-
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Feb 2021To present an updated overview on the safety of concurrent use of food, herbal or dietary supplement and warfarin. (Review)
Review
AIMS
To present an updated overview on the safety of concurrent use of food, herbal or dietary supplement and warfarin.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed on 5 databases from inception up to 31 December 2019. These interactions were classified depending on the likelihood of interaction and supporting evidences.
RESULTS
A total of 149 articles describing 78 herbs, food or dietary supplements were reported to interact with warfarin. These reports described potentiation with 45 (57.7%) herbs, food or dietary supplements while 23 (29.5%) reported inhibition and 10 (12.8%) reported limited impact on warfarin pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Twenty unique herb and dietary supplements also reported to result in minor bleeding events, such as purpura and gum bleeding as well as major events such as intracranial bleeding that led to death.
CONCLUSION
While most food, herbs and supplements can be safely taken in moderation, healthcare professionals should be aware of the increased risk of bleeding when taking several food and herbs. These include Chinese wolfberry, chamomile tea, cannabis, cranberry, chitosan, green tea, Ginkgo biloba, ginger, spinach, St. John's Wort, sushi and smoking tobacco. Patients should be counselled to continue to seek advice from their healthcare professionals when starting any new herbs, food or supplement.
Topics: Dietary Supplements; Ginkgo biloba; Herb-Drug Interactions; Humans; Phytotherapy; Warfarin
PubMed: 32478963
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14404 -
A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants in advanced chronic kidney disease.Journal of Nephrology Nov 2022Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and atrial fibrillation (AF). Anticoagulants have not been studied in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and atrial fibrillation (AF). Anticoagulants have not been studied in randomised controlled trials with CrCl < 30 ml/min. The objective of this review was to identify the impact of different anticoagulant strategies in patients with advanced CKD including dialysis.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies, searching electronic databases from 1946 to 2022. Studies that evaluated both thrombotic and bleeding outcomes with anticoagulant use in CrCl < 50 ml/min were included.
RESULTS
Our initial search yielded 14,503 papers with 53 suitable for inclusion. RCTs comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus warfarin for patients with VTE and CrCl 30-50 ml/min found no difference in recurrent VTE events (RR 0.68(95% CI 0.42-1.11)) with reduced bleeding (RR 0.65 (95% CI 0.45-0.94)). Observational data in haemodialysis suggest lower risk of recurrent VTE and major bleeding with apixaban versus warfarin. Very few studies examining outcomes were available for therapeutic and prophylactic dose low molecular weight heparin for CrCl < 30 ml/min. Findings for patients with AF on dialysis were that warfarin or DOACs had a similar or higher risk of stroke compared to no anticoagulation. For patients with AF and CrCl < 30 ml/min not on dialysis, anticoagulation should be considered on an individual basis, with limited studies suggesting DOACs may have a preferable safety profile.
CONCLUSION
Further studies are still required, some ongoing, in patients with advanced CKD (CrCl < 30 ml/min) to identify the safest and most effective treatment options for VTE and AF.
Topics: Humans; Anticoagulants; Warfarin; Venous Thromboembolism; Administration, Oral; Atrial Fibrillation; Hemorrhage; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight
PubMed: 36006608
DOI: 10.1007/s40620-022-01413-x -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Nov 2021The objective of this paper is to systematically review the literature on drug-drug interactions with warfarin, with a focus on patient-important clinical outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
The objective of this paper is to systematically review the literature on drug-drug interactions with warfarin, with a focus on patient-important clinical outcomes.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE and the International Pharmaceutical Abstract (IPA) databases were searched from January 2004 to August 2019. We included studies describing drug-drug interactions between warfarin and other drugs. Screening and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. We synthesized pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), comparing warfarin plus another medication to warfarin alone. We assessed the risk of bias at the study level and evaluated the overall certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
Of 42 013 citations identified, a total of 72 studies reporting on 3 735 775 patients were considered eligible, including 11 randomized clinical trials and 61 observational studies. Increased risk of clinically relevant bleeding when added to warfarin therapy was observed for antiplatelet (AP) regimens (OR = 1.74; 95% CI 1.56-1.94), many antimicrobials (OR = 1.63; 95% CI 1.45-1.83), NSAIDs including COX-2 NSAIDs (OR = 1.83; 95% CI 1.29-2.59), SSRIs (OR = 1.62; 95% CI 1.42-1.85), mirtazapine (OR = 1.75; 95% CI 1.30-2.36), loop diuretics (OR = 1.92; 95% CI 1.29-2.86) among others. We found a protective effect of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) against warfarin-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (OR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.64-0.73). No significant effect on thromboembolic events or mortality of any drug group used with warfarin was found, including single or dual AP regimens.
CONCLUSIONS
This review found low to moderate certainty evidence supporting the interaction between warfarin and a small group of medications, which result in increased bleeding risk. PPIs are associated with reduced hospitalization for upper GI bleeding for patients taking warfarin. Further studies are required to better understand drug-drug interactions leading to thromboembolic outcomes or death.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Drug Interactions; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Warfarin
PubMed: 33769581
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14833 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2015Rosacea is a common chronic skin condition affecting the face, characterised by flushing, redness, pimples, pustules and dilated blood vessels. The eyes are often... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Rosacea is a common chronic skin condition affecting the face, characterised by flushing, redness, pimples, pustules and dilated blood vessels. The eyes are often involved and thickening of the skin with enlargement (phymas), especially of the nose, can occur in some people. A range of treatment options are available but it is unclear which are most effective.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of treatments for rosacea.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches, to July 2014, of: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974) and Science Citation Index (from 1988). We searched five trials registers and checked reference lists for further relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials in people with moderate to severe rosacea.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and analyses were carried out independently by two authors.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 106 studies, comprising 13,631 participants. Sample sizes of 30-100 and study duration of two to three months were most common. More women than men were included, mean age of 48.6 years, and the majority had papulopustular rosacea, followed by erythematotelangiectatic rosacea.A wide range of comparisons (67) were evaluated. Topical interventions: metronidazole, azelaic acid, ivermectin, brimonidine or other topical treatments. Systemic interventions: oral antibiotics, combinations with topical treatments or other systemic treatments, i.e. isotretinoin. Several studies evaluated laser or light-based treatment.The majority of studies (57/106) were assessed as 'unclear risk of bias', 37 'high risk ' and 12 'low risk'. Twenty-two studies provided no usable or retrievable data i.e. none of our outcomes were addressed, no separate data reported for rosacea or limited data in abstracts.Eleven studies assessed our primary outcome 'change in quality of life', 52 studies participant-assessed changes in rosacea severity and almost all studies addressed adverse events, although often only limited data were provided. In most comparisons there were no statistically significant differences in number of adverse events, most were mild and transient. Physician assessments including investigators' global assessments, lesion counts and erythema were evaluated in three-quarters of the studies, but time needed for improvement and duration of remission were incompletely or not reported.The quality of the body of evidence was rated moderate to high for most outcomes, but for some outcomes low to very low.Data for several outcomes could only be pooled for topical metronidazole and azelaic acid. Both were shown to be more effective than placebo in papulopustular rosacea (moderate quality evidence for metronidazole and high for azelaic acid). Pooled data from physician assessments in three trials demonstrated that metronidazole was more effective compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 3.02). Four trials provided data on participants' assessments, illustrating that azelaic acid was more effective than placebo (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.63). The results from three studies were contradictory on which of these two treatments was most effective.Two studies showed a statistically significant and clinically important improvement in favour of topical ivermectin when compared to placebo (high quality evidence). Participants' assessments in these studies showed a RR of 1.78 (95% CI 1.50 to 2.11) and RR of 1.92 (95% CI 1.59 to 2.32),which were supported by physicians' assessments. Topical ivermectin appeared to be slightly more effective than topical metronidazole for papulopustular rosacea, based on one study, for improving quality of life and participant and physician assessed outcomes (high quality evidence for these outcomes).Topical brimonidine in two studies was more effective than vehicle in reducing erythema in rosacea at all time points over 12 hours (high quality evidence). At three hours the participants' assessments had a RR of 2.21 (95% CI 1.52 to 3.22) and RR of 2.00 (95% CI 1.33 to 3.01) in favour of brimonidine. Physicians' assessments confirmed these data. There was no rebound or worsening of erythema after treatment cessation.Topical clindamycin phosphate combined with tretinoin was not considered to be effective compared to placebo (moderate quality evidence).Topical ciclosporin ophthalmic emulsion demonstrated effectiveness and improved quality of life for people with ocular rosacea (low quality evidence).Of the comparisons assessing oral treatments for papulopustular rosacea there was moderate quality evidence that tetracycline was effective but this was based on two old studies of short duration. Physician-based assessments in two trials indicated that doxycycline appeared to be significantly more effective than placebo (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.47 and RR 2.37, 95% CI 1.12 to 4.99) (high quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference in effectiveness between 100 mg and 40 mg doxycycline, but there was evidence of fewer adverse effects with the lower dose (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.54) (low quality evidence). There was very low quality evidence from one study (assessed at high risk of bias) that doxycycline 100 mg was as effective as azithromycin. Low dose minocycline (45 mg) was effective for papulopustular rosacea (low quality evidence).Oral tetracycline was compared with topical metronidazole in four studies and showed no statistically significant difference between the two treatments for any outcome (low to moderate quality evidence).Low dose isotretinoin was considered by both the participants (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.43) and physicians (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.36) to be slightly more effective than doxycycline 50-100 mg (high quality evidence).Pulsed dye laser was more effective than yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Nd:YAG) laser based on one study, and it appeared to be as effective as intense pulsed light therapy (both low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was high quality evidence to support the effectiveness of topical azelaic acid, topical ivermectin, brimonidine, doxycycline and isotretinoin for rosacea. Moderate quality evidence was available for topical metronidazole and oral tetracycline. There was low quality evidence for low dose minocycline, laser and intense pulsed light therapy and ciclosporin ophthalmic emulsion for ocular rosacea. Time needed to response and response duration should be addressed more completely, with more rigorous reporting of adverse events. Further studies on treatment of ocular rosacea are warranted.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Brimonidine Tartrate; Cyclosporine; Dermatologic Agents; Dicarboxylic Acids; Doxycycline; Female; Humans; Ivermectin; Male; Metronidazole; Middle Aged; Ophthalmic Solutions; Quinoxalines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rosacea; Tetracycline
PubMed: 25919144
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003262.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2022Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and HTA database weekly to identify completed and ongoing trials without language restrictions to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. For this review update, we reappraised eligible trials for research integrity: only RCTs prospectively registered in a trial registry according to WHO guidelines for clinical trial registration were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for outcomes in the following settings and populations: 1) to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 2) to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19 (outcomes: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, (serious) adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance), and 3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection (outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital, mortality, adverse events and quality of life).
MAIN RESULTS
We excluded seven of the 14 trials included in the previous review version; six were not prospectively registered and one was non-randomized. This updated review includes 11 trials with 3409 participants investigating ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo. No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. Five trials treated participants with moderate COVID-19 (inpatient settings); six treated mild COVID-19 (outpatient settings). Eight trials were double-blind and placebo-controlled, and three were open-label. We assessed around 50% of the trial results as low risk of bias. We identified 31 ongoing trials. In addition, there are 28 potentially eligible trials without publication of results, or with disparities in the reporting of the methods and results, held in 'awaiting classification' until the trial authors clarify questions upon request. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate-to-severe disease We are uncertain whether ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo reduces or increases all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 3 trials, 230 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or clinical worsening, assessed by participants with new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.04; 2 trials, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or serious adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.89; 2 trials, 197 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may have little or no effect on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants discharged alive at day 28 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 trial, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.79; 3 trials, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at 7 days (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.58; 3 trials, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trial investigated quality of life at any time point. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.25; 6 trials, 2860 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and little or no effect on quality of life, measured with the PROMIS Global-10 scale (physical component mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.98; and mental component MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.08; 1358 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect on clinical worsening, assessed by admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.02; 2 trials, 590 participants; low-certainty evidence); on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants with all initial symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.36; 2 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence); on serious adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.62 to 8.31; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.76; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at day 7 compared to placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; 2 trials, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for meta-analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For outpatients, there is currently low- to high-certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19. Based on the very low-certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low-certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this update, certainty of evidence increased through higher quality trials including more participants. According to this review's living approach, we will continually update our search.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Ivermectin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 35726131
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Scabies is an intensely itchy parasitic infection of the skin. It occurs worldwide, but is particularly problematic in areas of poor sanitation, overcrowding, and social... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Scabies is an intensely itchy parasitic infection of the skin. It occurs worldwide, but is particularly problematic in areas of poor sanitation, overcrowding, and social disruption. In recent years, permethrin and ivermectin have become the most relevant treatment options for scabies.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of topical permethrin and topical or systemic ivermectin for scabies in people of all ages.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 25 April 2017: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and IndMED. We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the ISRCTN registry, CenterWatch Clinical Trials Listing, ClinicalTrials.gov, TrialsCentral, and the UK Department of Health National Research Register for ongoing trials. We also searched multiple sources for grey literature and checked reference lists of included studies for additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials that compared permethrin or ivermectin against each other for people with scabies of all ages and either sex.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the identified records, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias for the included trials.The primary outcome was complete clearance of scabies. Secondary outcomes were number of participants re-treated, number of participants with at least one adverse event, and number of participants withdrawn from study due to an adverse event.We summarized dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). If it was not possible to calculate the point estimate, we described the data qualitatively. Where appropriate, we calculated combined effect estimates using a random-effects model and assessed heterogeneity. We calculated numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome when we found a difference.We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the control rate average to provide illustrative clearance rates in the comparison groups.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifteen studies (1896 participants) comparing topical permethrin, systemic ivermectin, or topical ivermectin met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the risk of bias in the included trials was moderate: reporting in many studies was poor. Nearly all studies were conducted in South Asia or North Africa, where the disease is more common, and is associated with poverty.EfficacyOral ivermectin (at a standard dose of 200 μg/kg) may lead to slightly lower rates of complete clearance after one week compared to permethrin 5% cream. Using the average clearance rate of 65% in the trials with permethrin, the illustrative clearance with ivermectin is 43% (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.78; 613 participants, 6 studies; low-certainty evidence). However, by week two there may be little or no difference (illustrative clearance of permethrin 74% compared to ivermectin 68%; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.08; 459 participants, 5 studies; low-certainty evidence). Treatments with one to three doses of ivermectin or one to three applications of permethrin may lead to little or no difference in rates of complete clearance after four weeks' follow-up (illustrative cures with 1 to 3 applications of permethrin 93% and with 1 to 3 doses of ivermectin 86%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; 581 participants, 5 studies; low-certainty evidence).After one week of treatment with oral ivermectin at a standard dose of 200 μg/kg or one application of permethrin 5% lotion, there is probably little or no difference in complete clearance rates (illustrative cure rates: permethrin 73%, ivermectin 68%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.17; 120 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). After two weeks of treatment, one dose of systemic ivermectin compared to one application of permethrin lotion may lead to similar complete clearance rates (extrapolated cure rates: 67% in both groups; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.29; 120 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence).There is probably little or no difference in rates of complete clearance between systemic ivermectin at standard dose and topical ivermectin 1% lotion four weeks after initiation of treatment (illustrative cure rates: oral ivermectin 97%, ivermectin lotion 96%; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03; 272 participants, 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Likewise, after four weeks, ivermectin lotion probably leads to little or no difference in rates of complete clearance when compared to permethrin cream (extrapolated cure rates: permethrin cream 94%, ivermectin lotion 96%; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 210 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), and there is little or no difference among systemic ivermectin in different doses (extrapolated cure rates: 2 doses 90%, 1 dose 87%; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 80 participants, 1 study; high-certainty evidence).SafetyReporting of adverse events in the included studies was suboptimal. No withdrawals due to adverse events occurred in either the systemic ivermectin or the permethrin group (moderate-certainty evidence). Two weeks after treatment initiation, there is probably little or no difference in the proportion of participants treated with systemic ivermectin or permethrin cream who experienced at least one adverse event (55 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). After four weeks, ivermectin may lead to a slightly larger proportion of participants with at least one adverse event (extrapolated rates: permethrin 4%, ivermectin 5%; RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.83; 502 participants, 4 studies; low-certainty evidence).Adverse events in participants treated with topical ivermectin were rare and of mild intensity and comparable to those with systemic ivermectin. For this comparison, it is uncertain whether there is any difference in the number of participants with at least one adverse event (very low-certainty evidence). No withdrawals due to adverse events occurred (62 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether topical ivermectin or permethrin differ in the number of participants with at least one adverse event (very low-certainty evidence). We found no studies comparing systemic ivermectin in different doses that assessed safety outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found that for the most part, there was no difference detected in the efficacy of permethrin compared to systemic or topical ivermectin. Overall, few and mild adverse events were reported. Our confidence in the effect estimates was mostly low to moderate. Poor reporting is a major limitation.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Antiparasitic Agents; Humans; Ivermectin; Permethrin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Scabies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29608022
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012994 -
Archivio Italiano Di Urologia,... Jun 2020Male unexplained infertility has long been suspected to result from environmental, lifestyle and nutritional factors. However, the literature on the subject is still...
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Male unexplained infertility has long been suspected to result from environmental, lifestyle and nutritional factors. However, the literature on the subject is still scarce, and clinical studies providing robust evidence are even scarcer. In addition, some similar studies come to different conclusions. Dietary pattern can influence spermatogenesis by its content of fatty acids and antioxidants. Yet, in an age of industrialized mass food production, human bodies become more exposed to the ingestion of xenobiotics, as well as chemicals used for production, preservation, transportation and taste enhancement of foods. We attempted in this paper to collect the available evidence to date on the effect of nutritional components on male fertility.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic search of the relevant literature published in PubMed, ScienceDirect and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Database was conducted. Literature was evaluated according to the Newcastle-Ottawa- Scale.
RESULTS
Epidemiological observations are concordant in demonstrating an association of low-quality sperm parameters with higher intake of red meat, processed and organ meat and fullfat dairy. On the contrary, better semen parameters were observed in subjects consuming a healthy diet, rich in fruit, vegetables, whole grains and fish. Evidences of the negative impact on male fertility of by-products of water disinfection, accumulation in food chain of persistent organochlorine pollutants, pesticides, phthalates from food and water containers and hormones used in breeding cattle have been reported. Clinical trials of the effects of micronutrients on semen parameters and outcomes of assisted fertilization are encouraging, although optimal modality of treatment should be established.
CONCLUSIONS
Although quality of evidence should be ameliorated, it emerges that environmental factors can influence male fertility. Some nutrients may enhance fertility whereas others will worsen it. With diagnostic analysis on a molecular or even sub-molecular level, new interactions with micronutrients or molecular components of our daily ingested foods and leisure drugs may lead to a better understanding of so far suspected but as yet unexplained effects on male spermatogenesis and fertility.
Topics: Diet; Fertility; Humans; Infertility, Male; Life Style; Male; Semen Analysis
PubMed: 32597116
DOI: 10.4081/aiua.2020.2.121 -
International Journal of Molecular... Apr 2022Glyphosate, a non-selective systemic biocide with broad-spectrum activity, is the most widely used herbicide in the world. It can persist in the environment for days or... (Review)
Review
Glyphosate, a non-selective systemic biocide with broad-spectrum activity, is the most widely used herbicide in the world. It can persist in the environment for days or months, and its intensive and large-scale use can constitute a major environmental and health problem. In this systematic review, we investigate the current state of our knowledge related to the effects of this pesticide on the nervous system of various animal species and humans. The information provided indicates that exposure to glyphosate or its commercial formulations induces several neurotoxic effects. It has been shown that exposure to this pesticide during the early stages of life can seriously affect normal cell development by deregulating some of the signaling pathways involved in this process, leading to alterations in differentiation, neuronal growth, and myelination. Glyphosate also seems to exert a significant toxic effect on neurotransmission and to induce oxidative stress, neuroinflammation and mitochondrial dysfunction, processes that lead to neuronal death due to autophagy, necrosis, or apoptosis, as well as the appearance of behavioral and motor disorders. The doses of glyphosate that produce these neurotoxic effects vary widely but are lower than the limits set by regulatory agencies. Although there are important discrepancies between the analyzed findings, it is unequivocal that exposure to glyphosate produces important alterations in the structure and function of the nervous system of humans, rodents, fish, and invertebrates.
Topics: Animals; Central Nervous System Depressants; Glycine; Herbicides; Neurotoxicity Syndromes; Glyphosate
PubMed: 35562999
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23094605 -
Neurotoxicology Sep 2022Investigation of the toxicity triggered by chemicals on the human brain has traditionally relied on approaches using rodent in vivo models and in vitro cell models... (Review)
Review
Investigation of the toxicity triggered by chemicals on the human brain has traditionally relied on approaches using rodent in vivo models and in vitro cell models including primary neuronal cultures and cell lines from rodents. The issues of species differences between humans and rodents, the animal ethical concerns and the time and cost required for neurotoxicity studies on in vivo animal models, do limit the use of animal-based models in neurotoxicology. In this context, human cell models appear relevant in elucidating cellular and molecular impacts of neurotoxicants and facilitating prioritization of in vivo testing. The SH-SY5Y human neuroblastoma cell line (ATCC® CRL-2266™) is one of the most used cell lines in neurosciences, either undifferentiated or differentiated into neuron-like cells. This review presents the characteristics of the SH-SY5Y cell line and proposes the results of a systematic review of literature on the use of this in vitro cell model for neurotoxicity research by focusing on organic environmental pollutants including pesticides, 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), flame retardants, PFASs, parabens, bisphenols, phthalates, and PAHs. Organic environmental pollutants are widely present in the environment and increasingly known to cause clinical neurotoxic effects during fetal & child development and adulthood. Their effects on cultured SH-SY5Y cells include autophagy, cell death (apoptosis, pyroptosis, necroptosis, or necrosis), increased oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, disruption of neurotransmitter homeostasis, and alteration of neuritic length. Finally, the inherent advantages and limitations of the SH-SY5Y cell model are discussed in the context of chemical testing.
Topics: Adult; Animals; Cell Line, Tumor; Cell Survival; Child; Environmental Pollutants; Flame Retardants; Fluorocarbons; Humans; Neuroblastoma; Neurotoxicity Syndromes; Parabens; Pesticides; Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins
PubMed: 35914637
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuro.2022.07.008 -
Stroke Jan 2018The use of oral anticoagulant therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation has been transformed by the availability of the nonvitamin K antagonist oral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The use of oral anticoagulant therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation has been transformed by the availability of the nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants. Real-world studies on the use of nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants would help elucidate their effectiveness and safety in daily clinical practice. Apixaban was the third nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants introduced to clinical practice, and increasing real-world studies have been published. Our aim was to summarize current evidence about real-world studies on apixaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all observational real-world studies comparing apixaban with other available oral anticoagulant drugs.
RESULTS
From the original 9680 results retrieved, 16 studies have been included in the final meta-analysis. Compared with warfarin, apixaban regular dose was more effective in reducing any thromboembolic event (odds ratio: 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.64-0.93), but no significant difference was found for stroke risk. Apixaban was as effective as dabigatran and rivaroxaban in reducing thromboembolic events and stroke. The risk of major bleeding was significantly lower for apixaban compared with warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban (relative risk reduction, 38%, 35%, and 46%, respectively). Similarly, the risk for intracranial hemorrhage was significantly lower for apixaban than warfarin and rivaroxaban (46% and 54%, respectively) but not dabigatran. The risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was lower with apixaban when compared with all oral anticoagulant agents (<0.00001 for all comparisons).
CONCLUSIONS
Use of apixaban in real-life is associated with an overall similar effectiveness in reducing stroke and any thromboembolic events when compared with warfarin. A better safety profile was found with apixaban compared with warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Clinical Trials as Topic; Female; Humans; Intracranial Hemorrhages; Male; Polymers; Pyrazoles; Pyridones; Risk Factors; Rivaroxaban; Saliva, Artificial; Stroke; Vitamin K; Warfarin
PubMed: 29167388
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.018395