-
Journal of Endodontics Feb 2022The aim of this study was to analyze and compare the efficacy of different bleaching agents typically used for internal bleaching of endodontically treated discolored... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this study was to analyze and compare the efficacy of different bleaching agents typically used for internal bleaching of endodontically treated discolored teeth.
METHODS
Electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were searched by 2 reviewers for clinical trials in which the color of endodontically treated discolored teeth before and after internal bleaching was examined using shade guide units (ΔSGU) or a spectrophotometer/colorimeter (ΔE). The efficacies of the bleaching agents were compared using subgroup analyses. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochran Q test and I statistic. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included in the systematic review, 6 of which could be included in the meta-analyses. Internal bleaching led to a significant change in tooth shade (ΔSGU: 6.27 [95% confidence interval, 5.36-7.17], ΔE: 12.83 [95% confidence interval, 9.46-16.20]). With regard to ΔSGU, the use of carbamide peroxide (35% or 37%), hydrogen peroxide (35%), and the combination of sodium perborate and hydrogen peroxide (3% or 30%) led to a better bleaching effect than sodium perborate (adjusted P value ≤ .026). Regarding ΔE, there were no significant differences between carbamide peroxide (37%), hydrogen peroxide (35%), and sodium perborate mixed with hydrogen peroxide (P = .051). The risk of bias of the included studies was classified as moderate to high.
CONCLUSIONS
Carbamide peroxide, hydrogen peroxide, and sodium perborate have a significant bleaching effect on discolored, root canal-treated teeth. For a valid assessment of shade stability and a comparison of bleaching agents and their concentrations, further studies with long-term recalls are necessary.
Topics: Carbamide Peroxide; Humans; Hydrogen Peroxide; Peroxides; Tooth Bleaching; Tooth Bleaching Agents; Tooth Discoloration; Urea
PubMed: 34762968
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2021.10.011 -
Oral Diseases Apr 2018Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is a chronic oral pain syndrome that primarily affects peri- and postmenopausal women. It is characterized by oral mucosal burning and may... (Review)
Review
Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is a chronic oral pain syndrome that primarily affects peri- and postmenopausal women. It is characterized by oral mucosal burning and may be associated with dysgeusia, paresthesia, dysesthesia, and xerostomia. The etiology of the disease process is unknown, but is thought to be neuropathic in origin. The goal of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of the various treatments for BMS. Literature searches were conducted through PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases, which identified 22 randomized controlled trials. Eight studies examined alpha-lipoic acid (ALA), three clonazepam, three psychotherapy, and two capsaicin, which all showed modest evidence of potentially decreasing pain/burning. Gabapentin was seen in one study to work alone and synergistically with ALA. Other treatments included vitamins, benzydamine hydrochloride, bupivacaine, Catuama, olive oil, trazodone, urea, and Hypericum perforatum. Of these other treatments, Catuama and bupivacaine were the only ones with significant positive results in symptom improvement. ALA, topical clonazepam, gabapentin, and psychotherapy may provide modest relief of pain in BMS. Gabapentin may also boost the effect of ALA. Capsaicin is limited by its side effects. Catuama showed potential for benefit. Future studies with standardized methodology and outcomes containing more patients are needed.
Topics: Amines; Analgesics; Antioxidants; Burning Mouth Syndrome; Capsaicin; Clonazepam; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; GABA Modulators; Gabapentin; Humans; Pain Measurement; Psychotherapy; Sensory System Agents; Thioctic Acid; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 28247977
DOI: 10.1111/odi.12660 -
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology Dec 2022Bakuchiol (BAK), a meroterpene phenol abundant in the plant Psoralea corylifolia, is an emerging cosmeceutical agent with promising anti-aging, anti-inflammatory, and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bakuchiol (BAK), a meroterpene phenol abundant in the plant Psoralea corylifolia, is an emerging cosmeceutical agent with promising anti-aging, anti-inflammatory, and antibacterial properties. The trend for "clean" skincare products and search for anti-aging retinoid alternatives have poised BAK as a "must-have" ingredient in skincare.
AIMS
Our aim was to review the data for the applications of BAK in dermatology.
METHODS
This is a systematic review of PubMed.
RESULTS
Thirty articles matched our search terms ["Bakuchiol" and "Dermatology"] or ["Bakuchiol" and "Skin"] of which one did not meet inclusion criteria, 16 were pre-clinical studies, seven clinical studies, three commentaries, two narrative reviews, and one report on adverse events. BAK has been mostly studied for its effects on photoaging, acne, and post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH), showing beneficial results comparable to those achieved by topical retinoids. While having no structural resemblance to retinoids, BAK can function as a retinol analog, through retinol-like regulation of gene expression. In in vivo studies, BAK was used alone or in combination with other products resulting in a significant reduction in photodamage, hyperpigmentation, wrinkle scores, and acne severity. Additionally, in vitro studies hinted at its anti-cancer properties by inhibiting epidermal growth factor induced neoplastic cell transformation. Also, demonstrated potential applications in psoriasis by normalizing keratinocyte activity and in pigmentary disorders through inhibition of melanogenesis. There was one adverse event case reported of contact dermatitis in the literature.
CONCLUSIONS
Bakuchiol is a retinol alternative with anti-aging, antibacterial, and anti-inflammatory properties. Additional studies are warranted to better understand its applications in dermatology.
Topics: Humans; Vitamin A; Retinoids; Phenols; Acne Vulgaris; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 36176207
DOI: 10.1111/jocd.15420 -
Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior Sep 2023Cannabis-derived compounds, such as cannabidiol (CBD) and delta-9-trans-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), are increasingly prescribed for a range of clinical indications.... (Review)
Review
Cannabis-derived compounds, such as cannabidiol (CBD) and delta-9-trans-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), are increasingly prescribed for a range of clinical indications. These phyto-cannabinoids have multiple biological targets, including the body's endocannabinoid system. There is growing scientific interest in the use of CBD, a non-intoxicating compound, to ameliorate symptoms associated with neurodevelopmental disorders. However, its suitability as a pharmaceutical intervention has not been reliably established in these clinical populations. This systematic review examines the nine published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that have probed the safety and efficacy of CBD in individuals diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability, Tourette Syndrome, and complex motor disorders. Studies were identified systematically through searching four databases: Medline, CINAHL complete, PsycINFO, and EMBASE. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials involving CBD and participants with neurodevelopmental disorders. No publication year or language restrictions were applied. Relevant data were extracted from the identified list of eligible articles. After extraction, data were cross-checked between the authors to ensure consistency. Several trials indicate potential efficacy, although this possibility is currently too inconsistent across RCTs to confidently guide clinical usage. Study characteristics, treatment properties, and outcomes varied greatly across the included trials. The material lack of comparable RCTs leaves CBD's suitability as a pharmacological treatment for neurodevelopmental disorders largely undetermined. A stronger evidence base is urgently required to establish safety and efficacy profiles and guide the ever-expanding clinical uptake of cannabis-derived compounds in neurodevelopmental disorders. Prospero registration number: CRD42021267839.
Topics: Humans; Cannabidiol; Cannabinoids; Cannabis; Hallucinogens; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Dronabinol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37543051
DOI: 10.1016/j.pbb.2023.173607 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Acne is an inflammatory disorder with a high global burden. It is common in adolescents and primarily affects sebaceous gland-rich areas. The clinical benefit of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acne is an inflammatory disorder with a high global burden. It is common in adolescents and primarily affects sebaceous gland-rich areas. The clinical benefit of the topical acne treatments azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, sulphur, zinc, and alpha-hydroxy acid is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of topical treatments (azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, zinc, alpha-hydroxy acid, and sulphur) for acne.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to May 2019: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Clinical randomised controlled trials of the six topical treatments compared with other topical treatments, placebo, or no treatment in people with acne.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Key outcomes included participants' global self-assessment of acne improvement (PGA), withdrawal for any reason, minor adverse events (assessed as total number of participants who experienced at least one minor adverse event), and quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 49 trials (3880 reported participants) set in clinics, hospitals, research centres, and university settings in Europe, Asia, and the USA. The vast majority of participants had mild to moderate acne, were aged between 12 to 30 years (range: 10 to 45 years), and were female. Treatment lasted over eight weeks in 59% of the studies. Study duration ranged from three months to three years. We assessed 26 studies as being at high risk of bias in at least one domain, but most domains were at low or unclear risk of bias. We grouped outcome assessment into short-term (less than or equal to 4 weeks), medium-term (from 5 to 8 weeks), and long-term treatment (more than 8 weeks). The following results were measured at the end of treatment, which was mainly long-term for the PGA outcome and mixed length (medium-term mainly) for minor adverse events. Azelaic acid In terms of treatment response (PGA), azelaic acid is probably less effective than benzoyl peroxide (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.95; 1 study, 351 participants), but there is probably little or no difference when comparing azelaic acid to tretinoin (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14; 1 study, 289 participants) (both moderate-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in PGA when comparing azelaic acid to clindamycin (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.38; 1 study, 229 participants; low-quality evidence), but we are uncertain whether there is a difference between azelaic acid and adapalene (1 study, 55 participants; very low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence indicates there may be no differences in rates of withdrawal for any reason when comparing azelaic acid with benzoyl peroxide (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.29; 1 study, 351 participants), clindamycin (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.56; 2 studies, 329 participants), or tretinoin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.47; 2 studies, 309 participants), but we are uncertain whether there is a difference between azelaic acid and adapalene (1 study, 55 participants; very low-quality evidence). In terms of total minor adverse events, we are uncertain if there is a difference between azelaic acid compared to adapalene (1 study; 55 participants) or benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 30 participants) (both very low-quality evidence). There may be no difference when comparing azelaic acid to clindamycin (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.35; 1 study, 100 participants; low-quality evidence). Total minor adverse events were not reported in the comparison of azelaic acid versus tretinoin, but individual application site reactions were reported, such as scaling. Salicylic acid For PGA, there may be little or no difference between salicylic acid and tretinoin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 1 study, 46 participants; low-quality evidence); we are not certain whether there is a difference between salicylic acid and pyruvic acid (1 study, 86 participants; very low-quality evidence); and PGA was not measured in the comparison of salicylic acid versus benzoyl peroxide. There may be no difference between groups in withdrawals when comparing salicylic acid and pyruvic acid (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.50; 1 study, 86 participants); when salicylic acid was compared to tretinoin, neither group had withdrawals (both based on low-quality evidence (2 studies, 74 participants)). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in withdrawals between salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 41 participants; very low-quality evidence). For total minor adverse events, we are uncertain if there is any difference between salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 41 participants) or tretinoin (2 studies, 74 participants) (both very low-quality evidence). This outcome was not reported for salicylic acid versus pyruvic acid, but individual application site reactions were reported, such as scaling and redness. Nicotinamide Four studies evaluated nicotinamide against clindamycin or erythromycin, but none measured PGA. Low-quality evidence showed there may be no difference in withdrawals between nicotinamide and clindamycin (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.60; 3 studies, 216 participants) or erythromycin (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.46 to 4.22; 1 study, 158 participants), or in total minor adverse events between nicotinamide and clindamycin (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.99; 3 studies, 216 participants; low-quality evidence). Total minor adverse events were not reported in the nicotinamide versus erythromycin comparison. Alpha-hydroxy (fruit) acid There may be no difference in PGA when comparing glycolic acid peel to salicylic-mandelic acid peel (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.26; 1 study, 40 participants; low-quality evidence), and we are uncertain if there is a difference in total minor adverse events due to very low-quality evidence (1 study, 44 participants). Neither group had withdrawals (2 studies, 84 participants; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to benzoyl peroxide, azelaic acid probably leads to a worse treatment response, measured using PGA. When compared to tretinoin, azelaic acid probably makes little or no difference to treatment response. For other comparisons and outcomes the quality of evidence was low or very low. Risk of bias and imprecision limit our confidence in the evidence. We encourage the comparison of more methodologically robust head-to-head trials against commonly used active drugs.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Adapalene; Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Benzoyl Peroxide; Bias; Child; Clindamycin; Dermatologic Agents; Dicarboxylic Acids; Erythromycin; Female; Glycolates; Humans; Keratolytic Agents; Male; Mandelic Acids; Niacinamide; Patient Dropouts; Pyruvic Acid; Quality of Life; Salicylic Acid; Sulfur; Tretinoin; Young Adult; Zinc
PubMed: 32356369
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011368.pub2 -
Brazilian Dental Journal Jun 2020There is an increased accessibility of over-the-counter (OTC) whitening agents with very little data in the literature regarding their effectiveness. This review was...
There is an increased accessibility of over-the-counter (OTC) whitening agents with very little data in the literature regarding their effectiveness. This review was done to determine their effectiveness of the predominant OTC whitening agents from 2006 until 2018 where a comparison of each agent was made with a placebo, no treatment or with other OTC whitening agents. The major categories of OTC whitening agents such as dentifrices, whitening strips and paint on gels. Dentist prescribed bleaching applied at home and in-office bleaching studies and studies that demonstrated whitening products to participants were excluded. Articles were searched for in the databases of Medline (Ovid), PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Twenty-four articles were included in the systematic review and the quality of studies was determined by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) ranking criteria. Compared to other OTC, strips are reported to be effective. Two studies determined whitening strips to be effective. Whitening strips have been shown to be effective when compared with placebos and other OTC whitening agents. Dentifrices are effective in changing the shade of the tooth "by removing extrinsic stains" when compared to a placebo and non-whitening dentifrices, but they are not as effective in comparison to whitening strips. There is a lack of evidence with regards to the effectiveness of paint-on gels. While there is some evidence that OTC can alter shade in the short term, there is a need for better-designed studies.
Topics: Carbamide Peroxide; Humans; Tooth Bleaching; Tooth Bleaching Agents; Tooth Discoloration; Urea
PubMed: 32667517
DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440202003227 -
Neurotoxicology Sep 2022Investigation of the toxicity triggered by chemicals on the human brain has traditionally relied on approaches using rodent in vivo models and in vitro cell models... (Review)
Review
Investigation of the toxicity triggered by chemicals on the human brain has traditionally relied on approaches using rodent in vivo models and in vitro cell models including primary neuronal cultures and cell lines from rodents. The issues of species differences between humans and rodents, the animal ethical concerns and the time and cost required for neurotoxicity studies on in vivo animal models, do limit the use of animal-based models in neurotoxicology. In this context, human cell models appear relevant in elucidating cellular and molecular impacts of neurotoxicants and facilitating prioritization of in vivo testing. The SH-SY5Y human neuroblastoma cell line (ATCC® CRL-2266™) is one of the most used cell lines in neurosciences, either undifferentiated or differentiated into neuron-like cells. This review presents the characteristics of the SH-SY5Y cell line and proposes the results of a systematic review of literature on the use of this in vitro cell model for neurotoxicity research by focusing on organic environmental pollutants including pesticides, 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), flame retardants, PFASs, parabens, bisphenols, phthalates, and PAHs. Organic environmental pollutants are widely present in the environment and increasingly known to cause clinical neurotoxic effects during fetal & child development and adulthood. Their effects on cultured SH-SY5Y cells include autophagy, cell death (apoptosis, pyroptosis, necroptosis, or necrosis), increased oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, disruption of neurotransmitter homeostasis, and alteration of neuritic length. Finally, the inherent advantages and limitations of the SH-SY5Y cell model are discussed in the context of chemical testing.
Topics: Adult; Animals; Cell Line, Tumor; Cell Survival; Child; Environmental Pollutants; Flame Retardants; Fluorocarbons; Humans; Neuroblastoma; Neurotoxicity Syndromes; Parabens; Pesticides; Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins
PubMed: 35914637
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuro.2022.07.008 -
Obesity Reviews : An Official Journal... Nov 2021Anti-obesity medications (AOMs) are efficacious and well tolerated in randomized controlled trials, but findings may not be generalizable to routine clinical practice.... (Review)
Review
Anti-obesity medications (AOMs) are efficacious and well tolerated in randomized controlled trials, but findings may not be generalizable to routine clinical practice. This systematic literature review aimed to identify real-world (RW) evidence for AOMs to treat adults ( ≥ 18 years) with obesity or overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m ). Searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database, National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies of relevant FDA-approved AOMs yielded 41 publications. Weight loss (WL) was consistently observed, with 14% to 58.6% of patients achieving ≥ 5% WL on orlistat, phentermine/topiramate, naltrexone/bupropion, phentermine, or liraglutide in studies of 3-6 months' duration where this was measured. When cardiometabolic risk factors were assessed, AOMs reduced or had no impact on blood pressure, lipids, or glycemia. RW data on the impact of AOMs on existing obesity-related comorbidities and mortality were generally lacking. AOMs were associated with various adverse events, but these were of mild to moderate severity and no unexpected safety signals were reported. A pattern of poor adherence and persistence with AOMs was observed across studies. Overall, the review confirmed the effectiveness of AOMs in RW settings but demonstrated large gaps in the evidence base.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Obesity Agents; Humans; Orlistat; Phentermine; State Medicine; Weight Loss
PubMed: 34423889
DOI: 10.1111/obr.13326 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023Gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) is characterised by the regurgitation of gastric contents into the oesophagus. GOR is a common presentation in infancy, both in primary... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) is characterised by the regurgitation of gastric contents into the oesophagus. GOR is a common presentation in infancy, both in primary and secondary care, affecting approximately 50% of infants under three months old. The natural history of GOR in infancy is generally of a self-limiting condition that improves with age, but older children and children with co-existing medical conditions can have more protracted symptoms. The distinction between gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) and GOR is debated. Current National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines define GORD as GOR causing symptoms severe enough to merit treatment. This is an update of a review first published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of pharmacological treatments for GOR in infants and children.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science up to 17 September 2022. We also searched for ongoing trials in clinical trials registries, contacted experts in the field, and searched the reference lists of trials and reviews for any additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any currently-available pharmacological treatment for GOR in children with placebo or another medication. We excluded studies assessing dietary management of GORD and studies of thickened feeds. We included studies in infants and children up to 16 years old.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 36 RCTs involving 2251 children and infants. We were able to extract summary data from 14 RCTs; the remaining trials had insufficient data for extraction. We were unable to pool results in a meta-analysis due to methodological differences in the included studies (including heterogeneous outcomes, study populations, and study design). We present the results in two groups by age: infants up to 12 months old, and children aged 12 months to 16 years old. Infants Omeprazole versus placebo: there is no clear effect on symptoms from omeprazole. One study (30 infants; very low-certainty evidence) showed cry/fuss time in infants aged three to 12 months had altered from 246 ± 105 minutes/day at baseline (mean +/- standard deviation (SD)) to 191 ± 120 minutes/day in the omeprazole group and from 287 ± 132 minutes/day to 201 ± 100 minutes/day in the placebo group (mean difference (MD) 10 minutes/day lower (95% confidence interval (CI) -89.1 to 69.1)). The reflux index changed in the omeprazole group from 9.9 ± 5.8% in 24 hours to 1.0 ± 1.3% and in the placebo group from 7.2 ± 6.0% to 5.3 ± 4.9% in 24 hours (MD 7% lower, 95% CI -4.7 to -9.3). Omeprazole versus ranitidine: one study (76 infants; very low-certainty evidence) showed omeprazole may or may not provide symptomatic benefit equivalent to ranitidine. Symptom scores in the omeprazole group changed from 51.9 ± 5.4 to 2.4 ± 1.2, and in the ranitidine group from 47 ± 5.6 to 2.5 ± 0.6 after two weeks: MD -4.97 (95% CI -7.33 to -2.61). Esomeprazole versus placebo: esomeprazole appeared to show no additional reduction in the number of GORD symptoms compared to placebo (1 study, 52 neonates; very low-certainty evidence): both the esomeprazole group (184.7 ± 78.5 to 156.7 ± 75.1) and placebo group (183.1 ± 77.5 to 158.3 ± 75.9) improved: MD -3.2 (95% CI -4.6 to -1.8). Children Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) at different doses may provide little to no symptomatic and endoscopic benefit. Rabeprazole given at different doses (0.5 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg) may provide similar symptom improvement (127 children in total; very low-certainty evidence). In the lower-dose group (0.5 mg/kg), symptom scores improved in both a low-weight group of children (< 15 kg) (mean -10.6 ± SD 11.13) and a high-weight group of children (> 15 kg) (mean -13.6 ± 13.1). In the higher-dose groups (1 mg/kg), scores improved in the low-weight (-9 ± 11.2) and higher-weight groups (-8.3 ± 9.2). For the higher-weight group, symptom score mean difference between the two different dosing regimens was 2.3 (95% CI -2 to 6.6), and for the lower-weight group, symptom score MD was 4.6 (95% CI -2.9 to 12). Pantoprazole: pantoprazole may or may not improve symptom scores at 0.3 mg/kg, 0.6 mg/kg, and 1.2 mg/kg pantoprazole in children aged one to five years by week eight, with no difference between 0.3 mg/kg and 1.2 mg/kg dosing (0.3 mg/kg mean -2.4 ± 1.7; 1.2 mg/kg -1.7 ± 1.2: MD 0.7 (95% CI -0.4 to 1.8)) (one study, 60 children; very low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient summary data to assess other medications.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very low-certainty evidence about symptom improvements and changes in pH indices for infants. There are no summary data for endoscopic changes. Medications may or may not provide a benefit (based on very low-certainty evidence) for infants whose symptoms remain bothersome, despite nonmedical interventions or parental reassurance. If a medication is required, there is no clear evidence based on summary data for omeprazole, esomeprazole (in neonates), H₂antagonists, and alginates for symptom improvements (very low-certainty evidence). Further studies with longer follow-up are needed. In older children with GORD, in studies with summary data extracted, there is very low-certainty evidence that PPIs (rabeprazole and pantoprazole) may or may not improve GORD outcomes. No robust data exist for other medications. Further RCT evidence is required in all areas, including subgroups (preterm babies and children with neurodisabilities).
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Esomeprazole; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Omeprazole; Pantoprazole; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Rabeprazole; Ranitidine
PubMed: 37635269
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008550.pub3 -
Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research Apr 2023Cannabidiol (CBD), one of the major cannabinoids derived from the cannabis plant, is available over the counter. CBD is often used by patients for the management of... (Review)
Review
Cannabidiol (CBD), one of the major cannabinoids derived from the cannabis plant, is available over the counter. CBD is often used by patients for the management of insomnia, yet research supporting CBDs effectiveness as a treatment for insomnia is inadequate. The objective of this review was to critically evaluate the literature regarding the therapeutic benefits of CBD in the management of insomnia. A comprehensive search of the following databases from inception to December 29, 2021, was conducted: Ovid MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus. The search included randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized experimental studies, cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, case series, and case reports. Risk of bias was assessed with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality design-specific recommended criteria. Thirty-four studies were eligible for inclusion. All studies reported improvement in the insomnia symptoms of at least a portion of their participants. Of the 34 studies, 19 studies used CBD predominant therapy and 21 studies used nearly equal ratios of CBD to Δ-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Of the studies that performed hypothesis testing, 4 of 7 studies with a CBD predominant arm and 12 of 16 studies with a nearly equal ratio of CBD to THC arm reported significant improvement in insomnia outcomes. However, only 2 of the 34 studies focused on patients with insomnia, of which 1 study was a case report. Additionally, several studies used nonvalidated subjective measures, and most studies failed to include objective measures for symptom assessment. The results of our systematic review suggest that CBD alone or with equal quantities of THC may be beneficial in alleviating the symptoms of insomnia. Nevertheless, future research assessing CBDs effectiveness in population of patients specifically with insomnia utilizing validated subjective and objective measures is necessary before definitive inferences can be made.
Topics: United States; Humans; Cannabidiol; Dronabinol; Cross-Sectional Studies; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders
PubMed: 36149724
DOI: 10.1089/can.2022.0122