-
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Jul 2023Sex disparities are evident in the biological response to acute stressors, with a suggested influence of ovarian hormones on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Sex disparities are evident in the biological response to acute stressors, with a suggested influence of ovarian hormones on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis functioning. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates differences in HPA axis reactivity to acute psychosocial or physiological stressors between menstrual cycle phases. A systematic literature search of six databases resulted in 12 longitudinal studies (n = 182) examining HPA axis reactivity in healthy, naturally-cycling, non-breastfeeding participants aged between 18 and 45 years in at least two cycle phases. The quality of cortisol and menstrual cycle assessment was rated and a descriptive synthesis and meta-analysis of HPA axis reactivity between two broader and five more precise cycle phases was conducted. Three studies provided sufficient data for the meta-analysis and showed a significant, small-sized effect, indicating higher cortisol reactivity in the luteal than in the follicular cycle phase. More primary studies with high-quality menstrual cycle and cortisol assessment are needed. The review did not receive funding and was pre-registered (PROSPERO; CRD42020181632).
Topics: Female; Humans; Adolescent; Young Adult; Adult; Middle Aged; Hydrocortisone; Hypothalamo-Hypophyseal System; Pituitary-Adrenal System; Stress, Psychological; Menstrual Cycle
PubMed: 37149074
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105212 -
BMC Infectious Diseases May 2023The preferred agent of glucocorticoids in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19 is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The preferred agent of glucocorticoids in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19 is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19.
METHODS
By searching the electronic literature database including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science, the clinical studies comparing methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in the treatment of severe COVID-19 were selected according to the inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria. Relevant data were extracted and literature quality was assessed. The primary outcome was short-term mortality. The secondary outcomes were the rates of ICU admission and mechanical ventilation, PaO/FiO ratio, plasma levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, hospital stay, and the incidence of severe adverse events. Statistical pooling applied the fixed or random effects model and reported as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.1.0.
RESULTS
Twelve clinical studies were eligible, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nine non-RCTs. A total of 2506 patients with COVID-19 were analyzed, of which 1242 (49.6%) received methylprednisolone and 1264 (50.4%) received dexamethasone treatment. In general, the heterogeneity across studies was significant, and the equivalent doses of methylprednisolone were higher than that of dexamethasone. Our meta-analysis showed that methylprednisolone treatment in severe COVID-19 patients was related to significantly reduced plasma ferritin and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio compared with dexamethasone, and that no significant difference in other clinical outcomes between the two groups was found. However, subgroup analyses of RCTs demonstrated that methylprednisolone treatment was associated with reduced short-term mortality, and decreased CRP level compared with dexamethasone. Moreover, subgroup analyses observed that severe COVID-19 patients treated with a moderate dose (2 mg/kg/day) of methylprednisolone were related to a better prognosis than those treated with dexamethasone.
CONCLUSIONS
This study showed that compared with dexamethasone, methylprednisolone could reduce the systemic inflammatory response in severe COVID-19, and its effect was equivalent to that of dexamethasone on other clinical outcomes. It should be noted that the equivalent dose of methylprednisolone used was higher. Based on the evidence of subgroup analyses of RCTs, methylprednisolone, preferably at a moderate dose, has an advantage over dexamethasone in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19.
Topics: Humans; Glucocorticoids; Methylprednisolone; COVID-19; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Dexamethasone
PubMed: 37147596
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08280-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Glucocorticoids are commonly used for croup in children. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 1999 and previously updated in 2004 and 2011. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Glucocorticoids are commonly used for croup in children. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 1999 and previously updated in 2004 and 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effects of glucocorticoids for the treatment of croup in children aged 0 to 18 years.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2018), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, Ovid MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 3 April 2018), and Embase (Ovid) (1996 to 3 April 2018, week 14), and the trials registers ClinicalTrials.gov (3 April 2018) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 3 April 2018). We scanned the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and of the included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated children aged 0 to 18 years with croup and measured the effects of glucocorticoids, alone or in combination, compared to placebo or another pharmacologic treatment. The studies needed to report at least one of our primary or secondary outcomes: change in croup score; return visits, (re)admissions or both; length of stay; patient improvement; use of additional treatments; and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
One author extracted data from each study and another verified the extraction. We entered the data into Review Manager 5 for meta-analysis. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for each study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and the certainty of the body of evidence for the primary outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We added five new RCTs with 330 children. This review now includes 43 RCTs with a total of 4565 children. We assessed most (98%) studies as at high or unclear risk of bias. Compared to placebo, glucocorticoids improved symptoms of croup at two hours (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.13 to -0.18; 7 RCTs; 426 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and the effect lasted for at least 24 hours (SMD -0.86, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.31; 8 RCTs; 351 children; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, glucocorticoids reduced the rate of return visits or (re)admissions or both (risk ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.75; 10 RCTs; 1679 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Glucocorticoid treatment reduced the length of stay in hospital by about 15 hours (mean difference -14.90, 95% CI -23.58 to -6.22; 8 RCTs; 476 children). Serious adverse events were infrequent. Publication bias was not evident. Uncertainty remains with regard to the optimal type, dose, and mode of administration of glucocorticoids for reducing croup symptoms in children.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Glucocorticoids reduced symptoms of croup at two hours, shortened hospital stays, and reduced the rate of return visits to care. Our conclusions have changed, as the previous version of this review reported that glucocorticoids reduced symptoms of croup within six hours.
Topics: Adolescent; Beclomethasone; Betamethasone; Budesonide; Child; Child, Preschool; Croup; Dexamethasone; Epinephrine; Fluticasone; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Prednisolone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30133690
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001955.pub4 -
Rheumatology (Oxford, England) Aug 2023The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of long-term low-dose glucocorticoids (GCs) in RA. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of long-term low-dose glucocorticoids (GCs) in RA.
METHODS
A protocolised systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO No. CRD42021252528) of double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trials (RCTs) comparing a low dose of GCs (≤ 7.5mg/day prednisone) to placebo over at least 2 years was performed. The primary outcome investigated was adverse events (AEs). We performed random-effects meta-analyses and used the Cochrane RoB tool and GRADE to assess risk of bias and quality of evidence (QoE).
RESULTS
Six trials with 1078 participants were included. There was no evidence of an increased risk of AEs (incidence rate ratio 1.08; 95% CI 0.86, 1.34; P = 0.52); however, the QoE was low. The risks of death, serious AEs, withdrawals due to AEs, and AEs of special interest did not differ from placebo (very low to moderate QoE). Infections occurred more frequently with GCs (risk ratio 1.4; 1.19-1.65; moderate QoE). Concerning benefit, we found moderate to high quality evidence of improvement in disease activity (DAS28: -0.23; -0.43 to -0.03), function (HAQ -0.09; -0.18 to 0.00), and Larsen scores (-4.61; -7.52 to -1.69). In other efficacy outcomes, including Sharp van der Heijde scores, there was no evidence of benefits with GCs.
CONCLUSION
There is very low to moderate QoE for no harm with long-term low dose GCs in RA, except for an increased risk of infections in GC users. The benefit-risk ratio might be reasonable forusing low-dose long-term GCs considering the moderate to high quality evidence for disease-modifying properties.
Topics: Humans; Glucocorticoids; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36810945
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead088 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Keloid scarring is one of the most common types of pathological scarring. Keloid scars that fail to heal can affect a person's physical and psychological function by... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Keloid scarring is one of the most common types of pathological scarring. Keloid scars that fail to heal can affect a person's physical and psychological function by causing pain, pruritus, contractures, and cosmetic disfigurement. Silicone gel sheeting (SGS) is made from medical-grade silicone reinforced with a silicone membrane backing and is one of the most commonly used treatments for keloid scars. However, there is no up-to-date systematic review assessing the effectiveness of SGS for keloid scars. A clear and rigorous review of current evidence is required to guide clinicians, healthcare managers and people with keloid scarring.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of silicone gel sheeting for the treatment of keloid scars compared with standard care or other therapies.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was December 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited people with any keloid scars and assessed the effectiveness of SGS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment, data extraction and GRADE assessment of the certainty of evidence. We resolved initial disagreements by discussion, or by consulting a third review author when necessary.
MAIN RESULTS
Two studies met the inclusion criteria. Study sample sizes were 16 and 20 participants. The trials were clinically heterogeneous with differences in causes for scarring (e.g. surgery, infected wounds, and trauma), site (e.g. chest and back), and ages of scars. The duration of follow-up was three and four and a half months. The included studies reported three comparisons; SGS compared with no treatment, SGS compared with non-silicone gel sheeting (a dressing similar to SGS but which does not contain silicone), and SGS compared with intralesional injections of triamcinolone acetonide. One trial had a split-body design and one trial had an unclear design (resulting in a mix of paired and clustered data). The included studies reported limited outcome data for the primary review outcome of scar severity measured by health professionals and no data were reported for severity of scar measured by patients or adverse events. For secondary outcomes some data on pain were reported, but health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness were not reported. Both trials had suboptimal outcome reporting, thus many domains in the risk of bias were assessed as unclear. All evidence was rated as being very low-certainty, mainly due to risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision. SGS compared with no treatment Two studies with 33 participants (76 scars) reported the severity of scar assessed by health professionals, and we are uncertain about the effect of SGS on scar severity compared with no treatment (very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for inconsistency, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision). We are uncertain about the effect of SGS on pain compared with no treatment (21 participants with 40 scars; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for inconsistency, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision). No data were reported for other outcomes including scar severity assessed by patients, adverse events, adherence to treatment, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. SGS compared with non-SGS One study with 16 participants (25 scars) was included in this comparison. We are uncertain about the effect of SGS on scar severity assessed by health professionals compared with non-SGS (very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision). We are also uncertain about the effect of SGS on pain compared with non-SGS (very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision). No data were reported for other outcomes including scar severity assessed by patients, adverse events, adherence to treatment, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. SGS compared with intralesional injections of triamcinolone acetonide One study with 17 participants (51 scars) reported scar severity assessed by health professionals, and we are uncertain about the effect of SGS on scar severity compared with intralesional injections of triamcinolone acetonide (very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision). This study also reported pain assessed by health professionals among 5 participants (15 scars) and we are uncertain about the effect of SGS on pain compared with intralesional injections of triamcinolone acetonide (very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and twice for imprecision). No data were reported for other outcomes including scar severity assessed by patients, adverse events, adherence to treatment, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently a lack of RCT evidence about the clinical effectiveness of SGS in the treatment of keloid scars. From the two studies identified, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate whether the use of SGS compared with no treatment, non-SGS, or intralesional injections of triamcinolone acetonide makes any difference in the treatment of keloid scars. Evidence from the included studies is of very low certainty, mainly driven by the risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision due to small sample size. Further well-designed studies that have good reporting methodologies and address important clinical, quality of life and economic outcomes are required to reduce uncertainty around decision-making in the use of SGS to treat keloid scars.
Topics: Humans; Bandages; Keloid; Silicone Gels; Triamcinolone Acetonide; Wound Healing; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36594476
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013878.pub2 -
Future Oncology (London, England) Feb 2023The correlation between response and survival has not been well-studied in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). A systematic literature review of Medline,... (Review)
Review
The correlation between response and survival has not been well-studied in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). A systematic literature review of Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases (2010-06/2020) and relevant congresses (2018-2020) was performed to identify randomized clinical trials in RRMM reporting median overall survival (mOS), progression-free survival and response end points. The relationship between mOS and response end points was analyzed using Pearson's product-moment correlation. A total of 81 records for 65 original studies, representing 12,827 patients were included. The correlation was moderate for mOS with overall response rate (Pearson r = 0.79), very good partial response (r = 0.73) and duration of response (r = 0.78); all were statistically significant. In linear regression models, estimated mOS gain was 0.48, 0.47 and 1.94 months per percentage point of overall response rate, very good partial response and complete response, respectively (all p < 0.001). Significance was maintained after adjustment for age, relapsed versus refractory multiple myeloma and study year. The analysis was limited by small sample sizes and inconsistent reporting of study-level covariates. These findings support short-term response-based end points as surrogates to survival in RRMM.
Topics: Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Remission Induction; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Dexamethasone
PubMed: 37083162
DOI: 10.2217/fon-2022-0932 -
Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy Apr 2024Ganaxolone has exhibited potential in managing seizures for epilepsy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to assess both the safety and efficacy of Ganaxolone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Ganaxolone has exhibited potential in managing seizures for epilepsy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to assess both the safety and efficacy of Ganaxolone for refractory epilepsy.
METHODS
A thorough search of electronic databases was conducted to identify relevant randomized controlled trials involving patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy and CDKL5 deficiency disorder. Efficacy and safety outcomes were extracted from the selected studies. Cochrane Review Manager was utilized for data synthesis and analysis, with risk ratios and mean differences calculated to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of Ganaxolone.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis included a total of five randomized controlled trials. Ganaxolone exhibited significant efficacy in reducing seizure frequency by at least 50% from baseline [RR 0.90 (95% CI: 0.83, 0.98), = 0.02]. However, the results did not reach significance for reducing 28-day seizure frequency [Mean Difference -1.45 (95% CI: -3.39, 0.49), = 0.14]. Ganaxolone exhibited a positive safety profile, with no statistically significant occurrence of adverse events [RR 1.30 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.83), = 0.12] and adverse events leading to discontinuation of the study drug [RR 1.01 (95% CI: 0.42, 2.39), = 0.99] compared to placebo.
CONCLUSION
Ganaxolone presents itself as a viable therapeutic option for refractory epilepsy, showing efficacy in reducing seizure frequency and exhibited a favorable safety profile.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42023434883.
Topics: Humans; Anticonvulsants; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Pregnanolone; Epilepsy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38606458
DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2024.2342413 -
PloS One 2016We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all the available evidence comparing efficacy and safety of oral prolonged released beclomethasone dipropionate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all the available evidence comparing efficacy and safety of oral prolonged released beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) to active oral controls in patients with mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC). A subgroup-analysis compared the effectiveness of BDP and 5-ASA.
METHODS
Literature research was performed in different databases, as well as manual search to identify abstracts from international meetings with data not included in extensive publications. Experts in the field and companies involved in BDP development and manufacture were contacted to identify unpublished studies used for registration purposes. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain odds ratio meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Five randomized controlled trials that compared oral BDP 5mg/day vs. all oral active controls in treating UC were identified as eligible. Efficacy and safety have been addressed after 4-week treatment period. One study evaluated efficacy and safety of BDP vs. prednisone and 4 of BDP vs. 5-ASA. Treatment with oral BDP 5 mg/day induces a significant better clinical response compared to oral 5-ASA (OR 1.86, 95% CI = 1.23-2.82, P = 0.003). The effect is detectable even when the comparison to prednisone is added (OR 1.41, 95% CI = 1.03-1.93, P = 0.03). Data on remission indicate that the potential clinical efficacy of BDP may be better than 5-ASA (OR 1.55, 95% CI = 1.00-2.40, P = 0.05). This difference is lost when the comparison with prednisone is added (OR 1.30, 95% CI = 0.76-2.23, P = 0.34). The safety analysis showed no differences between BDP and 5-ASA (OR 0.55, 95% CI = 0.24-1.27, P = 0.16). The lack of difference is maintained even when the study with prednisone is added (OR 0.67, 95% CI = 0.44-1.01, P = 0.06). However, the trend of difference is clear and indicates a more favourable safety profile of BDP compared to 5-ASA and PD.
CONCLUSIONS
Oral prolonged release BDP showed a superior efficacy vs. oral 5-ASA in inducing clinical improvement of mild-to-moderate UC with a similar safety profile.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Beclomethasone; Colitis, Ulcerative; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Mesalamine; Patient Safety; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27846307
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166455 -
The Laryngoscope Jun 2016The goal of this systematic review was to compare the efficacy and ototoxicity of Locacorten-Vioform (Paladin Labs Inc., Montreal, Quebec, Canada) and clotrimazole in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS
The goal of this systematic review was to compare the efficacy and ototoxicity of Locacorten-Vioform (Paladin Labs Inc., Montreal, Quebec, Canada) and clotrimazole in the treatment of patients with otomycosis.
DATA SOURCES
Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, European Union Clinical Trials Register, Cochrane Library databases of clinical trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
METHODS
We included any randomized controlled trials or nonrandomized studies (case-control, cohort, and case series) assessing the topical use of Locacorten-Vioform (Paladin Labs Inc.) and/or clotrimazole in adult and/or pediatric immunocompetent patient population with otomycosis. DerSimonian and Laird's random effects approach was used for meta-analysis, followed by an assessment of heterogeneity and subgroup analysis.
RESULTS
Of 226 reviewed articles, 14 were retained. Clotrimazole efficacy rate was 85% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 79.7-89.0%), whereas Locacorten-Vioform (Paladin Labs Inc.) was 73% (95% CI: 56.0-84.5%). Overall, study quality was low. There was high heterogeneity in both groups (I(2) of 47 and 49). There were only three studies assessing Locacorten-Vioform (Paladin Labs Inc.); therefore, comparative assessment was not possible. A one-way meta-analysis involving 13 clotrimazole studies was performed. Heterogeneity across studies was high; however, studies using objective analysis assessing treatment efficacy, randomized controlled trials, studies using drops, studies performed in Asia, and studies where Candida was the major fungus at diagnosis demonstrated low heterogeneity.
CONCLUSION
Although both are safe and effective, there is insufficient evidence supporting increased efficacy of either clotrimazole or Locacorten-Vioform (Paladin Labs Inc.) for the treatment of otomycosis. High-quality comparative studies are required.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
N/A. Laryngoscope, 126:1411-1419, 2016.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Candidiasis; Child; Clioquinol; Clotrimazole; Drug Combinations; Female; Flumethasone; Humans; Male; Otomycosis; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 26600419
DOI: 10.1002/lary.25761 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2020Currently, increasing evidence shows that excess aldosterone may have an impact on bone health, and primary aldosteronism (PA) may be a secondary cause of osteoporosis.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Currently, increasing evidence shows that excess aldosterone may have an impact on bone health, and primary aldosteronism (PA) may be a secondary cause of osteoporosis. This problem is worthy of attention because secondary osteoporosis is always potentially reversible, which affects the selection of treatment for PA to some extent. The present systematic review will assess and summarize the available data regarding the relationship between PA and osteoporosis.
METHODS
Pubmed and Embase were searched for clinical trials related to the association between PA and bone metabolism. The results were limited to full-text articles published in English, without restrictions for the publication time. The quality of clinical trials was appraised, and the data were extracted. Biochemical parameters of bone turnover in PA patients were assessed using random-effect meta-analysis. Descriptive analysis was performed for other parameters, for data is insufficient.
RESULTS
A final total of 15 articles were included in this review. The meta-analysis of six studies showed that subjects with PA had higher serum PTH levels (=21.50 pg/ml, 95% CI (15.63, 27.37), <0.00001) and slightly increased urinary calcium levels ( = 1.65 mmol/24 h, 95% CI (1.24, 2.06), < 0.00001) than the EH controls. PA is associated with an increased risk of bone fracture. Bone loss in patients with PA may be reversed by MR antagonists or adrenal surgery.
CONCLUSIONS
PA may be a secondary cause of osteoporosis and is associated with an increased risk of bone fracture. The clarification of the relationships between PA and bone metabolism requires additional prospective randomized controlled studies in a large sample.
Topics: Aldosterone; Bone Density; Bone and Bones; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Hyperaldosteronism; Osteoporosis; Parathyroid Hormone; Spironolactone
PubMed: 33101208
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2020.574151