-
Frontiers in Physiology 2019Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is considered the basic treatment for advanced prostate cancer, but it is highly associated with detrimental changes in muscle mass...
Supervised Physical Training Enhances Muscle Strength but Not Muscle Mass in Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Androgen Deprivation Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is considered the basic treatment for advanced prostate cancer, but it is highly associated with detrimental changes in muscle mass and muscle strength. The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effects of supervised physical training on lean mass and muscle strength in prostate cancer patients undergoing ADT. A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, and ScienceDirect until October 2018. Only studies that examined both muscle mass and strength in prostate cancer patients undergoing ADT were included. Outcomes of interest were changes in lean body mass (surrogate for muscle mass) as well as upper and lower body muscle strength. The meta-analysis was performed with fixed-effects models to calculate mean differences between intervention and no-training control groups. We identified 8,521 publications through the search of the following key words: prostate cancer, prostate tumor, prostate carcinoma, prostate neoplasm, exercise, and training. Out of these studies, seven randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and where included in the analysis. No significant mean differences for changes in lean mass were observed between the intervention and control groups (0.49 kg, 95% CI: -0.76, 1.74; = 0.44). In contrast, the mean difference for muscle strength was significant both in chest (3.15 kg, 95% CI: 2.46, 3.83; < 0.001) and in leg press (27.46 kg, 95% CI: 15.05, 39.87; < 0.001). This meta-analysis provides evidence that low- to moderate-intensity resistance and aerobic training is effective for increasing muscle strength but may not be sufficient to affect muscle mass in prostate cancer patients undergoing ADT. The underlying mechanisms for this maladaptation may in part be explained by an insufficient stimulus induced by the training regimens as well as a delayed initiation of training in relation to the start of ADT. When interpreting the present findings, one should bear in mind that the overall number of studies included in this review was rather low, emphasizing the need for further studies in this field.
PubMed: 31333495
DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2019.00843 -
BMJ Open Nov 2015To evaluate efficacy and safety of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists compared to standard androgen suppression therapy for advanced prostate cancer. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate efficacy and safety of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists compared to standard androgen suppression therapy for advanced prostate cancer.
SETTING
The international review team included methodologists of the German Cochrane Centre and clinical experts.
PARTICIPANTS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, trial registries and conference books for randomised controlled trials (RCT) for effectiveness data analysis, and randomised or non-randomised controlled studies (non-RCT) for safety data analysis (March 2015). Two authors independently screened identified articles, extracted data, evaluated risk of bias and rated quality of evidence according to GRADE.
RESULTS
13 studies (10 RCTs, 3 non-RCTs) were included. No study reported cancer-specific survival or clinical progression. There were no differences in overall mortality (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.93), treatment failure (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.17) or prostate-specific antigen progression (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.06). While there was no difference in quality of life related to urinary symptoms, improved quality of life regarding prostate symptoms, measured with the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), with the use of GnRH antagonists compared with the use of standard androgen suppression therapy (mean score difference -0.40, 95% CI -0.94 to 0.14, and -1.84, 95% CI -3.00 to -0.69, respectively) was found. Quality of evidence for all assessed outcomes was rated low according to GRADE. The risk for injection-site events was increased, but cardiovascular events may occur less often by using GnRH antagonist. Available evidence is hampered by risk of bias, selective reporting and limited follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
There is currently insufficient evidence to make firm conclusive statements on the efficacy of GnRH antagonist compared to standard androgen suppression therapy for advanced prostate cancer. There is need for further high-quality research on GnRH antagonists with long-term follow-up.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42012002751.
Topics: Androgen Antagonists; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Male; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 26567252
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008217 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) is an autosomal recessive condition which leads to glucocorticoid deficiency and is the most common cause of adrenal insufficiency... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) is an autosomal recessive condition which leads to glucocorticoid deficiency and is the most common cause of adrenal insufficiency in children. In over 90% of cases, 21-hydroxylase enzyme deficiency is found which is caused by mutations in the 21-hydroxylase gene. Managing individuals with CAH due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency involves replacing glucocorticoids with oral glucocorticoids (including prednisolone and hydrocortisone), suppressing adrenocorticotrophic hormones and replacing mineralocorticoids to prevent salt wasting. During childhood, the main aims of treatment are to prevent adrenal crises and to achieve normal stature, optimal adult height and to undergo normal puberty. In adults, treatment aims to prevent adrenal crises, ensure normal fertility and to avoid the long-term consequences of glucocorticoid use. Current glucocorticoid treatment regimens can not optimally replicate the normal physiological cortisol level and over-treatment or under-treatment is often reported.
OBJECTIVES
To compare and determine the efficacy and safety of different glucocorticoid replacement regimens in the treatment of CAH due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency in children and adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP). Date of last search of trials register: 24 June 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing different glucocorticoid replacement regimens for treating CAH due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency in children and adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The authors independently extracted and analysed the data from different interventions. They undertook the comparisons separately and used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Searches identified 1729 records with 43 records subject to further examination. After screening, we included five RCTs (six references) with a total of 101 participants and identified a further six ongoing RCTs. The number of participants in each trial varied from six to 44, with participants' ages ranging from 3.6 months to 21 years. Four trials were of cross-over design and one was of parallel design. Duration of treatment ranged from two weeks to six months per treatment arm with an overall follow-up between six and 12 months for all trials. Overall, we judged the quality of the trials to be at moderate to high risk of bias; with lack of methodological detail leading to unclear or high risk of bias judgements across many of the domains. All trials employed an oral glucocorticoid replacement therapy, but with different daily schedules and dose levels. Three trials compared different dose schedules of hydrocortisone (HC), one three-arm trial compared HC to prednisolone (PD) and dexamethasone (DXA) and one trial compared HC with fludrocortisone to PD with fludrocortisone. Due to the heterogeneity of the trials and the limited amount of evidence, we were unable to perform any meta-analyses. No trials reported on quality of life, prevention of adrenal crisis, presence of osteopenia, presence of testicular or ovarian adrenal rest tumours, subfertility or final adult height. Five trials (101 participants) reported androgen normalisation but using different measurements (very low-quality evidence for all measurements). Five trials reported 17 hydroxyprogesterone (17 OHP) levels, four trials reported androstenedione, three trials reported testosterone and one trial reported dehydroepiandrosterone sulphate (DHEAS). After four weeks, results from one trial (15 participants) showed a high morning dose of HC or a high evening dose made little or no difference in 17 OHP, testosterone, androstenedione and DHEAS. One trial (27 participants) found that HC and DXA treatment suppressed 17 OHP and androstenedione more than PD treatment after six weeks and a further trial (eight participants) reported no difference in 17 OHP between the five different dosing schedules of HC at between four and six weeks. One trial (44 participants) comparing HC and PD found no differences in the values of 17 OHP, androstenedione and testosterone at one year. One trial (26 participants) of HC versus HC plus fludrocortisone found that at six months 17 OHP and androstenedione levels were more suppressed on HC alone, but there were no differences noted in testosterone levels. While no trials reported on absolute final adult height, we reported some surrogate markers. Three trials reported on growth and bone maturation and two trials reported on height velocity. One trial found height velocity was reduced at six months in 26 participants given once daily HC 25 mg/m²/day compared to once daily HC 15 mg/m²/day (both groups also received fludrocortisone 0.1 mg/day), but as the quality of the evidence was very low we are unsure whether the variation in HC dose caused the difference. There were no differences noted in growth hormone or IGF1 levels. The results from another trial (44 participants) indicate no difference in growth velocity between HC and PD at one year (very low-quality evidence), but this trial did report that once daily PD treatment may lead to better control of bone maturation compared to HC in prepubertal children and that the absolute change in bone age/chronological age ratio was higher in the HC group compared to the PD group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There are currently limited trials comparing the efficacy and safety of different glucocorticoid replacement regimens for treating 21-hydroxylase deficiency CAH in children and adults and we were unable to draw any firm conclusions based on the evidence that was presented in the included trials. No trials included long-term outcomes such as quality of life, prevention of adrenal crisis, presence of osteopenia, presence of testicular or ovarian adrenal rest tumours, subfertility and final adult height. There were no trials examining a modified-release formulation of HC or use of 24-hour circadian continuous subcutaneous infusion of hydrocortisone. As a consequence, uncertainty remains about the most effective form of glucocorticoid replacement therapy in CAH for children and adults. Future trials should include both children and adults with CAH. A longer duration of follow-up is required to monitor biochemical and clinical outcomes.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenal Hyperplasia, Congenital; Child; Child, Preschool; Dexamethasone; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Infant; Prednisolone; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 32190901
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012517.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Gender dysphoria is described as a mismatch between an individual's experienced or expressed gender and their assigned gender, based on primary or secondary sexual...
BACKGROUND
Gender dysphoria is described as a mismatch between an individual's experienced or expressed gender and their assigned gender, based on primary or secondary sexual characteristics. Gender dysphoria can be associated with clinically significant psychological distress and may result in a desire to change sexual characteristics. The process of adapting a person's sexual characteristics to their desired sex is called 'transition.' Current guidelines suggest hormonal and, if needed, surgical intervention to aid transition in transgender women, i.e. persons who aim to transition from male to female. In adults, hormone therapy aims to reverse the body's male attributes and to support the development of female attributes. It usually includes estradiol, antiandrogens, or a combination of both. Many individuals first receive hormone therapy alone, without surgical interventions. However, this is not always sufficient to change such attributes as facial bone structure, breasts, and genitalia, as desired. For these transgender women, surgery may then be used to support transition.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of hormone therapy with antiandrogens, estradiol, or both, compared to each other or placebo, in transgender women in transition.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, Biosis Preview, PsycINFO, and PSYNDEX. We carried out our final searches on 19 December 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We aimed to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cohort studies that enrolled transgender women, age 16 years and over, in transition from male to female. Eligible studies investigated antiandrogen and estradiol hormone therapies alone or in combination, in comparison to another form of the active intervention, or placebo control.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane to establish study eligibility.
MAIN RESULTS
Our database searches identified 1057 references, and after removing duplicates we screened 787 of these. We checked 13 studies for eligibility at the full text screening stage. We excluded 12 studies and identified one as an ongoing study. We did not identify any completed studies that met our inclusion criteria. The single ongoing study is an RCT conducted in Thailand, comparing estradiol valerate plus cyproterone treatment with estradiol valerate plus spironolactone treatment. The primary outcome will be testosterone level at three month follow-up.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy or safety of hormonal treatment approaches for transgender women in transition. This lack of studies shows a gap between current clinical practice and clinical research. Robust RCTs and controlled cohort studies are needed to assess the benefits and harms of hormone therapy (used alone or in combination) for transgender women in transition. Studies should specifically focus on short-, medium-, and long-term adverse effects, quality of life, and participant satisfaction with the change in male to female body characteristics of antiandrogen and estradiol therapy alone, and in combination. They should also focus on the relative effects of these hormones when administered orally, transdermally, and intramuscularly. We will include non-controlled cohort studies in the next iteration of this review, as our review has shown that such studies provide the highest quality evidence currently available in the field. We will take into account methodological limitations when doing so.
Topics: Androgen Antagonists; Drug Therapy, Combination; Estradiol; Estrogens; Female; Humans; Male; Placebos; Sex Reassignment Procedures; Transgender Persons
PubMed: 33251587
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013138.pub2 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Jan 2020Testosterone treatment rates in adult men have increased in the United States over the past 2 decades. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Testosterone treatment rates in adult men have increased in the United States over the past 2 decades.
PURPOSE
To assess the benefits and harms of testosterone treatment for men without underlying organic causes of hypogonadism.
DATA SOURCES
English-language searches of multiple electronic databases (January 1980 to May 2019) and reference lists from systematic reviews.
STUDY SELECTION
38 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 6 months' duration that evaluated transdermal or intramuscular testosterone therapies versus placebo or no treatment and reported prespecified patient-centered outcomes, as well as 20 long-term observational studies, U.S. Food and Drug Administration review data, and product labels that reported harms information.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data extraction by a single investigator was confirmed by a second, 2 investigators assessed risk of bias, and evidence certainty was determined by consensus.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Studies enrolled mostly older men who varied in age, symptoms, and testosterone eligibility criteria. Testosterone therapy improved sexual functioning and quality of life in men with low testosterone levels, although effect sizes were small (low- to moderate-certainty evidence). Testosterone therapy had little to no effect on physical functioning, depressive symptoms, energy and vitality, or cognition. Harms evidence reported in trials was judged to be insufficient or of low certainty for most harm outcomes. No trials were powered to assess cardiovascular events or prostate cancer, and trials often excluded men at increased risk for these conditions. Observational studies were limited by confounding by indication and contraindication.
LIMITATION
Few trials exceeded a 1-year duration, minimum important outcome differences were often not established or reported, RCTs were not powered to assess important harms, few data were available in men aged 18 to 50 years, definitions of low testosterone varied, and study entry criteria varied.
CONCLUSION
In older men with low testosterone levels without well-established medical conditions known to cause hypogonadism, testosterone therapy may provide small improvements in sexual functioning and quality of life but little to no benefit for other common symptoms of aging. Long-term efficacy and safety are unknown.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42018096585).
Topics: Humans; Hypogonadism; Male; Observational Studies as Topic; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Testosterone; United States
PubMed: 31905375
DOI: 10.7326/M19-0830 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Uterine fibroids can cause heavy menstrual bleeding. Medical treatments are considered to preserve fertility. It is unclear whether progestogens or progestogen-releasing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Uterine fibroids can cause heavy menstrual bleeding. Medical treatments are considered to preserve fertility. It is unclear whether progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems can reduce fibroid-related symptoms. This is the first update of a Cochrane Review published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems in treating premenopausal women with uterine fibroids.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases to July 2020. We also searched trials registers for ongoing and registered trials, and checked references of relevant trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All identified published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of progestogens or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems in treating premenopausal women with uterine fibroids.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
This updated review included four studies with 221 women with uterine fibroids. The evidence was very low quality, downgraded for serious risk of bias, due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS) versus hysterectomy There was no information on the outcomes of interest, including adverse events. LNG-IUS versus low dose combined oral contraceptive (COC) At 12 months, we are uncertain whether LNG-IUS reduced the percentage of abnormal uterine bleeding, measured with the alkaline hematin test (mean difference (MD) 77.50%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 70.44 to 84.56; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence), or the pictorial blood assessment chart (PBAC; MD 34.50%, 95% CI 11.59 to 57.41; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence); increased haemoglobin levels (MD 1.50 g/dL, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.15; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence), or reduced fibroid size more than COC (MD 1.90%, 95% CI -12.24 to 16.04; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not measure adverse events. LNG-IUS versus oral progestogen (norethisterone acetate (NETA)) Compared to NETA, we are uncertain whether LNG-IUS reduced abnormal uterine bleeding more from baseline to six months (visual bleeding score; MD 23.75 points, 95% CI 1.26 to 46.24; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence); increased the percentage of change in haemoglobin from baseline to three months (MD 4.53%, 95% CI 1.46 to 7.60; 1 RCT, 48 women; very low-quality evidence), or from baseline to six months (MD 10.14%, 95% CI 5.57 to 14.71; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not measure fibroid size. Spotting (adverse event) was more likely to be reported by women with the LNG-IUS (64.3%) than by those taking NETA (30%; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence). Oral progestogen (dienogest, desogestrel) versus goserelin acetate Compared to goserelin acetate, we are uncertain whether abnormal uterine bleeding was reduced at 12 weeks with dienogest (PBAC; MD 216.00 points, 95% CI 149.35 to 282.65; 1 RCT, 14 women; very low-quality evidence) or desogestrel (PBAC; MD 78.00 points, 95% CI 28.94 to 127.06; 1 RCT, 16 women; very low-quality evidence). Vasomotor symptoms (adverse events, e.g. hot flashes) are only associated with goserelin acetate (55%), not with dienogest (1 RCT, 14 women; very low-quality evidence) or with desogestrel (1 RCT, 16 women; very low-quality evidence). The study did not report fibroid size.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Because of very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS reduces abnormal uterine bleeding or increases haemoglobin levels in premenopausal women with uterine fibroids, compared to COC or norethisterone acetate. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the LNG-IUS reduces the size of uterine fibroids compared to COC. We are uncertain whether oral progestogens reduce abnormal uterine bleeding as effectively as goserelin acetate, but women reported fewer adverse events, such as hot flashes.
Topics: Adult; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Bias; Contraceptives, Oral; Desogestrel; Female; Goserelin; Humans; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Leiomyoma; Leuprolide; Levonorgestrel; Lynestrenol; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Menstruation; Middle Aged; Nandrolone; Norethindrone Acetate; Premenopause; Progestins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tumor Burden; Uterine Neoplasms
PubMed: 33226133
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008994.pub3