-
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Jun 2023To summarize available evidence comparing the transdermal and the oral administration routes of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in postmenopausal women. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To summarize available evidence comparing the transdermal and the oral administration routes of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in postmenopausal women.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the literature on multiple databases between January 1990 and December 2021. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing the transdermal and oral administration routes of estrogens for HRT in postmenopausal women regarding at least one of the outcomes of interest: cardiovascular risk, venous thromboembolism (VTE), lipid metabolism, carbohydrate metabolism, bone mineral density (BMD), and risk of pre-malignant and malignant endometrial lesions, or breast cancer.
RESULTS
The systematic literature search identified a total of 1369 manuscripts, of which 51 were included. Most studies were observational and of good quality, whereas the majority of randomized controlled trials presented a high or medium risk of bias. Oral and transdermal administration routes are similar regarding BMD, glucose metabolism, and lipid profile improvements, as well as do not appear different regarding breast cancer, endometrial disease, and cardiovascular risk. Identified literature provides clear evidence only for the VTE risk, which is higher with the oral administration route.
CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence comparing the transdermal and oral administration routes for HRT is limited and of low quality, recommending further investigations. VTE risk can be considered the clearest and strongest clinical difference between the two administration routes, supporting the transdermal HRT as safer than the oral administration route.
Topics: Female; Humans; Postmenopause; Estrogen Replacement Therapy; Venous Thromboembolism; Administration, Cutaneous; Estrogens; Hormone Replacement Therapy; Breast Neoplasms; Administration, Oral; Lipids
PubMed: 35713694
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-022-06647-5 -
The Lancet. Psychiatry May 2021Evidence of comparative benefits of long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) versus oral antipsychotics for schizophrenia has been inconsistent across study designs.... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Long-acting injectable versus oral antipsychotics for the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis of randomised, cohort, and pre-post studies.
BACKGROUND
Evidence of comparative benefits of long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) versus oral antipsychotics for schizophrenia has been inconsistent across study designs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparative benefits of LAIs versus oral antipsychotics in three study designs to inform clinical decision making.
METHODS
We did a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis comparing LAIs versus oral antipsychotics for schizophrenia covering three study designs: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and pre-post studies. Our literature search was without language restrictions, in MEDLINE and PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Embase, for studies published from database inception up to a last search on March 13, 2020. We also searched for unpublished studies and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included studies lasting at least 6 months that targeted adults with schizophrenia and related disorders (>80% of participants). Studies on penfluridol (neither an LAI or daily oral antipsychotic), case reports, and case series with fewer than 20 patients were excluded. Two investigators independently extracted study-level data and resolved disagreement by consensus, or via a third investigator. Study authors were contacted to obtain additional information as needed. For our primary outcome we meta-analysed the risk ratio (RR) for hospitalisation or relapse with LAIs versus oral antipsychotics by a random-effects model, with hospitalisation used preferentially over relapse. As secondary analyses, we reversed the preferential order to relapse over hospitalisation, and assessed hospitalisation risk and relapse risk individually. Other secondary outcomes included all meta-analysable data, classed by relevance to effectiveness, efficacy, safety, quality of life, cognitive function, and other outcomes, and analysed by study design. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as pooled RR and continuous outcomes as standardised mean difference (SMD). The protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019142094).
FINDINGS
We identified 14 687 records, of which 137 studies (397 319 patients) met the inclusion criteria (32 RCTs [23·4%; 8577 patients], 65 cohort studies [47·4%; 377 447 patients], and 40 pre-post studies [29·2%; 11 295 patients]) and were analysed. The quality of studies in terms of risk of bias varied across study designs and within each study design from low to high. LAIs were associated with a lower risk of hospitalisation or relapse than oral antipsychotics in each of the three study designs (RCTs: 29 studies, 7833 patients, RR 0·88 [95% CI 0·79-0·99], p=0·033; cohort studies: 44 studies, 106 136 patients, RR 0·92 [0·88-0·98], p=0·0044; pre-post studies: 28 studies, 17 876 patients, RR 0·44 [0·39-0·51], p<0·0001). This association was maintained across the study designs when we reversed the preferential order to risk of relapse over hospitalisation, and in individual analysis of hospitalisation risk. The association was maintained only in pre-post studies for relapse risk alone. In all other outcomes related to effectiveness, efficacy, safety, quality of life, cognitive function, and other outcomes, LAIs were more beneficial than oral antipsychotics in 60 (18·3%) of 328 comparisons, not different in 252 (76·8%) comparisons, and less beneficial in 16 (4·9%) comparisons when analysed by study design. Significant heterogeneity was observed across all three study designs. Publication biases were apparent in cohort and pre-post studies, but effect sizes were similar after trim-and-fill analyses.
INTERPRETATION
Although study designs have strengths and weaknesses, including potential low quality of observational studies, we consistently identified significant benefit with LAIs versus oral antipsychotics in preventing hospitalisation or relapse, in settings ranging from restricted research (RCTs) to real-word application (cohort and pre-post studies). Our findings suggest that increased clinical use of LAIs could improve outcomes in schizophrenia.
FUNDING
None.
TRANSLATIONS
For the Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Portugese and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antipsychotic Agents; Cohort Studies; Delayed-Action Preparations; Humans; Injections; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33862018
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00039-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Vitamin B deficiency is common, and the incidence increases with age. Most people with vitamin B deficiency are treated in primary care with intramuscular (IM) vitamin... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Vitamin B deficiency is common, and the incidence increases with age. Most people with vitamin B deficiency are treated in primary care with intramuscular (IM) vitamin B. Doctors may not be prescribing oral vitamin B formulations because they may be unaware of this option or have concerns regarding its effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of oral vitamin B versus intramuscular vitamin B for vitamin B deficiency.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS, as well as the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. The latest search date was 17 July 2017. We applied no language restrictions. We also contacted authors of relevant trials to enquire about other published or unpublished studies and ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of oral versus IM vitamin B for vitamin B deficiency.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were serum vitamin B levels, clinical signs and symptoms of vitamin B deficiency, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, acceptability to patients, haemoglobin and mean corpuscular volume, total homocysteine and serum methylmalonic acid levels, and socioeconomic effects. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for important outcomes. We did not perform meta-analyses due to the small number of included trials and substantial clinical heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
Three RCTs met our inclusion criteria. The trials randomised 153 participants (74 participants to oral vitamin B and 79 participants to IM vitamin B). Treatment duration and follow-up ranged between three and four months. The mean age of participants ranged from 38.6 to 72 years. The treatment frequency and daily dose of vitamin B in the oral and IM groups varied among trials. Only one trial had low or unclear risk of bias across all domains and outcome measures. Two trials reported data for serum vitamin B levels. The overall quality of evidence for this outcome was low due to serious imprecision (low number of trials and participants). In two trials employing 1000 μg/day oral vitamin B, there was no clinically relevant difference in vitamin B levels when compared with IM vitamin B. One trial used 2000 μg/day vitamin B and demonstrated a mean difference of 680 pg/mL (95% confidence interval 392.7 to 967.3) in favour of oral vitamin B. Two trials reported data on adverse events (very low-quality evidence due to risk of performance bias, detection bias, and serious imprecision). One trial stated that no treatment-related adverse events were seen in both the oral and IM vitamin B groups. One trial reported that 2 of 30 participants (6.7%) in the oral vitamin B group left the trial early due to adverse events. Orally taken vitamin B showed lower treatment-associated costs than IM vitamin B in one trial (low-quality evidence due to serious imprecision). No trial reported on clinical signs and symptoms of vitamin B deficiency, health-related quality of life, or acceptability of the treatment scheme.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low quality evidence shows oral and IM vitamin B having similar effects in terms of normalising serum vitamin B levels, but oral treatment costs less. We found very low-quality evidence that oral vitamin B appears as safe as IM vitamin B. Further trials should conduct better randomisation and blinding procedures, recruit more participants, and provide adequate reporting. Future trials should also measure important outcomes such as the clinical signs and symptoms of vitamin B deficiency, health related-quality of life, socioeconomic effects, and report adverse events adequately, preferably in a primary care setting.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Aged; Humans; Injections, Intramuscular; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vitamin B 12; Vitamin B 12 Deficiency; Vitamin B Complex
PubMed: 29543316
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004655.pub3 -
Lancet (London, England) Jun 2019Oral immunotherapy is an emerging experimental treatment for peanut allergy, but its benefits and harms are unclear. We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Oral immunotherapy is an emerging experimental treatment for peanut allergy, but its benefits and harms are unclear. We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of oral immunotherapy versus allergen avoidance or placebo (no oral immunotherapy) for peanut allergy.
METHODS
In the Peanut Allergen immunotherapy, Clarifying the Evidence (PACE) systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WHO's Clinical Trials Registry Platform, US Food and Drug Administration, and European Medicines Agency databases from inception to Dec 6, 2018, for randomised controlled trials comparing oral immunotherapy versus no oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy, without language restrictions. We screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias independently in duplicate. Main outcomes included anaphylaxis, allergic or adverse reactions, epinephrine use, and quality of life, meta-analysed by random effects. We assessed certainty (quality) of evidence by the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42019117930.
RESULTS
12 trials (n=1041; median age across trials 8·7 years [IQR 5·9-11·2]) showed that oral immunotherapy versus no oral immunotherapy increased anaphylaxis risk (risk ratio [RR] 3·12 [95% CI 1·76-5·55], I=0%, risk difference [RD] 15·1%, high-certainty), anaphylaxis frequency (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2·72 [1·57-4·72], I=0%, RD 12·2%, high-certainty), and epinephrine use (RR 2·21 [1·27-3·83], I=0%, RD 4·5%, high-certainty) similarly during build-up and maintenance (p=0·92). Oral immunotherapy increased serious adverse events (RR 1·92 [1·00-3·66], I=0%, RD 5·7%, moderate-certainty), and non-anaphylactic reactions (vomiting: RR 1·79 [95%CI 1·35-2·38], I=0%, high-certainty; angioedema: 2·25 [1·13-4·47], I=0%, high-certainty; upper tract respiratory reactions: 1·36 [1·02-1·81], I=0%, moderate-certainty; lower tract respiratory reactions: 1·55 [0·96-2·50], I=28%, moderate-certainty). Passing a supervised challenge, a surrogate for preventing out-of-clinic reactions, was more likely with oral immunotherapy (RR 12·42 [95% CI 6·82-22·61], I=0%, RD 36·5%, high-certainty). Quality of life was not different between groups (combined parents and self report RR 1·21 [0·87-1·69], I=0%, RD 0·03%, low-certainty). Findings were robust to IRR, trial sequential, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses.
INTERPRETATION
In patients with peanut allergy, high-certainty evidence shows that available peanut oral immunotherapy regimens considerably increase allergic and anaphylactic reactions over avoidance or placebo, despite effectively inducing desensitisation. Safer peanut allergy treatment approaches and rigorous randomised controlled trials that evaluate patient-important outcomes are needed.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Child; Child, Preschool; Desensitization, Immunologic; Female; Humans; Male; Peanut Hypersensitivity; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31030987
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30420-9 -
Nutrients Aug 2023Alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) was found to improve the symptoms in patients with diabetic sensorimotor peripheral neuropathy (DSPN) by reducing oxidative stress and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) was found to improve the symptoms in patients with diabetic sensorimotor peripheral neuropathy (DSPN) by reducing oxidative stress and ameliorating microcirculation. Our meta-analysis is aimed at evaluating the effects of oral-administered ALA versus a placebo in patients with DSPN and determining the optimal dosage for this treatment. We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to determine the efficacy of oral ALA for patients with DSPN. The primary outcome was total symptoms' score (TSS), and secondary outcomes were the neurological disability score (NDS), neuropathy impaired score (NIS), NIS-lower limb (NIS-LL), vibration perception threshold (VPT), nerve conduction study (NCS) results, and global satisfaction. A subgroup analysis of the ALA dosage (600, 1200, and 1800 mg/day) was also conducted. Ten RCTs (1242 patients) were included. ALA treatment produced favorable results for TSS (a dose-related trend was observed), NDS, and the global satisfaction score. For VAS, VPT, NIS-LL, and NCS results, ALA did not produce favorable results. ALA treatment had favorable effects on DSPN by reducing sensory symptoms, and it resulted in a dose-dependent response relative to the placebo for TSS and the global satisfaction score. The use of ALA to prevent neurological symptoms should be further researched.
Topics: Humans; Diabetic Neuropathies; Thioctic Acid; Administration, Oral; Databases, Factual; Lower Extremity; Diabetes Mellitus
PubMed: 37630823
DOI: 10.3390/nu15163634 -
Journal of Psychopharmacology (Oxford,... Feb 2016The effects of propranolol in the treatment of anxiety disorders have not been systematically evaluated previously. The aim was to conduct a systematic review and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
The effects of propranolol in the treatment of anxiety disorders have not been systematically evaluated previously. The aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, addressing the efficacy of oral propranolol versus placebo or other medication as a treatment for alleviating either state or trait anxiety in patients suffering from anxiety disorders. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies concerned panic disorder with or without agoraphobia (four studies, total n = 130), specific phobia (two studies, total n = 37), social phobia (one study, n = 16), and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (one study, n = 19). Three out of four panic disorder trials qualified for pooled analyses. These meta-analyses found no statistically significant differences between the efficacy of propranolol and benzodiazepines regarding the short-term treatment of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. Also, no evidence was found for effects of propranolol on PTSD symptom severity through inhibition of memory reconsolidation. In conclusion, the quality of evidence for the efficacy of propranolol at present is insufficient to support the routine use of propranolol in the treatment of any of the anxiety disorders.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Anxiety Disorders; Humans; Propranolol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 26487439
DOI: 10.1177/0269881115612236 -
Chest May 2023The management of patients who are receiving chronic oral anticoagulation therapy and require an elective surgery or an invasive procedure is a common clinical scenario. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The management of patients who are receiving chronic oral anticoagulation therapy and require an elective surgery or an invasive procedure is a common clinical scenario.
RESEARCH QUESTION
What is the best available evidence to support the development of American College of Chest Physicians guidelines on the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term vitamin K agonist (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and require elective surgery or procedures?
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
A literature search including multiple databases from database inception through July 16, 2020, was performed. Meta-analyses were conducted when appropriate.
RESULTS
In patients receiving VKA (warfarin) undergoing elective noncardiac surgery, shorter (< 3 days) VKA interruption is associated with an increased risk of major bleeding. In patients who required VKA interruption, heparin bridging (mostly with low-molecular-weight heparin [LMWH]) was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of major bleed, representing a very low certainty of evidence (COE). Compared with DOAC interruption 1 to 4 days before surgery, continuing DOACs may be associated with higher risk of bleeding demonstrated in some, but not all studies. In patients who needed DOAC interruption, bridging with LMWH may be associated with a statistically significant increased risk of bleeding, representing a low COE.
INTERPRETATION
The certainty in the evidence supporting the perioperative management of anticoagulants remains limited. No high-quality evidence exists to support the practice of heparin bridging during the interruption of VKA or DOAC therapy for an elective surgery or procedure, or for the practice of interrupting VKA therapy for minor procedures, including cardiac device implantation, or continuation of a DOAC vs short-term interruption of a DOAC in the perioperative period.
Topics: Humans; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Anticoagulants; Heparin; Warfarin; Fibrinolytic Agents; Hemorrhage; Vitamin K; Administration, Oral
PubMed: 36462533
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2022.11.032 -
Journal of Crohn's & Colitis Jul 20215-Aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] are the mainstay of treatment for ulcerative colitis [UC]. The optimum preparation, dose, and route of administration for UC remain unclear.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
5-Aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] are the mainstay of treatment for ulcerative colitis [UC]. The optimum preparation, dose, and route of administration for UC remain unclear. We conducted a network meta-analysis to examine this issue.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE Classic, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials from inception to December 2020. We included randomised controlled trials [RCTs] comparing oral, topical, or combined oral and topical 5-ASAs, with each other or placebo for induction of remission or prevention of relapse of UC. Results were reported as pooled relative risks [RRs] with 95% confidence intervals [CIs] to summarise effect of each comparison tested, with treatments ranked according to P-score.
RESULTS
We identified 40 RCTs for induction of remission and 23 for prevention of relapse. Topical mesalazine [P-score 0.99], or oral and topical mesalazine combined [P-score 0.87] ranked first and second for clinical and endoscopic remission combined. Combined therapy ranked first in trials where ≥50% of patients had left-sided/extensive disease, and topical mesalazine first in trials where ≥50% of patients had proctitis/proctosigmoiditis. High-dose [≥3.3 g/day] oral mesalazine ranked third in most analyses, with the most trials and most patients. For relapse of disease activity, combined therapy and high-dose oral mesalazine ranked first and second, with topical mesalazine third. 5-ASAs were safe and well tolerated, regardless of regimen.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results support previous evidence; however, higher doses of oral mesalazine had more evidence for induction of remission than combined therapy and were significantly more efficacious than lower doses. Future RCTs should better establish the role of combined therapy for induction of remission, as well as optimal doses of oral 5-ASAs to prevent relapse.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Colitis, Ulcerative; Humans; Mesalamine; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 33433562
DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab010 -
Dermatologic Therapy Apr 2022Acne vulgaris is one of the most common dermatologic complaints. Recently, isotretinoin has been used as an off-label indication for the treatment of mild-to-moderate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Acne vulgaris is one of the most common dermatologic complaints. Recently, isotretinoin has been used as an off-label indication for the treatment of mild-to-moderate grades of acne not responding to conventional treatment. Its conventional recommended dose is 0.5-1.0 mg/kg per day to the cumulative dose of 120-150 mg/kg. To qualify the state of evidence and analyze the efficacy of the low-daily dose and the pulsed doses of isotretinoin in treating mild-to-moderate acne patients with regards to response and relapse rates. Systematic review and meta-analysis using an electronic literature search were performed. The 320 potentially relevant articles were included and reviewed. The level of evidence is moderate to low as conducted by the GRADE quality of evidence assessment. The pooled statistical estimate for response to treatment in the group comparing low-daily doses with conventional dose showed an overall benefit for conventional dose. On the other hand, pooled data from the group comparing the low-daily dose with the pulsed doses yielded an overall beneficial effect from using the low-daily dose compared with the pulsed doses on achieving the response. Given all of the available studies, the quality of evidence is low. It appears that conventional dose isotretinoin improves the odds of prolonged remission in adults with mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris compared to the low doses.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Administration, Oral; Adult; Dermatologic Agents; Humans; Isotretinoin; Recurrence
PubMed: 35000295
DOI: 10.1111/dth.15311 -
Nutrients Dec 2021l-Carnitine (l-C) and any of its forms (glycine-propionyl l-Carnitine (GPL-C) or l-Carnitine l-tartrate (l-CLT)) has been frequently recommended as a supplement to...
l-Carnitine (l-C) and any of its forms (glycine-propionyl l-Carnitine (GPL-C) or l-Carnitine l-tartrate (l-CLT)) has been frequently recommended as a supplement to improve sports performance due to, among others, its role in fat metabolism and in maintaining the mitochondrial acetyl-CoA/CoA ratio. The main aim of the present systematic review was to determine the effects of oral l-C supplementation on moderate- (50-79% V˙O) and high-intensity (≥80% V˙O) exercise performance and to show the effective doses and ideal timing of its intake. A structured search was performed according to the PRISMA statement and the PICOS guidelines in the Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus databases, including selected data obtained up to 24 October 2021. The search included studies where l-C or glycine-propionyl l-Carnitine (GPL-C) supplementation was compared with a placebo in an identical situation and tested its effects on high and/or low-moderate performance. The trials that used the supplementation of l-C together with additional supplements were eliminated. There were no applied filters on physical fitness level, race, or age of the participants. The methodological quality of studies was evaluated by the McMaster Critical Review Form. Of the 220 articles obtained, 11 were finally included in this systematic review. Six studies used l-C, while three studies used l-CLT, and two others combined the molecule propionyl l-Carnitine (PL-C) with GPL-C. Five studies analyzed chronic supplementation (4-24 weeks) and six studies used an acute administration (<7 days). The administration doses in this chronic supplementation varied from 1 to 3 g/day; in acute supplementation, oral l-C supplementation doses ranged from 3 to 4 g. On the one hand, the effects of oral l-C supplementation on high-intensity exercise performance variables were analyzed in nine studies. Four of them measured the effects of chronic supplementation (lower rating of perceived exertion (RPE) after 30 min at 80% V˙O on cycle ergometer and higher work capacity in "all-out" tests, peak power in a Wingate test, and the number of repetitions and volume lifted in leg press exercises), and five studies analyzed the effects of acute supplementation (lower RPE after graded exercise test on the treadmill until exhaustion and higher peak and average power in the Wingate cycle ergometer test). On the other hand, the effects of l-C supplementation on moderate exercise performance variables were observed in six studies. Out of those, three measured the effect of an acute supplementation, and three described the effect of a chronic supplementation, but no significant improvements on performance were found. In summary, l-C supplementation with 3 to 4 g ingested between 60 and 90 min before testing or 2 to 2.72 g/day for 9 to 24 weeks improved high-intensity exercise performance. However, chronic or acute l-C or GPL-C supplementation did not present improvements on moderate exercise performance.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Athletic Performance; Carnitine; Dietary Supplements; Exercise; Female; Humans; Male; Sports Nutritional Physiological Phenomena; Time Factors
PubMed: 34959912
DOI: 10.3390/nu13124359