-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e-cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from baseline.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk. We found moderate-certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low-certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low-certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low-certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm. Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline showed that more people in the varenicline arm quit smoking (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05; I = 0%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual-form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low-certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual-form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be a benefit from varenicline for quitting smoking, however further evidence could strengthen this finding or demonstrate a benefit from cytisine. Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard-dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.
Topics: Humans; Smoking Cessation; Nicotine; Varenicline; Bupropion; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Nicotinic Agonists; Alkaloids
PubMed: 37142273
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006103.pub8 -
International Braz J Urol : Official... 2023bladder based on a systematic review and network meta-analysis approach. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
UNLABELLED
bladder based on a systematic review and network meta-analysis approach.
METHODS
Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials databases were systematically searched. The search time frame was from database creation to June 2, 2022. Randomized controlled double-blind trials of oral medication for overactive bladder were screened against the protocol's entry criteria. Trials were evaluated for quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool, and data were statistically analyzed using Stata 16.0 software.
RESULT
A total of 60 randomized controlled double-blind clinical trials were included involving 50,333 subjects. Solifenacin 10mg was the most effective in mean daily micturitions and incontinence episodes, solifenacin 5/10mg in mean daily urinary urgency episodes and nocturia episodes, fesoterodine 8mg in urgency incontinence episodes/d and oxybutynin 5mg in voided volume/micturition. In terms of safety, solifenacin 5mg, ER-tolterodine 4mg, mirabegron, vibegron and ER-oxybutynin 10mg all showed a better incidence of dry mouth, fesoterodine 4mg, ER-oxybutynin 10mg, tolterodine 2mg, and vibegron in the incidence of constipation. Compared to placebo, imidafenacin 0.1mg showed a significantly increased incidence in hypertension, solifenacin 10mg in urinary tract infection, fesoterodine 4/8mg and darifenacin 15mg in headache.
CONCLUSION
Solifenacin showed better efficacy. For safety, most anticholinergic drugs were more likely to cause dry mouth and constipation, lower doses were better tolerated. The choice of drugs should be tailored to the patient's specific situation to find the best balance between efficacy and safety.
Topics: Humans; Urinary Bladder, Overactive; Solifenacin Succinate; Tolterodine Tartrate; Network Meta-Analysis; Double-Blind Method; Constipation; Xerostomia; Treatment Outcome; Muscarinic Antagonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37506033
DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2023.0158 -
BMJ Open Apr 2022To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers by patient characteristics for managing Alzheimer's dementia (AD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers by patient characteristics for managing Alzheimer's dementia (AD).
DESIGN
Systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) based on our previously published systematic review and aggregate data NMA.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, AgeLine and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to March 2016.
PARTICIPANTS
80 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including 21 138 adults with AD, and 12 RCTs with IPD including 6906 patients.
INTERVENTIONS
Cognitive enhancers (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine) alone or in any combination against other cognitive enhancers or placebo.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
We requested IPD from authors, sponsors and data sharing platforms. When IPD were not available, we used aggregate data. We appraised study quality with the Cochrane risk-of-bias. We conducted a two-stage random-effects IPD-NMA, and assessed their findings using CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis).
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES
We included trials assessing cognition with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and adverse events.
RESULTS
Our IPD-NMA compared nine treatments (including placebo). Donepezil (mean difference (MD)=1.41, 95% CI: 0.51 to 2.32) and donepezil +memantine (MD=2.57, 95% CI: 0.07 to 5.07) improved MMSE score (56 RCTs, 11 619 participants; CINeMA score: moderate) compared with placebo. According to P-score, oral rivastigmine (OR=1.26, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.94, P-score=16%) and donepezil (OR=1.08, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.35, P-score=30%) had the least favourable safety profile, but none of the estimated treatment effects were sufficiently precise when compared with placebo (45 RCTs, 15 649 patients; CINeMA score: moderate to high). For moderate-to-severe impairment, donepezil, memantine and their combination performed best, but for mild-to-moderate impairment donepezil and transdermal rivastigmine ranked best. Adjusting for MMSE baseline differences, oral rivastigmine and galantamine improved MMSE score, whereas when adjusting for comorbidities only oral rivastigmine was effective.
CONCLUSIONS
The choice among the different cognitive enhancers may depend on patient's characteristics. The MDs of all cognitive enhancer regimens except for single-agent oral rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine, against placebo were clinically important for cognition (MD larger than 1.40 MMSE points), but results were quite imprecise. However, two-thirds of the published RCTs were associated with high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data, and IPD were only available for 15% of the included RCTs.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42015023507.
Topics: Adult; Alzheimer Disease; Donepezil; Galantamine; Humans; Memantine; Network Meta-Analysis; Nootropic Agents; Rivastigmine
PubMed: 35473731
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053012 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2022Most people with Parkinson's disease (PD) experience at least one fall during the course of their disease. Several interventions designed to reduce falls have been... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Most people with Parkinson's disease (PD) experience at least one fall during the course of their disease. Several interventions designed to reduce falls have been studied. An up-to-date synthesis of evidence for interventions to reduce falls in people with PD will assist with informed decisions regarding fall-prevention interventions for people with PD.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions designed to reduce falls in people with PD.
SEARCH METHODS
CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registers were searched on 16 July 2020, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We also conducted a top-up search on 13 October 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions that aimed to reduce falls in people with PD and reported the effect on falls. We excluded interventions that aimed to reduce falls due to syncope.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane Review procedures. Primary outcomes were rate of falls and number of people who fell at least once. Secondary outcomes were the number of people sustaining one or more fall-related fractures, quality of life, adverse events and economic outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
This review includes 32 studies with 3370 participants randomised. We included 25 studies of exercise interventions (2700 participants), three studies of medication interventions (242 participants), one study of fall-prevention education (53 participants) and three studies of exercise plus education (375 participants). Overall, participants in the exercise trials and the exercise plus education trials had mild to moderate PD, while participants in the medication trials included those with more advanced disease. All studies had a high or unclear risk of bias in one or more items. Illustrative risks demonstrating the absolute impact of each intervention are presented in the summary of findings tables. Twelve studies compared exercise (all types) with a control intervention (an intervention not thought to reduce falls, such as usual care or sham exercise) in people with mild to moderate PD. Exercise probably reduces the rate of falls by 26% (rate ratio (RaR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 0.87; 1456 participants, 12 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Exercise probably slightly reduces the number of people experiencing one or more falls by 10% (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 932 participants, 9 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether exercise makes little or no difference to the number of people experiencing one or more fall-related fractures (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.17; 989 participants, 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Exercise may slightly improve health-related quality of life immediately following the intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.17, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.01; 951 participants, 5 studies; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether exercise has an effect on adverse events or whether exercise is a cost-effective intervention for fall prevention. Three studies trialled a cholinesterase inhibitor (rivastigmine or donepezil). Cholinesterase inhibitors may reduce the rate of falls by 50% (RaR 0.50, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.58; 229 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). However, we are uncertain if this medication makes little or no difference to the number of people experiencing one or more falls (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14230 participants, 3 studies) and to health-related quality of life (EQ5D Thermometer mean difference (MD) 3.00, 95% CI -3.06 to 9.06; very low-certainty evidence). Cholinesterase inhibitors may increase the rate of non fall-related adverse events by 60% (RaR 1.60, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.01; 175 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Most adverse events were mild and transient in nature. No data was available regarding the cost-effectiveness of medication for fall prevention. We are uncertain of the effect of education compared to a control intervention on the number of people who fell at least once (RR 10.89, 95% CI 1.26 to 94.03; 53 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), and no data were available for the other outcomes of interest for this comparisonWe are also uncertain (very low-certainty evidence) whether exercise combined with education makes little or no difference to the number of falls (RaR 0.46, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.85; 320 participants, 2 studies), the number of people sustaining fall-related fractures (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.40 to 5.32,320 participants, 2 studies), or health-related quality of life (PDQ39 MD 0.05, 95% CI -3.12 to 3.23, 305 participants, 2 studies). Exercise plus education may make little or no difference to the number of people experiencing one or more falls (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.07; 352 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether exercise combined with education has an effect on adverse events or is a cost-effective intervention for fall prevention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exercise interventions probably reduce the rate of falls, and probably slightly reduce the number of people falling in people with mild to moderate PD. Cholinesterase inhibitors may reduce the rate of falls, but we are uncertain if they have an effect on the number of people falling. The decision to use these medications needs to be balanced against the risk of non fall-related adverse events, though these adverse events were predominantly mild or transient in nature. Further research in the form of large, high-quality RCTs are required to determine the relative impact of different types of exercise and different levels of supervision on falls, and how this could be influenced by disease severity. Further work is also needed to increase the certainty of the effects of medication and further explore falls prevention education interventions both delivered alone and in combination with exercise.
Topics: Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Exercise; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Parkinson Disease; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35665915
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011574.pub2 -
Advances in Therapy Jun 2021In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience further exacerbations or symptoms, despite being prescribed dual long-acting muscarinic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience further exacerbations or symptoms, despite being prescribed dual long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β-agonist (LABA) or inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA therapies, triple ICS/LAMA/LABA therapy is recommended. A previous network meta-analysis showed comparable efficacy of the ICS/LAMA/LABA, budesonide/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FOR) 320/18/9.6 µg, to other fixed-dose and open combination triple therapies at 24 weeks in COPD. Subsequently, the ETHOS study was published, including data for 8509 patients, assessing the efficacy and safety of BUD/GLY/FOR over 52 weeks. This network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the relative efficacy, safety, and tolerability of BUD/GLY/FOR 320/18/9.6 µg with other fixed-dose and open combination triple therapies in COPD over 52 weeks, including data from ETHOS. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify ≥ 10-week randomized controlled trials, including ≥ 1 fixed-dose or open combination triple-therapy arm, in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. The methodologic quality and risk of bias of included studies were assessed. Study results were combined using a three-level hierarchical Bayesian NMA model to assess efficacy and safety outcomes at or over 24 and 52 weeks. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were used to assess heterogeneity across studies. Nineteen studies (n = 37,741 patients) met the inclusion criteria of the review; 15 contributed to the base case network. LAMA/LABA dual combinations were combined as a single treatment group to create a connected network. Across all outcomes for exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, health-related quality of life, safety, and tolerability, the efficacy and safety of BUD/GLY/FOR were comparable to those of other triple ICS/LAMA/LABA fixed-dose (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol and beclomethasone dipropionate/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate) and open combinations at or over 24 and 52 weeks. Sensitivity analyses and meta-regression results for exacerbation outcomes were broadly in line with the base case NMA. In this NMA, BUD/GLY/FOR 320/18/9.6 μg showed comparable efficacy versus other ICS/LAMA/LABA fixed-dose or open combination therapies in terms of reducing exacerbation rates and improving lung function, symptoms and health-related quality of life in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD, in line with previously published meta-analysis results of triple combinations in COPD. The safety and tolerability profile of BUD/GLY/FOR was also found to be comparable to other triple combination therapies.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Bayes Theorem; Bronchodilator Agents; Budesonide; Drug Combinations; Formoterol Fumarate; Fumarates; Glycopyrrolate; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life
PubMed: 33929661
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-021-01703-z -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019The standard way most people are advised to stop smoking is by quitting abruptly on a designated quit day. However, many people who smoke have tried to quit many times...
BACKGROUND
The standard way most people are advised to stop smoking is by quitting abruptly on a designated quit day. However, many people who smoke have tried to quit many times and may like to try an alternative method. Reducing smoking behaviour before quitting could be an alternative approach to cessation. However, before this method can be recommended it is important to ensure that abrupt quitting is not more effective than reducing to quit, and to determine whether there are ways to optimise reduction methods to increase the chances of cessation.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of reduction-to-quit interventions on long-term smoking cessation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO for studies, using the terms: cold turkey, schedul*, cut* down, cut-down, gradual*, abrupt*, fading, reduc*, taper*, controlled smoking and smoking reduction. We also searched trial registries to identify unpublished studies. Date of the most recent search: 29 October 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials in which people who smoked were advised to reduce their smoking consumption before quitting smoking altogether in at least one trial arm. This advice could be delivered using self-help materials or behavioural support, and provided alongside smoking cessation pharmacotherapies or not. We excluded trials that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of less than six months, where participants spontaneously reduced without being advised to do so, where the goal of reduction was not to quit altogether, or where participants were advised to switch to cigarettes with lower nicotine levels without reducing the amount of cigarettes smoked or the length of time spent smoking. We also excluded trials carried out in pregnant women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods. Smoking cessation was measured after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison (no smoking cessation treatment, abrupt quitting interventions, and other reduction-to-quit interventions) and carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. We also extracted data on quit attempts, pre-quit smoking reduction, adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, and meta-analysed these where sufficient data were available.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 51 trials with 22,509 participants. Most recruited adults from the community using media or local advertising. People enrolled in the studies typically smoked an average of 23 cigarettes a day. We judged 18 of the studies to be at high risk of bias, but restricting the analysis only to the five studies at low or to the 28 studies at unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results.We identified very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision, comparing the effect of reduction-to-quit interventions with no treatment on cessation rates (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.38; I = 45%; 6 studies, 1599 participants). However, when comparing reduction-to-quit interventions with abrupt quitting (standard care) we found evidence that neither approach resulted in superior quit rates (RR 1. 01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.17; I = 29%; 22 studies, 9219 participants). We judged this estimate to be of moderate certainty, due to imprecision. Subgroup analysis provided some evidence (P = 0.01, I = 77%) that reduction-to-quit interventions may result in more favourable quit rates than abrupt quitting if varenicline is used as a reduction aid. Our analysis comparing reduction using pharmacotherapy with reduction alone found low-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency and imprecision, that reduction aided by pharmacotherapy resulted in higher quit rates (RR 1. 68, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.58; I = 78%; 11 studies, 8636 participants). However, a significant subgroup analysis (P < 0.001, I = 80% for subgroup differences) suggests that this may only be true when fast-acting NRT or varenicline are used (both moderate-certainty evidence) and not when nicotine patch, combination NRT or bupropion are used as an aid (all low- or very low-quality evidence). More evidence is likely to change the interpretation of the latter effects.Although there was some evidence from within-study comparisons that behavioural support for reduction to quit resulted in higher quit rates than self-help resources alone, the relative efficacy of various other characteristics of reduction-to-quit interventions investigated through within- and between-study comparisons did not provide any evidence that they enhanced the success of reduction-to-quit interventions. Pre-quit AEs, SAEs and nicotine withdrawal symptoms were measured variably and infrequently across studies. There was some evidence that AEs occurred more frequently in studies that compared reduction using pharmacotherapy versus no pharmacotherapy; however, the AEs reported were mild and usual symptoms associated with NRT use. There was no clear evidence that the number of people reporting SAEs, or changes in withdrawal symptoms, differed between trial arms.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-certainty evidence that neither reduction-to-quit nor abrupt quitting interventions result in superior long-term quit rates when compared with one another. Evidence comparing the efficacy of reduction-to-quit interventions with no treatment was inconclusive and of low certainty. There is also low-certainty evidence to suggest that reduction-to-quit interventions may be more effective when pharmacotherapy is used as an aid, particularly fast-acting NRT or varenicline (moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence for any adverse effects of reduction-to-quit interventions was sparse, but available data suggested no excess of pre-quit SAEs or withdrawal symptoms. We downgraded the evidence across comparisons due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. Future research should aim to match any additional components of multicomponent reduction-to-quit interventions across study arms, so that the effect of reduction can be isolated. In particular, well-conducted, adequately-powered studies should focus on investigating the most effective features of reduction-to-quit interventions to maximise cessation rates.
Topics: Bupropion; Humans; Nicotine; Nicotinic Agonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smoking Cessation; Smoking Reduction; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices
PubMed: 31565800
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013183.pub2 -
Toxins Feb 2021AbobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) has been used for various cosmetic purposes, including minimization of moderate to severe lines, or other cosmetic indications, in the...
AbobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) has been used for various cosmetic purposes, including minimization of moderate to severe lines, or other cosmetic indications, in the face and neck. We carried out a systematic review to identify all relevant evidence on the treatment approaches and outcomes of aboBoNT-A as a cosmetic treatment of the middle and lower areas of the face, and the neck. Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, congress proceedings and review bibliographies were searched for relevant studies. Identified articles were screened against pre-specified eligibility criteria. Of 560 unique articles identified, 10 were included for data extraction (three observational studies, 1 randomized controlled trial [with two articles] and five non-randomized trials). The articles provided data on gummy/asymmetric smile (2), marionette lines (5), masseter muscle volume (2), nasal wrinkles (2), perioral wrinkles (3) and the platysma muscle (4). All articles reporting on efficacy of aboBoNT-A demonstrated positive results, including reduction of wrinkles (5), reduction of masseter muscle (2) and degree of gummy smile (1) compared with before treatment. No serious adverse events were reported and patient satisfaction was high. In conclusion, positive findings support further research of aboBoNT-A for the middle and lower areas of the face, and in the neck, which are largely unapproved indications.
Topics: Acetylcholine Release Inhibitors; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Cosmetic Techniques; Esthetics; Face; Facial Expression; Female; Humans; Injections; Male; Middle Aged; Neck; Off-Label Use; Patient Satisfaction; Skin Aging; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 33671800
DOI: 10.3390/toxins13020169 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2023This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of interventions to control myopia progression. In this systematic review, the primary outcomes were mean differences... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of interventions to control myopia progression. In this systematic review, the primary outcomes were mean differences (MD) between treatment and control groups in myopia progression (D) and axial length (AL) elongation (mm).
RESULTS
The following interventions were found to be effective ( < 0.001): highly aspherical lenslets (HAL, 0.80 D, 95% CI, 0.77-0.83; -0.35 mm, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.34), MiSight contact lenses (0.66 D, 95% CI, 0.63-0.69; -0.28 mm, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.27), low dose atropine 0.05% (0.54 D, 95% CI, 0.38-0.70; -0.21 mm, 95% CI-0.28 to -0.14), Biofinity +2.50 D (0.45 D, 95% CI, 0.29, 0.61; -0.24 mm, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.15), defocus incorporated multiple segments [DIMS] (0.44 D, 95% CI, 0.42-0.46; -0.34 mm, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.33) and ortho-k lenses (-0.24 mm, 95% CI -0.33 to -01.5).
CONCLUSION
Low-dose atropine 0.01% was not effective in reducing AL progression in two studies. Treatment efficacy with low-dose atropine of 0.05% showed good efficacy. Spectacles (HAL and DIMS) and contact lenses (MiSight and Biofinity) may confer a comparable treatment benefit compared to atropine, to slow myopia progression.
Topics: Humans; Myopia; Atropine; Treatment Outcome; Contact Lenses; Eyeglasses
PubMed: 37033047
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1125000 -
Journal of the Formosan Medical... Dec 2022Orthokeratology (Ortho-K), atropine eye drops and combined atropine with Ortho-K are proven to be effective ways to prevent myopic progression in many studies, but there... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE
Orthokeratology (Ortho-K), atropine eye drops and combined atropine with Ortho-K are proven to be effective ways to prevent myopic progression in many studies, but there is scarce evidence regarding the comparative efficacy of different dosages of atropine,Ortho-K, and combined atropine with Ortho-K for childhood myopia.
METHODS
We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the relative efficacy of the aforementioned interventions for myopic progression; moreover, we calculated the surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) to determine the relative ranking of treatments.
RESULTS
We identified 19 randomized controlled trials (3435 patients). NMA revealed that 0.01%-1% atropine, Ortho-K, and 0.01% atropine combined with Ortho-K inhibited axial elongation (AL) over one year. For refractive change, SUCRA analysis revealed that the hierarchy was high-dose (0.5%-1%), moderate-dose (0.1%-0.25%), and low-dose (0.01%-0.05%) atropine. Regarding AL, SUCRA analysis revealed the following hierarchy: Ortho-K combined with 0.01% atropine, high-dose atropine, moderate-dose atropine, Ortho-K, and low-dose atropine.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we found that atropine (0.01%-1%), Ortho-K, and 0.01% atropine combined with Ortho-K could significantly slow down myopia progression. The atropine efficacy followed a dose-related pattern; moreover, Ortho-K and low-dose atropine showed similar efficacy. There was a synergistic effect of using 0.01% atropine combined with Ortho-K, and it showed comparable efficacy to that of high-dose atropine.
Topics: Humans; Child; Orthokeratologic Procedures; Atropine; Axial Length, Eye; Network Meta-Analysis; Myopia
PubMed: 35688780
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfma.2022.05.005 -
Advances in Therapy Nov 2022Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus other dual and mono-bronchodilator therapies in symptomatic patients with COPD.
METHODS
A systematic literature review (October 2015-November 2020) was performed to identify RCTs ≥ 8 weeks long in adult patients with COPD that compared LAMA/LABA combinations against any long-acting bronchodilator-containing dual therapy or monotherapy. Data extracted on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score, rescue medication use and moderate/severe exacerbation rate were analysed using an NMA in a frequentist framework. The primary comparison was at 24 weeks. Fixed effects model results are presented.
RESULTS
The NMA included 69 full-length publications (including 10 GSK clinical study reports) reporting 49 studies. At 24 weeks, UMEC/VI provided statistically significant greater improvements in FEV versus all dual therapy and monotherapy comparators. UMEC/VI provided similar improvements in SGRQ total score compared with all other LAMA/LABAs, and significantly greater improvements versus UMEC 125 μg, glycopyrronium 50 μg, glycopyrronium 18 μg, tiotropium 18 μg and salmeterol 50 μg. UMEC/VI also provided significantly better outcomes versus some comparators for TDI focal score, rescue medication use, annualised moderate/severe exacerbation rate, and time to first moderate/severe exacerbation.
CONCLUSION
UMEC/VI provided generally better outcomes compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapies, and consistent improvements in lung function (measured by change from baseline in trough FEV at 24 weeks) versus dual therapies. Treatment with UMEC/VI may improve outcomes for symptomatic patients with COPD compared with alternative maintenance treatments.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Adult; Benzyl Alcohols; Bronchodilator Agents; Chlorobenzenes; Drug Combinations; Dyspnea; Forced Expiratory Volume; Glycopyrrolate; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quinuclidines; Salmeterol Xinafoate; Tiotropium Bromide; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35857184
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-022-02234-x