-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause of patient dissatisfaction and may lead to prolonged hospital stay and higher costs of care along with more severe complications. Many antiemetic drugs are available for prophylaxis. They have various mechanisms of action and side effects, but there is still uncertainty about which drugs are most effective with the fewest side effects.
OBJECTIVES
• To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacologic interventions (antiemetic drugs) against no treatment, against placebo, or against each other (as monotherapy or combination prophylaxis) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia • To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (monotherapy and combination prophylaxis) based on efficacy and safety • To identify the best dose or dose range of antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. The first search was performed in November 2017 and was updated in April 2020. In the update of the search, 39 eligible studies were found that were not included in the analysis (listed as awaiting classification).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness or side effects of single antiemetic drugs in any dose or combination against each other or against an inactive control in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. All antiemetic drugs belonged to one of the following substance classes: 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics. No language restrictions were applied. Abstract publications were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
A review team of 11 authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and subsequently extracted data. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses for drugs of direct interest (amisulpride, aprepitant, casopitant, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, dolasetron, droperidol, fosaprepitant, granisetron, haloperidol, meclizine, methylprednisolone, metoclopramide, ondansetron, palonosetron, perphenazine, promethazine, ramosetron, rolapitant, scopolamine, and tropisetron) compared to placebo (inactive control). We performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate the relative effects and ranking (with placebo as reference) of all available single drugs and combinations. Primary outcomes were vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively, serious adverse events (SAEs), and any adverse event (AE). Secondary outcomes were drug class-specific side effects (e.g. headache), mortality, early and late vomiting, nausea, and complete response. We performed subgroup network meta-analysis with dose of drugs as a moderator variable using dose ranges based on previous consensus recommendations. We assessed certainty of evidence of NMA treatment effects for all primary outcomes and drug class-specific side effects according to GRADE (CINeMA, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We restricted GRADE assessment to single drugs of direct interest compared to placebo.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 585 studies (97,516 randomized participants). Most of these studies were small (median sample size of 100); they were published between 1965 and 2017 and were primarily conducted in Asia (51%), Europe (25%), and North America (16%). Mean age of the overall population was 42 years. Most participants were women (83%), had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II (70%), received perioperative opioids (88%), and underwent gynaecologic (32%) or gastrointestinal surgery (19%) under general anaesthesia using volatile anaesthetics (88%). In this review, 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were compared. Most studies investigated only single drugs (72%) and included an inactive control arm (66%). The three most investigated single drugs in this review were ondansetron (246 studies), dexamethasone (120 studies), and droperidol (97 studies). Almost all studies (89%) reported at least one efficacy outcome relevant for this review. However, only 56% reported at least one relevant safety outcome. Altogether, 157 studies (27%) were assessed as having overall low risk of bias, 101 studies (17%) overall high risk of bias, and 327 studies (56%) overall unclear risk of bias. Vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively Relative effects from NMA for vomiting within 24 hours (282 RCTs, 50,812 participants, 28 single drugs, and 36 drug combinations) suggest that 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs showed a clinically important benefit (defined as the upper end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below a risk ratio (RR) of 0.8) compared to placebo. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs in preventing vomiting. However, single NK₁ receptor antagonists showed treatment effects similar to most of the drug combinations. High-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs reduce vomiting (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.38, high certainty, rank 3/28 of single drugs); ramosetron (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, high certainty, rank 5/28); granisetron (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.54, high certainty, rank 6/28); dexamethasone (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.57, high certainty, rank 8/28); and ondansetron (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.60, high certainty, rank 13/28). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs probably reduce vomiting: fosaprepitant (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, moderate certainty, rank 1/28) and droperidol (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69, moderate certainty, rank 20/28). Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol showed clinically important benefit, but low doses showed no clinically important benefit. Aprepitant was used mainly at high doses, ramosetron at recommended doses, and fosaprepitant at doses of 150 mg (with no dose recommendation available). Frequency of SAEs Twenty-eight RCTs were included in the NMA for SAEs (10,766 participants, 13 single drugs, and eight drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for SAEs when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to low. Droperidol (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 9.71, low certainty, rank 6/13) may reduce SAEs. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.36, very low certainty, rank 11/13), ramosetron (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.74, very low certainty, rank 7/13), granisetron (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 13.15, very low certainty, rank 10/13), dexamethasone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.85, very low certainty, rank 9/13), and ondansetron (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.10, very low certainty, rank 12/13). No studies reporting SAEs were available for fosaprepitant. Frequency of any AE Sixty-one RCTs were included in the NMA for any AE (19,423 participants, 15 single drugs, and 11 drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for any AE when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to moderate. Granisetron (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, moderate certainty, rank 7/15) probably has no or little effect on any AE. Dexamethasone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08, low certainty, rank 2/15) and droperidol (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, low certainty, rank 6/15) may reduce any AE. Ondansetron (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, low certainty, rank 9/15) may have little or no effect on any AE. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, very low certainty, rank 3/15) and ramosetron (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54, very low certainty, rank 11/15) on any AE. No studies reporting any AE were available for fosaprepitant. Class-specific side effects For class-specific side effects (headache, constipation, wound infection, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, arrhythmia, and QT prolongation) of relevant substances, the certainty of evidence for the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs mostly ranged from very low to low. Exceptions were that ondansetron probably increases headache (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, moderate certainty, rank 18/23) and probably reduces sedation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, moderate certainty, rank 5/24) compared to placebo. The latter effect is limited to recommended and high doses of ondansetron. Droperidol probably reduces headache (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, moderate certainty, rank 5/23) compared to placebo. We have high-certainty evidence that dexamethasone (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, high certainty, rank 16/24) has no effect on sedation compared to placebo. No studies assessed substance class-specific side effects for fosaprepitant. Direction and magnitude of network effect estimates together with level of evidence certainty are graphically summarized for all pre-defined GRADE-relevant outcomes and all drugs of direct interest compared to placebo in http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4066353.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found high-certainty evidence that five single drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron) reduce vomiting, and moderate-certainty evidence that two other single drugs (fosaprepitant and droperidol) probably reduce vomiting, compared to placebo. Four of the six substance classes (5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids) were thus represented by at least one drug with important benefit for prevention of vomiting. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than the corresponding single drugs in preventing vomiting. NK₁ receptor antagonists were the most effective drug class and had comparable efficacy to most of the drug combinations. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists were the best studied substance class. For most of the single drugs of direct interest, we found only very low to low certainty evidence for safety outcomes such as occurrence of SAEs, any AE, and substance class-specific side effects. Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol were more effective than low doses for prevention of vomiting. Dose dependency of side effects was rarely found due to the limited number of studies, except for the less sedating effect of recommended and high doses of ondansetron. The results of the review are transferable mainly to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting (i.e. healthy women undergoing inhalational anaesthesia and receiving perioperative opioids). Overall study quality was limited, but certainty assessments of effect estimates consider this limitation. No further efficacy studies are needed as there is evidence of moderate to high certainty for seven single drugs with relevant benefit for prevention of vomiting. However, additional studies are needed to investigate potential side effects of these drugs and to examine higher-risk patient populations (e.g. individuals with diabetes and heart disease).
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia, General; Antiemetics; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Placebos; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33075160
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012859.pub2 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Jun 2020Research into the basic effects and therapeutic applications of psychedelic drugs has grown considerably in recent years. Yet, pressing questions remain regarding the... (Review)
Review
Research into the basic effects and therapeutic applications of psychedelic drugs has grown considerably in recent years. Yet, pressing questions remain regarding the substances' lasting effects. Although individual studies have begun monitoring sustained changes, no study to-date has synthesized this information. Therefore, this systematic review aims to fill this important gap in the literature by synthesizing results from 34 contemporary experimental studies which included classic psychedelics, human subjects, and follow-up latencies of at least two weeks. The bulk of this work was published in the last five years, with psilocybin being the most frequently administered drug. Enduring changes in personality/attitudes, depression, spirituality, anxiety, wellbeing, substance misuse, meditative practices, and mindfulness were documented. Mystical experiences, connectedness, emotional breakthrough, and increased neural entropy were related to these long-term changes in psychological functioning. Finally, with proper screening, preparation, supervision, and integration, limited aversive side effects were noted by study participants. Future researchers should focus on including larger and more diverse samples, lengthier longitudinal designs, stronger control conditions, and standardized dosages.
Topics: Anxiety; Emotions; Hallucinogens; Humans; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Psilocybin
PubMed: 32194129
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.03.017 -
Nutrients Dec 2022Caffeine (1,3,7-trimethylxanthine) is one of the most widely consumed performance-enhancing substances in sport due to its well-established ergogenic effects. The use of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Caffeine (1,3,7-trimethylxanthine) is one of the most widely consumed performance-enhancing substances in sport due to its well-established ergogenic effects. The use of caffeine is more common in aerobic-based sports due to the ample evidence endorsing the benefits of caffeine supplementation on endurance exercise. However, most of this evidence was established with cycling trials in the laboratory, while the effects of the acute intake of caffeine on endurance running performance have not been properly reviewed and meta-analyzed. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature on the effects of caffeine intake on endurance running performance. A systematic review of published studies was performed in four different scientific databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and SportDiscus) up until 5 October 2022 (with no year restriction applied to the search strategy). The selected studies were crossover experimental trials in which the ingestion of caffeine was compared to a placebo situation in a single- or double-blind randomized manner. The effect of caffeine on endurance running was measured by time to exhaustion or time trials. We assessed the methodological quality of each study using Cochrane’s risk-of-bias (RoB 2) tool. A subsequent meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) estimated by Hedges’ g and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: A total of 21 randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis, with caffeine doses ranging between 3 and 9 mg/kg. A total of 21 studies were included in the systematic review, with a total sample of 254 participants (220 men, 19 women and 15 participants with no information about gender; 167 were categorized as recreational and 87 were categorized as trained runners.). The overall methodological quality of studies was rated as unclear-to-low risk of bias. The meta-analysis revealed that the time to exhaustion in running tests was improved with caffeine (g = 0.392; 95% CI = 0.214 to 0.571; p < 0.001, magnitude = medium). Subgroup analysis revealed that caffeine was ergogenic for time to exhaustion trials in both recreational runners (g = 0.469; 95% CI = 0.185 to 0.754; p = 0.001, magnitude = medium) and trained runners (g = 0.344; 95% CI = 0.122 to 0.566; p = 0.002, magnitude = medium). The meta-analysis also showed that the time to complete endurance running time trials was reduced with caffeine in comparison to placebo (g = −0.101; 95% CI = −0.190 to −0.012, p = 0.026, magnitude = small). In summary, caffeine intake showed a meaningful ergogenic effect in increasing the time to exhaustion in running trials and improving performance in running time trials. Hence, caffeine may have utility as an ergogenic aid for endurance running events. More evidence is needed to establish the ergogenic effect of caffeine on endurance running in women or the best dose to maximize the ergogenic benefits of caffeine supplementation.
Topics: Male; Humans; Female; Caffeine; Physical Endurance; Performance-Enhancing Substances; Running; Bicycling; Athletic Performance; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36615805
DOI: 10.3390/nu15010148 -
Sleep Medicine Reviews Feb 2017Caffeine is the most widely consumed psychoactive substance in the world. It is readily available in coffee and other foods and beverages, and is used to mitigate... (Review)
Review
Caffeine is the most widely consumed psychoactive substance in the world. It is readily available in coffee and other foods and beverages, and is used to mitigate sleepiness, enhance performance, and treat apnea in premature infants. This review systematically explores evidence from epidemiological studies and randomized controlled trials as to whether coffee and caffeine have deleterious effects on sleep. Caffeine typically prolonged sleep latency, reduced total sleep time and sleep efficiency, and worsened perceived sleep quality. Slow-wave sleep and electroencephalographic (EEG) slow-wave activity were typically reduced, whereas stage-1, wakefulness, and arousals were increased. Dose- and timing-response relationships were established. The sleep of older adults may be more sensitive to caffeine compared to younger adults. Pronounced individual differences are also present in young people, and genetic studies isolated functional polymorphisms of genes implicated in adenosine neurotransmission and metabolism contributing to individual sensitivity to sleep disruption by caffeine. Most studies were conducted in male adults of Western countries, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Given the importance of good sleep for general health and functioning, longitudinal investigations aimed at establishing possible causal relationships among coffee- and caffeine-induced changes in sleep quality and health development are warranted.
Topics: Age Factors; Caffeine; Coffee; Epidemiologic Studies; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Sleep Stages; Wakefulness
PubMed: 26899133
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2016.01.006 -
Phytomedicine : International Journal... Oct 2017Green tea (Camellia sinensis) is a beverage consumed for thousands of years. Numerous claims about the benefits of its consumption were stated and investigated. As green... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Green tea (Camellia sinensis) is a beverage consumed for thousands of years. Numerous claims about the benefits of its consumption were stated and investigated. As green tea is experiencing a surge in popularity in Western culture and as millions of people all over the world drink it every day, it is relevant to understand its effects on the human brain.
PURPOSE
To assess the current state of knowledge in the literature regarding the effects of green tea or green tea extracts, l-theanine and epigallocatechin gallate both components of green tea-on general neuropsychology, on the sub-category cognition and on brain functions in humans.
METHODS
We systematically searched on PubMed database and selected studies by predefined eligibility criteria. We then assessed their quality and extracted data. We structured our effort according to the PRISMA statement.
OUTCOME
We reviewed and assessed 21 studies, 4 of which were randomised controlled trials, 12 cross-over studies (both assessed with an adapted version of the DELPHI-list), 4 were cross-sectional studies and one was a cohort study (both assessed with an adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa assessment scale). The average study quality as appraised by means of the DELPHI-list was good (8.06/9); the studies evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa-scale were also good (6.7/9).
CONCLUSIONS
The reviewed studies presented evidence that green tea influences psychopathological symptoms (e.g. reduction of anxiety), cognition (e.g. benefits in memory and attention) and brain function (e.g. activation of working memory seen in functional MRI). The effects of green tea cannot be attributed to a single constituent of the beverage. This is exemplified in the finding that beneficial green tea effects on cognition are observed under the combined influence of both caffeine and l-theanine, whereas separate administration of either substance was found to have a lesser impact.
Topics: Affect; Brain; Caffeine; Camellia sinensis; Catechin; Cognition; Glutamates; Humans; Plant Extracts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tea
PubMed: 28899506
DOI: 10.1016/j.phymed.2017.07.008 -
Addiction (Abingdon, England) Jan 2023The ability to regulate emotions effectively has been associated with resilience to psychopathology. Individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) have been shown to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
The ability to regulate emotions effectively has been associated with resilience to psychopathology. Individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) have been shown to have higher levels of negative emotionality, with some evidence suggesting impairment in emotion regulation compared with individuals without SUDs. However, no previous attempt has been made to systematically review the literature to assess the magnitude of this difference. We aimed to assess the association between SUD diagnosis and emotion regulation as measured by the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) and Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) through a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing findings.
METHODS
The systematic review was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO and Embase. We examined cross-sectional studies that compared a SUD group with a control group and measured emotion regulation using the DERS or the ERQ. The primary analysis focused on papers using the DERS, as this was the predominant instrument in the literature.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies met our primary analysis criteria, representing 1936 individuals with a SUD and 1567 controls. Individuals with SUDs relative to controls had significantly greater DERS scores, with a mean difference of 21.44 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 16.49-26.40, P < 0.001] and Hedges' g = 1.05 (95% CI = 0.86-1.24, P < 0.001). The difference was robust, remaining significant after removing outliers and studies with high risk of bias. Individuals with SUDs demonstrated poorer emotion regulation on each subscale of the DERS, with the largest deficits in the Strategies and Impulse subscales. The ERQ analysis revealed greater use of expressive suppression in those with SUDs relative to controls (Hedges' g = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.25-1.28, P = 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS
People with substance use disorders appear to have greater difficulties in emotion regulation than people without substance use disorders.
Topics: Humans; Emotional Regulation; Cross-Sectional Studies; Substance-Related Disorders; Emotions; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 35851975
DOI: 10.1111/add.16001 -
Journal of the International Society of... 2018Caffeine is commonly used as an ergogenic aid. Literature about the effects of caffeine ingestion on muscle strength and power is equivocal. The aim of this systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Caffeine is commonly used as an ergogenic aid. Literature about the effects of caffeine ingestion on muscle strength and power is equivocal. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize results from individual studies on the effects of caffeine intake on muscle strength and power.
METHODS
A search through eight databases was performed to find studies on the effects of caffeine on: (i) maximal muscle strength measured using 1 repetition maximum tests; and (ii) muscle power assessed by tests of vertical jump. Meta-analyses of standardized mean differences (SMD) between placebo and caffeine trials from individual studies were conducted using the random effects model.
RESULTS
Ten studies on the strength outcome and ten studies on the power outcome met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analyses. Caffeine ingestion improved both strength (SMD = 0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03, 0.36; = 0.023) and power (SMD = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.34; = 0.047). A subgroup analysis indicated that caffeine significantly improves upper (SMD = 0.21; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.39; = 0.026) but not lower body strength (SMD = 0.15; 95% CI: -0.05, 0.34; = 0.147).
CONCLUSION
The meta-analyses showed significant ergogenic effects of caffeine ingestion on maximal muscle strength of upper body and muscle power. Future studies should more rigorously control the effectiveness of blinding. Due to the paucity of evidence, additional findings are needed in the female population and using different forms of caffeine, such as gum and gel.
Topics: Athletes; Caffeine; Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Performance-Enhancing Substances; Sports Nutritional Physiological Phenomena
PubMed: 29527137
DOI: 10.1186/s12970-018-0216-0 -
International Review of Psychiatry... 2022Several lines of evidence indicate the prevalence of mental health disorders in Transgender (TG) individuals is higher than that of cisgender individuals or the general...
Several lines of evidence indicate the prevalence of mental health disorders in Transgender (TG) individuals is higher than that of cisgender individuals or the general population. In this systematic review, we aim to propose a summary of some of the most significant research investigating mental health disorders' prevalence among this population. We performed a double-blind systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting (PRISMA) on PUBMED/MEDLINE and SCOPUS, specifically using peer-reviewed articles examining the mental health status of transgender (TG) individuals. This review did not exclude any research based on publication date. The last search was performed in February 2022. The employed search strategy led to the selection of 165 peer-reviewed articles. The majority of these papers presented a cross-sectional design with self-reported diagnoses and symptoms, signaling a significant prevalence of mental health disorders amongst TG Individuals. Of the reviewed articles, 72 examined the prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders; 8 examined eating disorders; 43 examined the prevalence of suicidal or self-harm ideation or behaviors; 5 papers examined the prevalence of trauma and stress-related disorders; 10 examined the frequency of personality disorders; 44 examined substance use disorders; and 9 papers examined the prevalence of autism spectrum disorder. Finally, 22 studies reported on the prevalence of TG individuals diagnosed with co-morbid mental health disorders or unspecified mental disorders. Our findings coincide with existing research, which indicates TG individuals do experience a higher prevalence of mental health disorders than that of the general population or cisgender individuals. However, further research is needed to address the existing gaps in knowledge.
Topics: Autism Spectrum Disorder; Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Mental Health; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Suicidal Ideation; Transgender Persons
PubMed: 36151828
DOI: 10.1080/09540261.2022.2093629 -
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection... 2023Bacterial biofilms are complex microbial communities encased in extracellular polymeric substances. Their formation is a multi-step process. Biofilms are a significant... (Review)
Review
Bacterial biofilms are complex microbial communities encased in extracellular polymeric substances. Their formation is a multi-step process. Biofilms are a significant problem in treating bacterial infections and are one of the main reasons for the persistence of infections. They can exhibit increased resistance to classical antibiotics and cause disease through device-related and non-device (tissue) -associated infections, posing a severe threat to global health issues. Therefore, early detection and search for new and alternative treatments are essential for treating and suppressing biofilm-associated infections. In this paper, we systematically reviewed the formation of bacterial biofilms, associated infections, detection methods, and potential treatment strategies, aiming to provide researchers with the latest progress in the detection and treatment of bacterial biofilms.
Topics: Humans; Biofilms; Bacteria; Bacterial Infections; Extracellular Polymeric Substance Matrix; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 37091673
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1137947 -
The Lancet. Psychiatry Sep 2023Bipolar depression constitutes a major public health problem due to its substantial burden of disease. Although pharmacological interventions are available, guidelines... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Bipolar depression constitutes a major public health problem due to its substantial burden of disease. Although pharmacological interventions are available, guidelines required updated evidence synthesis to improve their current recommendations. In order to inform evidence-based prescribing, we investigated the comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar depression.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched for randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological interventions with each other or placebo in adults with acute bipolar depression (type I, type II, or not otherwise specified), excluding those with substance misuse, unipolar depression, or schizophrenia, in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, CINAHL, and LILACS from database inception up to April 13, 2023. Criteria for eligibility were a duration of 2-16 weeks with masked outcome assessments, and we included combination, add-on design, and monotherapy studies. The co-primary outcomes were depressive symptoms, examined with standardised mean differences (SMDs), and manic switch, examined with odds ratios (ORs). We also investigated dropouts due to any reason, inefficacy, adverse events, and important side-effects as secondary outcomes. The confidence in the evidence was evaluated using Confidence-In-Network-Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020171726.
RESULTS
We analysed data from 101 randomised controlled trials covering 20 081 participants, 8063 men (41·7%) and 11 263 women (58·3%; sex not available in four studies), mean age 41·0 years (range of means 28·7-53·6 years), and 68 medications and placebo. Ethnicity data were not available. With moderate confidence in the evidence, olanzapine plus fluoxetine, quetiapine, olanzapine, lurasidone, lumateperone, cariprazine, and lamotrigine were more efficacious than placebo in reducing depressive symptoms, with SMDs ranging from 0·41 (95% CI 0·19-0·64) for olanzapine plus fluoxetine to 0·16 (0·03-0·29) for lamotrigine. Several other drugs might also be efficacious, but the confidence in the evidence was very low to low. Antidepressants as a class seem to be efficacious, but had a higher risk for manic switch compared to antipsychotics. Medications differed in their side-effect profiles.
INTERPRETATION
This is, to our knowledge, the largest network meta-analysis of pharmacotherapy for bipolar depression to date. Olanzapine plus fluoxetine, quetiapine, olanzapine, lurasidone, lumateperone, cariprazine, and lamotrigine were found to be more efficacious than placebo in adults with acute bipolar depression, with good confidence in the evidence, and to differ in their side-effect profiles. These findings can inform evidence-based care and the development of treatment guidelines internationally.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Male; Adult; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Bipolar Disorder; Depression; Fluoxetine; Lamotrigine; Olanzapine; Lurasidone Hydrochloride; Quetiapine Fumarate; Network Meta-Analysis; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
PubMed: 37595997
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(23)00199-2