-
BMC Cancer Nov 2023Paclitaxel and carboplatin is the standard chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. However, the benefit of adding programmed cell... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus carboplatin and paclitaxel compared with carboplatin and paclitaxel in primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
BACKGROUND
Paclitaxel and carboplatin is the standard chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. However, the benefit of adding programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors to chemotherapy is still unclear.
METHOD
We searched PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for randomized controlled trials that investigated PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus carboplatin and paclitaxel compared with carboplatin and paclitaxel in primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. We computed hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios (RRs) for binary endpoints, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used DerSimonian and Laird random-effect models for all endpoints. Heterogeneity was assessed using I statistics. R, version 4.2.3, was used for statistical analyses.
RESULTS
A total of three studies and 1,431 patients were included. Compared with carboplatin plus paclitaxel-based chemotherapy, progression-free survival (PFS) rate (HR 0.32; 95% CI 0.23-0.44; p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) at 30 months (RR 3.13; 95% CI 1.26-7.78; p = 0.01) were significant in favor of the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus carboplatin and paclitaxel group in the mismatch repair-deficient subgroup. However, there were no significant differences in the mismatch repair-proficient subgroup for PFS (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.50-1.08; p = 0.117) or OS at 30 months (RR 2.24; 95% CI 0.79-6.39; p = 0.13).
CONCLUSION
Immunotherapy plus carboplatin-paclitaxel increased significantly PFS and OS among patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, with a significant benefit in the mismatch repair-deficient and high microsatellite instability population.
Topics: Female; Humans; Carboplatin; Paclitaxel; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Endometrial Neoplasms; B7-H1 Antigen; Lung Neoplasms
PubMed: 38031003
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-11654-z -
Journal of Vascular Surgery Dec 2020The comparison between paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty and plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) for hemodialysis (HD) access stenosis or occlusion has not been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The comparison between paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty and plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) for hemodialysis (HD) access stenosis or occlusion has not been well investigated. The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to compare all-cause mortality, HD access primary patency, and circuit primary patency after endovascular maintenance procedures using PCB angioplasty vs PBA.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Databases were systematically searched to identify all the relevant studies on paclitaxel-coated devices for stenosis or thrombosis of HD access. A random effects model was applied to pool the effect measures. Dichotomous data were presented using an odds ratio (OR). Effect data were presented using pooled hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies were included in this meta-analysis, 12 randomized controlled trials and 4 cohort studies involving 1086 patients who underwent endovascular treatment for HD access stenosis or occlusion. All-cause mortality rates at 6, 12, and 24 months after intervention were similar between the PCB and PBA groups (6 months: OR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.38-2.96; P = .907; I = 19.2%]; 12 months: OR, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.66-2.16; P = .554; I = 0%]; 24 months: OR, 1.43 [95% CI, 0.83-2.45; P = .195; I = 0%]). There was a significant improvement of primary patency in the PCB group compared with the PBA group (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.33-0.69; P < .001; I = 67.3%). This benefit was consistent with the analysis of randomized controlled trials, whereas cohort studies were excluded. Further subgroup analysis of target lesions demonstrated that primary patency was significantly higher in the PCB group than in the PBA group, not only for arteriovenous fistula (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30-0.98; P = .041; I = 76.8%) but also for central venous stenosis (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.22-0.71; P = .002; I = 0%). The PCB group was associated with higher 6-month (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27-0.59; P < .001) and 24-month lesion primary patency (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11-0.72; P = .009) than PBA and was marginally associated with 12-month lesion primary patency (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.26-1.03; P = .06). Circuit primary patency analysis showed a marginal trend toward better outcome in the PCB group (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40-1.00) but no statistical significance (P = .052).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that PCB angioplasty is associated with significantly improved primary patency of arteriovenous fistula and central venous stenosis for HD access maintenance, with no evidence of increasing all-cause mortality based on short-term and midterm follow-up. Further large cohort study is needed to investigate long-term mortality.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Angioplasty, Balloon; Arteriovenous Shunt, Surgical; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Cardiovascular Agents; Coated Materials, Biocompatible; Equipment Design; Female; Graft Occlusion, Vascular; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Paclitaxel; Recurrence; Renal Dialysis; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Vascular Access Devices; Vascular Patency
PubMed: 32540324
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.04.525 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly lethal disease with few effective treatment options. Over the past few decades, many anti-cancer therapies have been tested in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly lethal disease with few effective treatment options. Over the past few decades, many anti-cancer therapies have been tested in the locally advanced and metastatic setting, with mixed results. This review attempts to synthesise all the randomised data available to help better inform patient and clinician decision-making when dealing with this difficult disease.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of chemotherapy, radiotherapy or both for first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Our primary outcome was overall survival, while secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, grade 3/4 adverse events, therapy response and quality of life.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for published and unpublished studies in CENTRAL (searched 14 June 2017), Embase (1980 to 14 June 2017), MEDLINE (1946 to 14 June 2017) and CANCERLIT (1999 to 2002) databases. We also handsearched all relevant conference abstracts published up until 14 June 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised studies assessing overall survival outcomes in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy, alone or in combination, were the eligible treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently analysed studies, and a third settled any disputes. We extracted data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rates, adverse events (AEs) and quality of life (QoL), and we assessed risk of bias for each study.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 42 studies addressing chemotherapy in 9463 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We did not identify any eligible studies on radiotherapy.We did not find any benefit for chemotherapy over best supportive care. However, two identified studies did not have sufficient data to be included in the analysis, and many of the chemotherapy regimens studied were outdated.Compared to gemcitabine alone, participants receiving 5FU had worse OS (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.27, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.92) and QoL. On the other hand, two studies showed FOLFIRINOX was better than gemcitabine for OS (HR 0.51 95% CI 0.43 to 0.60, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.57) and response rates (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.65), but it increased the rate of side effects. The studies evaluating CO-101, ZD9331 and exatecan did not show benefit or harm when compared with gemcitabine alone.Giving gemcitabine at a fixed dose rate improved OS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94, high-quality evidence) but increased the rate of side effects when compared with bolus dosing.When comparing gemcitabine combinations to gemcitabine alone, gemcitabine plus platinum improved PFS (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95) and response rates (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.98) but not OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, low-quality evidence). The rate of side effects increased. Gemcitabine plus fluoropyrimidine improved OS (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95), PFS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.87) and response rates (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.47, high-quality evidence), but it also increased side effects. Gemcitabine plus topoisomerase inhibitor did not improve survival outcomes but did increase toxicity. One study demonstrated that gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel improved OS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.84, high-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.82) and response rates (RR 3.29, 95% CI 2.24 to 4.84) but increased side effects. Gemcitabine-containing multi-drug combinations (GEMOXEL or cisplatin/epirubicin/5FU/gemcitabine) improved OS (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.79, low-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.62) and QOL.We did not find any survival advantages when comparing 5FU combinations to 5FU alone.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Combination chemotherapy has recently overtaken the long-standing gemcitabine as the standard of care. FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel are highly efficacious, but our analysis shows that other combination regimens also offer a benefit. Selection of the most appropriate chemotherapy for individual patients still remains difficult, with clinicopathological stratification remaining elusive. Biomarker development is essential to help rationalise treatment selection for patients.
Topics: Albumins; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cisplatin; Deoxycytidine; Epirubicin; Fluorouracil; Humans; Paclitaxel; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pyrimidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 29557103
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011044.pub2 -
Acta Dermato-venereologica Jan 2016This systematic review compared the relative efficacy of 5-fluorouracil 0.5% in salicylic acid 10% (5-FU/SA), ingenol mebutate (IMB) and imiquimod 2.5%/3.75% (IMI) for... (Review)
Review
This systematic review compared the relative efficacy of 5-fluorouracil 0.5% in salicylic acid 10% (5-FU/SA), ingenol mebutate (IMB) and imiquimod 2.5%/3.75% (IMI) for actinic keratosis on the face, forehead or scalp. Only 11 publications, relating to 7 randomised controlled trials, met inclusion criteria and it was only possible to compare the effect of all 3 treatments on complete clinical clearance, and the effect of 5-FU/SA and IMB on actinic keratosis recurrence rate. Despite a higher vehicle response rate for 5-FU/SA, complete clinical clearance was higher than IMB and IMI (55.4, 42.2, and 25.0-30.6/34.0-35.6%, [corrected] respectively). 5-FU/SA was also associated with lower actinic keratosis recurrence rate than IMB at 12 months post-treatment (32.7 vs. 53.9%). Although qualitative assessment suggested a numerical advantage of 5-FU/SA over IMB and IMI in terms of complete clinical clearance and sustained clearance, clinical data from longer term trials, with comparable outcome measures, are required to corroborate these findings.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Aminoquinolines; Dermatologic Agents; Diterpenes; Drug Combinations; Facial Dermatoses; Fluorouracil; Humans; Imiquimod; Keratosis, Actinic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salicylic Acid; Scalp Dermatoses; Skin; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26068001
DOI: 10.2340/00015555-2167 -
The British Journal of Nutrition Jul 2022Hyperemesis gravidarum (HG), severe nausea and vomiting in pregnancy, can lead to vitamin deficiencies. Little is known about HG-related vitamin K deficiency. We aimed...
Hyperemesis gravidarum (HG), severe nausea and vomiting in pregnancy, can lead to vitamin deficiencies. Little is known about HG-related vitamin K deficiency. We aimed to summarise available evidence on the occurrence of HG-related vitamin K deficiency and corresponding maternal and neonatal complications. A systematic review was conducted, searching Medline and EMBASE from inception to 12 November 2020. We identified 1564 articles, of which we included fifteen in this study: fourteen case reports ( 21 women) and one retrospective cohort study ( 109 women). Nine out of twenty-one women reported in case reports had a prolonged prothrombin time (PT). The cohort study measured PT in 39/109 women with HG, of whom 10/39 women (26 %) had prolonged PT. In total, 30-50 % women received vitamin K supplementation after vitamin K deficiency had been diagnosed. Four case reports ( 4 women) reported corresponding maternal complications, all consisting of coagulopathy-related haemorrhage. Nine case reports ( 16 neonates) reported corresponding neonatal complications including intracranial haemorrhage ( 2 neonates) and embryopathy ( 14 neonates), which consisted of Binder phenotype ( 14 neonates), chondrodysplasia punctata ( 9 neonates) and grey matter heterotopia ( 3 neonates). In conclusion, vitamin K deficiency and related complications occur among women with HG. In our systematic review, we were unable to assess the incidence rate.
Topics: Pregnancy; Humans; Female; Male; Hyperemesis Gravidarum; Cohort Studies; Retrospective Studies; Vitamin K Deficiency; Vitamin K
PubMed: 34325760
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114521002865 -
Nutrients Apr 2024This review aims to evaluate the efficacy of any vitamin administration(s) in preventing and managing COVID-19 and/or long-COVID. Databases were searched up to May 2023... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The Efficacy of Multivitamin, Vitamin A, Vitamin B, Vitamin C, and Vitamin D Supplements in the Prevention and Management of COVID-19 and Long-COVID: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.
This review aims to evaluate the efficacy of any vitamin administration(s) in preventing and managing COVID-19 and/or long-COVID. Databases were searched up to May 2023 to identify randomized clinical trials comparing data on the effects of vitamin supplementation(s) versus placebo or standard of care on the two conditions of interest. Inverse-variance random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to estimate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all-cause mortality between supplemented and non-supplemented individuals. Overall, 37 articles were included: two regarded COVID-19 and long-COVID prevention and 35 records the COVID-19 management. The effects of vitamin D in preventing COVID-19 and long-COVID were contrasting. Similarly, no conclusion could be drawn on the efficacy of multivitamins, vitamin A, and vitamin B in COVID-19 management. A few positive findings were reported in some vitamin C trials but results were inconsistent in most outcomes, excluding all-cause mortality (RR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.72-0.97). Vitamin D results were mixed in most aspects, including mortality, in which benefits were observed in regular administrations only (RR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.49-0.91). Despite some benefits, results were mostly contradictory. Variety in recruitment and treatment protocols might explain this heterogeneity. Better-designed studies are needed to clarify these vitamins' potential effects against SARS-CoV-2.
Topics: Humans; Dietary Supplements; COVID-19; Vitamins; Vitamin D; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ascorbic Acid; SARS-CoV-2; Vitamin A; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Vitamin B Complex
PubMed: 38732592
DOI: 10.3390/nu16091345 -
Journal of Ovarian Research Jul 2023Paclitaxel dose-dense regimen has been controversial in clinical trials in recent years. This systematic review and meta-analysis tried to evaluate the efficacy and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Dose-dense regimen versus conventional three-weekly paclitaxel combination with carboplatin chemotherapy in first-line ovarian cancer treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Paclitaxel dose-dense regimen has been controversial in clinical trials in recent years. This systematic review and meta-analysis tried to evaluate the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel dose-dense chemotherapy in primary epithelial ovarian cancer.
METHODS
An electronic search following PRISMA guidelines was conducted (Prospero registration number: CRD42020187622), and then a systematic review and meta-analysis of included literature were initiated to determine which regimen was better.
RESULTS
Four randomized controlled trials were included in the qualitative evaluation, and 3699 ovarian cancer patients were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that the dose-dense regimen could prolong PFS (HR0.88, 95%CI 0.81-0.96; p = 0.002) and OS (HR0.90, 95%CI 0.81-1.02; p = 0.09), but it also increased the overall toxicity (OR = 1.102, 95%CI 0.864-1.405; p = 0.433), especially toxicity of anemia (OR = 1.924, 95%CI 1.548-2.391; p < 0.001), neutropenia (OR = 2.372, 95%CI 1.674-3.361; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis indicated that the dose-dense regimen could significantly prolong not only PFS (HR0.76, 95%CI 0.63-0.92; p = 0.005 VS HR0.91, 95%CI 0.83-1.00; p = 0.046) but also OS (HR0.75, 95%CI 0.557-0.98; p = 0.037 VS HR0.94, 95%CI 0.83-1.07; p = 0.371) in Asian, and overall toxicity was significantly increased in Asians (OR = 1.28, 95%CI: 0.877-1.858, p = 0.202) compared to non-Asians (OR = 1.02, 95%CI 0.737-1.396, p = 0.929).
CONCLUSION
Paclitaxel dose-dense regimen could prolong PFS and OS, but it also increased the overall toxicity. Therapeutic benefits and toxicity of dose-dense are more obvious in Asians compared to non-Asians, which need to be further confirmed in clinical trials.
Topics: Humans; Female; Carboplatin; Paclitaxel; Ovarian Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37430376
DOI: 10.1186/s13048-023-01216-z -
PloS One 2016Prostate cancer is the most common nonskin cancer and second most common cause of cancer mortality in older men in the United States (USA) and Western Europe.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy and Safety of Combined Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) and Docetaxel Compared with ADT Alone for Metastatic Hormone-Naive Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Prostate cancer is the most common nonskin cancer and second most common cause of cancer mortality in older men in the United States (USA) and Western Europe. Androgen-deprivation therapy alone (ADT) remains the first line of treatment in most cases, for metastatic disease. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared the efficacy and adverse events profile of a chemohormonal therapy (ADT ± docetaxel) for metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer (mHNPC).
METHODS
Several databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Data extracted from the studies were combined by using the hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).
RESULTS
The final analysis included 3 trials comprising 2,264 patients (mHNPC). Patients who received the chemohormonal therapy had a longer clinical progression-free survival interval (HR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.75; p<0.00001), and no heterogeneity (Chi2 = 0.64; df = 1 [p = 0.42]; I2 = 0%). The biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) also was higher in patients treated with ADT plus docetaxel (HR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.69; p<0.00001), also with no heterogeneity noted (Chi2 = 0.48; df = 2 [p = 0.79]; I2 = 0%). Finally, the combination of ADT with docetaxel showed a superior overall survival (OS) compared with ADT alone (HR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.84; p<0.0001), with moderate heterogeneity (Chi2 = 3.84; df = 2 [p = 0.15]; I2 = 48%). A random-effects model analysis was performed, and the results remained favorable to the use of ADT plus docetaxel (HR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.89; p = 0.002). In the final combined analysis of the high-volume disease patients, the use of the combination therapy also favored an increased overall survival (HR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.83; p = 0.0003). Regarding adverse events and severe toxicity (grade ≥3), the group receiving the combined therapy had higher rates of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and fatigue.
CONCLUSION
The combination of ADT with docetaxel improved the clinical progression-free survival, bPFS and OS of patients with mHNPC. A superior OS was seen especially for patients with metastatic and high-volume disease. This contemporary combination therapy may now be offered as a first-line treatment for selected patients.
Topics: Aged; Androgen Antagonists; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Docetaxel; Humans; Lymphatic Metastasis; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Safety; Prostatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Analysis; Taxoids; Treatment Outcome; Tubulin Modulators
PubMed: 27308831
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157660 -
Journal of Nutritional Science 2021Countries are increasingly transitioning from event-based vitamin A supplementation (VAS) distribution to delivery through routine health system contacts, shifting also... (Review)
Review
Countries are increasingly transitioning from event-based vitamin A supplementation (VAS) distribution to delivery through routine health system contacts, shifting also to administrative, electronic-based monitoring tools, a process that brings certain limitations affecting the quality of administrative VAS coverage. At present, there is no standardised methodology for measuring the coverage of VAS delivered through routine health services. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify and recommend methods to measure VAS coverage, with the aim of providing guidance to countries on the collection of consistent data for planning, monitoring and evaluating VAS programmes integrated into routine health systems. We searched the PubMed®, Embase®, Scopus, Google Scholar and World Health Organization (WHO) Global Index Medicus databases for studies published from 1 January 2000 to 1 January 2021, reporting original data on VAS coverage and methodologies used for measurement. We screened 2371 original titles and abstracts, assessed twenty-seven full-text articles and ultimately included eighteen studies. All but two studies used a coverage cluster survey (CCS) design to measure VAS coverage, adapting the WHO Vaccination Coverage Cluster Surveys methodology, by modifying sample size and sampling parameters. Annual two-dose VAS coverage was reported from only four studies. Until electronic-based systems to collect and analyse VAS data are equipped to measure routine two-dose VAS coverage using administrative data, CCSs that comply with the 2018 WHO Vaccination Coverage Cluster Surveys Reference Manual represent the gold-standard method for effective VAS programme monitoring.
Topics: Dietary Supplements; Humans; Surveys and Questionnaires; Vitamin A; Vitamin A Deficiency
PubMed: 34527226
DOI: 10.1017/jns.2021.65 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016Miscarriage is a common complication of pregnancy that can be caused by a wide range of factors. Poor dietary intake of vitamins has been associated with an increased... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Miscarriage is a common complication of pregnancy that can be caused by a wide range of factors. Poor dietary intake of vitamins has been associated with an increased risk of miscarriage, therefore supplementing women with vitamins either prior to or in early pregnancy may help prevent miscarriage.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this review were to determine the effectiveness and safety of any vitamin supplementation, on the risk of spontaneous miscarriage.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (6 November 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing supplementation during pregnancy with one or more vitamins with either placebo, other vitamins, no vitamins or other interventions. We have included supplementation that started prior to conception, periconceptionally or in early pregnancy (less than 20 weeks' gestation).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed trial quality. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The quality of evidence is included for numerical results of outcomes included in the 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 40 trials (involving 276,820 women and 278,413 pregnancies) assessing supplementation with any vitamin(s) starting prior to 20 weeks' gestation and reporting at least one primary outcome that was eligible for the review. Eight trials were cluster-randomised and contributed data for 217,726 women and 219,267 pregnancies in total.Approximately half of the included trials were assessed to have a low risk of bias for both random sequence generation and adequate concealment of participants to treatment and control groups. Vitamin C supplementation There was no difference in the risk of total fetal loss (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.40, seven trials, 18,949 women; high-quality evidence); early or late miscarriage (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.26, four trials, 13,346 women; moderate-quality evidence); stillbirth (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.76, seven trials, 21,442 women; moderate-quality evidence) or adverse effects of vitamin supplementation (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.41, one trial, 739 women; moderate-quality evidence) between women receiving vitamin C with vitamin E compared with placebo or no vitamin C groups. No clear differences were seen in the risk of total fetal loss or miscarriage between women receiving any other combination of vitamin C compared with placebo or no vitamin C groups. Vitamin A supplementation No difference was found in the risk of total fetal loss (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.66, three trials, 1640 women; low-quality evidence); early or late miscarriage (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.62, two trials, 1397 women; low-quality evidence) or stillbirth (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.91, three trials, 1640 women; low-quality evidence) between women receiving vitamin A plus iron and folate compared with placebo or no vitamin A groups. There was no evidence of differences in the risk of total fetal loss or miscarriage between women receiving any other combination of vitamin A compared with placebo or no vitamin A groups. Multivitamin supplementation There was evidence of a decrease in the risk for stillbirth among women receiving multivitamins plus iron and folic acid compared iron and folate only groups (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.99, 10 trials, 79,851 women; high-quality evidence). Although total fetal loss was lower in women who were given multivitamins without folic acid (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.70, one trial, 907 women); and multivitamins with or without vitamin A (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.92, one trial, 1074 women), these findings included one trial each with small numbers of women involved. Also, they include studies where the comparison groups included women receiving either vitamin A or placebo, and thus require caution in interpretation.We found no difference in the risk of total fetal loss (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.00, 10 trials, 94,948 women; high-quality evidence) or early or late miscarriage (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.03, 10 trials, 94,948 women; moderate-quality evidence) between women receiving multivitamins plus iron and folic acid compared with iron and folate only groups.There was no evidence of differences in the risk of total fetal loss or miscarriage between women receiving any other combination of multivitamins compared with placebo, folic acid or vitamin A groups. Folic acid supplementation There was no evidence of any difference in the risk of total fetal loss, early or late miscarriage, stillbirth or congenital malformations between women supplemented with folic acid with or without multivitamins and/or iron compared with no folic acid groups. Antioxidant vitamins supplementation There was no evidence of differences in early or late miscarriage between women given antioxidant compared with the low antioxidant group (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.24 to 5.29, one trial, 110 women).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Taking any vitamin supplements prior to pregnancy or in early pregnancy does not prevent women experiencing miscarriage. However, evidence showed that women receiving multivitamins plus iron and folic acid had reduced risk for stillbirth. There is insufficient evidence to examine the effects of different combinations of vitamins on miscarriage and miscarriage-related outcomes.
Topics: Abortion, Habitual; Abortion, Spontaneous; Antioxidants; Ascorbic Acid; Dietary Supplements; Female; Folic Acid; Humans; Iron; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Pregnancy, Multiple; Prenatal Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stillbirth; Vitamin A; Vitamins
PubMed: 27150280
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004073.pub4