 5-ASA arm (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.22; 1 study, 116 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Probiotics combined with 5-ASA versus 5-ASA alone Low-certainty evidence from a single study shows that when combined with 5-ASA, probiotics may slightly improve the induction of remission (based on the Sunderland disease activity index) compared to 5-ASA alone (RR 1.22 CI 1.01 to 1.47; 1 study, 84 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to unclear risk of bias and imprecision). No information about adverse events was reported. Time to remission, histological and biochemical outcomes were sparsely reported in the studies. None of the other secondary outcomes (progression to surgery, need for additional therapy, quality of life scores, or steroid withdrawal) were reported in any of the studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence suggests that probiotics may induce clinical remission in active ulcerative colitis when compared to placebo. There may be little or no difference in clinical remission with probiotics alone compared to 5-ASA. There is limited evidence from a single study which failed to provide a definition of remission, that probiotics may slightly improve the induction of remission when used in combination with 5-ASA. There was no evidence to assess whether probiotics are effective in people with severe and more extensive disease, or if specific preparations are superior to others. Further targeted and appropriately designed RCTs are needed to address the gaps in the evidence base. In particular, appropriate powering of studies and the use of standardised participant groups and outcome measures in line with the wider field are needed, as well as reporting to minimise risk of bias.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Bias; Child; Colitis, Ulcerative; Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Mesalamine; Middle Aged; Numbers Needed To Treat; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Sample Size; Sulfasalazine
PubMed: 32128795
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005573.pub3 -
ERJ Open Research Jul 2023Biologics have proven efficacy for patients with severe asthma but there is lack of consensus on defining response. We systematically reviewed and appraised... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Biologics have proven efficacy for patients with severe asthma but there is lack of consensus on defining response. We systematically reviewed and appraised methodologically developed, defined and evaluated definitions of non-response and response to biologics for severe asthma.
METHODS
We searched four bibliographic databases from inception to 15 March 2021 Two reviewers screened references, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality of development, measurement properties of outcome measures and definitions of response based on COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). A modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach and narrative synthesis were undertaken.
RESULTS
13 studies reported three composite outcome measures, three asthma symptoms measures, one asthma control measure and one quality of life measure. Only four measures were developed with patient input; none were composite measures. Studies utilised 17 definitions of response: 10 out of 17 (58.8%) were based on minimal clinically important difference (MCID) or minimal important difference (MID) and 16 out of 17 (94.1%) had high-quality evidence. Results were limited by poor methodology for the development process and incomplete reporting of psychometric properties. Most measures rated "very low" to "low" for quality of measurement properties and none met all quality standards.
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first review to synthesise evidence about definitions of response to biologics for severe asthma. While high-quality definitions are available, most are MCIDs or MIDs, which may be insufficient to justify continuation of biologics in terms of cost-effectiveness. There remains an unmet need for universally accepted, patient-centred, composite definitions to aid clinical decision making and comparability of responses to biologics.
PubMed: 37143849
DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00444-2022 -
JAMA Network Open Dec 2023Prosocial interventions encourage voluntary actions that benefit others. Community solidarity in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, expanding mutual aid programs, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Prosocial interventions encourage voluntary actions that benefit others. Community solidarity in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, expanding mutual aid programs, and health workforce issues have accelerated prosocial health interventions.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the association of prosocial interventions with health outcomes in clinical trials and observational studies.
DATA SOURCES
In this systematic review and meta-analysis informed by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 5 databases (MEDLINE [via PubMed], Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Scopus) were searched from database inception through February 23, 2023. The search included terms for altruism and prosocial behaviors, health outcomes, and study type.
STUDY SELECTION
Included studies, determined by multiple reviewers, compared health outcomes in a prosocial intervention group with a nonintervention group.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline, data extraction and synthesis captured quantitative and qualitative data. To pool data from quantitative studies, random-effects meta-analyses were used to estimate the impact of prosocial interventions. To combine data from quantitative and qualitive studies, data were transformed into qualitative narratives using meta-aggregation.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The main outcome was whether prosocial interventions were associated with improved health outcomes. Barriers to and facilitators of implementation of these interventions were assessed.
RESULTS
The search identified 5229 citations; 30 studies were included in the synthesis. Studies indicated that prosocial interventions were associated with positive health outcomes for givers (17 studies [56.7]) and recipients (8 [26.7%]). Prosocial interventions included acts of kindness (12 studies [40.0%]), cash gifts (7 [23.3%]), pay-it-forward approaches (6 [20.0%]), and expressions of kindness (5 [16.7%]). Improvements were reported in depression, testing for sexually transmitted diseases, vaccine uptake, physical activity, and individual biomarkers. Data from 6 studies (20.0%) demonstrated that pay-it-forward approaches were associated with increased uptake of diagnostic tests or vaccines among vulnerable groups (moderate certainty of evidence). Data from 14 studies (46.7%) suggested that community connectedness facilitated prosocial interventions. Shared vulnerabilities among groups (eg, sexual minority individuals, older adults) may provide a context for collective mobilization to improve health in local communities.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This systematic review and meta-analysis found that prosocial interventions were associated with improved health outcomes among vulnerable groups and have been useful for addressing health disparities. Further research is needed to develop and evaluate prosocial interventions.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Pandemics; COVID-19
PubMed: 38064214
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.46789 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2022Autoinflammatory diseases (AID) are rare diseases presenting with episodes of sterile inflammation. These involve multiple organs and can cause both acute organ damage...
INTRODUCTION
Autoinflammatory diseases (AID) are rare diseases presenting with episodes of sterile inflammation. These involve multiple organs and can cause both acute organ damage and serious long-term effects, like amyloidosis. Disease-specific anti-inflammatory therapeutic strategies are established for some AID. However, their clinical course frequently includes relapsing, uncontrolled conditions. Therefore, new therapeutic approaches are needed. Janus Kinase inhibitors (JAKi) block key cytokines of AID pathogenesis and can be a potential option.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines was conducted. Three databases (MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for publications regarding the use of JAKi for AID. Data from the included publications was extracted and a narrative synthesis was performed. Criteria for defining treatment response were defined and applied.
RESULTS
We report data from 38 publications with a total of 101 patients describing the effects of JAKi in AID. Data on Type I Interferonopathies, Adult-Onset Still's Disease (AOSD), Systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (sJIA), Familial Mediterranean Fever (FMF), and Behçet's Syndrome (BS) was identified. From a total of 52 patients with type I interferonopathies, in seven patients (7/52, 13.5%) a complete response was achieved, most (35/52, 67.3%) showed a partial response and a minority (10/52, 19.2%) showed no treatment response. For AOSD, a complete or a partial response was achieved by eleven (11/26, 42.3%) patients each. Two sJIA patients achieved complete response (2/4, 50%) and in two cases (2/4, 50%) a partial response was reported. Half of FMF patients showed a complete response and the other half had a partial one (3/6, 50.0%). Amongst BS patients most achieved a partial response (8/13, 61.5%). Five patients showed no response to therapy (5/13, 38.5%). Overall, the most frequent AEs were upper respiratory tract infections (17), pneumonia (10), BK virus viremia (10) and viruria (4), herpes zoster infection (5), viral gastroenteritis (2) and other infections (4).
CONCLUSION
The results from this systematic review show that JAKi can be beneficial in certain AID. The risk of AEs, especially viral infections, should be considered. To accurately assess the risk benefit ratio of JAKi for AID, clinical trials should be conducted.
PubMed: 35833101
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.930071 -
Journal of Psychiatric Practice Mar 2016The goal of this review was to consolidate the evidence concerning the efficacy of botulinum toxin type A (onabotulinumtoxinA) in depression. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The goal of this review was to consolidate the evidence concerning the efficacy of botulinum toxin type A (onabotulinumtoxinA) in depression.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus through May 5, 2014, for studies evaluating the efficacy of botulinum toxin A in depression. Only randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. A pooled mean difference in primary depression score, and pooled odds ratio for response and remission rate with 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran Q test and χ statistic.
RESULTS
Of the 639 articles that were initially retrieved, 5 studies enrolling 194 subjects (age 49±9.6 y) were included in the systematic review, and 3 randomized controlled trials enrolling 134 subjects were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed a significant decrease in mean primary depression scores among patients who received botulinum toxin A compared with placebo (-9.80; 95% CI, -12.90 to -6.69) with modest heterogeneity between the studies (Cochran Q test, χ=70). Response and remission rates were 8.3 and 4.6 times higher, respectively, among patients receiving botulinum toxin A compared with placebo, with no heterogeneity between the studies. The 2 studies excluded from the meta-analysis also found a significant decrease in primary depression scores in patients after receiving botulinum toxin A. A few subjects had minor side effects, which were similar between the groups receiving botulinum toxin and those receiving placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
This study suggests that botulinum toxin A can produce significant improvement in depressive symptoms and is a safe adjunctive treatment for patients receiving pharmacotherapy for depression. Future trials are needed to evaluate the antidepressant effect per se of botulinum toxin A and to further elucidate the underlying antidepressant mechanism of botulinum toxin A.
Topics: Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27138078
DOI: 10.1097/PRA.0000000000000136 -
Headache Mar 2017Minorities have historically been underrepresented in clinical research trials despite having comparatively poor health indicators. Recognizing the dual inequalities of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Minorities have historically been underrepresented in clinical research trials despite having comparatively poor health indicators. Recognizing the dual inequalities of increased disease burden and decreased research participation, the National Institute of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act of 1993 mandated the inclusion and reporting of women and minorities in NIH-funded research. While progress has been made in the subsequent decades, this underrepresentation of minorities in research trials persists and has been documented in multiple disciplines. However, the extent of adequate representation and reporting of minority inclusion in clinical trials for migraine remains unknown.
OBJECTIVES
In this systematic review and study, we review the literature examining the representation of women and minorities in migraine clinical research trials METHODS: First we searched PubMed for pertinent articles examining the inclusion of women and minorities in migraine clinical research trials. Second, we identified controlled-trials for migraine published since 2011 in major neurology, headache, and general medicine journals using the terms "migraine randomized controlled trial." We then reviewed the results manually and excluded pilot studies and those with fewer than 50 participants. We next determined (a) how frequently representation of minorities and women were reported in these major trials; (b) what factors correlated with reporting; and (c) whether women and minority inclusion comprised their ratios in the general population.
RESULTS
We identified 128 relevant clinical trials, of which 36 met our inclusion criteria. All 36 trials (100%) reported gender frequency, and 25 of 36 (69.4%) reported ethnicity or race. Among all studies, women and Whites represented 84.2 and 82.9% of participants (mean), respectively. Studies conducted in the United States and funded by a private company were more likely to report race than studies conducted exclusively outside of the U.S. or with a public sponsor. No studies stratified efficacy or safety by ethnicity or gender. Men and non-Whites in the U.S. were statistically underrepresented.
CONCLUSIONS
Most recent headache studies comply with the NIH mandate to include women and minorities in research trials, particularly U.S.-based and industry-funded studies. Whites are overrepresented compared to both the general population and the population of migraineurs. Future studies should strive to increase minority participation and investigate race-based differences in migraine expression, treatment response, and medication toxicity.
Topics: Ethnicity; Female; Humans; Male; Migraine Disorders; Minority Groups; PubMed; Sex Factors; Statistics, Nonparametric
PubMed: 28127754
DOI: 10.1111/head.13018 -
Nutrients May 2015The Mediterranean diet has been proven to be highly effective in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Paraoxonase 1 (PON1) has been implicated in the development... (Review)
Review
The Mediterranean diet has been proven to be highly effective in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Paraoxonase 1 (PON1) has been implicated in the development of those conditions, especially atherosclerosis. The present work describes a systematic review of current evidence supporting the influence of Mediterranean diet and its constituents on this enzyme. Despite the differential response of some genetic polymorphisms, the Mediterranean diet has been shown to exert a protective action on this enzyme. Extra virgin olive oil, the main source of fat, has been particularly effective in increasing PON1 activity, an action that could be due to low saturated fatty acid intake, oleic acid enrichment of phospholipids present in high-density lipoproteins that favor the activity, and increasing hepatic PON1 mRNA and protein expressions induced by minor components present in this oil. Other Mediterranean diet constituents, such as nuts, fruits and vegetables, have been effective in modulating the activity of the enzyme, pomegranate and its compounds being the best characterized items. Ongoing research on compounds isolated from all these natural products, mainly phenolic compounds and carotenoids, indicates that some of them are particularly effective, and this may enhance the use of nutraceuticals and functional foods capable of potentiating PON1 activity.
Topics: Animals; Aryldialkylphosphatase; Cardiovascular Diseases; Carotenoids; Diet, Mediterranean; Disease Models, Animal; Fruit; Humans; Nuts; Olive Oil; Phenols; Protein Conformation; Risk Factors; Vegetables
PubMed: 26024295
DOI: 10.3390/nu7064068 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022Although pain is common in osteoarthritis, most people fail to achieve adequate analgesia. Increasing acknowledgement of the contribution of pain sensitisation has... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although pain is common in osteoarthritis, most people fail to achieve adequate analgesia. Increasing acknowledgement of the contribution of pain sensitisation has resulted in the investigation of medications affecting pain processing with central effects. Antidepressants contribute to pain management in other conditions where pain sensitisation is present.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of antidepressants for the treatment of symptomatic knee and hip osteoarthritis in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was January 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of adults with osteoarthritis that compared use of antidepressants to placebo or alternative comparator. We included trials that focused on efficacy (pain and function), treatment-related adverse effects and had documentation regarding discontinuation of participants. We excluded trials of less than six weeks of duration or had participants with concurrent mental health disorders.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Major outcomes were pain; responder rate; physical function; quality of life; and proportion of participants who withdrew due to adverse events, experienced any adverse events or had serious adverse events. Minor outcomes were proportion meeting the OARSI (Osteoarthritis Research Society International) Response Criteria, radiographic joint structure changes and proportion of participants who dropped out of the study for any reason. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Nine trials (2122 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Seven trials examined only knee osteoarthritis. Two also included participants with hip osteoarthritis. All trials compared antidepressants to placebo, with or without non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Trial sizes were 36 to 388 participants. Most participants were female, with mean ages of 54.5 to 65.9 years. Trial durations were 8 to 16 weeks. Six trials examined duloxetine. We combined data from nine trials in meta-analyses for knee and hip osteoarthritis. One trial was at low risk of bias in all domains. Five trials were at risk of attrition and reporting bias. High-certainty evidence found that antidepressants resulted in a clinically unimportant improvement in pain compared to placebo. Mean reduction in pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 = no pain) was 1.7 points with placebo and 2.3 points with antidepressants (mean difference (MD) -0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.88 to -0.31; 9 trials, 2122 participants). Clinical response was defined as achieving a 50% or greater reduction in 24-hour mean pain. High-certainty evidence demonstrated that 45% of participants receiving antidepressants had a clinical response compared to 28.6% receiving placebo (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.82; 6 RCTs, 1904 participants). This corresponded to an absolute improvement in pain of 16% more responders with antidepressants (8.9% more to 26% more) and a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNTB) of 6 (95% CI 4 to 11). High-certainty evidence showed that the mean improvement in function (on 0 to 100 Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, 0 = best function) was 10.51 points with placebo and 16.16 points with antidepressants (MD -5.65 points, 95% CI -7.08 to -4.23; 6 RCTs, 1909 participants). This demonstrates a small, clinically unimportant response. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) showed that quality of life measured using the EuroQol 5-Dimension scale (-0.11 to 1.0, 1.0 = perfect health) improved by 0.07 points with placebo and 0.11 points with antidepressants (MD 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.07; 3 RCTs, 815 participants). This is clinically unimportant. High-certainty evidence showed that total adverse events increased in the antidepressant group (64%) compared to the placebo group (49%) (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.41; 9 RCTs, 2102 participants). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) was 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). Low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice for imprecision for very low numbers of events) found no evidence of a difference in serious adverse events between groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.94; 9 RCTs, 2101 participants). The NNTH was 1000. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) showed that 11% of participants receiving antidepressants withdrew from trials due to an adverse event compared to 5% receiving placebo (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.97; 6 RCTs, 1977 participants). The NNTH was 17 (95% CI 10 to 35).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high-certainty evidence that use of antidepressants for knee osteoarthritis leads to a non-clinically important improvement in mean pain and function. However, a small number of people will have a 50% or greater important improvement in pain and function. This finding was consistent across all trials. Pain in osteoarthritis may be due to a variety of causes that differ between individuals. It may be that the cause of pain that responds to this therapy is only present in a small number of people. There is moderate-certainty evidence that antidepressants have a small positive effect on quality of life with heterogeneity between trials. High-certainty evidence indicates antidepressants result in more adverse events and moderate-certainty evidence indicates more withdrawal due to adverse events. There was little to no difference in serious adverse events (low-certainty evidence due to low numbers of events). This suggests that if antidepressants were being considered, there needs to be careful patient selection to optimise clinical benefit given the known propensity for adverse events with antidepressant use. Future trials should include alternative antidepressant agents or phenotyping of pain in people with osteoarthritis, or both.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antidepressive Agents; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36269595
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012157.pub2 -
Public Health May 2023COVID-19 and the implementation of lockdowns have impacted daily lives worldwide. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of lockdowns... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
COVID-19 and the implementation of lockdowns have impacted daily lives worldwide. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of lockdowns on the smoking and vaping behaviours of adults during the pandemic.
STUDY DESIGN
This was a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted up to 28 April 2022 in the following databases: PubMed, Embase and Web of Science.
RESULTS
In total, 77 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. In 34 studies, an increase in smoking behaviour was reported for the majority of participants; however, in 21 and 18 studies, 'no change' and 'decrease' in smoking were the predominant responses, respectively. The results from the meta-analysis, which examined the change in the number of cigarettes smoked per day, showed no difference between the pre- and post-lockdown periods: 0.81 weighted mean difference (95% confidence interval, -0.59 to 2.21). Regarding vaping, three of seven studies reported an increase in smoking for the majority of participants, whereas 'no change' and 'decrease' were the predominant answers in the other four studies.
CONCLUSIONS
The results show that lockdowns led most participants to increase smoking/vaping, whereas a decrease or cessation of smoking/vaping was only reported in the minority of participants. Attention should be given to the non-communicable diseases that could arise as a result of the increase in smoking/vaping during lockdowns, and further research in this area is needed.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Vaping; Smoking Cessation; COVID-19; Communicable Disease Control; Smoking; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems
PubMed: 37043948
DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2023.02.007 -
Annals of Oncology : Official Journal... Aug 2022'Stable disease (SD)' as per RECIST is a common but ambiguous outcome in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). This study aimed to characterize SD and...
BACKGROUND
'Stable disease (SD)' as per RECIST is a common but ambiguous outcome in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). This study aimed to characterize SD and identify the subset of patients with SD who are benefiting from treatment. Understanding SD would facilitate drug development and improve precision in correlative research.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
A systematic review was carried out to characterize SD in ICI trials. SD and objective response were compared to proliferation index using The Cancer Genome Atlas gene expression data. To identify a subgroup of SD with outcomes mirroring responders, we examined a discovery cohort of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Serial cutpoints of two variables, % best overall response and progression-free survival (PFS), were tested to define a subgroup of patients with SD with similar survival as responders. Results were then tested in external validation cohorts.
RESULTS
Among trials of ICIs (59 studies, 14 280 patients), SD ranged from 16% to 42% in different tumor types and was associated with disease-specific proliferation index (ρ = -0.75, P = 0.03), a proxy of tumor kinetics, rather than relative response to ICIs. In a discovery cohort of NSCLC [1220 patients, 313 (26%) with SD to ICIs], PFS ranged widely in SD (0.2-49 months, median 4.9 months). The subset with PFS >6 months and no tumor growth mirrored partial response (PR) minor (overall survival hazard ratio 1.0) and was proposed as the definition of SD responder. This definition was confirmed in two validation cohorts from trials of NSCLC treated with durvalumab and found to apply in tumor types treated with immunotherapy in which depth and duration of benefit were correlated.
CONCLUSIONS
RECIST-defined SD to immunotherapy is common, heterogeneous, and may largely reflect tumor growth rate rather than ICI response. In patients with NSCLC and SD to ICIs, PFS >6 months and no tumor growth may be considered 'SD responders'. This definition may improve the efficiency of and insight derivable from clinical and translational research.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Biomarkers, Tumor; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Lung Neoplasms
PubMed: 35533926
DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.04.450