-
Bulletin of the World Health... Dec 2014To describe and analyse the characteristics of oral cholera vaccination campaigns; including location, target population, logistics, vaccine coverage and delivery costs. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To describe and analyse the characteristics of oral cholera vaccination campaigns; including location, target population, logistics, vaccine coverage and delivery costs.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, the World Health Organization (WHO) website and the Cochrane database with no date or language restrictions. We contacted public health personnel, experts in the field and in ministries of health and did targeted web searches.
FINDINGS
A total of 33 documents were included in the analysis. One country, Viet Nam, incorporates oral cholera vaccination into its public health programme and has administered approximately 10.9 million vaccine doses between 1997 and 2012. In addition, over 3 million doses of the two WHO pre-qualified oral cholera vaccines have been administered in more than 16 campaigns around the world between 1997 and 2014. These campaigns have either been pre-emptive or reactive and have taken place under diverse conditions, such as in refugee camps or natural disasters. Estimated two-dose coverage ranged from 46 to 88% of the target population. Approximate delivery cost per fully immunized person ranged from 0.11-3.99 United States dollars.
CONCLUSION
Experience with oral cholera vaccination campaigns continues to increase. Public health officials may draw on this experience and conduct oral cholera vaccination campaigns more frequently.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Cholera; Cholera Vaccines; Global Health; Humans; Immunization Programs; Public Health Practice; Vietnam; World Health Organization
PubMed: 25552772
DOI: 10.2471/BLT.14.139949 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology Apr 2015To suggest options for oral and intramuscular antibiotic treatment of early postpartum endometritis in low-resource community settings where intravenous antibiotics are... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To suggest options for oral and intramuscular antibiotic treatment of early postpartum endometritis in low-resource community settings where intravenous antibiotics are unavailable.
DATA SOURCES
Studies were identified through MEDLINE from inception through December 2014. Search terms included [("anti-bacterial agents [MeSH]" or "anti-infective agents [MeSH]") and ("endometritis [MeSH]" or "puerperal infection [MeSH]")]. A second search using the terms [("endometritis or endomyometritis or puerperal infection) and ("antibiotics or antimicrobials or anti-bacterial agents or anti-infective agents)"] was also used. Additionally, all references from selected articles were reviewed, a hand-search of a subject matter expert library was conducted, and a search of ClinicalTrials.gov was performed.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
We conducted a systematic review of the literature in two phases. Phase I provides a summary of clinical cure data from prospective studies of oral and intramuscular antimicrobial regimens as well as summarizes evidence from trials of intravenous antimicrobials. Phase II is a quantitative analysis of pathogens from intrauterine postpartum endometritis samples. Based on these results, and with consideration of existing recommendations for antibiotic use during breastfeeding, we suggest oral and intramuscular antimicrobial options for the treatment of early postpartum endometritis after vaginal delivery in low-resource settings.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
Reports involving oral or intramuscular antimicrobial treatment of postpartum endometritis are rare and of generally poor quality. Antimicrobial trials of postpartum endometritis treatment and intrauterine microbiology studies suggest five antimicrobial regimens may be effective: oral clindamycin plus intramuscular gentamicin, oral amoxicillin-clavulanate, intramuscular cefotetan, intramuscular meropenem or imipenem-cilastatin, and oral amoxicillin in combination with oral metronidazole.
CONCLUSION
This review provides suggestions for oral, intramuscular, and combined antimicrobial regimens that may warrant additional study. Experimental trials should consider clinical effectiveness, safety and side effects profiles, and feasibility of community-based treatment.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Developing Countries; Drug Therapy, Combination; Endometritis; Female; Humans; Injections, Intramuscular; Puerperal Infection
PubMed: 25751198
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000732 -
The Canadian Journal of Cardiology Aug 2014Uncertainty exists about the benefit of oral anticoagulation in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), which is a lethal disease. We aimed to review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Uncertainty exists about the benefit of oral anticoagulation in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), which is a lethal disease. We aimed to review and quantify the effect of oral anticoagulants in overall survival of PAH patients.
METHODS
We searched for randomized and observational studies that evaluated oral anticoagulants in PAH in the electronic databases MEDLINE, CENTRAL and ISI Web of Knowledge (December 2013). Review articles and references were also screened. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled HRs and 95% confidence intervals. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using the I(2) test.
RESULTS
No randomized controlled trials were identified. Nine cohort studies (2 prospective and 7 retrospective) of overall moderate quality that enrolled 1730 PAH patients were included. Oral anticoagulation (warfarin) was associated with a 31% mortality risk reduction (HR, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.82; I(2) = 28%). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar results and no significant heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS
There is no randomized evidence to support the use of oral anticoagulation in PAH. Pooled results from cohort studies suggest a survival benefit, but the moderate study quality, the high risk of publication bias, and the methodological limitations inherent in the analysis of observational studies preclude a definite conclusion. There is an urgent need for pragmatic randomized evidence to definitely answer this important clinical question.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Familial Primary Pulmonary Hypertension; Humans; Hypertension, Pulmonary; Prognosis; Thromboembolism
PubMed: 24986048
DOI: 10.1016/j.cjca.2014.04.016 -
BioMed Research International 2017NaoXueShu oral liquid invigorates Qi and promotes blood circulation, which is mainly used for treating the acute stage of the meridian of hemorrhagic apoplexy and acute... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
NaoXueShu oral liquid invigorates Qi and promotes blood circulation, which is mainly used for treating the acute stage of the meridian of hemorrhagic apoplexy and acute blood stasis syndrome during early convalescence. Its main clinical manifestations include hemiplegia, mouth askew, hemianesthesia, and inarticulateness. It is used mainly in patients with lobar hemorrhage, basal ganglia, and thalamus of the small amount of bleeding without disturbing consciousness of hypertensive cerebral. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of NaoXueShu oral liquid on the treatment of cerebral hemorrhage. In this study, literature on randomized controlled trials was collected from seven databases to evaluate the clinical efficiency of the treatment of cerebral hemorrhage alone or combined with Western medicine. The methodologic quality of the included studies was assessed using a standard Cochrane system review and analyzed using RevMan 5.3.0 software. The study included 14 eligible randomized controlled trials. The results showed that the use of NaoXueShu oral liquid alone or combined with other drugs or auxiliary methods can play a significant role in the treatment of cerebral hemorrhage, especially hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Cerebral Hemorrhage; Female; Humans; Male; Plant Preparations
PubMed: 28630871
DOI: 10.1155/2017/8542576 -
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Sep 2021Current global guidelines regarding the first-line analgesics (acetaminophen, topical or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]) for knee osteoarthritis... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy and safety of acetaminophen, topical and oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for knee osteoarthritis: evidence from a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and real-world data.
OBJECTIVE
Current global guidelines regarding the first-line analgesics (acetaminophen, topical or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]) for knee osteoarthritis remain controversial and their comparative risk-benefit profiles have yet to be adequately assessed.
DESIGN
Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from database inception to March 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acetaminophen, topical NSAIDs and oral NSAIDs directly or indirectly in knee osteoarthritis. Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted. A propensity-score matched cohort study was also conducted among patients with knee osteoarthritis in The Health Improvement Network database.
RESULTS
122 RCTs (47,113 participants) were networked. Topical NSAIDs were superior to acetaminophen (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.29, 95% credible interval [CrI]: -0.52 to -0.06) and not statistically different from oral NSAIDs (SMD = 0.03, 95% CrI: -0.16 to 0.22) for function. It had lower risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects (AEs) than acetaminophen (risk ratio [RR] = 0.52, 95%CrI: 0.35 to 0.76) and oral NSAIDs (RR = 0.46, 95%CrI: 0.34 to 0.61) in RCTs. In real-world data, topical NSAIDs showed lower risks of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52 to 0.68), cardiovascular diseases (HR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.63 to 0.85) and gastrointestinal bleeding (HR = 0.53, 95%CI: 0.41 to 0.69) than acetaminophen during the one-year follow-up (n = 22,158 participants/group). A better safety profile was also observed for topical than oral NSAIDs (n = 14,218 participants/group).
CONCLUSIONS
Topical NSAIDs are more effective than acetaminophen but not oral NSAIDs for function improvement in people with knee osteoarthritis. Topical NSAIDs are safer than acetaminophen or oral NSAIDs in trials and real-world data.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34174454
DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2021.06.004 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Jan 2018The objectives of this systematic review were to unify criteria on the effectiveness of oral pregabalin to treat acute post-operative pain after cervicofacial surgery,... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The objectives of this systematic review were to unify criteria on the effectiveness of oral pregabalin to treat acute post-operative pain after cervicofacial surgery, to establish the most effective dose regimens, and to determine its effect on rescue medicine consumption and its association with adverse effects.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed/Medline (National Library of Medicine, Washington, DC), Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies in any language published between January 2000 and September 2016. The following question was posed, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines: Is oral pregabalin effective and safe for the relief of acute pain after cervicofacial surgery? The critical reading of the literature utilized a list of questions prepared by the CASPe Network, applying the Jadad scale for evaluation of the methodological quality of trials.
RESULTS
Eleven randomized controlled clinical trials were selected. The 11 trials obtained a score ≥ 3, considered as Ib evidence level and high quality. A single oral dose of 75-mg pregabalin before or after cervicofacial surgery alleviates pain and lessens the need for rescue analgesia consumption, while the statistical significance of these effects is higher with a single dose of 150-mg pregabalin, either before or after the surgery.
CONCLUSION
Oral pregabalin appears to significantly alleviate post-operative pain and reduce rescue analgesia consumption, with no severe adverse effects. However, the ideal dose and most effective administration regimen remain controversial issues that need to be addressed in further high-quality clinical trials.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
These findings suggest that pregabalin may be useful for acute pain relief after cervicofacial surgery.
Topics: Acute Pain; Administration, Oral; Analgesics; Facial Pain; Humans; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Pregabalin
PubMed: 29101547
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-017-2272-2 -
Scientific Reports Sep 2023Cancer-related anorexia/cachexia syndrome (CACS) is characterized by anorexia and loss of body weight. Evidence is insufficient to strongly endorse any pharmacologic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Cancer-related anorexia/cachexia syndrome (CACS) is characterized by anorexia and loss of body weight. Evidence is insufficient to strongly endorse any pharmacologic agent for the treatment of CACS. In this systematic review, we assessed the efficacy of oral anamorelin treatment for patients with CACS. On July 6, 2022, we systematically searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with CACS comparing oral anamorelin versus placebo: CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, and ICHUSHI. The primary outcomes were total body weight (TBW), patient-reported quality of life (QOL), and adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included lean body mass (LBM), overall survival (OS), non-dominant hand grip strength (HGS), and appetite. We included seven RCTs with a total of 1944 CACS patients. Anamorelin significantly increased TBW (mean difference (MD) 1.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34-2.13, p < 0.00001), LBM (MD 1.06, 95% CI 0.30-1.81, p = 0.006), and QOL (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.16, 95% CI 0.04-0.27, p = 0.006) compared with placebo without a significant difference in all AEs, severe AEs, OS, HGS or appetite. Anamorelin may be an effective treatment for CACS patients; however, further studies are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of this drug.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Anorexia; Cachexia; Neoplasms; Administration, Oral
PubMed: 37709824
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-42446-x -
Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice Feb 2021To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (RA) oral semaglutide in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (RA) oral semaglutide in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials comparing oral semaglutide with placebo or other antihyperglycemic agents in T2DM patients were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov. Risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were used to synthesize the results.
RESULTS
Ten relevant studies involving 8,536 patients were finally included. Compared with placebo, oral semaglutide significantly reduced hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), body weight, fasting plasma glucose, self-measured plasma glucose (SMPG), serious adverse events and all-cause death and significantly increased the number of participants who achieved HbA1c < 7.0%. Compared with active comparators, oral semaglutide significantly reduced the level of HbA1c, body weight, and SMPG and significantly increased the number of participants who achieved HbA1c < 7.0%. Compared with placebo or active comparators, oral semaglutide did not increase the incidence of adverse events, hypoglycemia (severe or blood glucose-confirmed symptomatic), myocardial infarction, heart failure requiring hospitalization, stroke or acute pancreatitis but did increase the incidence of nausea, diarrhea and vomiting.
CONCLUSIONS
Oral semaglutide has favorable efficacy and safety in the treatment of T2DM patients. Oral semaglutide may be superior to liraglutide, dulaglutide, empagliflozin and sitagliptin for T2DM patients who have obesity or poor adherence to injectable GLP-1 RAs.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Glucagon-Like Peptides; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Middle Aged
PubMed: 33434602
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2021.108656 -
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology Oct 2023To assess the effect and safety of probiotics for treating urticaria. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To assess the effect and safety of probiotics for treating urticaria.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trial (RCT) papers on the probiotics treatment published before May 2019 were retrieved from various databases like PubMed, EMbase, MEDLINE (Ovid), SCI-Hub, Springer, ClinicalKey, VIP, and CNKI. The treatment plan that we include are oral administration of single probiotic, multiple probiotics, and the combination of probiotics and antihistamines. Meta-analysis of the data was performed by RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS
A total of nine RCT papers were included: four papers for oral administration of single probiotic, three papers for oral administration of multiple probiotics, and two papers for oral administration of a probiotic combined with antihistamines. The results of meta-analysis showed that the therapeutic effect of the probiotic group was significantly higher than the control group (placebo or antihistamines) (RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.03-1.16, p = 0.006). And compared with the placebo group, the therapeutic effect of single probiotic group was significantly improved (RR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.01-1.21, p = 0.03). Regarding therapeutic effect, there was no statistically significant difference between the multiple probiotics group and placebo group (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.94 ~ 1.07, p = 0.91); the therapeutic effect of single probiotic combined antihistamine group was significantly higher than the antihistamine group (RR = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.07-1.19, p < 0.0001). Regarding the incidence of adverse reactions, there was no significant difference between the probiotic group and the control group (p = 0.46).
CONCLUSION
The treatment plan of oral administration of probiotics has significant therapeutic effects on urticaria, but the therapeutic effects of the administration of multiple probiotics and the safety of probiotic therapy are still not yet obvious. Some large-scale, multi-centered RCT studies are needed in the future for clarification.
Topics: Humans; Probiotics; Administration, Oral; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Urticaria
PubMed: 37221968
DOI: 10.1111/jocd.15782 -
Neurogastroenterology and Motility Jan 2022Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a highly prevalent and economically burdensome condition; and pain is often the most unpleasant, disruptive, and difficult-to-treat... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a highly prevalent and economically burdensome condition; and pain is often the most unpleasant, disruptive, and difficult-to-treat symptom. Visceral hypersensitivity is a common feature driving pain in IBS, suggesting that neuropathic mechanisms may be implicated. We conducted a systematic review of available evidence to examine the role of anti-neuropathic medicines in the management of pain in IBS.
METHODS
We systematically searched scientific repositories for trials investigating conventional oral, and/or parenteral, pharmaceutical antineuropathic treatments in patients with IBS. We summarized key participant characteristics, outcomes related to pain (primary outcome), and selected secondary outcomes.
KEY RESULTS
We included 13 studies (n = 629 participants): six investigated amitriptyline, three duloxetine, three pregabalin, and one gabapentin. There was considerable methodological and statistical heterogeneity, so we performed a narrative synthesis and limited meta-analysis. Amitriptyline was most extensively studied, though only in diarrhea-predominant patients. In individual trials, amitriptyline, pregabalin and gabapentin generally appeared beneficial for pain outcomes. While duloxetine studies tended to report improvements in pain, all were un-controlled trials with high risk of bias. Meta-analysis of three studies (n = 278) yielded a pooled relative-risk of 0.50 (95%CI 0.38-0.66) for not improving with anti-neuropathic agent vs control. We did not identify any eligible studies investigating the role of parenteral anti-neuropathics.
CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES
Anti-neuropathic analgesics may improve pain in IBS, and deserve further, high-quality investigation, potentially considering parenteral administration and agents with minimal gastrointestinal motility effects. Investigation of amitriptyline's efficacy in non-diarrhea-predominant subtypes is currently lacking, and we recommend particular caution for its use in IBS-C.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Administration, Oral; Analgesics; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34755926
DOI: 10.1111/nmo.14289