-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Acne scarring is a frequent complication of acne and resulting scars may negatively impact on an affected person's psychosocial and physical well-being. Although a wide... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acne scarring is a frequent complication of acne and resulting scars may negatively impact on an affected person's psychosocial and physical well-being. Although a wide range of interventions have been proposed, there is a lack of high-quality evidence on treatments for acne scars to better inform patients and their healthcare providers about the most effective and safe methods of managing this condition. This review aimed to examine treatments for atrophic and hypertrophic acne scars, but we have concentrated on facial atrophic scarring.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions for treating acne scars.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to November 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched five trials registers, and checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for further references to randomised controlled trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which allocated participants (whether split-face or parallel arms) to any active intervention (or a combination) for treating acne scars. We excluded studies dealing only or mostly with keloid scars.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently extracted data from each of the studies included in this review and evaluated the risks of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion and arbitration supported by a method expert as required. Our primary outcomes were participant-reported scar improvement and any adverse effects serious enough to cause participants to withdraw from the study.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 24 trials with 789 adult participants aged 18 years or older. Twenty trials enrolled men and women, three trials enrolled only women and one trial enrolled only men. We judged eight studies to be at low risk of bias for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. With regard to blinding we judged 17 studies to be at high risk of performance bias, because the participants and dermatologists were not blinded to the treatments administered or received; however, we judged all 24 trials to be at a low risk of detection bias for outcome assessment. We evaluated 14 comparisons of seven interventions and four combinations of interventions. Nine studies provided no usable data on our outcomes and did not contribute further to this review's results.For our outcome 'Participant-reported scar improvement' in one study fractional laser was more effective in producing scar improvement than non-fractional non-ablative laser at week 24 (risk ratio (RR) 4.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 12.84; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); fractional laser showed comparable scar improvement to fractional radiofrequency in one study at week eight (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.68; n = 40; very low-quality evidence) and was comparable to combined chemical peeling with skin needling in a different study at week 48 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67; n = 26; very low-quality evidence). In a further study chemical peeling showed comparable scar improvement to combined chemical peeling with skin needling at week 32 (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.75; n = 20; very low-quality evidence). Chemical peeling in one study showed comparable scar improvement to skin needling at week four (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; n = 27; very low-quality evidence). In another study, injectable fillers provided better scar improvement compared to placebo at week 24 (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.59; n = 147 moderate-quality evidence).For our outcome 'Serious adverse effects' in one study chemical peeling was not tolerable in 7/43 (16%) participants (RR 5.45, 95% CI 0.33 to 90.14; n = 58; very low-quality evidence).For our secondary outcome 'Participant-reported short-term adverse events', all participants reported pain in the following studies: in one study comparing fractional laser to non-fractional non-ablative laser (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); in another study comparing fractional laser to combined peeling plus needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; n = 25; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling plus needling to chemical peeling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.20; n = 20; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling to skin needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.15; n = 27; very low-quality evidence); and also in a study comparing injectable filler and placebo (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.10 to 11.10; n = 147; low-quality evidence).For our outcome 'Investigator-assessed short-term adverse events', fractional laser (6/32) was associated with a reduced risk of hyperpigmentation than non-fractional non-ablative laser (10/32) in one study (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.45; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); chemical peeling was associated with increased risk of hyperpigmentation (6/12) compared to skin needling (0/15) in one study (RR 16.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 258.36; n = 27; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in the reported adverse events with injectable filler (17/97) compared to placebo (13/50) (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.27; n = 147; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a lack of high-quality evidence about the effects of different interventions for treating acne scars because of poor methodology, underpowered studies, lack of standardised improvement assessments, and different baseline variables.There is moderate-quality evidence that injectable filler might be effective for treating atrophic acne scars; however, no studies have assessed long-term effects, the longest follow-up being 48 weeks in one study only. Other studies included active comparators, but in the absence of studies that establish efficacy compared to placebo or sham interventions, it is possible that finding no evidence of difference between two active treatments could mean that neither approach works. The results of this review do not provide support for the first-line use of any intervention in the treatment of acne scars.Although our aim was to identify important gaps for further primary research, it might be that placebo and or sham trials are needed to establish whether any of the active treatments produce meaningful patient benefits over the long term.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Adult; Atrophy; Catheter Ablation; Chemexfoliation; Cicatrix; Cosmetic Techniques; Dermal Fillers; Female; Humans; Hypertrophy; Laser Therapy; Male; Needles; Young Adult
PubMed: 27038134
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011946.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Various rehabilitation treatments may be offered following carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) surgery. The effectiveness of these interventions remains unclear. This is the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Various rehabilitation treatments may be offered following carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) surgery. The effectiveness of these interventions remains unclear. This is the first update of a review first published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To review the effectiveness and safety of rehabilitation interventions following CTS surgery compared with no treatment, placebo, or another intervention.
SEARCH METHODS
On 29 September 2015, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, AMED, LILACS, and PsycINFO. We also searched PEDro (3 December 2015) and clinical trials registers (3 December 2015).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials that compared any postoperative rehabilitation intervention with either no intervention, placebo, or another postoperative rehabilitation intervention in individuals who had undergone CTS surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for primary outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach according to standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
In this review we included 22 trials with a total of 1521 participants. Two of the trials were newly identified at this update. We studied different rehabilitation treatments including immobilisation using a wrist orthosis, dressings, exercise, controlled cold therapy, ice therapy, multi-modal hand rehabilitation, laser therapy, electrical modalities, scar desensitisation, and arnica. Three trials compared a rehabilitation treatment to a placebo, four compared rehabilitation to a no treatment control, three compared rehabilitation to standard care, and 15 compared various rehabilitation treatments to one another.Overall, the included studies were very low in quality. Thirteen trials explicitly reported random sequence generation; of these, five adequately concealed the allocation sequence. Four trials achieved blinding of both participants and outcome assessors. Five were at high risk of bias from incompleteness of outcome data at one or more time intervals, and eight had high risk of selective reporting bias.These trials were heterogeneous in terms of treatments provided, duration of interventions, the nature and timing of outcomes measured, and setting. Therefore, we were not able to pool results across trials.Four trials reported our primary outcome, change in self reported functional ability at three months or more. Of these, three trials provided sufficient outcome data for inclusion in this review. One small high-quality trial studied a desensitisation programme compared with standard treatment and revealed no statistically significant functional benefit based on the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) (mean difference (MD) -0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.39 to 0.33). One low-quality trial assessed participants six months post surgery using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and found no significant difference between a no formal therapy group and a group given a two-week course of multi-modal therapy commenced at five to seven days post surgery (MD 1.00, 95% CI -4.44 to 6.44). One very low-quality quasi-randomised trial found no statistically significant difference in function on the BCTQ at three months post surgery with early immobilisation (plaster wrist orthosis worn until suture removal) compared with a splint and late mobilisation (MD 0.39, 95% CI -0.45 to 1.23).Differences between treatments for secondary outcome measures (change in self reported functional ability measured at less than three months; change in CTS symptoms; change in CTS-related impairment measures; presence of iatrogenic symptoms from surgery; return to work or occupation; and change in neurophysiological parameters) were generally small and not statistically significant. Few studies reported adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited and, in general, low quality evidence for the benefit of the reviewed interventions. People who have undergone CTS surgery should be informed about the limited evidence of effectiveness of postoperative rehabilitation interventions. Until researchers provide results of more high-quality trials that assess the effectiveness and safety of various rehabilitation treatments, the decision to provide rehabilitation following CTS surgery should be based on the clinician's expertise, the patient's preferences and the context of the rehabilitation environment. It is important for researchers to identify patients who respond to a particular treatment and those who do not, and to undertake high-quality studies that evaluate the severity of iatrogenic symptoms from surgery, measure function and return-to-work rates, and control for confounding variables.
Topics: Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; Female; Humans; Male; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Postoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rehabilitation
PubMed: 26884379
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004158.pub3 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Apr 2023The axillary web syndrome (AWS) is a surgical breast cancer sequel that limits the functionality of the patient and delays the protocol times of application of cancer... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The axillary web syndrome (AWS) is a surgical breast cancer sequel that limits the functionality of the patient and delays the protocol times of application of cancer treatments. This implies a long period of discomfort and limitations for the user.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the different physiotherapy treatments for the AWS and how effective they are.
METHODS
A systematic review based on PRISMA protocol and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021281354) was conducted. The research was performed using PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, PEDro, and Web of Science databases during January 2022 and March 2022. All randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials were included in this review.
RESULTS
A total of 188 articles were identified, with 9 studies selected for the systematic review. These studies basically propose treatments based on exercises and stretching, manual therapy, and the combination of manual therapy and exercises.
CONCLUSIONS
Exercise and stretching are the most effective therapies within the field of physiotherapy for the rehabilitation of axillary web syndrome. They restore range of motion faster, reduce pain, improve quality of life, and reduce disabilities. Manual therapy, scar massage, and myofascial release could help improve outcomes but with worse results. The meta-analysis conclusion is that pain is the only outcome with a significant reduction after the application of physiotherapy treatments - 0.82 [- 1.67; 0.03]. This conclusion is drawn from the only three studies with small sample sizes.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Physical Therapy Modalities; Exercise Therapy; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Pain
PubMed: 37043039
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-07666-x -
Medical Science Monitor : International... Apr 2019BACKGROUND The optimal treatment for hypertrophic scar and keloid remains controversial. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Intralesional Injection of Botulinum Toxin Type A Compared with Intralesional Injection of Corticosteroid for the Treatment of Hypertrophic Scar and Keloid: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND The optimal treatment for hypertrophic scar and keloid remains controversial. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the effectiveness of intralesional injection of botulinum toxin type A compared with placebo and intralesional injection of corticosteroid compared with placebo in patients with hypertrophic scar and keloid. MATERIAL AND METHODS Six databases were searched using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) keywords and included Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, WanFang, and CNKI from their inception to March 1 2019, without language restriction. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective controlled trials (PCTs) were identified that compared intralesional injection of botulinum toxin type A with placebo and corticosteroid with placebo in hypertrophic scar and keloid. The quality of controlled trials was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS Comparison of intralesional botulinum toxin type A and corticosteroid showed significant differences in the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (P<0.001) (WMD, -4.30; 95% CI, -4.44 to -4.16) and effective rate (P=0.012) (RR=0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.96). Intralesional injection of botulinum toxin type A compared with placebo showed significant differences in the VAS (P<0.001) (WMD, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.21-1.62), the width of scar (P=0.00) (WMD, -0.15; 95% CI, -0.19 to -0.10) and Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) (P=0.003) (WMD, -0.69; 95% CI, -1.14 to -0.23). CONCLUSIONS Systematic review and meta-analysis showed that injection of intralesional botulinum toxin type A was more effective in the treatment of hypertrophic scar and keloid than injection of intralesional corticosteroid or placebo.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Cicatrix, Hypertrophic; Humans; Injections, Intralesional; Keloid; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31006769
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.916305 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Various rehabilitation treatments may be offered following surgery for flexor tendon injuries of the hand. Rehabilitation often includes a combination of an exercise... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Various rehabilitation treatments may be offered following surgery for flexor tendon injuries of the hand. Rehabilitation often includes a combination of an exercise regimen and an orthosis, plus other rehabilitation treatments, usually delivered together. The effectiveness of these interventions remains unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of different rehabilitation interventions after surgery for flexor tendon injuries of the hand.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase, two additional databases and two international trials registries, unrestricted by language. The last date of searches was 11 August 2020. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared any postoperative rehabilitation intervention with no intervention, control, placebo, or another postoperative rehabilitation intervention in individuals who have had surgery for flexor tendon injuries of the hand. Trials comparing different mobilisation regimens either with another mobilisation regimen or with a control were the main comparisons of interest. Our main outcomes of interest were patient-reported function, active range of motion of the fingers, and number of participants experiencing an adverse event.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for primary outcomes using the GRADE approach, according to standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 RCTs and one quasi-RCT, with a total of 1108 participants, mainly adults. Overall, the participants were aged between 7 and 72 years, and 74% were male. Studies mainly focused on flexor tendon injuries in zone II. The 17 studies were heterogeneous with respect to the types of rehabilitation treatments provided, intensity, duration of treatment and the treatment setting. Each trial tested one of 14 comparisons, eight of which were of different exercise regimens. The other trials examined the timing of return to unrestricted functional activities after surgery (one study); the use of external devices applied to the participant to facilitate mobilisation, such as an exoskeleton (one study) or continuous passive motion device (one study); modalities such as laser therapy (two studies) or ultrasound therapy (one study); and a motor imagery treatment (one study). No trials tested different types of orthoses; different orthosis wearing regimens, including duration; different timings for commencing mobilisation; different types of scar management; or different timings for commencing strengthening. Trials were generally at high risk of bias for one or more domains, including lack of blinding, incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting. Data pooling was limited to tendon rupture data in a three trial comparison. We rated the evidence available for all reported outcomes of all comparisons as very low-certainty evidence, which means that we have very little confidence in the estimates of effect. We present the findings from three exercise regimen comparisons, as these are commonly used in clinical current practice. Early active flexion plus controlled passive exercise regimen versus early controlled passive exercise regimen (modified Kleinert protocol) was compared in one trial of 53 participants with mainly zone II flexor tendon repairs. There is very low-certainty evidence of no clinically important difference between the two groups in patient-rated function or active finger range of motion at 6 or 12 months follow-up. There is very low-certainty evidence of little between-group difference in adverse events: there were 15 overall. All three tendon ruptures underwent secondary surgery. An active exercise regimen versus an immobilisation regimen for three weeks was compared in one trial reporting data for 84 participants with zone II flexor tendon repairs. The trial did not report on self-rated function, on range of movement during three to six months or numbers of participants experiencing adverse events. The very low-certainty evidence for poor (under one-quarter that of normal) range of finger movement at one to three years follow-up means we are uncertain of the finding of zero cases in the active group versus seven cases in the immobilisation regimen. The same uncertainty applies to the finding of little difference between the two groups in adverse events (5 tendon ruptures in the active group versus 10 probable scar adhesion in the immobilisation group) indicated for surgery. Place and hold exercise regimen performed within an orthosis versus a controlled passive regimen using rubber band traction was compared in three heterogeneous trials, which reported data for a maximum of 194 participants, with mainly zone II flexor tendon repairs. The trials did not report on range of movement during three to six months, or numbers of participants experiencing adverse events. There was very low-certainty evidence of no difference in self-rated function using the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) functional assessment between the two groups at six months (one trial) or at 12 months (one trial). There is very low-certainty evidence from one trial of greater active finger range of motion at 12 months after place and hold. Secondary surgery data were not available; however, all seven recorded tendon ruptures would have required surgery. All the evidence for the other five exercise comparisons as well as those of the other six comparisons made by the included studies was incomplete and, where available, of very low-certainty.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a lack of evidence from RCTs on most of the rehabilitation interventions used following surgery for flexor tendon injuries of the hand. The limited and very low-certainty evidence for all 14 comparisons examined in the 17 included studies means that we have very little confidence in the estimates of effect for all outcomes for which data were available for these comparisons. The dearth of evidence identified in this review points to the urgent need for sufficiently powered RCTs that examine key questions relating to the rehabilitation of these injuries. A consensus approach identifying these and establishing minimum study conduct and reporting criteria will be valuable. Our suggestions for future research are detailed in the review.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Bias; Child; Exercise Therapy; Exoskeleton Device; Female; Hand Injuries; Humans; Immobilization; Laser Therapy; Male; Middle Aged; Muscle Contraction; Postoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Range of Motion, Articular; Rupture; Tendon Injuries; Ultrasonic Therapy; Young Adult
PubMed: 33434949
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012479.pub2 -
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Oct 2018Recent investigations on the biochemical pathways after a musculoskeletal injury have suggested that vitamin C (ascorbic acid) may be a viable supplement to enhance... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Recent investigations on the biochemical pathways after a musculoskeletal injury have suggested that vitamin C (ascorbic acid) may be a viable supplement to enhance collagen synthesis and soft tissue healing.
PURPOSE
To (1) summarize vitamin C treatment protocols; (2) report on the efficacy of vitamin C in accelerating healing after bone, tendon, and ligament injuries in vivo and in vitro; and (3) report on the efficacy of vitamin C as an antioxidant protecting against fibrosis and promoting collagen synthesis.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed, with the inclusion criteria of animal and human studies on vitamin C supplementation after a musculoskeletal injury specific to collagen cross-linking, collagen synthesis, and biologic healing of the bone, ligament, and tendon.
RESULTS
The initial search yielded 286 articles. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 10 articles were included in the final analysis. Of the preclinical studies evaluating fracture healing, 2 studies reported significantly accelerated bone healing in the vitamin C supplementation group compared with control groups. The 2 preclinical studies evaluating tendon healing reported significant increases in type I collagen fibers and scar tissue formation with vitamin C compared with control groups. The 1 preclinical study after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction reported significant short-term (1-6 weeks) improvements in ACL graft incorporation in the vitamin C group compared with control groups; however, there was no long-term (42 weeks) difference. Of the clinical studies evaluating fracture healing, 1 study reported no significant differences in the rate of fracture healing at 50 days or functional outcomes at 1 year. Vitamin C supplementation was shown to decrease oxidative stress parameters by neutralizing reactive oxygen species through redox modulation in animal models. No animal or human studies reported any adverse effects of vitamin C supplementation.
CONCLUSION
Preclinical studies demonstrated that vitamin C has the potential to accelerate bone healing after a fracture, increase type I collagen synthesis, and reduce oxidative stress parameters. No adverse effects were reported with vitamin C supplementation in either animal models or human participants; thus, oral vitamin C appears to be a safe supplement but lacks clinical evidence compared with controls. Because of the limited number of human studies, further clinical investigations are needed before the implementation of vitamin C as a postinjury supplement.
PubMed: 30386805
DOI: 10.1177/2325967118804544 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Acne is a common, economically burdensome condition that can cause psychological harm and, potentially, scarring. Topical benzoyl peroxide (BPO) is a widely used acne... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acne is a common, economically burdensome condition that can cause psychological harm and, potentially, scarring. Topical benzoyl peroxide (BPO) is a widely used acne treatment; however, its efficacy and safety have not been clearly evaluated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of BPO for acne.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to February 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that compared topical BPO used alone (including different formulations and concentrations of BPO) or as part of combination treatment against placebo, no treatment, or other active topical medications for clinically diagnosed acne (used alone or in combination with other topical drugs not containing BPO) on the face or trunk.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. Primary outcome measures were 'participant global self-assessment of acne improvement' and 'withdrawal due to adverse events in the whole course of a trial'. 'Percentage of participants experiencing any adverse event in the whole course of a trial' was a key secondary outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 120 trials (29,592 participants randomised in 116 trials; in four trials the number of randomised participants was unclear). Ninety-one studies included males and females. When reported, 72 trials included participants with mild to moderate acne, 26 included participants with severe acne, and the mean age of participants ranged from 18 to 30 years. Our included trials assessed BPO as monotherapy, as add-on treatment, or combined with other active treatments, as well as BPO of different concentrations and BPO delivered through different vehicles. Comparators included different concentrations or formulations of BPO, placebo, no treatment, or other active treatments given alone or combined. Treatment duration in 80 trials was longer than eight weeks and was only up to 12 weeks in 108 trials. Industry funded 50 trials; 63 trials did not report funding. We commonly found high or unclear risk of performance, detection, or attrition bias. Trial setting was under-reported but included hospitals, medical centres/departments, clinics, general practices, and student health centres. We reported on outcomes assessed at the end of treatment, and we classified treatment periods as short-term (two to four weeks), medium-term (five to eight weeks), or long-term (longer than eight weeks). For 'participant-reported acne improvement', BPO may be more effective than placebo or no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 1.45; 3 RCTs; 2234 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks; low-certainty evidence). Based on low-certainty evidence, there may be little to no difference between BPO and adapalene (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.10; 5 RCTs; 1472 participants; treatment for 11 to 12 weeks) or between BPO and clindamycin (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.34; 1 RCT; 240 participants; treatment for 10 weeks) (outcome not reported for BPO versus erythromycin or salicylic acid). For 'withdrawal due to adverse effects', risk of treatment discontinuation may be higher with BPO compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.55 to 2.93; 24 RCTs; 13,744 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks; low-certainty evidence); the most common causes of withdrawal were erythema, pruritus, and skin burning. Only very low-certainty evidence was available for the following comparisons: BPO versus adapalene (RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.94 to 3.64; 11 RCTs; 3295 participants; treatment for 11 to 24 weeks; causes of withdrawal not clear), BPO versus clindamycin (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.90 to 4.11; 8 RCTs; 3330 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks; causes of withdrawal included local hypersensitivity, pruritus, erythema, face oedema, rash, and skin burning), erythromycin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.26; 1 RCT; 60 participants; treatment for 8 weeks; withdrawal due to dermatitis), and salicylic acid (no participants had adverse event-related withdrawal; 1 RCT; 59 participants; treatment for 12 weeks). There may be little to no difference between these groups in terms of withdrawal; however, we are unsure of the results because the evidence is of very low certainty. For 'proportion of participants experiencing any adverse event', very low-certainty evidence leaves us uncertain about whether BPO increased adverse events when compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.70; 21 RCTs; 11,028 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks), with adapalene (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.00; 7 RCTs; 2120 participants; treatment for 11 to 24 weeks), with erythromycin (no participants reported any adverse events; 1 RCT; 89 participants; treatment for 10 weeks), or with salicylic acid (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 93.67; 1 RCT; 41 participants; treatment for 6 weeks). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that the risk of adverse events may be increased for BPO versus clindamycin (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.58; 6 RCTs; 3018 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks); however, the 95% CI indicates that BPO might make little to no difference. Most reported adverse events were mild to moderate, and local dryness, irritation, dermatitis, erythema, application site pain, and pruritus were the most common.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence suggests that BPO as monotherapy or add-on treatment may be more effective than placebo or no treatment for improving acne, and there may be little to no difference between BPO and either adapalene or clindamycin. Our key efficacy evidence is based on participant self-assessment; trials of BPO versus erythromycin or salicylic acid did not report this outcome. For adverse effects, the evidence is very uncertain regarding BPO compared with adapalene, erythromycin, or salicylic acid. However, risk of treatment discontinuation may be higher with BPO compared with placebo or no treatment. Withdrawal may be linked to tolerability rather than to safety. Risk of mild to moderate adverse events may be higher with BPO compared with clindamycin. Further trials should assess the comparative effects of different preparations or concentrations of BPO and combination BPO versus monotherapy. These trials should fully assess and report adverse effects and patient-reported outcomes measured on a standardised scale.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Adolescent; Adult; Benzoyl Peroxide; Cicatrix; Dermatologic Agents; Female; Humans; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 32175593
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011154.pub2 -
International Journal of Hyperthermia :... 2021Histotripsy is the first noninvasive, non-ionizing, and non-thermal ablation technology guided by real-time imaging. Using focused ultrasound delivered from outside the...
Histotripsy is the first noninvasive, non-ionizing, and non-thermal ablation technology guided by real-time imaging. Using focused ultrasound delivered from outside the body, histotripsy mechanically destroys tissue through cavitation, rendering the target into acellular debris. The material in the histotripsy ablation zone is absorbed by the body within 1-2 months, leaving a minimal remnant scar. Histotripsy has also been shown to stimulate an immune response and induce abscopal effects in animal models, which may have positive implications for future cancer treatment. Histotripsy has been investigated for a wide range of applications in preclinical studies, including the treatment of cancer, neurological diseases, and cardiovascular diseases. Three human clinical trials have been undertaken using histotripsy for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia, liver cancer, and calcified valve stenosis. This review provides a comprehensive overview of histotripsy covering the origin, mechanism, bioeffects, parameters, instruments, and the latest results on preclinical and human studies.
Topics: Ablation Techniques; Animals; High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation; Humans; Models, Animal; Neoplasms; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 33827375
DOI: 10.1080/02656736.2021.1905189 -
Annals of Oncology : Official Journal... Dec 2020Homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD) is a frequent feature of high-grade serous ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal carcinoma (HGSC) and is associated...
BACKGROUND
Homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD) is a frequent feature of high-grade serous ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal carcinoma (HGSC) and is associated with sensitivity to PARP inhibitor (PARPi) therapy. HRD testing provides an opportunity to optimise PARPi use in HGSC but methodologies are diverse and clinical application remains controversial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
To define best practice for HRD testing in HGSC the ESMO Translational Research and Precision Medicine Working Group launched a collaborative project that incorporated a systematic review approach. The main aims were to (i) define the term 'HRD test'; (ii) provide an overview of the biological rationale and the level of evidence supporting currently available HRD tests; (iii) provide recommendations on the clinical utility of HRD tests in clinical management of HGSC.
RESULTS
A broad range of repair genes, genomic scars, mutational signatures and functional assays are associated with a history of HRD. Currently, the clinical validity of HRD tests in ovarian cancer is best assessed, not in terms of biological HRD status per se, but in terms of PARPi benefit. Clinical trials evidence supports the use of BRCA mutation testing and two commercially available assays that also incorporate genomic instability for identifying subgroups of HGSCs that derive different magnitudes of benefit from PARPi therapy, albeit with some variation by clinical scenario. These tests can be used to inform treatment selection and scheduling but their use is limited by a failure to consistently identify a subgroup of patients who derive no benefit from PARPis in most studies. Existing tests lack negative predictive value and inadequately address the complex and dynamic nature of the HRD phenotype.
CONCLUSIONS
Currently available HRD tests are useful for predicting likely magnitude of benefit from PARPis but better biomarkers are urgently needed to better identify current homologous recombination proficiency status and stratify HGSC management.
Topics: Biomarkers; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Female; Homologous Recombination; Humans; Ovarian Neoplasms; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors
PubMed: 33004253
DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.08.2102 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Feb 2022Acne is a chronic inflammatory disease that occurs in the sebaceous glands of the hair follicles. Depressed acne scars, also known as depressed scars, remain after... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acne is a chronic inflammatory disease that occurs in the sebaceous glands of the hair follicles. Depressed acne scars, also known as depressed scars, remain after recovery. Clinical treatments of depressed scars include chemical peels, surgical treatments, radio frequency treatments, and laser treatments. Ultra-pulse carbon dioxide (CO2) fractional laser treatment has become the main method for treating depressed scars in recent years, but there are no systematic reports on the effectiveness and safety of this treatment.
METHODS
English databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Ovid-Medline, were searched to retrieve relevant articles. The search period ran from the establishment of the databases to April 2021. The search terms included CO2 lattice laser, depressed acne scars, depressed scars, and effectiveness.
RESULTS
A total of 6 articles comprising 467 patients with depressed acne scars were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that patients treated with ultra-pulsed CO2 fractionated laser scored higher in skin smoothness compared to other methods [standard mean difference (SMD) =0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.13-0.84; P=0.008], and significantly higher total skin lesion scores (SMD =0.35, 95% CI: -0.00 to 0.70; P=0.05).
DISCUSSION
A total of 6 articles were included in this study on the clinical efficacy of the ultra-pulse CO2 fractional laser in the treatment of depressed acne scars. The study found that compared to other treatments, this laser had a better curative effect in terms of the effective rate and patient skin smoothness score.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Carbon Dioxide; Cicatrix; Humans; Lasers, Gas; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35249351
DOI: 10.21037/apm-22-70