-
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection... 2023Peri-implant diseases are pathological conditions that affect the survival of dental implants. Etiological studies are limited, accepting a prevalence of 20% at the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Peri-implant diseases are pathological conditions that affect the survival of dental implants. Etiological studies are limited, accepting a prevalence of 20% at the implant level and 24% at the patient level. The benefits of adjuvant metronidazole are controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs according to PRISMA and PICOS was performed with an electronic search over the last 10 years in MEDLINE (PubMed), WOS, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The risk of bias was measured using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the methodological quality using the Jadad scale. Meta-analysis was performed with RevMan version 5.4.1, based on mean difference and standard deviation, with 95% confidence intervals; the random-effects model was selected, and the threshold for statistical significance was defined as < 0.05. A total of 38 studies were collected and five were selected. Finally, one of the studies was eliminated because of unanalyzable results. All studies reached a high methodological quality. A total of 289 patients were studied with follow-up periods from 2 weeks to 1 year. Statistical significance was only found, with respect to the use of adjunctive metronidazole, in the pooled analysis of the studies ( = 0.02) and in the analysis of the radiographic values reported on peri-implant marginal bone levels, in the studies with a 3-month follow-up ( = 0.03). Discrepancies in the use of systemic metronidazole require long-term randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to determine the role of antibiotics in the treatment of peri-implantitis.
Topics: Humans; Peri-Implantitis; Metronidazole; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Combined Modality Therapy; Bias
PubMed: 37287463
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1149055 -
Medicine Mar 2019Chronic stable angina (CSA) resulted in a considerable burden for both individuals and the society. In this study we aimed to critically evaluate the effectiveness and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Compound salvia pellet might be more effective and safer for chronic stable angina pectoris compared with nitrates: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Chronic stable angina (CSA) resulted in a considerable burden for both individuals and the society. In this study we aimed to critically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Compound salvia pellet compared with nitrates in the treatment of Chronic Stable Angina (CSA) pectoris, and to provide more credible evidence for clinical practice.
METHODS
A comprehensive and exhaustive search strategy was formulated to identify potential RCTs of compound salvia pellet for CSA in international and Chinese databases from their inception to July 4th, 2018. We also searched the bibliographies of relevant studies. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of included trials by using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
RESULTS
The literature search yielded 1849 citations and 51 RCTs (n = 4732) were included for meta-analysis after titles, abstracts and full text selection according to eligibility criteria. The pooled results suggested that compound salvia pellet was much more effective than nitrates in the improvement of angina symptoms (therapy = 4 weeks, RR = 1.23, 95%CI = [1.17, 1.30], P < .001, I = 0%; therapy = 4 weeks, RR = 1.13, 95%CI = [1.08, 1.17], P < .001, I = 45.6%), and ECG test (therapy = 4 weeks, RR = 1.24, 95%CI [1.14, 1.35], P < .001, I = 51.5%; and therapy > 4 weeks, RR = 1.30, 95%CI[1.20, 1.42], P < .001, I = 36.4%) in CSA. Compared with nitrates, the percentage of patients with adverse events significantly decreased when prescribed with compound salvia pellet (3.2% vs 17.0%).
CONCLUSION
Compound salvia pellet might be more effective on the improvement of angina symptoms, ECG test and with few adverse events compared with nitrates. While there are some limitations in this study, which may weaken the results, we believe the findings could provide useful information for stakeholders concerned with outcomes in patients with CSA. More rigorous RCTs with high quality are needed to confirm these findings.
Topics: Angina, Stable; Drug Implants; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Humans; Nitrates; Phytotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salvia; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30817582
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014638 -
EuroIntervention : Journal of EuroPCR... Jun 2016Several studies have suggested good procedural and similar clinical outcomes between everolimus-eluting Absorb bioresorbable stents (BRS) versus conventional... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
Several studies have suggested good procedural and similar clinical outcomes between everolimus-eluting Absorb bioresorbable stents (BRS) versus conventional drug-eluting stents (DES), but the evidence is not definitive. Our aim was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effects of BRS versus conventional drug-eluting and bare metallic stents on the cardiovascular endpoints and all-cause mortality.
METHODS AND RESULTS
The follow-up in the included studies was up to 13 months. The following endpoints were evaluated: all-cause mortality, cardiac death, patient-oriented major adverse cardiac events (POCE), device-oriented major adverse cardiac events (DOCE), any-cause myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel MI (TVMI), target vessel revascularisation (TVR) and target lesion revascularisation (TLR). The results of 10 studies with 5,773 subjects showed a statistically significant increase in the risk of TVMI between BRS and conventional stents (odds ratio [OR]: 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-2.05, p=0.032). None of the other differences reached statistical significance: all-cause mortality (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.30-1.49, p=0.333), cardiac death (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.47-2.12, p=0.996), POCE (OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.68-1.22, p=0.546), DOCE (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.86-1.46, p=0.387), any-cause MI (OR: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.98-1.82, p=0.064), TVR (OR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.73-1.33, p=0.934) and TLR (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.66-1.29, p=0.641). Similar results were observed after restricting the meta-analysis to the comparison of BRS vs. EES.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis suggests a significantly higher risk of TVMI with BRS compared with conventional stents and no significant differences in the rates of occurrence of the other outcomes during one-year follow-up. Further studies with larger samples sizes, longer follow-up, different clinical scenarios and more complex lesions are required to confirm or refute our findings.
Topics: Absorbable Implants; Coronary Thrombosis; Drug-Eluting Stents; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27290677
DOI: 10.4244/EIJY16M06_02 -
BMC Oral Health Dec 2021Microbial biofilm accumulation is the main cause of peri-implantitis. The majority of surgical peri-implantitis treatment protocols suggests adjunctive use of systemic...
BACKGROUND
Microbial biofilm accumulation is the main cause of peri-implantitis. The majority of surgical peri-implantitis treatment protocols suggests adjunctive use of systemic antibiotics to target specific putative bacteria. The aim of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the adjunctive use of systemically administered antibiotics in surgical treatment of peri-implantitis by reviewing previously published systematic reviews and primary studies.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted in four electronic databases (MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science) for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and systematic reviews reporting surgical treatment of peri-implantitis with and without adjunctive systemically administered antibiotic therapy. The included systematic reviews and primary studies were qualitatively assessed using AMSTAR and GRADE, respectively. No restrictions were set for date of publication, journal, or language.
RESULTS
The literature search identified 681 papers. Only seven systematic reviews and two primary studies met the inclusion criteria. Four out of seven included systematic reviews concluded that no evidence exists for use of systemic antibiotics to improve the clinical outcomes in surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. One review did not estimate the level of evidence, one did not clearly state any beneficial effect, whereas one reported a limited adjunctive effect. Further, the two included primary studies did not show a long-term significant benefit of adjunctive use of systemically administrated antibiotics. However, one study reported a short-term adjunctive effect in patients with modified surface implants. Due to heterogeneity in study design, low number of included primary studies, and grade of bias, no meta-analysis was performed.
CONCLUSION
The use of systemically administered antibiotics as an adjunct to surgical interventions of peri-implantitis cannot be justified as a part of a standard treatment protocol. A pervasive problem is the lack of uniform diagnosis criteria for peri-implantitis, deficient information about patient characteristics, absence of high quality long-term randomised controlled trials, and authors' declaration on conflict of interest.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Case-Control Studies; Dental Implants; Humans; Peri-Implantitis
PubMed: 34961495
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-02020-1 -
Addiction Science & Clinical Practice Oct 2021Methamphetamine/amphetamine use has sharply increased among people with opioid use disorder (OUD). It is therefore important to understand whether and how use of these... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Methamphetamine/amphetamine use has sharply increased among people with opioid use disorder (OUD). It is therefore important to understand whether and how use of these substances may impact receipt of, and outcomes associated with, medications for OUD (MOUD). This systematic review identified studies that examined associations between methamphetamine/amphetamine use or use disorder and 3 classes of outcomes: (1) receipt of MOUD, (2) retention in MOUD, and (3) opioid abstinence during MOUD.
METHODS
We searched 3 databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Complete) from 1/1/2000 to 7/28/2020 using key words and subject headings, and hand-searched reference lists of included articles. English-language studies of people with documented OUD/opioid use that reported a quantitative association between methamphetamine/amphetamine use or use disorder and an outcome of interest were included. Study data were extracted using a standardized template, and risk of bias was assessed for each study. Screening, inclusion, data extraction and bias assessment were conducted independently by 2 authors. Study characteristics and findings were summarized for each class of outcomes.
RESULTS
Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Studies generally found that methamphetamine/amphetamine use or use disorder was negatively associated with receiving methadone and buprenorphine; 2 studies suggested positive associations with receiving naltrexone. Studies generally found negative associations with retention; most studies finding no association had small samples, and these studies tended to examine shorter retention timeframes and describe provision of adjunctive services to address substance use. Studies generally found negative associations with opioid abstinence during treatment among patients receiving methadone or sustained-release naltrexone implants, though observed associations may have been confounded by other polysubstance use. Most studies examining opioid abstinence during other types of MOUD treatment had small samples.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, existing research suggests people who use methamphetamine/amphetamines may have lower receipt of MOUD, retention in MOUD, and opioid abstinence during MOUD. Future research should examine how specific policies and treatment models impact MOUD outcomes for these patients, and seek to understand the perspectives of MOUD providers and people who use both opioids and methamphetamine/amphetamines. Efforts to improve MOUD care and overdose prevention strategies are needed for this population.
Topics: Buprenorphine; Humans; Methadone; Methamphetamine; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders
PubMed: 34635170
DOI: 10.1186/s13722-021-00266-2 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2024The aim of this study was to better understand the efficacy of various drugs, such as glucocorticoids and anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF), in the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this study was to better understand the efficacy of various drugs, such as glucocorticoids and anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF), in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME), and to evaluate various clinical treatment regimens consisting of different therapeutic measures.
METHODS
This study included randomized controlled trials up to February 2023 comparing the efficacy of corticosteroid-related therapy and anti-VEGF therapy. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched, and the quality of the studies was carefully assessed. Finally, 39 studies were included.
RESULTS
Results at 3-month followup showed that intravitreal injection of bevacizumab (IVB) + triamcinolone acetonide (TA) was the most beneficial in improving best-corrected visual acuity and reducing the thickness of macular edema in the center of the retina in patients with DME. Results at 6-month follow-up showed that intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) was the most effective in improving patients' bestcorrected visual acuity and reducing the thickness of central macular edema.
DISCUSSION
Overall, IVB+TA was beneficial in improving best-corrected visual acuity and reducing central macular edema thickness over a 3-month follow-up period, while DEX implants had a better therapeutic effect than anti-VEGF agents at 6 months, especially the patients with severe macular edema and visual acuity impaired.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=397100, identifier CRD42023397100.
Topics: Humans; Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetic Retinopathy; Glucocorticoids; Macular Edema; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Triamcinolone Acetonide; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 38586457
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1342530 -
International Journal of Cardiology Oct 2016The Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) was developed to address long-term safety issues of metallic drug-eluting stents. However, it may be associated with an... (Review)
Review
Safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stents assessed at 1-year follow-up: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies.
BACKGROUND
The Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) was developed to address long-term safety issues of metallic drug-eluting stents. However, it may be associated with an increased event risk during the first year.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed (in MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, and scientific meeting abstracts) to identify studies that compared BVS and cobalt-chromium durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (EES). For randomized clinical trials and non-randomized propensity score matched studies that reported 1-year outcome data, fixed/random-effects models were used to generate pooled estimates of outcomes, presented as odds ratios (OR) with 95%-confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS
The 1-year follow-up data of 6 trials with 5588 patients were analyzed. A device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE - cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR)) was reached by 308 BVS or EES patients (195/3253 vs. 113/2315). Meta-analysis showed that patients who received BVS had an increased risk of MI (4.3% vs. 2.3%; OR:1.63, 95%-CI: 1.18-2.25, p<0.01) and definite-or-probable scaffold thrombosis (1.3% vs. 0.6%; OR:2.10, 95%-CI: 1.13-3.87, p=0.02). However, there was no significant between-group difference in risk of DOCE (6.0% vs. 4.9%; OR:1.19, 95%-CI: 0.94-1.52, p=0.16), cardiac death (0.8% vs. 0.7%; OR:1.14, 95%-CI: 0.54-2.39, p=0.73), or TLR (2.5% vs. 2.5%; OR: 0.98, 95%-CI:0.69-1.40, p=0.92).
CONCLUSIONS
During the first year of follow-up, patients treated with BVS had a higher incidence of MI and scaffold thrombosis. The risk of DOCE was not significantly different. As BVS may pay off later, future robust data on long-term clinical outcome will be of paramount importance.
Topics: Absorbable Implants; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Coronary Artery Disease; Coronary Restenosis; Drug-Eluting Stents; Everolimus; Humans; Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Prosthesis Design; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tissue Scaffolds
PubMed: 27448538
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.07.101 -
International Journal of Gynaecology... Jan 2019Extending contraceptive implant duration of use increases accessibility by maximizing the lifetime of devices.
BACKGROUND
Extending contraceptive implant duration of use increases accessibility by maximizing the lifetime of devices.
OBJECTIVES
To review the contraceptive efficacy during extended use of progestin implants.
SEARCH STRATEGY
PubMed and EMBASE were searched for articles in any language, 1996-2017, utilizing terms for devices and contraceptive efficacy.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies were included; abstracts, posters, and presentations were excluded. Studies evaluating Norplant and implants currently in pre-marketing trials were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Titles and abstracts of articles were reviewed; those that met inclusion and exclusion criteria underwent full text review and data abstraction.
MAIN RESULTS
The search identified 2951 articles; six met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Five studies evaluated the etonogestrel implant (Implanon), and one the levonorgestrel implant (Jadelle). One RCT randomized to method, not duration; the remaining studies were prospective cohort studies. Three studies analyzed efficacy among women beyond currently approved duration separately. All studies were of poor to fair quality by United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPTF) grading. Limitations include lack of generalizability and control of important confounders.
CONCLUSION
These studies provide limited data for extended duration of contraceptive implants.
Topics: Adult; Case-Control Studies; Contraceptive Agents, Female; Desogestrel; Drug Implants; Female; Humans; Levonorgestrel; Progestins; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 30343503
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.12696 -
JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions Jan 2016The aim of this study was to determine the risk of scaffold thrombosis (ST) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with placement of an ABSORB bioresorbable... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to determine the risk of scaffold thrombosis (ST) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with placement of an ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
PCI with BVS placement holds great potential, but concern has recently been raised regarding the risk of ST.
METHODS
MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and meeting abstracts were searched for all studies that included outcomes data for patients after PCI with BVS placement. For studies comparing BVSs with drug-eluting stents (DES), pooled estimates of outcomes, presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were generated with random-effects models.
RESULTS
Our analysis included 10,510 patients (8,351 with a BVS and 2,159 with DES) with a follow-up of 6.4 ± 5.1 months and 60 ± 11 years of age; 78% were male, 36% had stable angina, and 59% had acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Among patients with a BVS, cardiovascular death occurred in 0.6%, myocardial infarction (MI) in 2.1%, target lesion revascularization in 2.0%, and definite/probable ST in 1.2% of patients. Of BVS patients, 0.27% had acute ST and 0.57% had subacute ST. Meta-analysis demonstrated that patients who received a BVS were at a higher risk of MI (OR: 2.06, 95% CI: 1.31 to 3.22, p = 0.002) and definite/probable ST (OR: 2.06, 95% CI: 1.07 to 3.98, p = 0.03) compared with patients who received DES, whereas there was a trend toward decreased all-cause mortality with a BVS (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.06, p = 0.06).
CONCLUSIONS
Patients undergoing PCI with a BVS had increased definite/probable ST and MI during follow-up compared with DES. Further studies with long-term follow-up are needed to assess the risk of ST with a BVS.
Topics: Absorbable Implants; Acute Coronary Syndrome; Aged; Angina, Stable; Chi-Square Distribution; Coronary Artery Disease; Coronary Thrombosis; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; Odds Ratio; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Prosthesis Design; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26762906
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2015.09.024 -
Contraception Dec 2015Use of contraception lowers a woman's risk of experiencing an ectopic pregnancy. In the case of method failure, however, progestin-only contraceptives may be more likely... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Use of contraception lowers a woman's risk of experiencing an ectopic pregnancy. In the case of method failure, however, progestin-only contraceptives may be more likely to result in ectopic pregnancies than some other methods such as combined hormonal and barrier contraceptives.
OBJECTIVE
To describe ectopic pregnancy risk associated with use of implants and progestin-only injectable contraceptives through a systematic review of published studies.
DATA SOURCES
We searched electronic databases for articles in any language published through May 2015 describing studies of progestin-only injectables and implants. We also searched bibliographies and review articles for additional studies.
STUDY SELECTION AND EXTRACTION
Studies that reported any pregnancies were included in the review. Independent data extraction was performed by two authors based on predefined data fields, and where possible, we calculated the proportion of pregnancies that were ectopic and the ectopic pregnancy incidence rate per 1000 woman-years.
RESULTS
Fifty-three studies of implants and 28 studies of injectables were identified; 79% reported pregnancy location. The proportion of ectopic pregnancy ranged from 0 to 100% with an incidence of 0-2.9 per 1000 woman-years in studies of marketed levonorgestrel implants. Studies of etonogestrel implants and the injectables, depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate and norethisterone enanthate, reported few ectopic pregnancies.
CONCLUSION
Progestin-only contraceptive implants and injectables protect against ectopic pregnancy by being highly effective in preventing pregnancy overall; however, the absolute risk of ectopic pregnancy varies by type of progestin. Risk of ectopic pregnancy should not be a deterrent for use or provision of these methods.
Topics: Contraception; Contraceptive Agents, Female; Desogestrel; Drug Implants; Female; Humans; Incidence; Injections; Levonorgestrel; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Norethindrone; Pregnancy; Pregnancy, Ectopic; Progestins
PubMed: 26363431
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2015.08.016