-
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Dec 2017The standard first-line systemic therapy for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour (gist) is imatinib. However, most gists develop imatinib resistance, highlighting... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The standard first-line systemic therapy for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour (gist) is imatinib. However, most gists develop imatinib resistance, highlighting the need for new agents in the imatinib-refractory setting. Currently, no randomized studies have directly compared the available post-first-line treatments.
METHODS
In a systematic review, the medline, embase, and central databases, and American Society of Clinical Oncology abstracts to July 2014 were searched to identify randomized controlled trials that included gist patients treated with post-first-line therapies. Hazard ratios (hrs) for progression-free (pfs) and overall survival (os) were extracted. Direct pairwise meta-analyses and indirect comparisons using the Butcher method were performed.
RESULTS
Four studies were identified for the systematic review. One study showed that sunitinib in the second-line setting (vs. placebo) was associated with improved pfs, but not improved os. Three studies examined the third-line setting (imatinib resumption vs. placebo, regorafenib vs. placebo, nilotinib vs. best supportive care). In the third-line settings, the two placebo-controlled and the non-placebo-controlled trials showed significant heterogeneity ( = 98%). Indirect comparisons of imatinib resumption and regorafenib suggested that the hr for pfs was 0.59 (95% confidence interval: 0.31 to 1.12; = 0.10), trending in favour of regorafenib. Indirect comparisons found that toxicities were higher in the regorafenib group, with a risk difference of 27.8% for any-grade toxicities and 19.5% for grades 3 and 4 toxicities.
CONCLUSIONS
Because a head-to-head study of imatinib resumption compared with regorafenib is unlikely ever to be conducted, our study suggests that, in terms of pfs, regorafenib might be the preferred treatment. However, given the increased toxicity observed with regorafenib, clinicians should interpret that evidence with caution at an individual patient level.
PubMed: 29270063
DOI: 10.3747/co.24.3463 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Functional Abdominal Pain Disorders (FAPDs) present a considerable burden to paediatric patients, impacting quality of life, school attendance and causing higher rates... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Functional Abdominal Pain Disorders (FAPDs) present a considerable burden to paediatric patients, impacting quality of life, school attendance and causing higher rates of anxiety and depression disorders. There are no international guidelines for the management of this condition. A previous Cochrane Review in 2011 found no evidence to support the use of antidepressants in this context.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the current evidence for the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for FAPDs in children and adolescents.
SEARCH METHODS
In this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and two clinical trial registers from inception until 03 February 2020. We also updated our search of databases of ongoing research, reference lists and 'grey literature' from inception to 03 February 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antidepressants to placebo, to no treatment or to any other intervention, in children aged 4 to 18 years with a FAPD diagnosis as per the Rome or any other defined criteria (as defined by the authors). The primary outcomes of interest included treatment success (as defined by the authors), pain severity, pain frequency and withdrawal due to adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors checked all citations independently, resolving disagreement with a third-party arbiter. We reviewed all potential studies in full text, and once again made independent decisions, with disagreements resolved by consensus. We conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments independently, following Cochrane methods. Where homogeneous data were available, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model. We conducted GRADE analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We found one new study in this updated search, making a total of three trials (223 participants) eligible for inclusion: two using amitriptyline (AMI) and one using citalopram. For the primary outcome of treatment success, two studies used reports of success on a symptom-based Likert scale, with either a two-point reduction or the two lowest levels defined as success. The third study defined success as a 15% improvement in quality of life (QOL) ratings scales. Therefore, meta-analysis did not include this final study due to the heterogeneity of the outcome measure. There is low-certainty evidence that there may be no difference when antidepressants are compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.56; 2 studies, 205 participants; I = 0%). We downgraded the evidence for significant imprecision due to extremely sparse data (see Summary of findings table 1). The third study reported that participants receiving antidepressants were significantly more likely than those receiving placebo to experience at least a 15% improvement in overall QOL score at 10 and 13 weeks (P = 0.007 and P = 0.002, respectively (absolute figures were not given)). The analysis found no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events between antidepressants and placebo: RR 3.17 (95% CI 0.65 to 15.33), with very low certainty due to high risk of bias in studies and imprecision due to low event and participant numbers. Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effect model and analysing just for AMI found no change in this result. Due to heterogeneous and limited reporting, no further meta-analysis was possible.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There may be no difference between antidepressants and placebo for treatment success of FAPDs in childhood. There may be no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events, but this is also of low certainty. There is currently no evidence to support clinical decision making regarding the use of these medications. Further studies must consider sample size, homogenous and relevant outcome measures and longer follow up.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Adolescent; Amitriptyline; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Child; Citalopram; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Placebos; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33560523
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008013.pub3 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023To assess the relationship between use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and the risk of gout among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the relationship between use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and the risk of gout among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
METHODS
A systemic review and meta-analysis were designed by reviewing articles published between 2000 January 1 and 2022 December 31 using PubMed system and Web of Science system based on the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The end point of interest was gout (including gout flares, gout events, starting uric-acid lowering therapy and starting anti-gout drugs use) among patients with T2DM using SGLT2i versus not using SGLT2i. A random-effects model was utilized to measure the pooled hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for the risk of gout associated with SGLT2i use.
RESULTS
Two prospective post-hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials and 5 retrospective electronic medical record-linkage cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis demonstrated that there was a decreased risk of developing gout for SGLT2i use as comparing with non-use of SGLT2i among patients with T2DM (pooled HR=0.66 and 95%CI=0.57-0.76).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis demonstrates that SGLT2i use is associated with a 34% decreased risk of developing gout among patients with T2DM. SGLT2i may be the treatment options for patients with T2DM who are at high risk of gout. More randomized controlled trials and real-world data are needed to confirm whether there is a class effect of SGLT2i for the risk reduction of gout among patients with T2DM.
Topics: Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors; Gout; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Humans; Male; Female; Middle Aged; Placebos; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor
PubMed: 37288295
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1158153 -
Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2014Recent studies have promised that lisdexamfetamine (LDX) is effective in the treatment of adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Recent studies have promised that lisdexamfetamine (LDX) is effective in the treatment of adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review was undertaken to summarize LDX efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability in adult ADHD. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of lisdexamfetamine compared with placebo were included for synthesis. Clinical trials published between January 1991 and January 2014 were evaluated.
METHODS
The database of MEDLINE(®), EMBASE™, CINAHL(®), PsycINFO(®) and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched in January 2014. Studies were also searched in ClinicalTrials.gov and the EU Clinical Trials Register database. Study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions were considered. All RCTs of LDX vs placebo reporting final results of: 1) severity of ADHD symptoms and executive function deficit, 2) response or remission rates, 3) overall discontinuation rate, or 4) discontinuation rate due to adverse events were included. The language of the papers was not restricted. All abstracts of studies gathered from the database were examined. After excluding irrelevant trials, the full text version of relevant studies were assessed and extracted for outcomes of interest. Examination of risks of bias, based on the Cochrane bias assessment, was carried out. The efficacy outcomes consisted of the mean end point or change scores for ADHD rating scales, the response rate, and the remission rate. The overall discontinuation rate and the discontinuation rate due to adverse events were measured for acceptability and tolerability, respectively. A random effect model was applied for the synthesis of relative risks (RRs), and weighted mean differences or standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
A total of 806 final study or safety participants were included. The dosage of lisdexamfetamine was 30 to 70 mg/day. The pooled mean scores of mean change and mean end point scores between LDX- and placebo-treated groups also had a significant difference (SMD [95% CI] of -0.97 [-1.15, -0.78], I(2)=18%). The pooled response rates for adult ADHD between the two groups had a significant difference (RR [95% CI] of 1.99 [1.50, 2.63], I(2)=0%). Based on the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function - Adult version (BRIEF-A), the pooled end point mean scores for the Global Executive Composite (GEC) for the LDX-treated groups was greater than that of placebo-treated groups (MD [95% CI] of -9.20 [-14.11, -4.29], I(2)=34%). The pooled overall discontinuation rates between the two groups had no significant difference (RR [95% CI] of 0.82 [0.59, 1.14], I(2)=0%). Similarly, the pooled discontinuation rates due to adverse events between the two groups was not significantly different (RR [95% CI] of 1.77 [0.71, 4.40], I(2)=0%).
CONCLUSION
The number of included studies was limited (five RCTs), but based on this meta-analysis, LDX is efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of adult ADHD. Additionally, it also improved the executive function deficits in this population. However, its acceptability is no higher than placebo. These findings should be carefully interpreted and considered as preliminary outcomes. To confirm these results, further studies are warranted. LDX is a viable alternative psychostimulant for adult ADHD.
Topics: Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Databases, Factual; Dextroamphetamine; Humans; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Placebos; Registries
PubMed: 25336914
DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S68393 -
The Journal of Pain Feb 2015The typical placebo response (ie, the nonspecific effects in the placebo group including benign natural course, regression to the mean, expectation/conditioning effects,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
UNLABELLED
The typical placebo response (ie, the nonspecific effects in the placebo group including benign natural course, regression to the mean, expectation/conditioning effects, and others) in randomized trials in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is unknown. We recently observed a surprising near-absence of placebo response in a randomized controlled trial we conducted on patients with long-standing (≥6 months) CRPS. To investigate the idea that there may be an absence of placebo response in long-standing CRPS further, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo responses in randomized controlled trials conducted in patients with CRPS of ≥6 months. We systematically identified suitable randomized controlled trials published between 1966 and September 2013. We calculated the mean difference and standard error of the mean difference for placebo responses and synthesized individual effect sizes at 4 specified time periods of interest (15-30 minutes, 1 week, 3-4 weeks, and 6 weeks or more) via meta-analysis using the method of inverse-variance. Heterogeneity was assessed according to the I(2) statistic. For primary analysis, we pooled trial-specific effect sizes over the 4 time points. We analyzed data from 340 participants from 18 trials out of a possible 361 participants from 20 trials (94% of participants analyzed). Significant heterogeneity was present between trials; therefore, we interpreted trends from visual inspection of individual trials and pooled estimates. Placebo response was significant at the earliest time period (15-30 minutes). There was no significant evidence of placebo response at any of the other time periods. These results inform the design of future trials, and they caution against the "therapeutic" use of placebo in long-standing CRPS.
PERSPECTIVE
In this meta-analysis of placebo responses in randomized controlled trials in long-standing CRPS, published during 1966 to 2013, we found no evidence for placebo analgesia, except at very early time points. Results inform the design of future placebo analgesia research in long-standing CRPS.
Topics: Complex Regional Pain Syndromes; Humans; Placebo Effect
PubMed: 25478803
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2014.11.008 -
JAMA Network Open Jul 2022Nonspecific effects, particularly placebo effects, are thought to contribute significantly to the observed effect in surgical trials. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Nonspecific effects, particularly placebo effects, are thought to contribute significantly to the observed effect in surgical trials.
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the proportion of the observed effect of surgical treatment that is due to nonspecific effects (including the placebo effect).
DATA SOURCES
Published Cochrane reviews and updated, extended search of MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL until March 2019.
STUDY SELECTION
Published randomized placebo-controlled surgical trials and trials comparing the effect of the same surgical interventions with nonoperative controls (ie, no treatment, usual care, or exercise program).
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Pairs of authors independently screened the search results, assessed full texts to identify eligible studies and the risk of bias of included studies, and extracted data. The proportion of all nonspecific effects was calculated as the change in the placebo control divided by the change in the active surgery and pooled in a random-effect meta-analysis. To estimate the magnitude of the placebo effect, we pooled the difference in outcome between placebo and nonoperative controls and used metaregression to estimate the association between the type of control group and the treatment effect (difference between the groups), adjusting for risk of bias, sample size, and type of outcome.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Between- and within-group effect sizes expressed as Hedges g.
RESULTS
In this review, 100 trials were included comprising data from 62 trials with placebo controls (3 also included nonoperative controls), and 38 trials with nonoperative controls (32 interventions; 10 699 participants). Risk of bias across trials was comparable except for performance and detection bias, which was high in trials with nonoperative controls. The mean nonspecific effects accounted for 67% (95% CI, 61% to 73%) of the observed change after surgery; however, this varied widely between different procedures. The estimated surgical placebo effect had a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.13 (95% CI, -0.26 to 0.51). Trials with placebo and nonoperative controls found comparable treatment effects (SMD, -0.09 [95% CI, -0.35 to 0.18]; 15 interventions; 73 between-group effects; adjusted analysis: SMD, -0.11 [95% CI, -0.37 to 0.15]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this review, the change in health state after surgery was composed largely of nonspecific effects, but no evidence supported a large placebo effect. Placebo-controlled surgical trials may be redundant when trials with nonoperative controls consistently report no substantial association from surgery compared with nonoperative treatment.
Topics: Control Groups; Exercise; Humans; Placebo Effect
PubMed: 35895060
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.23903 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Fluoxetine is a serotonin reuptake inhibitor indicated for major depression. It is also thought to affect weight control: this seems to happen through appetite changes... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fluoxetine is a serotonin reuptake inhibitor indicated for major depression. It is also thought to affect weight control: this seems to happen through appetite changes resulting in decreased food intake and normalisation of unusual eating behaviours. However, the benefit-risk ratio of this off-label medication is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of fluoxetine for overweight or obese adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization (WHO) ICTRP Search Portal. The last date of the search was December 2018 for all databases, to which we applied no language restrictions .
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the administration of fluoxetine versus placebo, other anti-obesity agents, non-pharmacological therapy or no treatment in overweight or obese adults without depression, mental illness or abnormal eating patterns.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened abstracts and titles for relevance. Screening for inclusion, data extraction and risk of bias assessment was performed by one author and checked by the second. We assessed trials for the overall certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument. For additional information we contacted trial authors by email. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 1036 records, scrutinized 52 full-text articles and included 19 completed RCTs (one trial is awaiting assessment). A total of 2216 participants entered the trials, 1280 participants were randomly assigned to fluoxetine (60 mg/d, 40 mg/d, 20 mg/d and 10 mg/d) and 936 participants were randomly assigned to various comparison groups (placebo; the anti-obesity agents diethylpropion, fenproporex, mazindol, sibutramine, metformin, fenfluramine, dexfenfluramine, fluvoxamine, 5-hydroxy-tryptophan; no treatment; and omega-3 gel). Within the 19 RCTs there were 56 trial arms. Fifteen trials were parallel RCTs and four were cross-over RCTs. The participants in the included trials were followed up for periods between three weeks and one year. The certainty of the evidence was low or very low: the majority of trials had a high risk of bias in one or more of the risk of bias domains.For our main comparison group - fluoxetine versus placebo - and across all fluoxetine dosages and durations of treatment, the MD was -2.7 kg (95% CI -4 to -1.4; P < 0.001; 10 trials, 956 participants; low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between -7.1 kg and 1.7 kg. The MD in body mass index (BMI) reduction across all fluoxetine dosages compared with placebo was -1.1 kg/m² (95% CI -3.7 to 1.4; 3 trials, 97 participants; very low certainty evidence). Only nine placebo-controlled trials reported adverse events. A total of 399 out of 627 participants (63.6%) receiving fluoxetine compared with 352 out of 626 participants (56.2%) receiving placebo experienced an adverse event. Random-effects meta-analysis showed an increase in the risk of having at least one adverse event of any type in the fluoxetine groups compared with placebo (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.42; P = 0.07; 9 trials, 1253 participants; low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between 0.74 and 1.88. Following fluoxetine treatment the adverse events of dizziness, drowsiness, fatigue, insomnia and nausea were observed approximately twice as often compared to placebo. A total of 15 out of 197 participants (7.6%) receiving fluoxetine compared with 12 out of 196 participants (6.1%) receiving placebo experienced depression. The RR across all fluoxetine doses compared with placebo was 1.20 (95% CI 0.57 to 2.52; P = 0.62; 3 trials, 393 participants; very low certainty evidence). All-cause mortality, health-related quality of life and socioeconomic effects were not reported.The comparisons of fluoxetine with other anti-obesity agents (3 trials, 234 participants), omega-3 gel (1 trial, 48 participants) and no treatment (1 trial, 60 participants) showed inconclusive results (very low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence suggests that off-label fluoxetine may decrease weight compared with placebo. However, low-certainty evidence suggests an increase in the risk for dizziness, drowsiness, fatigue, insomnia and nausea following fluoxetine treatment.
PubMed: 31613390
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011688.pub2 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Aug 2022The placebo effect and the specific effect are often thought to add up (additive model). Whether additivity holds can dramatically influence the external validity of a... (Review)
Review
AIM
The placebo effect and the specific effect are often thought to add up (additive model). Whether additivity holds can dramatically influence the external validity of a trial. This assumption of additivity was tested by Kleijnen et al in 1994 but the data produced since then have not been synthetized. In this review, we aimed to systematically review the literature to determine whether additivity held.
METHODS
We searched Medline and PsychInfo up to 10 January 2019. Studies using the balanced placebo design (BPD), testing two different strengths of placebos, were included. The presence of interaction was evaluated by comparing each group in the BPD with analysis of variance or covariance.
RESULTS
Thirty studies were included and the overall risk of bias was high: four found evidence of additivity and 16 studies found evidence of interaction (seven had evidence of positive additivity).
CONCLUSION
Evidence of additivity between placebo and specific features of treatments was rare in included studies. We suggest interventions for placebo-sensitive ailments should be tested in trials designed to take interactions seriously once an exploratory RCTs has proven their efficacy with sufficient internal validity.
Topics: Humans; Placebo Effect
PubMed: 35384004
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15345 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020Souvenaid is a dietary supplement with a patented composition (Fortasyn Connect™)which is intended to be used by people with Alzheimer's disease (AD). It has been...
BACKGROUND
Souvenaid is a dietary supplement with a patented composition (Fortasyn Connect™)which is intended to be used by people with Alzheimer's disease (AD). It has been designed to support the formation and function of synapses in the brain, which are thought to be strongly correlated with cognitive function. If effective, it might improve symptoms of Alzheimer's disease and also prevent the progression from prodromal Alzheimer's disease to dementia. We sought in this review to examine the evidence for this proposition.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of Souvenaid on incidence of dementia, cognition, functional performance, and safety in people with Alzheimer's disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS, i.e. the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), Web of Science (ISI Web of Science), Cinahl (EBSCOhost), Lilacs (BIREME), and clinical trials registries up to 24 June 2020. We also reviewed citations of reference lists of landmark papers, reviews, and included studies for additional studies and assessed their suitability for inclusion in the review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, placebo-controlled trials which evaluated Souvenaid in people diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD (also termed prodromal AD) or with dementia due to AD, and with a treatment duration of at least 16 weeks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Our primary outcome measures were incidence of dementia, global and specific cognitive function, functional performance, combined cognitive-functional outcomes and adverse events. We selected studies, extracted data, assessed the quality of trials and intended to conduct meta-analyses according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We present all outcomes grouped by stage of AD.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three randomised, placebo-controlled trials investigating Souvenaid in 1097 community-dwelling participants with Alzheimer's disease. One study each included participants with prodromal AD, mild AD dementia and mild-to-moderate AD dementia. We rated the risks of bias of all trials as low. One study (in prodromal AD) was funded by European grants. The other two studies were funded by the manufacturer of Souvenaid. One trial investigated the incidence of dementia in people with prodromal AD at baseline, and found little to no difference between the Souvenaid group and the placebo group after 24 months (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.43; 1 trial, 311 participants; moderate quality of evidence). In prodromal AD, and in mild and mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease dementia, Souvenaid probably results in little or no difference in global or specific cognitive functions (moderate quality of evidence). Everyday function, or the ability to perform activities of daily living, were measured in mild and mild-to-moderate AD dementia. Neither study found evidence of a difference between the groups after 24 weeks of treatment (moderate quality of evidence). Two studies investigated combined cognitive-functional outcomes with the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes and observed conflicting results. Souvenaid probably results in slight improvement, which is below estimates of meaningful change, in participants with prodromal Alzheimer's disease after 24 months (moderate quality of evidence), but probably has little to no effect in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease dementia after 24 weeks (moderate quality of evidence). Adverse effects observed were low in all trials, and the available data were insufficient to determine any connection with Souvenaid.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Two years of treatment with Souvenaid probably does not reduce the risk of progression to dementia in people with prodromal AD. There is no convincing evidence that Souvenaid affects other outcomes important to people with AD in the prodromal stage or mild-to-moderate stages of dementia. Conflicting evidence on combined cognitive-functional outcomes in prodromal AD and mild AD dementia warrants further investigation. Adverse effects of Souvenaid seem to be uncommon, but the evidence synthesised in this review does not permit us to make a definitive statement on the long-term tolerability of Souvenaid. The effects of Souvenaid in more severe AD dementia or in people with AD at risk of nutritional deficiencies remain unclear.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Bias; Cognition; Dementia; Dietary Supplements; Disease Progression; Docosahexaenoic Acids; Eicosapentaenoic Acid; Humans; Phospholipids; Placebos; Prodromal Symptoms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 33320335
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011679.pub2