-
World Journal of Gastroenterology Mar 2015To investigate the efficacy of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To investigate the efficacy of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients.
METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane library, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Clinicaltrial.gov databases were searched for literature published between September 2007 and December 2013. The applied Mesh terms were "probiotics," "irritable bowel syndrome," and "irritable bowel syndrome treatment." The collected data contained24 clinical trials, of which 15 were eligible for meta-analysis and nine were reviewed systematically. All studies were randomized placebo-controlled trials in patients with IBS that investigated the efficacy of probiotics in IBS improvement. The Jadad score was used to assess the methodological quality of trials. The quality scale ranges from 0 to 5 points, with a score ≤ 2 indicating a low quality report, and a score of ≥ 3 indicating a high quality report. Relative risk (RR), standardized effect size, and 95%CI were calculated using the DerSimonian-Laird method. The Cochran Q test was used to test heterogeneity with P < 0.05. Funnel plots were constructed and Egger's and Begg-Mazumdar tests were performed to assess publication bias.
RESULTS
A total of 1793 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The RR of responders to therapies based on abdominal pain score in IBS patients for two included trials comparing probiotics to placebo was 1.96 (95%CI: 1.14-3.36; P = 0.01). RR of responders to therapies based on a global symptom score in IBS patients for two included trials comparing probiotics with placebo was 2.43 (95%CI: 1.13-5.21; P = 0.02). For adequate improvement of general symptoms in IBS patients, the RR of seven included trials (six studies) comparing probiotics with placebo was 2.14 (95%CI: 1.08-4.26; P = 0.03). Distension, bloating, and flatulence were evaluated using an IBS severity scoring system in three trials (two studies) to compare the effect of probiotic therapy in IBS patients with placebo, the standardized effect size of mean differences for probiotics therapy was -2.57 (95%CI: -13.05--7.92).
CONCLUSION
Probiotics reduce pain and symptom severity scores. The results demonstrate the beneficial effects of probiotics in IBS patients in comparison with placebo.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Flatulence; Humans; Intestines; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Odds Ratio; Pain Measurement; Probiotics; Quality of Life; Recovery of Function; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25780308
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i10.3072 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Although combination formulas containing antihistamines, decongestants, and/or analgesics are sold over-the-counter in large quantities for the common cold, the evidence... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although combination formulas containing antihistamines, decongestants, and/or analgesics are sold over-the-counter in large quantities for the common cold, the evidence for their effectiveness is limited. This is an update of a review first published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations compared with placebo or other active controls (excluding antibiotics) in reducing the duration of symptoms and alleviating symptoms (general feeling of illness, nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, sneezing, and cough) in children and adults with the common cold.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE via EBSCOhost, Embase, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, LILACS, and Web of Science to 10 June 2021. We searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov on 10 June 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations compared with placebo, other active treatment (excluding antibiotics), or no treatment in children and adults with the common cold.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We categorised the included trials according to the active ingredients.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 30 studies (6304 participants) including 31 treatment comparisons. The control intervention was placebo in 26 trials and an active substance (paracetamol, chlorphenindione + phenylpropanolamine + belladonna, diphenhydramine) in six trials (two trials had placebo as well as active treatment arms). Reporting of methods was generally poor, and there were large differences in study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Most of the included trials involved adult participants. Children were included in nine trials. Three trials included very young children (from six months to five years), and five trials included children aged 2 to 16. One trial included adults and children aged 12 years or older. The trials took place in different settings: university clinics, paediatric departments, family medicine departments, and general practice surgeries. Antihistamine-decongestant: 14 trials (1298 participants). Eight trials reported on global effectiveness, of which six studies were pooled (281 participants on active treatment and 284 participants on placebo). The odds ratio (OR) of treatment failure was 0.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.48; moderate certainty evidence); number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3.9 (95% CI 3.03 to 5.2). On the final evaluation day (follow-up: 3 to 10 days), 55% of participants in the placebo group had a favourable response compared to 70% on active treatment. Of the two trials not pooled, one showed some global effect, whilst the other showed no effect. Adverse effects: the antihistamine-decongestant group experienced more adverse effects than the control group: 128/419 (31%) versus 100/423 (13%) participants suffered one or more adverse effects (OR 1.58, 95%CI 0.78 to 3.21; moderate certainty of evidence). Antihistamine-analgesic: four trials (1608 participants). Two trials reported on global effectiveness; data from one trial were presented (290 participants on active treatment and 292 participants on ascorbic acid). The OR of treatment failure was 0.33 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.46; moderate certainty evidence); NNTB 6.67 (95% CI 4.76 to 12.5). Forty-three per cent of participants in the control group and 70% in the active treatment group were cured after six days of treatment. The second trial also showed an effect in favour of the active treatment. Adverse effects: there were not significantly more adverse effects in the active treatment group compared to placebo (drowsiness, hypersomnia, sleepiness 10/152 versus 4/120; OR 1.64 (95 % CI 0.48 to 5.59; low certainty evidence). Analgesic-decongestant: seven trials (2575 participants). One trial reported on global effectiveness: 73% of participants in the analgesic-decongestant group reported a benefit compared with 52% in the control group (paracetamol) (OR of treatment failure 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.52; moderate certainty evidence; NNTB 4.7). Adverse effects: the decongestant-analgesic group experienced significantly more adverse effects than the control group (199/1122 versus 75/675; OR 1.62 95% CI 1.18 to 2.23; high certainty evidence; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH 17). Antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant: six trials (1014 participants). Five trials reported on global effectiveness, of which two studies in adults could be pooled: global effect reported with active treatment (52%) and placebo (34%) was equivalent to a difference of less than one point on a four- or five-point scale; the OR of treatment failure was 0.47 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.67; low certainty evidence); NNTB 5.6 (95% CI 3.8 to 10.2). One trial in children aged 2 to 12 years, and two trials in adults found no beneficial effect. Adverse effects: in one trial 5/224 (2%) suffered adverse effects with the active treatment versus 9/208 (4%) with placebo. Two other trials reported no differences between treatment groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found a lack of data on the effectiveness of antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations for the common cold. Based on these scarce data, the effect on individual symptoms is probably too small to be clinically relevant. The current evidence suggests that antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations have some general benefit in adults and older children. These benefits must be weighed against the risk of adverse effects. There is no evidence of effectiveness in young children. In 2005, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning about adverse effects associated with the use of over-the-counter nasal preparations containing phenylpropanolamine.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Analgesics; Child; Child, Preschool; Common Cold; Cough; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Nasal Decongestants; United States
PubMed: 35060618
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004976.pub4 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Jan 2015The relative efficacy of available treatments of knee osteoarthritis (OA) must be determined for rational treatment algorithms to be formulated. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The relative efficacy of available treatments of knee osteoarthritis (OA) must be determined for rational treatment algorithms to be formulated.
PURPOSE
To examine the efficacy of treatments of primary knee OA using a network meta-analysis design, which estimates relative effects of all treatments against each other.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through 15 August 2014, and unpublished data.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized trials of adults with knee OA comparing 2 or more of the following: acetaminophen, diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen, celecoxib, intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, IA hyaluronic acid, oral placebo, and IA placebo.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers independently abstracted study data and assessed study quality. Standardized mean differences were calculated for pain, function, and stiffness at 3-month follow-up.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Network meta-analysis was performed using a Bayesian random-effects model; 137 studies comprising 33,243 participants were identified. For pain, all interventions significantly outperformed oral placebo, with effect sizes from 0.63 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.39 to 0.88) for the most efficacious treatment (hyaluronic acid) to 0.18 (CrI, 0.04 to 0.33) for the least efficacious treatment (acetaminophen). For function, all interventions except IA corticosteroids were significantly superior to oral placebo. For stiffness, most of the treatments did not significantly differ from one another.
LIMITATION
Lack of long-term data, inadequate reporting of safety data, possible publication bias, and few head-to-head comparisons.
CONCLUSION
This method allowed comparison of common treatments of knee OA according to their relative efficacy. Intra-articular treatments were superior to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, possibly because of the integrated IA placebo effect. Small but robust differences were observed between active treatments. All treatments except acetaminophen showed clinically significant improvement from baseline pain. This information, along with the safety profiles and relative costs of included treatments, will be helpful for individualized patient care decisions.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Celecoxib; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Diclofenac; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Ibuprofen; Injections, Intra-Articular; Naproxen; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain; Pyrazoles; Sulfonamides; Treatment Outcome; Viscosupplements
PubMed: 25560713
DOI: 10.7326/M14-1231 -
Audiology & Neuro-otology 2022Ménière's disease is characterized by recurrent episodes of vertigo, hearing loss, and tinnitus, often with a feeling of fullness in the ear. Although betahistine is...
BACKGROUND
Ménière's disease is characterized by recurrent episodes of vertigo, hearing loss, and tinnitus, often with a feeling of fullness in the ear. Although betahistine is thought to be specifically effective for Ménière's disease, no evidence for a benefit from the use of betahistine exists, despite its widespread use. Reassessment of the effect of betahistine for Ménière's disease is now warranted.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov, ICTRP, and additional sources for published and unpublished trials, in which betahistine was compared to placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Our outcomes involved vertigo, significant adverse effect (upper gastrointestinal discomfort), hearing loss, tinnitus, aural fullness, other adverse effects, and disease-specific health-related quality of life. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 studies: 5 studies used a crossover design and the remaining 5 were parallel-group RCTs. One study with a low risk of bias found no significant difference between the betahistine groups and placebo with respect to vertigo after a long-term follow-up period. No significant difference in the incidence of upper gastrointestinal discomfort was found in 2 studies (low-certainty evidence). No differences in hearing loss, tinnitus, or well-being and disease-specific health-related quality of life were found (low- to very low-certainty of evidence). Data on aural fullness could not be extracted. No significant difference between the betahistine and the placebo groups (low-certainty evidence) could be demonstrated in the other adverse effect outcome with respect to dull headache. The pooled risk ratio for other adverse effect in the long term demonstrated a lower risk in favor of placebo over betahistine.
CONCLUSIONS
High-quality studies evaluating the effect of betahistine on patients with Ménière's disease are lacking. However, one study with low risk of bias found no evidence of a difference in the effect of betahistine on the primary outcome, vertigo, in patients with Ménière's disease when compared to placebo. The main focus of future research should be on the use of comparable outcome measures by means of patient-reported outcome measures.
Topics: Betahistine; Deafness; Humans; Meniere Disease; Syndrome; Tinnitus; Vertigo
PubMed: 34233329
DOI: 10.1159/000515821 -
Nutrients Nov 2019Isoflavones have gained popularity as an alternative treatment for menopausal symptoms for people who cannot or are unwilling to take hormone replacement therapy....
Isoflavones have gained popularity as an alternative treatment for menopausal symptoms for people who cannot or are unwilling to take hormone replacement therapy. However, there is still no consensus on the effects of isoflavones despite over two decades of vigorous research. This systematic review aims to summarize the current literature on isoflavone supplements, focusing on the active ingredients daidzein, genistein, and S-equol, and provide a framework to guide future research. We performed a literature search in Ovid Medline using the search terms "isoflavone" and "menopause", which yielded 95 abstracts and 68 full-text articles. We found that isoflavones reduce hot flashes even accounting for placebo effect, attenuate lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) loss, show beneficial effects on systolic blood pressure during early menopause, and improve glycemic control in vitro. There are currently no conclusive benefits of isoflavones on urogenital symptoms and cognition. Due to the lack of standardized research protocols including isoflavone component and dosage, outcomes, and trial duration, it is difficult to reach a conclusion at this point in time. Despite these limitations, the evidence thus far favors the use of isoflavones due to their safety profile and benefit to overall health.
Topics: Dietary Supplements; Female; Humans; Isoflavones; Menopause
PubMed: 31689947
DOI: 10.3390/nu11112649 -
PloS One 2015The tolerability of oral iron supplementation for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia is disputed. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The tolerability of oral iron supplementation for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia is disputed.
OBJECTIVE
Our aim was to quantify the odds of GI side-effects in adults related to current gold standard oral iron therapy, namely ferrous sulfate.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating GI side-effects that included ferrous sulfate and a comparator that was either placebo or intravenous (i.v.) iron. Random effects meta-analysis modelling was undertaken and study heterogeneity was summarised using I2 statistics.
RESULTS
Forty three trials comprising 6831 adult participants were included. Twenty trials (n = 3168) had a placebo arm and twenty three trials (n = 3663) had an active comparator arm of i.v. iron. Ferrous sulfate supplementation significantly increased risk of GI side-effects versus placebo with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.32 [95% CI 1.74-3.08, p<0.0001, I2 = 53.6%] and versus i.v. iron with an OR of 3.05 [95% CI 2.07-4.48, p<0.0001, I2 = 41.6%]. Subgroup analysis in IBD patients showed a similar effect versus i.v. iron (OR = 3.14, 95% CI 1.34-7.36, p = 0.008, I2 = 0%). Likewise, subgroup analysis of pooled data from 7 RCTs in pregnant women (n = 1028) showed a statistically significant increased risk of GI side-effects for ferrous sulfate although there was marked heterogeneity in the data (OR = 3.33, 95% CI 1.19-9.28, p = 0.02, I2 = 66.1%). Meta-regression did not provide significant evidence of an association between the study OR and the iron dose.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis confirms that ferrous sulfate is associated with a significant increase in gastrointestinal-specific side-effects but does not find a relationship with dose.
Topics: Anemia, Iron-Deficiency; Clinical Trials as Topic; Databases, Factual; Dietary Supplements; Ferrous Compounds; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Odds Ratio; Placebo Effect
PubMed: 25700159
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117383 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Aug 2017Premenstrual syndrome is characterized by the cyclic occurrence of physical, behavioral and psychological symptoms during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Premenstrual syndrome is characterized by the cyclic occurrence of physical, behavioral and psychological symptoms during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle disappearing within a few days of the onset of menstruation. Generally symptoms are mild, but 5-8% of women suffer from severe PMS. Apart from conventional drugs, like serotonin reuptake inhibitors and oral contraceptives, complementary and alternative medicines such as Vitex agnus castus are used by many women experiencing PMS.
OBJECTIVE
Our objective was to determine the efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of Vitex agnus castus preparations for treatment of premenstrual syndrome.
STUDY DESIGN
All journals in the Ovid software from inception through January 2016 were searched, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. Gray literature was searched by Google Scholar and manufacturers of Vitex agnus castus preparations were contacted for information about unpublished trials. We included randomized controlled trials with Vitex agnus castus in women with premenstrual syndrome and/or premenstrual dysphoric disorder with a minimal duration of 2 menstrual cycles. The eligibility of the manuscripts was assessed by 2 reviewers independently. The data abstracted included characteristics of the study design, characteristics of the patient population, intervention details, type of comparator, method of diagnosis, and outcome measures. We adhered to the PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
We found 17 randomized controlled trials of Vitex agnus castus in the treatment of premenstrual syndrome. Fourteen of these could be included in the quantitative analysis. Thirteen of 14 studies with placebo, dietary supplements, or herbal preparations as controls reported positive effects of Vitex agnus castus on total premenstrual syndrome symptoms. Unfortunately most of the trials are associated with a high risk of bias. The pooled effect of Vitex agnus castus in placebo-controlled trials was large (Hedges g, -1.21; 95% confidence interval, -1.53 to -0.88), but heterogeneity was extremely high (I, 91%). We were unable to single out factors that could explain this heterogeneity satisfactorily. The funnel plot and Egger tests suggest the presence of publication bias.
CONCLUSION
Although meta-analysis shows a large pooled effect of Vitex agnus castus in placebo-controlled trials, the high risk of bias, high heterogeneity, and risk of publication bias of the included studies preclude a definitive conclusion. The pooled treatment effects should be viewed as merely explorative and, at best, overestimating the real treatment effect of Vitex agnus castus for premenstrual syndrome symptoms. There is a clear need for high-quality trials of appropriate size examining the effect of standardized extracts of Vitex agnus castus in comparison to placebo, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and oral contraceptives to establish relative efficacy.
Topics: Female; Humans; Phytotherapy; Plant Extracts; Premenstrual Syndrome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vitex
PubMed: 28237870
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.02.028 -
EClinicalMedicine Aug 2023Refractory chronic cough (RCC) has a significant impact on patient's health-related quality of life and represents a challenge in clinical management. However, the...
BACKGROUND
Refractory chronic cough (RCC) has a significant impact on patient's health-related quality of life and represents a challenge in clinical management. However, the optimal treatment for RCC remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate and compare the efficacy and safety of the current pharmacological therapeutic options for RCC.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Ovid databases from January 1, 2008 to March 1, 2023. All randomised control trials (RCTs) reporting outcomes of efficacy or/and safety were included in the Bayesian network meta-analysis. Here, we compared the effects on Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and objective cough frequency of patients with RCC. Besides, we also compared the incidence of adverse events (AEs) for analysis of safety. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022345940.
FINDINGS
19 eligible RCTs included 3326 patients and 7 medication categories: P2X3 antagonist, GABA modulator, Transient Receptor Potential (TRP) modulator, NK-1 agonist, opioid analgesic, macrolide, and sodium cromoglicate. Compared with placebo, mean difference (MD) of LCQ and 24 h cough frequency for P2X3 antagonist relief were 1.637 (95% CI: 0.887-2.387) and -11.042 (P = 0.035). Compared with placebo, effect sizes (MD for LCQ and cough severity VAS) for GABA modulator were 1.347 (P = 0.003) and -7.843 (P = 0.003). In the network meta-analysis, gefapixant is the most effective treatment for patients with RCC (The Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curves (SUCRA) is 0.711 in LCQ, 0.983 in 24 h cough frequency, and 0.786 in cough severity VAS). Lesogaberan had better efficacy than placebo (SUCRA: 0.632 vs. 0.472) in 24 h cough frequency. Eliapixant and lesogaberan had better efficacy than placebo in cough severity VAS. However, TRP modulator had worse efficacy than placebo. In the meta-analysis of AEs, the present study found P2X3 antagonist had a significant correlation to AEs (RR: 1.129, 95% CI: 1.012-1.259), especially taste-related AEs (RR: 6.216, P < 0.05).
INTERPRETATION
In this network meta-analysis, P2X3 antagonist showing advantages in terms of efficacy is currently the most promising medication for treatment of RCC. GABA modulator also showed potential efficacy for RCC but with AEs of the central system. Nevertheless, the role of TRP modulator needed to be revisited. Further research is needed to determine the potential beneficiary population for optimizing the pharmacological management of chronic cough.
FUNDING
National Natural Science Foundation of China (81870079), Guangdong Science and Technology Project (2021A050520012), Incubation Program of National Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars (GMU2020-207).
PubMed: 37538538
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102100 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Corticosteroids are widely used in the treatment of idiopathic facial paralysis (Bell's palsy), but the effectiveness of additional treatment with an antiviral agent is...
BACKGROUND
Corticosteroids are widely used in the treatment of idiopathic facial paralysis (Bell's palsy), but the effectiveness of additional treatment with an antiviral agent is uncertain. This review was first published in 2001 and most recently updated in 2015. Since a significant benefit of corticosteroids for the early management of Bell's palsy has been demonstrated, the main focus of this update, as in the previous version, was to determine the effect of adding antivirals to corticosteroid treatment. We undertook this update to integrate additional evidence and to better assess the robustness of findings, taking risk of bias fully into account.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of antiviral treatments alone or in combination with any other therapy for Bell's palsy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS in July 2019. We reviewed the bibliographies of the identified trials and contacted trial authors to identify additional published or unpublished data. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of antivirals with and without corticosteroids versus control therapies for the treatment of Bell's palsy. We excluded trials that followed-up participants for less than three months.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently assessed trials for relevance, eligibility, and risk of bias, using standard Cochrane procedures. We performed sensitivity analyses excluding trials at high or unclear risk of bias in at least five domains, and reported these data as the primary analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
Fourteen trials, including 2488 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Most were small, and most were at high or unclear risk of bias in multiple domains. We included four new studies at this update.Incomplete recoveryA combination of antivirals and corticosteroids may have little or no effect on rates of incomplete recovery in people with Bell's palsy compared to corticosteroids alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 1.74; 3 trials, N = 766; random-effects; low-certainty evidence). We excluded 10 trials that were at high or unclear risk of bias in several domains from this analysis and limited all analyses to studies at lower risk of bias. Recovery rates were better in participants receiving corticosteroids alone than antivirals alone (RR 2.69, 95% CI 0.73 to 10.01; 2 trials, N = 667; random-effects), but the result was imprecise and allowed for the possibility of no effect. The rate of incomplete recovery was lower with antivirals plus corticosteroids than with placebo or no treatment (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.76; 2 trials, N = 658; random-effects). Antivirals alone had no clear effect on incomplete recovery rates compared with placebo, but the result was imprecise (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.40; 2 trials, N = 658; fixed-effect). For people with severe Bell's palsy (House-Brackmann score of 5 and 6, or equivalent on other scales), we found that the combination of antivirals and corticosteroids had no clear effect on incomplete recovery at month six compared to corticosteroids alone, although the result was again imprecise (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 2 trials, N = 98; random-effects).Motor synkinesis or crocodile tearsAntivirals plus corticosteroids reduced the proportion of participants who experienced these long-term sequelae from Bell's palsy compared to placebo plus corticosteroids (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87; 2 trials, N = 469; fixed-effect; moderate-certainty evidence). Antivirals plus corticosteroids reduced long-term sequelae compared to placebo but there was no clear difference in this outcome with antivirals alone compared to placebo.Adverse events Adverse event data were available in four studies providing data on 1592 participants. None of the four comparisons showed clear differences in adverse events between treatment and comparison arms (very low-certainty evidence); for the comparison of antivirals plus corticosteroids and corticosteroids alone in studies at lower risk of bias, the RR was 1.17 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.69; 2 trials, N = 656; fixed-effect; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The combination of antivirals and corticosteroids may have little or no effect on rates of incomplete recovery in comparison to corticosteroids alone in Bell's palsy of various degrees of severity, or in people with severe Bell's palsy, but the results were very imprecise. Corticosteroids alone were probably more effective than antivirals alone and antivirals plus corticosteroids were more effective than placebo or no treatment. There was no clear benefit from antivirals alone over placebo.The combination of antivirals and corticosteroids probably reduced the late sequelae of Bell's palsy compared with corticosteroids alone. Studies also showed fewer episodes of long-term sequelae in corticosteroid-treated participants than antiviral-treated participants.We found no clear difference in adverse events from the use of antivirals compared with either placebo or corticosteroids, but the evidence is too uncertain for us to draw conclusions.An adequately powered RCT in people with Bell's palsy that compares different antiviral agents may be indicated.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antiviral Agents; Bell Palsy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31486071
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001869.pub9 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2023Pharmacological interventions are frequently used for people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to manage behaviours of concern, including irritability, aggression, and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pharmacological interventions are frequently used for people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to manage behaviours of concern, including irritability, aggression, and self-injury. Some pharmacological interventions might help treat some behaviours of concern, but can also have adverse effects (AEs).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and AEs of pharmacological interventions for managing the behaviours of irritability, aggression, and self-injury in ASD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 11 other databases and two trials registers up to June 2022. We also searched reference lists of relevant studies, and contacted study authors, experts and pharmaceutical companies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of participants of any age with a clinical diagnosis of ASD, that compared any pharmacological intervention to an alternative drug, standard care, placebo, or wait-list control.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were behaviours of concern in ASD, (irritability, aggression and self-injury); and AEs. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, and tolerability and acceptability. Two review authors independently assessed each study for risk of bias, and used GRADE to judge the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 131 studies involving 7014 participants in this review. We identified 26 studies as awaiting classification and 25 as ongoing. Most studies involved children (53 studies involved only children under 13 years), children and adolescents (37 studies), adolescents only (2 studies) children and adults (16 studies), or adults only (23 studies). All included studies compared a pharmacological intervention to a placebo or to another pharmacological intervention. Atypical antipsychotics versus placebo At short-term follow-up (up to 6 months), atypical antipsychotics probably reduce irritability compared to placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.25 to -0.55, 12 studies, 973 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), which may indicate a large effect. However, there was no clear evidence of a difference in aggression between groups (SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.01; 1 study, 77 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Atypical antipsychotics may also reduce self-injury (SMD -1.43, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.61; 1 study, 30 participants; low-certainty evidence), possibly indicating a large effect. There may be higher rates of neurological AEs (dizziness, fatigue, sedation, somnolence, and tremor) in the intervention group (low-certainty evidence), but there was no clear evidence of an effect on other neurological AEs. Increased appetite may be higher in the intervention group (low-certainty evidence), but we found no clear evidence of an effect on other metabolic AEs. There was no clear evidence of differences between groups in musculoskeletal or psychological AEs. Neurohormones versus placebo At short-term follow-up, neurohormones may have minimal to no clear effect on irritability when compared to placebo (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.00; 8 studies; 466 participants; very low-certainty evidence), although the evidence is very uncertain. No data were reported for aggression or self -injury. Neurohormones may reduce the risk of headaches slightly in the intervention group, although the evidence is very uncertain. There was no clear evidence of an effect of neurohormones on any other neurological AEs, nor on any psychological, metabolic, or musculoskeletal AEs (low- and very low-certainty evidence). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)-related medications versus placebo At short-term follow-up, ADHD-related medications may reduce irritability slightly (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.01; 10 studies, 400 participants; low-certainty evidence), which may indicate a small effect. However, there was no clear evidence that ADHD-related medications have an effect on self-injury (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -1.63 to 0.39; 1 study, 16 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for aggression. Rates of neurological AEs (drowsiness, emotional AEs, fatigue, headache, insomnia, and irritability), metabolic AEs (decreased appetite) and psychological AEs (depression) may be higher in the intervention group, although the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between groups for any other metabolic, neurological, or psychological AEs (very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for musculoskeletal AEs. Antidepressants versus placebo At short-term follow-up, there was no clear evidence that antidepressants have an effect on irritability (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.18; 3 studies, 267 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data for aggression or self-injury were reported or could be included in the analysis. Rates of metabolic AEs (decreased energy) may be higher in participants receiving antidepressants (very low-certainty evidence), although no other metabolic AEs showed clear evidence of a difference. Rates of neurological AEs (decreased attention) and psychological AEs (impulsive behaviour and stereotypy) may also be higher in the intervention group (very low-certainty evidence) although the evidence is very uncertain. There was no clear evidence of any difference in the other metabolic, neurological, or psychological AEs (very low-certainty evidence), nor between groups in musculoskeletal AEs (very low-certainty evidence). Risk of bias We rated most of the studies across the four comparisons at unclear overall risk of bias due to having multiple domains rated as unclear, very few rated as low across all domains, and most having at least one domain rated as high risk of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests that atypical antipsychotics probably reduce irritability, ADHD-related medications may reduce irritability slightly, and neurohormones may have little to no effect on irritability in the short term in people with ASD. There was some evidence that atypical antipsychotics may reduce self-injury in the short term, although the evidence is uncertain. There was no clear evidence that antidepressants had an effect on irritability. There was also little to no difference in aggression between atypical antipsychotics and placebo, or self-injury between ADHD-related medications and placebo. However, there was some evidence that atypical antipsychotics may result in a large reduction in self-injury, although the evidence is uncertain. No data were reported (or could be used) for self-injury or aggression for neurohormones versus placebo. Studies reported a wide range of potential AEs. Atypical antipsychotics and ADHD-related medications in particular were associated with an increased risk of metabolic and neurological AEs, although the evidence is uncertain for atypical antipsychotics and very uncertain for ADHD-related medications. The other drug classes had minimal or no associated AEs.
Topics: Child; Adult; Adolescent; Humans; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Quality of Life; Antipsychotic Agents; Antidepressive Agents; Aggression; Self-Injurious Behavior; Fatigue; Neurotransmitter Agents
PubMed: 37811711
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011769.pub2