-
Lancet (London, England) Sep 2019Schizophrenia is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders in adults worldwide. Antipsychotic drugs are its treatment of choice, but there is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 32 oral antipsychotics for the acute treatment of adults with multi-episode schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Schizophrenia is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders in adults worldwide. Antipsychotic drugs are its treatment of choice, but there is controversy about which agent should be used. We aimed to compare and rank antipsychotics by quantifying information from randomised controlled trials.
METHODS
We did a network meta-analysis of placebo-controlled and head-to-head randomised controlled trials and compared 32 antipsychotics. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, BIOSIS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception to Jan 8, 2019. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We included randomised controlled trials in adults with acute symptoms of schizophrenia or related disorders. We excluded studies in patients with treatment resistance, first episode, predominant negative or depressive symptoms, concomitant medical illnesses, and relapse-prevention studies. Our primary outcome was change in overall symptoms measured with standardised rating scales. We also extracted data for eight efficacy and eight safety outcomes. Differences in the findings of the studies were explored in metaregressions and sensitivity analyses. Effect size measures were standardised mean differences, mean differences, or risk ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014014919.
FINDINGS
We identified 54 417 citations and included 402 studies with data for 53 463 participants. Effect size estimates suggested all antipsychotics reduced overall symptoms more than placebo (although not statistically significant for six drugs), with standardised mean differences ranging from -0·89 (95% CrI -1·08 to -0·71) for clozapine to -0·03 (-0·59 to 0·52) for levomepromazine (40 815 participants). Standardised mean differences compared with placebo for reduction of positive symptoms (31 179 participants) varied from -0·69 (95% CrI -0·86 to -0·52) for amisulpride to -0·17 (-0·31 to -0·04) for brexpiprazole, for negative symptoms (32 015 participants) from -0·62 (-0·84 to -0·39; clozapine) to -0·10 (-0·45 to 0·25; flupentixol), for depressive symptoms (19 683 participants) from -0·90 (-1·36 to -0·44; sulpiride) to 0·04 (-0·39 to 0·47; flupentixol). Risk ratios compared with placebo for all-cause discontinuation (42 672 participants) ranged from 0·52 (0·12 to 0·95; clopenthixol) to 1·15 (0·36 to 1·47; pimozide), for sedation (30 770 participants) from 0·92 (0·17 to 2·03; pimozide) to 10·20 (4·72 to 29·41; zuclopenthixol), for use of antiparkinson medication (24 911 participants) from 0·46 (0·19 to 0·88; clozapine) to 6·14 (4·81 to 6·55; pimozide). Mean differences compared to placebo for weight gain (28 317 participants) ranged from -0·16 kg (-0·73 to 0·40; ziprasidone) to 3·21 kg (2·10 to 4·31; zotepine), for prolactin elevation (21 569 participants) from -77·05 ng/mL (-120·23 to -33·54; clozapine) to 48·51 ng/mL (43·52 to 53·51; paliperidone) and for QTc prolongation (15 467 participants) from -2·21 ms (-4·54 to 0·15; lurasidone) to 23·90 ms (20·56 to 27·33; sertindole). Conclusions for the primary outcome did not substantially change after adjusting for possible effect moderators or in sensitivity analyses (eg, when excluding placebo-controlled studies). The confidence in evidence was often low or very low.
INTERPRETATION
There are some efficacy differences between antipsychotics, but most of them are gradual rather than discrete. Differences in side-effects are more marked. These findings will aid clinicians in balancing risks versus benefits of those drugs available in their countries. They should consider the importance of each outcome, the patients' medical problems, and preferences.
FUNDING
German Ministry of Education and Research and National Institute for Health Research.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antipsychotic Agents; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31303314
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31135-3 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Oct 2021To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip...
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip osteoarthritis pain and physical function to enable effective and safe use of these drugs at their lowest possible dose.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, regulatory agency websites, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 28 June 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised trials published in English with ≥100 patients per group that evaluated NSAIDs, opioids, or paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat osteoarthritis.
OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The prespecified primary outcome was pain. Physical function and safety outcomes were also assessed.
REVIEW METHODS
Two reviewers independently extracted outcomes data and evaluated the risk of bias of included trials. Bayesian random effects models were used for network meta-analysis of all analyses. Effect estimates are comparisons between active treatments and oral placebo.
RESULTS
192 trials comprising 102 829 participants examined 90 different active preparations or doses (68 for NSAIDs, 19 for opioids, and three for paracetamol). Five oral preparations (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 60 and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg/day) had ≥99% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. Topical diclofenac (70-81 and 140-160 mg/day) had ≥92.3% probability, and all opioids had ≤53% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. 18.5%, 0%, and 83.3% of the oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of dropouts due to adverse events. 29.8%, 0%, and 89.5% of oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of any adverse event. Oxymorphone 80 mg/day had the highest risk of dropouts due to adverse events (51%) and any adverse event (88%).
CONCLUSIONS
Etoricoxib 60 mg/day and diclofenac 150 mg/day seem to be the most effective oral NSAIDs for pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis. However, these treatments are probably not appropriate for patients with comorbidities or for long term use because of the slight increase in the risk of adverse events. Additionally, an increased risk of dropping out due to adverse events was found for diclofenac 150 mg/day. Topical diclofenac 70-81 mg/day seems to be effective and generally safer because of reduced systemic exposure and lower dose, and should be considered as first line pharmacological treatment for knee osteoarthritis. The clinical benefit of opioid treatment, regardless of preparation or dose, does not outweigh the harm it might cause in patients with osteoarthritis.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO number CRD42020213656.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Aged; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Minimal Clinically Important Difference; Network Meta-Analysis; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain Management
PubMed: 34642179
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n2321 -
European Review For Medical and... Apr 2019Chronic osteomyelitis is a difficult to treat infection of the bone, which requires a combined medical and surgical approach and often persists intermittently for years,...
Chronic osteomyelitis is a difficult to treat infection of the bone, which requires a combined medical and surgical approach and often persists intermittently for years, with relapses and failures. The optimal type, route of administration, and duration of antibiotic treatment remain controversial, and the emergence of multi-drug resistant organisms poses major therapeutic challenges. Identification of the causative agent and subsequent targeted antibiotic treatment has a major impact on patients' outcome. In this review, we summarize which intravenous and oral antibiotics are the best options available for the treatment of chronic osteomyelitis, according to specific aetiologies.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chronic Disease; Humans; Osteomyelitis
PubMed: 30977893
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_201904_17500 -
JAMA Dermatology Mar 2020The clinical benefits of novel treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis are well established, but wide variations exist in patient response across different... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The clinical benefits of novel treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis are well established, but wide variations exist in patient response across different therapies. In the absence of head-to-head randomized trials, meta-analyses synthesizing data from multiple studies are needed to assess comparative efficacy among psoriasis treatments.
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the relative short-term and long-term efficacy of biologics and oral agents for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic literature review was conducted on December 4, 2017, and updated on September 17, 2018. The Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register databases were included.
STUDY SELECTION
Phase 2, 3, or 4 randomized clinical trials of treatments licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for adults with moderate to severe psoriasis with data on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index assessment of 75%, 90%, and 100% reductions (PASI 75, 90, and 100) at 10 to 16 weeks (short-term efficacy) or 44 to 60 weeks (long-term efficacy) from baseline.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data were extracted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines. A bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to estimate short-term PASI response rates; to account for variation across trials, an ordinal model that adjusted for reference arm response was implemented. The long-term PASI rates were estimated via a traditional meta-analysis.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
PASI 75, 90, and 100 response rates at 10 to 16 weeks and 44 to 60 weeks from baseline.
RESULTS
Sixty trials meeting all inclusion criteria were included. At weeks 10 to 16, the highest PASI 90 rates were seen with risankizumab-rzaa (71.6%; 95% credible interval [CrI], 67.5%-75.4%), brodalumab (70.8%; 95% CrI, 66.8%-74.6%), ixekizumab (70.6%; 95% CrI, 66.8%-74.6%), and guselkumab (67.3%; 62.5%-71.9%). At weeks 44 to 60, the treatments with the highest PASI 90 rates were risankizumab-rzaa (79.4%, 95% CI, 75.5%-82.9%), guselkumab (76.5%; 95% CI, 72.1%-80.5%), brodalumab (74.0%; 95% CI, 69.3%-78.1%), and ixekizumab (73.9%; 95% CI, 69.9%-77.5%). Findings were consistent for short-term and long-term PASI 75 and 100 responses.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study provides an assessment of the comparative efficacy among treatments for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. The meta-analysis suggests that brodalumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab-rzaa were associated with the highest PASI response rates in both short-term and long-term therapy.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Biological Products; Dermatologic Agents; Humans; Psoriasis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 32022825
DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.4029 -
PloS One 2015Anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin and vitamin K antagonists is the current standard of care (SOC) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Comparison of the Novel Oral Anticoagulants Apixaban, Dabigatran, Edoxaban, and Rivaroxaban in the Initial and Long-Term Treatment and Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
Anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin and vitamin K antagonists is the current standard of care (SOC) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment and prevention. Although novel oral anti-coagulants (NOACs) have been compared with SOC in this indication, no head-to-head randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared NOACs. A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of NOACs for the initial and long-term treatment of VTE.
METHODS
Electronic databases (accessed July 2014) were systematically searched to identify RCTs evaluating apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban versus SOC. Eligible patients included adults with an objectively confirmed deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE) or both. A fixed-effect Bayesian NMA was conducted for outcomes of interest, and results were presented as relative risks (RR) and 95% credible intervals (Crl).
RESULTS
Six Phase III RCTs met criteria for inclusion: apixaban (one RCT; n = 5,395); rivaroxaban (two RCTs; n = 3,423/4,832); dabigatran (two RCTs; n = 2,539/2,568); edoxaban (one RCT; n = 8,240). There were no statistically significant differences between the NOACs with regard to the risk of 'VTE and VTE-related death. Apixaban treatment was associated with the most favourable safety profile of the NOACs, showing a statistically significantly reduced risk of 'major or clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleed' compared with rivaroxaban (0.47 [0.36, 0.61]), dabigatran (0.69 [0.51, 0.94]), and edoxaban (0.54 [0.41, 0.69]). Dabigatran was also associated with a significantly lower risk of 'major or CRNM bleed' compared with rivaroxaban (0.68 [0.53, 0.87]) and edoxaban (0.77 [0.60, 0.99]).
CONCLUSIONS
Indirect comparisons showed statistically similar reductions in the risk of 'VTE or VTE-related death for all NOACs. In contrast, reductions in 'major or CRNM bleed' for initial/long-term treatment were significantly better with apixaban compared with all other NOACs, and with dabigatran compared with rivaroxaban and edoxaban. Results from the current analysis indicate that the NOACs offer clinical benefit over conventional therapy while highlighting relative differences in their bleeding profile.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Dabigatran; Humans; Pyrazoles; Pyridines; Pyridones; Rivaroxaban; Thiazoles; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 26716830
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144856 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Nov 2017To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost effectiveness of direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with atrial fibrillation. Systematic review, network... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost effectiveness of direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with atrial fibrillation. Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis. Medline, PreMedline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library. Published randomised trials evaluating the use of a DOAC, vitamin K antagonist, or antiplatelet drug for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. 23 randomised trials involving 94 656 patients were analysed: 13 compared a DOAC with warfarin dosed to achieve a target INR of 2.0-3.0. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.94), dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (0.65, 0.52 to 0.81), edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.86, 0.74 to 1.01), and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (0.88, 0.74 to 1.03) reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared with warfarin. The risk of stroke or systemic embolism was higher with edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.33, 1.02 to 1.75) and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (1.35, 1.03 to 1.78) than with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily. The risk of all-cause mortality was lower with all DOACs than with warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (0.71, 0.61 to 0.81), dabigatran 110 mg twice daily (0.80, 0.69 to 0.93), edoxaban 30 mg once daily (0.46, 0.40 to 0.54), and edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.78, 0.69 to 0.90) reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin. The risk of major bleeding was higher with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.33, 1.09 to 1.62), rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.45, 1.19 to 1.78), and rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.31, 1.07 to 1.59). The risk of intracranial bleeding was substantially lower for most DOACs compared with warfarin, whereas the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was higher with some DOACs than warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily was ranked the highest for most outcomes, and was cost effective compared with warfarin. The network meta-analysis informs the choice of DOACs for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Several DOACs are of net benefit compared with warfarin. A trial directly comparing DOACs would overcome the need for indirect comparisons to be made through network meta-analysis. PROSPERO CRD 42013005324.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Drug Costs; Hemorrhage; Humans; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke
PubMed: 29183961
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j5058 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Apr 2023A growing number of studies have shown encouraging results with omalizumab (OMA) as monotherapy and as an adjunct to oral immunotherapy (OMA+OIT) in patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A growing number of studies have shown encouraging results with omalizumab (OMA) as monotherapy and as an adjunct to oral immunotherapy (OMA+OIT) in patients with single/multiple food allergies.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of OMA or OMA+OIT in patients with immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy.
METHODS
An extensive literature search (inception to December 31, 2020) was performed to identify randomized, controlled, and observational studies that assessed OMA as monotherapy or OMA+OIT in patients with IgE-mediated food allergy. The outcomes were an increase in tolerated dose of foods, successful desensitization, sustained unresponsiveness, immunological biomarkers, severity of allergic reactions to food, quality of life (QoL), and safety. A P less than .05 was considered significant.
RESULTS
In total, 36 studies were included. The OMA monotherapy (vs pre-OMA) significantly increased the tolerated dose of multiple foods; increased the threshold of tolerated dose for milk, egg, wheat, and baked milk; improved QoL; and reduced food-induced allergic reactions (all P < .01). The OMA+OIT significantly increased the tolerated dose of multiple foods (vs placebo and pre-OMA), desensitization (vs placebo+OIT and pre-OMA) (all P ≤ .01), and improved QoL (vs pre-OMA) and immunoglobulin G4 levels (both P < .01). No major safety concerns were identified.
CONCLUSIONS
In IgE-mediated food allergy, OMA can help patients consume multiple foods and allow for food dose escalation. As an adjunct to OIT, OMA can also support high-dose desensitization and higher maintenance doses. Further studies are warranted to empirically evaluate the effect of OMA and confirm these findings.
Topics: Humans; Animals; Omalizumab; Quality of Life; Immunoglobulin E; Desensitization, Immunologic; Administration, Oral; Food Hypersensitivity; Allergens; Milk
PubMed: 36529441
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.11.036 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Jun 2020Changes in cannabis legalization regimes in several countries have influenced the diversification of cannabis use. There is an ever-increasing number of cannabis forms...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Changes in cannabis legalization regimes in several countries have influenced the diversification of cannabis use. There is an ever-increasing number of cannabis forms available, which are gaining popularity for both recreational and therapeutic use. From a therapeutic perspective, oral cannabis containing Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) is a promising route of administration but there is still little information about its pharmacokinetics (PK) effects in humans. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide a general overview of the available PK data on cannabis and THC after oral administration.
METHODS
A search of the published literature was conducted using the PubMed database to collect available articles describing the PK data of THC after oral administration in humans.
RESULTS
The literature search yielded 363 results, 26 of which met our inclusion criteria. The PK of oral THC has been studied using capsules (including oil content), tablets, baked goods (brownies and cookies), and oil and tea (decoctions). Capsules and tablets, which mainly correspond to pharmaceutical forms, were found to be the oral formulations most commonly studied. Overall, the results reflect the high variability in the THC absorption of oral formulations, with delayed peak plasma concentrations compared to other routes of administration.
CONCLUSIONS
Oral THC has a highly variable PK profile that differs between formulations, with seemingly higher variability in baked goods and oil forms. Overall, there is limited information available in this field. Therefore, further investigations are required to unravel the unpredictability of oral THC administration to increase the effectiveness and safety of oral formulations in medicinal use.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Dronabinol; Drug Compounding; Humans; Nitrogen Mustard Compounds
PubMed: 32585912
DOI: 10.3390/medicina56060309 -
JAMA Mar 2018Despite increasing emphasis on conservative management of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) in preterm infants, different pharmacotherapeutic interventions are used to... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Association of Placebo, Indomethacin, Ibuprofen, and Acetaminophen With Closure of Hemodynamically Significant Patent Ductus Arteriosus in Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
IMPORTANCE
Despite increasing emphasis on conservative management of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) in preterm infants, different pharmacotherapeutic interventions are used to treat those developing a hemodynamically significant PDA.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the relative likelihood of hemodynamically significant PDA closure with common pharmacotherapeutic interventions and to compare adverse event rates.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION
The databases of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception until August 15, 2015, and updated on December 31, 2017, along with conference proceedings up to December 2017. Randomized clinical trials that enrolled preterm infants with a gestational age younger than 37 weeks treated with intravenous or oral indomethacin, ibuprofen, or acetaminophen vs each other, placebo, or no treatment for a clinically or echocardiographically diagnosed hemodynamically significant PDA.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data were independently extracted in pairs by 6 reviewers and synthesized with Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Primary outcome: hemodynamically significant PDA closure; secondary: included surgical closure, mortality, necrotizing enterocolitis, and intraventricular hemorrhage.
RESULTS
In 68 randomized clinical trials of 4802 infants, 14 different variations of indomethacin, ibuprofen, or acetaminophen were used as treatment modalities. The overall PDA closure rate was 67.4% (2867 of 4256 infants). A high dose of oral ibuprofen was associated with a significantly higher odds of PDA closure vs a standard dose of intravenous ibuprofen (odds ratio [OR], 3.59; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.64-8.17; absolute risk difference, 199 [95% CrI, 95-258] more per 1000 infants) and a standard dose of intravenous indomethacin (OR, 2.35 [95% CrI, 1.08-5.31]; absolute risk difference, 124 [95% CrI, 14-188] more per 1000 infants). Based on the ranking statistics, a high dose of oral ibuprofen ranked as the best pharmacotherapeutic option for PDA closure (mean surface under the cumulative ranking [SUCRA] curve, 0.89 [SD, 0.12]) and to prevent surgical PDA ligation (mean SUCRA, 0.98 [SD, 0.08]). There was no significant difference in the odds of mortality, necrotizing enterocolitis, or intraventricular hemorrhage with use of placebo or no treatment compared with any of the other treatment modalities.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
A high dose of oral ibuprofen was associated with a higher likelihood of hemodynamically significant PDA closure vs standard doses of intravenous ibuprofen or intravenous indomethacin; placebo or no treatment did not significantly change the likelihood of mortality, necrotizing enterocolitis, or intraventricular hemorrhage.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42015015797.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Administration, Intravenous; Administration, Oral; Bayes Theorem; Cerebral Hemorrhage; Ductus Arteriosus, Patent; Enterocolitis, Necrotizing; Hemodynamics; Humans; Ibuprofen; Indomethacin; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors
PubMed: 29584842
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.1896 -
Phytomedicine : International Journal... Dec 2019Anxiety is one of the uprising psychiatric disorders of the last decades and lavender administration has been traditionally suggested as a possible treatment. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Anxiety is one of the uprising psychiatric disorders of the last decades and lavender administration has been traditionally suggested as a possible treatment. The objective of this review is to assess the efficacy of lavender, in any form and way of administration, on anxiety and anxiety-related conditions.
METHODS
The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Retrieved data were qualitatively and quantitatively synthesized. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and Non-Randomized Studies (NRSs) which investigated the efficacy of lavender, in any form and way of administration, on patients with anxiety, involved in anxiety-inducing settings or undergoing anxiety-inducing activities, compared to any type of control, without language restrictions, were identified through electronic database searches. Medline via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were systematically searched. All databases were screened up to November 2018. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the following domains were considered: randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases.
RESULTS
65 RCTs (7993 participants) and 25 NRSs (1200 participants) were included in the qualitative synthesis and 37 RCTs (3964 participants) were included in the quantitative synthesis. Overall, the qualitative synthesis indicated that 54 RCTs and 17 NRSs reported at least a significant result in favor of lavender use for anxiety. The quantitative synthesis showed that lavender inhalation can significantly reduce anxiety levels measured with any validated scale (Hedges' g = -0.73 [95% CI -1.00 to -0.46], p < 0.00001, 1682 participants), as well as state anxiety (Spielberger's state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI)-State mean difference = -5.99 [95% CI -9.39 to -2.59], p < 0.001, 901 participants) and trait anxiety (STAI-Trait mean difference = -8.14 [95% CI -14.44 to -1.84], p < 0.05, 196 participants). Lavender inhalation did not show a significant effect in reducing systolic blood pressure as a physiological parameter of anxiety. A significant effect in diminishing anxiety levels was also found in favor of the use of oral Silexan® 80 mg/die for at least 6 weeks (Hamilton Anxiety Scale mean difference = -2.90 [95% CI -4.86 to -0.95], p = 0.004, 1173 participants; Zung Self-rating Anxiety Scale mean difference = -2.62 [95% CI -4.84 to -0.39], p < 0.05, 451 participants) or of the administration of massage with lavender oil (Hedges' g = -0.66 [95% CI -0.97 to -0.35], p < 0.0001, 448 participants).
DISCUSSION
The most important limitation of this review is the low average quality of available studies on the topic. The majority of included RCTs were characterized by a high overall risk of bias. Another limitation regards the heterogeneity of study designs, especially with regard to non-oral ways of administration. Overall, oral administration of lavender essential oil proves to be effective in the treatment of anxiety, whereas for inhalation there is only an indication of an effect of reasonable size, due to the heterogeneity of available studies. Lavender essential oil administered through massage appears effective, but available studies are not sufficient to determine whether the benefit is due to a specific effect of lavender. Further high-quality RCTs with more homogeneous study designs are needed to confirm these findings. Available information outlines a safe profile for lavender-based interventions, although more attention should be paid to the collection and reporting of safety data in future studies. Considering these findings, since treatments with lavender essential oil generally seem safe, and, in the case of inhalation, also simple and inexpensive, they are a therapeutic option which may be considered in some clinical contexts.
OTHER
The present systematic review was not funded and was registered in PROSPERO under the following number: CRD42019130126.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Oral; Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Blood Pressure; Humans; Lavandula; Oils, Volatile; Plant Oils; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31655395
DOI: 10.1016/j.phymed.2019.153099