-
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 -
International Journal of Molecular... Jul 2022Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecologic malignancy in the United States. Some patients affected by ovarian cancers often present genome instability with one or... (Review)
Review
Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecologic malignancy in the United States. Some patients affected by ovarian cancers often present genome instability with one or more of the defects in DNA repair pathways, particularly in homologous recombination (HR), which is strictly linked to mutations in breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 (BRCA 1) or breast cancer susceptibility gene 2 (BRCA 2). The treatment of ovarian cancer remains a challenge, and the majority of patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancers experience relapse and require additional treatment despite initial therapy, including optimal cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and platinum-based chemotherapy. Targeted therapy at DNA repair genes has become a unique strategy to combat homologous recombination-deficient (HRD) cancers in recent years. Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP), a family of proteins, plays an important role in DNA damage repair, genome stability, and apoptosis of cancer cells, especially in HRD cancers. PARP inhibitors (PARPi) have been reported to be highly effective and low-toxicity drugs that will tremendously benefit patients with HRD (i.e., BRCA 1/2 mutated) epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) by blocking the DNA repair pathways and inducing apoptosis of cancer cells. PARP inhibitors compete with NAD at the catalytic domain (CAT) of PARP to block PARP catalytic activity and the formation of PAR polymers. These effects compromise the cellular ability to overcome DNA SSB damage. The process of HR, an essential error-free pathway to repair DNA DSBs during cell replication, will be blocked in the condition of BRCA 1/2 mutations. The PARP-associated HR pathway can also be partially interrupted by using PARP inhibitors. Grossly, PARP inhibitors have demonstrated some therapeutic benefits in many randomized phase II and III trials when combined with the standard CRS for advanced EOCs. However, similar to other chemotherapy agents, PARP inhibitors have different clinical indications and toxicity profiles and also face drug resistance, which has become a major challenge. In high-grade epithelial ovarian cancers, the cancer cells under hypoxia- or drug-induced stress have the capacity to become polyploidy giant cancer cells (PGCCs), which can survive the attack of chemotherapeutic agents and start endoreplication. These stem-like, self-renewing PGCCs generate mutations to alter the expression/function of kinases, p53, and stem cell markers, and diploid daughter cells can exhibit drug resistance and facilitate tumor growth and metastasis. In this review, we discuss the underlying molecular mechanisms of PARP inhibitors and the results from the clinical studies that investigated the effects of the FDA-approved PARP inhibitors olaparib, rucaparib, and niraparib. We also review the current research progress on PARP inhibitors, their safety, and their combined usage with antiangiogenic agents. Nevertheless, many unknown aspects of PARP inhibitors, including detailed mechanisms of actions, along with the effectiveness and safety of the treatment of EOCs, warrant further investigation.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Female; Genes, BRCA2; Humans; Ovarian Neoplasms; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerases; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35897700
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23158125 -
Personalized Medicine in Psychiatry 2023Research into misophonia treatments has been limited and it is unclear what treatment approaches may be effective. This systematic review extracted and synthesized...
Research into misophonia treatments has been limited and it is unclear what treatment approaches may be effective. This systematic review extracted and synthesized relevant treatment research on misophonia to examine the efficacy of various intervention modalities and identify current trends in order to guide future treatment research. PubMed, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central were searched 4using the keywords "misophonia," "decreased sound tolerance," "selective sound sensitivity," or "decreased sound sensitivity." Of the 169 records available for initial screening, 33 studied misophonia treatment specifically. Data were available for one randomized controlled trial, one open label trial, and 31 case studies. Treatments included various forms of psychotherapy, medication, and combinations of the two. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) incorporating various components has been the most often utilized and effective treatment for reduction of misophonia symptoms in one randomized trial and several case studies/series. Beyond CBT, various case studies suggested possible benefit from other treatment approaches depending on the patient's symptom profile, although methodological rigor was limited. Given the limitations in the literature to date, including overall lack of rigor, lack of comparative studies, limited replication, and small sample size, the field would benefit from the development of mechanism-informed treatments, rigorous randomized trials, and treatment development with an eye towards dissemination and implementation.
PubMed: 37333720
DOI: 10.1016/j.pmip.2023.100104 -
Clinical and Translational Allergy Nov 2022Several risk factors for asthma have been proposed; however, the causality of these associations is sometimes unclear. Mendelian randomization is a powerful... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Several risk factors for asthma have been proposed; however, the causality of these associations is sometimes unclear. Mendelian randomization is a powerful epidemiological approach that can help elucidate the causality of risk factors. The aim of the present study was to identify causal risk factors for asthma through Mendelian Randomization studies.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE was conducted, to identify studies investigating risk factors for asthma or respiratory allergies through Mendelian Randomization. When two or more studies investigated the same risk factor a meta-analysis was conducted. Of 239 studies initially identified, 41 were included.
RESULTS
A causal association between adiposity and adult asthma risk was found in 10 out of 12 studies with a summary risk ratio of 1.05 per kg/m increase in BMI (95% CI: 1.03-1.07). Puberty timing (n = 3), alcohol (n = 2), and linoleic acid (n = 1) had causal effects on asthma risk, while vitamins/minerals (n = 6) showed no consistent effect on asthma. The effect of smoking on adult asthma conflicted between studies. Several of the significant associations of asthma with immune related proteins (n = 5) and depression (n = 2) investigated through multiple traits analyses could generally benefit from replications in independent datasets.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis found evidence for causal effects of adiposity, puberty timing, linoleic acid, alcohol, immune related proteins, and depression on risk of asthma.
PubMed: 36434743
DOI: 10.1002/clt2.12207 -
Communications Medicine Oct 2023Heterogeneity in type 2 diabetes presentation and progression suggests that precision medicine interventions could improve clinical outcomes. We undertook a systematic...
BACKGROUND
Heterogeneity in type 2 diabetes presentation and progression suggests that precision medicine interventions could improve clinical outcomes. We undertook a systematic review to determine whether strategies to subclassify type 2 diabetes were associated with high quality evidence, reproducible results and improved outcomes for patients.
METHODS
We searched PubMed and Embase for publications that used 'simple subclassification' approaches using simple categorisation of clinical characteristics, or 'complex subclassification' approaches which used machine learning or 'omics approaches in people with established type 2 diabetes. We excluded other diabetes subtypes and those predicting incident type 2 diabetes. We assessed quality, reproducibility and clinical relevance of extracted full-text articles and qualitatively synthesised a summary of subclassification approaches.
RESULTS
Here we show data from 51 studies that demonstrate many simple stratification approaches, but none have been replicated and many are not associated with meaningful clinical outcomes. Complex stratification was reviewed in 62 studies and produced reproducible subtypes of type 2 diabetes that are associated with outcomes. Both approaches require a higher grade of evidence but support the premise that type 2 diabetes can be subclassified into clinically meaningful subtypes.
CONCLUSION
Critical next steps toward clinical implementation are to test whether subtypes exist in more diverse ancestries and whether tailoring interventions to subtypes will improve outcomes.
PubMed: 37798471
DOI: 10.1038/s43856-023-00360-3 -
International Journal of Molecular... Aug 2022Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a viral agent that causes Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a disease that causes flu-like symptoms... (Review)
Review
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a viral agent that causes Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a disease that causes flu-like symptoms that, when exacerbated, can have life-threatening consequences. COVID-19 has been linked to persistent symptoms, sequelae, and medical complications that can last months after the initial infection. This systematic review aims to elucidate the innate and adaptive immune mechanisms involved and identify potential characteristics of COVID-19 pathology that may increase symptom duration. We also describe he three different stages of COVID-19-viral replication, immune hyperactivation, and post-acute sequelae-as well as each phase's corresponding immune response. Finally, we use this multiphasic approach to describe different treatment approaches for each of the three stages-antivirals, immunosuppressants and monoclonal antibodies, and continued immunosuppressants-to fully curate the treatment to the stage of disease.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35955740
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23158606 -
Systematic Reviews Mar 2023To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care: systematic reviews of the effects and acceptability of screening and treatment, and the accuracy of risk prediction tools.
BACKGROUND
To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and treatment, and on the accuracy of risk prediction tools for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care.
METHODS
For screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk prediction tools, and treatment benefits, our search methods involved integrating studies published up to 2016 from an existing systematic review. Then, to locate more recent studies and any evidence relating to acceptability and treatment harms, we searched online databases (2016 to April 4, 2022 [screening] or to June 1, 2021 [predictive accuracy]; 1995 to June 1, 2021, for acceptability; 2016 to March 2, 2020, for treatment benefits; 2015 to June 24, 2020, for treatment harms), trial registries and gray literature, and hand-searched reviews, guidelines, and the included studies. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted results, and appraised risk of bias, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The overview of reviews on treatment harms relied on one reviewer, with verification of data by another reviewer to correct errors and omissions. When appropriate, study results were pooled using random effects meta-analysis; otherwise, findings were described narratively. Evidence certainty was rated according to the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
We included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 controlled clinical trial (CCT) for the benefits and harms of screening, 1 RCT for comparative benefits and harms of different screening strategies, 32 validation cohort studies for the calibration of risk prediction tools (26 of these reporting on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool without [i.e., clinical FRAX], or with the inclusion of bone mineral density (BMD) results [i.e., FRAX + BMD]), 27 RCTs for the benefits of treatment, 10 systematic reviews for the harms of treatment, and 12 studies for the acceptability of screening or initiating treatment. In females aged 65 years and older who are willing to independently complete a mailed fracture risk questionnaire (referred to as "selected population"), 2-step screening using a risk assessment tool with or without measurement of BMD probably (moderate certainty) reduces the risk of hip fractures (3 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 43,736, absolute risk reduction [ARD] = 6.2 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 9.0-2.8 fewer, number needed to screen [NNS] = 161) and clinical fragility fractures (3 RCTs, n = 42,009, ARD = 5.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 10.9-0.8 fewer, NNS = 169). It probably does not reduce all-cause mortality (2 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 26,511, ARD = no difference in 1000, 95% CI 7.1 fewer to 5.3 more) and may (low certainty) not affect health-related quality of life. Benefits for fracture outcomes were not replicated in an offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. For females aged 68-80 years, population screening may not reduce the risk of hip fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 0.3 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.2 fewer to 3.9 more) or clinical fragility fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 1.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 8.0 fewer to 6.0 more) over 5 years of follow-up. The evidence for serious adverse events among all patients and for all outcomes among males and younger females (<65 years) is very uncertain. We defined overdiagnosis as the identification of high risk in individuals who, if not screened, would never have known that they were at risk and would never have experienced a fragility fracture. This was not directly reported in any of the trials. Estimates using data available in the trials suggest that among "selected" females offered screening, 12% of those meeting age-specific treatment thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk, and 19% of those meeting thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk, may be overdiagnosed as being at high risk of fracture. Of those identified as being at high clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk and who were referred for BMD assessment, 24% may be overdiagnosed. One RCT (n = 9268) provided evidence comparing 1-step to 2-step screening among postmenopausal females, but the evidence from this trial was very uncertain. For the calibration of risk prediction tools, evidence from three Canadian studies (n = 67,611) without serious risk of bias concerns indicates that clinical FRAX-Canada may be well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of hip fractures (observed-to-expected fracture ratio [O:E] = 1.13, 95% CI 0.74-1.72, I = 89.2%), and is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures (O:E = 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20, I = 50.4%), both leading to some underestimation of the observed risk. Data from these same studies (n = 61,156) showed that FRAX-Canada with BMD may perform poorly to estimate 10-year hip fracture risk (O:E = 1.31, 95% CI 0.91-2.13, I = 92.7%), but is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures, with some underestimation of the observed risk (O:E 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.20, I = 0%). The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Risk Assessment (CAROC) tool may be well calibrated to predict a category of risk for 10-year clinical fractures (low, moderate, or high risk; 1 study, n = 34,060). The evidence for most other tools was limited, or in the case of FRAX tools calibrated for countries other than Canada, very uncertain due to serious risk of bias concerns and large inconsistency in findings across studies. Postmenopausal females in a primary prevention population defined as <50% prevalence of prior fragility fracture (median 16.9%, range 0 to 48% when reported in the trials) and at risk of fragility fracture, treatment with bisphosphonates as a class (median 2 years, range 1-6 years) probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (19 RCTs, n = 22,482, ARD = 11.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 15.0-6.6 fewer, [number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome] NNT = 90), and may reduce the risk of hip fractures (14 RCTs, n = 21,038, ARD = 2.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.6-0.9 fewer, NNT = 345) and clinical vertebral fractures (11 RCTs, n = 8921, ARD = 10.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 14.0-3.9 fewer, NNT = 100); it may not reduce all-cause mortality. There is low certainty evidence of little-to-no reduction in hip fractures with any individual bisphosphonate, but all provided evidence of decreased risk of clinical fragility fractures (moderate certainty for alendronate [NNT=68] and zoledronic acid [NNT=50], low certainty for risedronate [NNT=128]) among postmenopausal females. Evidence for an impact on risk of clinical vertebral fractures is very uncertain for alendronate and risedronate; zoledronic acid may reduce the risk of this outcome (4 RCTs, n = 2367, ARD = 18.7 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 25.6-6.6 fewer, NNT = 54) for postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (6 RCTs, n = 9473, ARD = 9.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 12.1-5.6 fewer, NNT = 110) and clinical vertebral fractures (4 RCTs, n = 8639, ARD = 16.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 18.6-12.1 fewer, NNT=62), but may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip fractures among postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably makes little-to-no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life among postmenopausal females. Evidence in males is limited to two trials (1 zoledronic acid, 1 denosumab); in this population, zoledronic acid may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip or clinical fragility fractures, and evidence for all-cause mortality is very uncertain. The evidence for treatment with denosumab in males is very uncertain for all fracture outcomes (hip, clinical fragility, clinical vertebral) and all-cause mortality. There is moderate certainty evidence that treatment causes a small number of patients to experience a non-serious adverse event, notably non-serious gastrointestinal events (e.g., abdominal pain, reflux) with alendronate (50 RCTs, n = 22,549, ARD = 16.3 more in 1000, 95% CI 2.4-31.3 more, [number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome] NNH = 61) but not with risedronate; influenza-like symptoms with zoledronic acid (5 RCTs, n = 10,695, ARD = 142.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 105.5-188.5 more, NNH = 7); and non-serious gastrointestinal adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 64.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 26.4-13.3 more, NNH = 16), dermatologic adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 15.6 more in 1000, 95% CI 7.6-27.0 more, NNH = 64), and infections (any severity; 4 RCTs, n = 8691, ARD = 1.8 more in 1000, 95% CI 0.1-4.0 more, NNH = 556) with denosumab. For serious adverse events overall and specific to stroke and myocardial infarction, treatment with bisphosphonates probably makes little-to-no difference; evidence for other specific serious harms was less certain or not available. There was low certainty evidence for an increased risk for the rare occurrence of atypical femoral fractures (0.06 to 0.08 more in 1000) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (0.22 more in 1000) with bisphosphonates (most evidence for alendronate). The evidence for these rare outcomes and for rebound fractures with denosumab was very uncertain. Younger (lower risk) females have high willingness to be screened. A minority of postmenopausal females at increased risk for fracture may accept treatment. Further, there is large heterogeneity in the level of risk at which patients may be accepting of initiating treatment, and treatment effects appear to be overestimated.
CONCLUSION
An offer of 2-step screening with risk assessment and BMD measurement to selected postmenopausal females with low prevalence of prior fracture probably results in a small reduction in the risk of clinical fragility fracture and hip fracture compared to no screening. These findings were most applicable to the use of clinical FRAX for risk assessment and were not replicated in the offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. Limited direct evidence on harms of screening were available; using study data to provide estimates, there may be a moderate degree of overdiagnosis of high risk for fracture to consider. The evidence for younger females and males is very limited. The benefits of screening and treatment need to be weighed against the potential for harm; patient views on the acceptability of treatment are highly variable.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42019123767.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Alendronate; Canada; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Hip Fractures; Osteoporotic Fractures; Primary Health Care; Primary Prevention; Risedronic Acid; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 36945065
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02181-w -
Journal of Public Health Management and...Continuous quality improvement (CQI) has become prominent in public health settings; yet, little consolidated guidance exists for building CQI capacity of...
CONTEXT
Continuous quality improvement (CQI) has become prominent in public health settings; yet, little consolidated guidance exists for building CQI capacity of community-based organizations.
OBJECTIVE
To synthesize relevant literature to identify guiding principles and core components critical to building the capacity of organizations to adopt and use CQI.
DESIGN
We employed a systematic review approach to assess guiding principles and core components for CQI capacity-building as outlined in the literature.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Studies meeting the following criteria were eligible for review: (1) empirical, peer-reviewed journal article, evaluation study, review, or systematic review; (2) published in 2010 or later; and (3) capacity-building activities were described in enough detail to be replicable. Studies not including human subjects, published in a language other than English, or for which full text was not available were excluded.
STUDY SELECTION
The initial return of records included 6557 articles, of which 1455 were duplicates. The research team single-screened titles and abstracts of 5102 studies, resulting in the exclusion of 4842 studies. Two hundred sixty-two studies were double-screened during full-text review, yielding a final sample of 61 studies from which data were extracted.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Outcome measures of interest were operationalized descriptions of guiding principles and core components of the CQI capacity-building approach.
RESULTS
Results yielded articles from medical education, health care, and public health settings. Findings included guiding principles and core components of CQI capacity-building identified in current practice, as well as infrastructural and contextual elements needed to build CQI capacity.
CONCLUSIONS
This consolidation of guiding principles and core components for CQI capacity-building is valuable for public health and related workforces. Despite the uneven distribution of articles from health care, medical education, and public health settings, our findings can be used to guide public health organizations in building CQI capacity in a well-informed, systematic manner.
Topics: Capacity Building; Delivery of Health Care; Humans; Public Health; Quality Improvement
PubMed: 34520447
DOI: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000001412 -
Anales de Pediatria (Barcelona, Spain :... Apr 2017To update the literature review on the effectiveness of clinical interventions on childhood obesity, proposed in Clinical Practice Guidelines, excluding prevention and... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To update the literature review on the effectiveness of clinical interventions on childhood obesity, proposed in Clinical Practice Guidelines, excluding prevention and pharmacological and surgical treatments.
METHOD
A systematic review was carried out in electronic databases of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, and SCOPUS, replicating the search for the Clinical Practice Guidelines, from 2009 to 2014. The Clinical Practice Guidelines of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence were taken as a reference. Systematic reviews were given priority, and the quality of the studies was assessed.
RESULTS
Out of a total of 3,703 documents initially identified, 48 were finally included. Studies showed great heterogeneity in the type and duration of interventions, and in outcome measures. Adherence to treatment was, in general, low. Multi-component interventions including diet, physical activity, sedentary lifestyle, and behaviour changes, involving the family, and starting at early ages, were the most effective for reducing body mass index. There is no consensus on criteria for referral to specialised care.
CONCLUSIONS
It is recommended to implement multi-component programs conducted by professionals with previous training, involving the family, and addressing behavioural, individual and socio-demographic aspects. Lack of adherence is one of the reasons for failure of interventions. Diagnostic and referral criteria, the outcome measures, and the type and duration of interventions need to be improved and standardised.
Topics: Child; Humans; Overweight; Pediatric Obesity; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27117539
DOI: 10.1016/j.anpedi.2016.03.012 -
Brain Sciences Nov 2022Thyroid hormone (TH) augmentation, although commonly used for major depression, is sparingly used for bipolar disorder (BD) after the failure of mood-stabilizing agents.... (Review)
Review
Thyroid hormone (TH) augmentation, although commonly used for major depression, is sparingly used for bipolar disorder (BD) after the failure of mood-stabilizing agents. While the exact mechanisms of thyroid hormone action in BD remains unclear, central thyroid hormone deficit has been postulated as a mechanism for rapid cycling. This systematic review-conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines-of eight studies synthesizes the evidence for TH augmentation in BD. A systematic search of the Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCT), open-label trials, and observational studies of levothyroxine (LT4) and triiodothyronine (T3) for BD. Open-label studies of high dose LT4 augmentation for bipolar depression and rapid cycling showed improvement in depression outcomes and reduction in recurrence, respectively. However, an RCT of high-dose LT4 did not show benefit in contrast to placebo. An RCT comparing LT4, T3, and placebo showed benefit only in rapid-cycling bipolar women. A meta-analysis could not be completed due to significant differences in study designs, interventions, and outcomes. Our systematic review shows mixed evidence and a lack of high-quality studies. The initial promise of supratherapeutic LT4 augmentation from open-label trials has not been consistently replicated in RCTs. Limited data are available for T3. The studies did not report significant thyrotoxicosis, and TH augmentation were well tolerated. Therefore, TH augmentation, especially with supratherapeutic doses, should be reserved for highly treatment-resistant bipolar depression and rapid-cycling BD.
PubMed: 36421864
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12111540