-
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Aug 2023Postoperative ileus is common after gastrointestinal surgery. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of gum chewing and coffee and caffeine intake... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative ileus is common after gastrointestinal surgery. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of gum chewing and coffee and caffeine intake on ileus-related outcomes.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing noninvasive treatments for ileus after gastrointestinal surgery. The main analyses included random effects network meta-analyses using frequentist methods with simultaneous direct and indirect comparisons of time to first flatus, time to first defecation, and length of stay. Bayesian network meta-analysis using Markov chains was also used.
RESULTS
A total of 32 RCTs comparing 4999 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. Time to flatus was reduced by gum chewing (mean difference compared to control (MD): -11 h, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) - 16 to - 5 h, P < 0.001). Time to defecation was reduced by gum chewing and coffee, with MDs of -18 h (95% CI - 23 to - 13 h, P < 0.001) and -13 h (95% CI - 24 to - 1 h, P < 0.001), respectively. Length of stay was reduced by coffee and gum chewing with MDs of - 1.5 days (95% CI: - 2.5 to - 0.6 days, P < 0.001) and - 0.9 days (95% CI: - 1.3 to - 0.4 days, P < 0.001), respectively.
CONCLUSION
Coffee and gum chewing were proven to be effective noninvasive approaches for shortening the postoperative length of hospital stay and time to first defecation, especially in open gastrointestinal surgery; thus these actions should be recommended after gastrointestinal surgery.
Topics: Humans; Defecation; Coffee; Network Meta-Analysis; Mastication; Flatulence; Ileus; Postoperative Complications; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Chewing Gum; Length of Stay; Gastrointestinal Motility
PubMed: 37277676
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-023-05702-z -
JAMA Psychiatry Dec 2023Every third to sixth patient with medical diseases receives antidepressants, but regulatory trials typically exclude comorbid medical diseases. Meta-analyses of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Every third to sixth patient with medical diseases receives antidepressants, but regulatory trials typically exclude comorbid medical diseases. Meta-analyses of antidepressants have shown small to medium effect sizes, but generalizability to clinical settings is unclear, where medical comorbidity is highly prevalent.
OBJECTIVE
To perform an umbrella systematic review of the meta-analytic evidence and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of antidepressant use in populations with medical diseases and comorbid depression.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception until March 31, 2023, for systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for treatment or prevention of comorbid depression in any medical disease.
STUDY SELECTION
Meta-analyses of placebo- or active-controlled RCTs studying antidepressants for depression in individuals with medical diseases.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data extraction and quality assessment using A Measurement Tool for the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2 and AMSTAR-Content) were performed by pairs of independent reviewers following PRISMA guidelines. When several meta-analyses studied the same medical disease, the largest meta-analysis was included. Random-effects meta-analyses pooled data on the primary outcome (efficacy), key secondary outcomes (acceptability and tolerability), and additional secondary outcomes (response and remission).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Antidepressant efficacy presented as standardized mean differences (SMDs) and tolerability (discontinuation for adverse effects) and acceptability (all-cause discontinuation) presented as risk ratios (RRs).
RESULTS
Of 6587 references, 176 systematic reviews were identified in 43 medical diseases. Altogether, 52 meta-analyses in 27 medical diseases were included in the evidence synthesis (mean [SD] AMSTAR-2 quality score, 9.3 [3.1], with a maximum possible of 16; mean [SD] AMSTAR-Content score, 2.4 [1.9], with a maximum possible of 9). Across medical diseases (23 meta-analyses), antidepressants improved depression vs placebo (SMD, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.30-0.54]; I2 = 76.5%), with the largest SMDs for myocardial infarction (SMD, 1.38 [95% CI, 0.82-1.93]), functional chest pain (SMD, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.08-1.67]), and coronary artery disease (SMD, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.32-1.33]) and the smallest for low back pain (SMD, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.17-0.39]) and traumatic brain injury (SMD, 0.08 [95% CI, -0.28 to 0.45]). Antidepressants showed worse acceptability (24 meta-analyses; RR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.02-1.32]) and tolerability (18 meta-analyses; RR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.13-1.64]) compared with placebo. Antidepressants led to higher rates of response (8 meta-analyses; RR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.14-1.94]) and remission (6 meta-analyses; RR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.25-1.61]) than placebo. Antidepressants more likely prevented depression than placebo (7 meta-analyses; RR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.33-0.53]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The results of this umbrella systematic review of meta-analyses found that antidepressants are effective and safe in treating and preventing depression in patients with comorbid medical disease. However, few large, high-quality RCTs exist in most medical diseases.
Topics: Humans; Antidepressive Agents; Comorbidity; Depression; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 37672261
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.2983 -
Ageing Research Reviews Feb 2024The comparative clinical utility of the disease-modifying treatments for mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease that are approved or under review by the Food... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparative efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of donanemab, lecanemab, aducanumab and lithium on cognitive function in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The comparative clinical utility of the disease-modifying treatments for mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease that are approved or under review by the Food and Drug Administration (i.e., donanemab, lecanemab and aducanumab), and lithium, which is a potential disease-modifying agent for this condition, remains elusive.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to compare the efficacy on cognitive decline, tolerability and acceptability of these drugs in this condition.
METHODS
We systematically searched in MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINHAL and ClinicalTrials,gov for randomized controlled trials from their inception to 7 November 2023, and then performed a random-effect network meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The analysis included 8 randomized placebo-controlled trials with 6547 participants. On the Mini-Mental State Examination, lithium significantly outperformed donanemab, aducanumab and placebo. On the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale, the efficacy of all active drugs was significantly higher than placebo. In addition, in the Clinical Dementia Rating sum of boxes, the efficacy of donanemab and lecanemab was significantly higher than placebo. Compared to placebo, donanemab and lecanemab were significantly less acceptable and tolerable. Aducanumab was also less well tolerated compared to placebo. There were no significant differences in the other comparisons.
CONCLUSION
Although it is yet to be determined which is more effective between lithium or lecanemab or donanemab, lithium may be more effective than aducanumab. Aducanumab, lecanemab and donanemab do not appear to differ in their effectiveness on cognitive function. Low-dose lithium may be safer than aducanumab, lecanemab and donanemab.
Topics: Humans; Alzheimer Disease; Lithium; Network Meta-Analysis; Cognitive Dysfunction; Cognition; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
PubMed: 38253184
DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2024.102203 -
Systematic Reviews Oct 2023Since 1997, several meta-analyses (MAs) of placebo-controlled randomised efficacy trials of homoeopathy for any indication (PRETHAIs) have been published with different...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Since 1997, several meta-analyses (MAs) of placebo-controlled randomised efficacy trials of homoeopathy for any indication (PRETHAIs) have been published with different methods, results and conclusions. To date, a formal assessment of these MAs has not been performed. The main objective of this systematic review of MAs of PRETHAIs was to evaluate the efficacy of homoeopathic treatment.
METHODS
The inclusion criteria were as follows: MAs of PRETHAIs in humans; all ages, countries, settings, publication languages; and MAs published from 1 Jan. 1990 to 30 Apr. 2023. The exclusion criteria were as follows: systematic reviews without MAs; MAs restricted to age or gender groups, specific indications, or specific homoeopathic treatments; and MAs that did not assess efficacy. We searched 8 electronic databases up to 14 Dec. 2020, with an update search in 6 databases up to 30 April 2023. The primary outcome was the effect estimate for all included trials in each MA and after restricting the sample to trials with high methodological quality, according to predefined criteria. The risk of bias for each MA was assessed by the ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews) tool. The quality of evidence was assessed by the GRADE framework. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the proportion of MAs showing a significant positive effect of homoeopathy vs. no significant difference.
RESULTS
Six MAs were included, covering individualised homoeopathy (I-HOM, n = 2), nonindividualised homoeopathy (NI-HOM, n = 1) and all homoeopathy types (ALL-HOM = I-HOM + NI-HOM, n = 3). The MAs comprised between 16 and 110 trials, and the included trials were published from 1943-2014. The median trial sample size ranged from 45 to 97 patients. The risk of bias (low/unclear/high) was rated as low for three MAs and high for three MAs. Effect estimates for all trials in each MA showed a significant positive effect of homoeopathy compared to placebo (5 of 5 MAs, no data in 1 MA). Sensitivity analyses with sample restriction to high-quality trials were available from 4 MAs; the effect remained significant in 3 of the MAs (2 MAs assessed ALL-HOM, 1 MA assessed I-HOM) and was no longer significant in 1 MA (which assessed NI-HOM).
DISCUSSION
The quality of evidence for positive effects of homoeopathy beyond placebo (high/moderate/low/very low) was high for I-HOM and moderate for ALL-HOM and NI-HOM. There was no support for the alternative hypothesis of no outcome difference between homoeopathy and placebo. The available MAs of PRETHAIs reveal significant positive effects of homoeopathy beyond placebo. This is in accordance with laboratory experiments showing partially replicable effects of homoeopathically potentised preparations in physico-chemical, in vitro, plant-based and animal-based test systems.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42020209661. The protocol for this SR was finalised and submitted on 25 Nov. 2020 and registered on 26 Dec. 2020.
Topics: Humans; Bias; Homeopathy; Research Design; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37805577
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02313-2 -
Archives of Physical Medicine and... Oct 2023To compare the efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation (NiBS) such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Non-invasive Brain Stimulation Techniques for the Improvement of Upper Limb Motor Function and Performance in Activities of Daily Living After Stroke: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation (NiBS) such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), theta-burst stimulation (TBS), and transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) in upper limb stroke rehabilitation.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched from January 2010 to June 2022.
DATA SELECTION
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of "tDCS", "rTMS", "TBS", or "taVNS" on upper limb motor function and performance in activities of daily livings (ADLs) after stroke.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.
DATA SYNTHESIS
87 RCTs with 3750 participants were included. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that all NiBS except continuous TBS (cTBS) and cathodal tDCS were significantly more efficacious than sham stimulation for motor function (standardized mean difference [SMD] range 0.42-1.20), whereas taVNS, anodal tDCS, and both low and high frequency rTMS were significantly more efficacious than sham stimulation for ADLs (SMD range 0.54-0.99). NMA showed that taVNS was more effective than cTBS (SMD:1.00; 95% CI (0.02-2.02)), cathodal tDCS (SMD:1.07; 95% CI (0.21-1.92)), and Physical rehabilitation alone (SMD:1.46; 95% CI (0.59-2.33)) for improving motor function. P-score found that taVNS is best ranked treatment in improving motor function (SMD: 1.20; 95% CI (0.46-1.95)) and ADLs (SMD:1.20; 95% CI (0.45-1.94)) after stroke. After taVNS, excitatory stimulation protocols (intermittent TBS, anodal tDCS, and HF-rTMS) are most effective in improving motor function and ADLs after acute/sub-acute (SMD range 0.53-1.63) and chronic stroke (SMD range 0.39-1.16).
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests that excitatory stimulation protocols are the most promising intervention in improving upper limb motor function and performance in ADLs. taVNS appeared to be a promising intervention for stroke patients, but further large RCTs are required to confirm its relative superiority.
Topics: Humans; Activities of Daily Living; Recovery of Function; Network Meta-Analysis; Stroke; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation; Stroke Rehabilitation; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Upper Extremity; Brain
PubMed: 37245690
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2023.04.027 -
European Journal of Neurology Dec 2023Therapy for myasthenia gravis (MG) is undergoing a profound change, with new treatments being tested. These include complement inhibitors and neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Therapy for myasthenia gravis (MG) is undergoing a profound change, with new treatments being tested. These include complement inhibitors and neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn) blockers. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis and network meta-analysis of randomized and placebo-controlled trials of innovative therapies in MG with available efficacy data.
METHODS
We assessed statistical heterogeneity across trials based on the Cochrane Q test and I values, and mean differences were pooled using the random-effects model. Treatment efficacy was assessed after 26 weeks of eculizumab and ravulizumab, 28 days of efgartigimod, 43 days of rozanolixizumab, 12 weeks of zilucoplan, and 16, 24 or 52 weeks of rituximab treatment.
RESULTS
We observed an overall mean Myasthenia Gravis-Activities of Daily Living scale (MG-ADL) score change of -2.17 points (95% confidence interval [CI] -2.67, -1.67; p < 0.001) as compared to placebo. No significant difference emerged between complement inhibitors and anti-FcRn treatment (p = 0.16). The change in Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis scale (QMG) score was -3.46 (95% CI -4.53, -2.39; p < 0.001), with a higher reduction with FcRns (-4.78 vs. -2.60; p < 0.001). Rituximab did not significantly improve the MG-ADL (-0.92 [95% CI -2.24, 0.39]; p = 0.17) or QMG scores (-1.9 [95% CI -3.97, 0.18]; p = 0.07). In the network meta-analysis, efgartigimod had the highest probability of being the best treatment, followed by rozanolixizumab.
CONCLUSION
Anti-complement and FcRn treatments both proved to be effective in MG patients, whereas rituximab did not show a significant benefit for patients. Within the limitations of this meta-analysis, including efficacy time points, FcRn treatments showed a greater effect on QMG score in the short term. Real-life studies with long-term measurements are needed to confirm our results.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Rituximab; Network Meta-Analysis; Activities of Daily Living; Myasthenia Gravis; Complement Inactivating Agents; Therapies, Investigational
PubMed: 37204031
DOI: 10.1111/ene.15872 -
International Journal of Nursing Studies Aug 2023The highly prevalent late-life loneliness, together with its deleterious health impacts, calls for increasing attention to the need for effective interventions targeting... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The highly prevalent late-life loneliness, together with its deleterious health impacts, calls for increasing attention to the need for effective interventions targeting on this growing public health problem. With the increasing evidence on interventions for combating loneliness, it is timely to identify their comparative effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review, meta-analysis and network meta-analysis was to identify and compare the effects of various non-pharmacological interventions on loneliness in community-dwelling older adults.
METHODS
Systematic search was conducted in nine electronic databases from inception to 30th March 2023 for studies investigating the effects of non-pharmacological interventions on loneliness among community-dwelling older adults. The interventions were categorized according to the nature and purpose of use. Pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analyses were sequentially performed to identify the effects of each category of interventions and their comparative intervention effectiveness, respectively. Meta-regression was performed to examine any influence of study design and participants' characteristics on the intervention effectiveness. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022307621).
RESULTS
A total of 60 studies with 13,295 participants were included. The interventions were categorized as psychological interventions, social support interventions (by digital and non-digital means), behavioral activation, exercise intervention with and without social engagement, multi-component intervention and health promotion. Pairwise meta-analysis identified the positive effect of psychological interventions (Hedges' g = -2.33; 95%CI [-4.40, -0.25]; Z = -2.20, p = 0.003), non-digital social support interventions (Hedges' g = -0.63; 95%CI [-1.16, -0.10]; Z = 2.33, p = 0.02) and multi-component interventions (Hedges' g = -0.28 95%CI [-0.54, -0.03]; Z = -2.15, p = 0.03) on reducing loneliness. Subgroup analysis provided additional insights: i) social support and exercise interventions which integrated active strategies to optimize the social engagement demonstrated more promising intervention effects; ii) behavioral activation and multicomponent interventions worked better for older adults who were male or reported loneliness, respectively, and iii) counseling-based psychological interventions was more effective than mind-body practice. Network meta-analysis consistently pointed to the greatest therapeutic benefits of psychological interventions, and this was followed by exercise-based interventions, non-digital social support interventions and behavioral activation. Meta-regression further suggested that the therapeutic effects of the tested interventions were independent of the various factors relating to study design and participants' characteristics.
CONCLUSIONS
This review highlights the more superior effects of psychological interventions in improving loneliness among older adults. Interventions which have an attribute to optimize social dynamic and connectivity may also be effective.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT
Psychological intervention is the best to beat late-life loneliness, but increasing social dynamic and connectivity may add an impact.
Topics: Male; Humans; Aged; Female; Loneliness; Network Meta-Analysis; Independent Living; Behavior Therapy; Social Support
PubMed: 37295285
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2023.104524 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2023Alopecia areata is an autoimmune disease leading to nonscarring hair loss on the scalp or body. There are different treatments including immunosuppressants, hair growth... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Alopecia areata is an autoimmune disease leading to nonscarring hair loss on the scalp or body. There are different treatments including immunosuppressants, hair growth stimulants, and contact immunotherapy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of the treatments for alopecia areata (AA), alopecia totalis (AT), and alopecia universalis (AU) in children and adults.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP were searched up to July 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated classical immunosuppressants, biologics, small molecule inhibitors, contact immunotherapy, hair growth stimulants, and other therapies in paediatric and adult populations with AA.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard procedures expected by Cochrane including assessment of risks of bias using RoB2 and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The primary outcomes were short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (between 12 and 26 weeks of follow-up), and incidence of serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (greater than 26 weeks of follow-up) and health-related quality of life. We could not perform a network meta-analysis as very few trials compared the same treatments. We presented direct comparisons and made a narrative description of the findings.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 63 studies that tested 47 different treatments in 4817 randomised participants. All trials used a parallel-group design except one that used a cross-over design. The mean sample size was 78 participants. All trials recruited outpatients from dermatology clinics. Participants were between 2 and 74 years old. The trials included patients with AA (n = 25), AT (n = 1), AU (n = 1), mixed cases (n = 31), and unclear types of alopecia (n = 4). Thirty-three out of 63 studies (52.3%) reported the proportion of participants achieving short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (between 12 and 26 weeks). Forty-seven studies (74.6%) reported serious adverse events and only one study (1.5%) reported health-related quality of life. Five studies (7.9%) reported the proportion of participants with long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (greater than 26 weeks). Amongst the variety of interventions found, we prioritised some groups of interventions for their relevance to clinical practice: systemic therapies (classical immunosuppressants, biologics, and small molecule inhibitors), and local therapies (intralesional corticosteroids, topical small molecule inhibitors, contact immunotherapy, hair growth stimulants and cryotherapy). Considering only the prioritised interventions, 14 studies from 12 comparisons reported short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% and 22 studies from 10 comparisons reported serious adverse events (18 reported zero events and 4 reported at least one). One study (1 comparison) reported quality of life, and two studies (1 comparison) reported long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75%. For the main outcome of short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75%, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of oral prednisolone or cyclosporine versus placebo (RR 4.68, 95% CI 0.57 to 38.27; 79 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), intralesional betamethasone or triamcinolone versus placebo (RR 13.84, 95% CI 0.87 to 219.76; 231 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), oral ruxolitinib versus oral tofacitinib (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.52; 80 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), diphencyprone or squaric acid dibutil ester versus placebo (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71; 99 participants; 1 study; very-low-certainty evidence), diphencyprone or squaric acid dibutyl ester versus topical minoxidil (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71; 99 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), diphencyprone plus topical minoxidil versus diphencyprone (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.44; 30 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), topical minoxidil 1% and 2% versus placebo (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.96; 202 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and cryotherapy versus fractional CO2 laser (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.86; 80 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests oral betamethasone may increase short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% compared to prednisolone or azathioprine (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.88; 80 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between subcutaneous dupilumab and placebo in short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (RR 3.59, 95% CI 0.19 to 66.22; 60 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) as well as between topical ruxolitinib and placebo (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 100.89; 78 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). However, baricitinib results in an increase in short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% when compared to placebo (RR 7.54, 95% CI 3.90 to 14.58; 1200 participants; 2 studies; high-certainty evidence). For the incidence of serious adverse events, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of topical ruxolitinib versus placebo (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.94; 78 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Baricitinib and apremilast may result in little to no difference in the incidence of serious adverse events versus placebo (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.60; 1224 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). The same result is observed for subcutaneous dupilumab compared to placebo (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.07 to 36.11; 60 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). For health-related quality of life, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of oral cyclosporine compared to placebo (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.07; very low-certainty evidence). Baricitinib results in an increase in long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% compared to placebo (RR 8.49, 95% CI 4.70 to 15.34; 1200 participants; 2 studies; high-certainty evidence). Regarding the risk of bias, the most relevant issues were the lack of details about randomisation and allocation concealment, the limited efforts to keep patients and assessors unaware of the assigned intervention, and losses to follow-up.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found that treatment with baricitinib results in an increase in short- and long-term hair regrowth compared to placebo. Although we found inconclusive results for the risk of serious adverse effects with baricitinib, the reported small incidence of serious adverse events in the baricitinib arm should be balanced with the expected benefits. We also found that the impact of other treatments on hair regrowth is very uncertain. Evidence for health-related quality of life is still scant.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Child, Preschool; Adolescent; Young Adult; Middle Aged; Aged; Alopecia Areata; Minoxidil; Network Meta-Analysis; Immunosuppressive Agents; Prednisolone; Betamethasone; Cyclosporins; Biological Products
PubMed: 37870096
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013719.pub2 -
Medicine Oct 2023Biological agents are commonly used for the first-line treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). However, small-molecule drugs and microbiome therapies are now being used as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative of the effectiveness and safety of biological agents, small molecule drugs, and microbiome therapies in ulcerative colitis: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Biological agents are commonly used for the first-line treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). However, small-molecule drugs and microbiome therapies are now being used as new treatments for ulcerative colitis. We aimed to compare the relative efficacy and safety of biologics, small-molecule drugs, and microbiome therapies for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed databases from their inception to December 2022. RCTs that recruited patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis treated with biological agents, small-molecule drugs, and microbiome therapies. Efficacy outcomes were induction of clinical remission and mucosal healing; safety outcomes were adverse events and serious adverse events. A network meta-analysis with multivariate consistency model random-effect meta-regression was done, with rankings based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values. Higher SUCRA scores correlate with better efficacy, whereas lower SUCRA scores correlate with better safety.
RESULTS
A total of 31 RCTs comprising 7933 UC patients were included in our studies. A risk of bias assessment showed a low risk of bias for most of the included studies. Upadacitinib ranked highest for induction of clinical remission (SUCRA, 0.83) and mucosal healing (SUCRA, 0.44). Moreover, no treatments were found to increase the occurrence of adverse events compared with placebos. Ustekinumab ranked lowest for adverse events (SUCRA 0.26) and probiotic ranked lowest for serious adverse events (0·21), whereas tofacitinib ranked highest for adverse events (0·43) and upadacitinib ranked highest for serious adverse events (0·43).
CONCLUSION
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we found upadacitinib to be ranked highest for the induction of clinical remission and mucosal healing, but the worst performing agent in terms of adverse events in UC patients. Probiotics were the best-performing agent for safety outcomes. More trials of direct comparisons are needed to inform clinical decision-making with greater confidence.
Topics: Humans; Biological Factors; Colitis, Ulcerative; Network Meta-Analysis; Ustekinumab; Biological Products
PubMed: 37904440
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000035689 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Nov 2023There are many injectable treatments for knee osteoarthritis with different characteristics and effects, the aim is to understand which one can lead to better and safer... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
There are many injectable treatments for knee osteoarthritis with different characteristics and effects, the aim is to understand which one can lead to better and safer results.
METHODS
The PRISMA principles were followed when doing the literature search. Web of Science databases, Embase, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and the Wanfang database were searched to identified randomized controlled trials that assessed the efficacy of corticosteroids (CSC), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), hyaluronic acid (HA), and combination therapy in treating KOA. Risk of bias was assessed using the relevant Cochrane tools (version 1.0). The outcome measure included the visual analog scale (VAS) score, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) score, and treatment-related adverse events. The network meta-analysis was performed using STATA17 software and a Bayesian stratified random effects model.
RESULTS
Network meta-analysis using the Bayesian random-effects model revealed 35 studies with 3104 participants. PRP showed the best WOMAC score at a 3-month follow-up, followed by PRP + HA, HA, placebo, and CSC; PRP + HA scored the highest VAS, followed by PRP, CSC, HA, and placebo. PRP, CSC, HA, and placebo had the highest WOMAC scores six months following treatment; PRP + HA showed the best VAS scores. PRP showed the best WOMAC score at 12 months, followed by PRP + HA, HA, placebo, and CSC; The best VAS score was obtained with PRP, followed by PRP + HA, HA, and CSC. No therapy demonstrated a rise in adverse events linked to the treatment in terms of safety.
CONCLUSIONS
The current study found that PRP and PRP + HA were the most successful in improving function and alleviating pain after 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up. CSC, HA, PRP, and combination therapy did not result in an increase in the incidence of treatment-related side events as compared to placebo.
Topics: Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Treatment Outcome; Injections, Intra-Articular; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Adrenal Cortex Hormones
PubMed: 38037038
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06925-6