-
Frontiers in Immunology 2023Tendinopathy is a growing global concern affecting many people, like athletes, workers, and the elderly. Despite its commonality among the sporting population, there is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Tendinopathy is a growing global concern affecting many people, like athletes, workers, and the elderly. Despite its commonality among the sporting population, there is no practical clinical guideline for patellar tendinopathy (PT). Furthermore, there is conflicting evidence between clinical guidelines on shockwave therapy's application and clinical utility for Achilles tendinopathy (AT) and plantar fasciitis (PF). Thus, our aim of this study is to evaluate the evidence for shockwave therapy; to provide a Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) level of the evidence and effectiveness of shockwave therapy for patellar tendinopathy, Achilles tendinopathy, and Plantar fasciitis.
METHOD
Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (Medline), Embase, The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure database (CNKI) were searched to find relevant studies published before December 14, 2022.
RESULTS
Our study showed that for PT in the short term, extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) or ESWT + eccentric exercise (EE) has a negligible effect on pain and function compared to a placebo or placebo + EE. On the contrary, ESWT significantly affects pain compared to conservative treatment (CT). For AT, ESWT has a small inconclusive effect on pain and function in the short term compared to EE. On the other hand, a placebo outperformed ESWT in improving function for AT but not pain outcomes. PF showed that ESWT significantly affects short- and long-term pain and function. When ESWT was compared to other interventions such as low laser therapy (LLLT), corticosteroid injection (CSI), or CT, there was a small inconclusive effect on pain and function in the short term.
CONCLUSION
There is low-moderate evidence that ESWT has a negligible effect on pain and function for PT and AT. However, high-quality evidence suggests ESWT has a large effect on pain and function for PF.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023396835, identifier CRD42023396835.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Achilles Tendon; Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy; Fasciitis, Plantar; High-Energy Shock Waves; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Tendinopathy
PubMed: 37662911
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1193835 -
The Lancet. Psychiatry Sep 2023Bipolar depression constitutes a major public health problem due to its substantial burden of disease. Although pharmacological interventions are available, guidelines... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Bipolar depression constitutes a major public health problem due to its substantial burden of disease. Although pharmacological interventions are available, guidelines required updated evidence synthesis to improve their current recommendations. In order to inform evidence-based prescribing, we investigated the comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar depression.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched for randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological interventions with each other or placebo in adults with acute bipolar depression (type I, type II, or not otherwise specified), excluding those with substance misuse, unipolar depression, or schizophrenia, in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, CINAHL, and LILACS from database inception up to April 13, 2023. Criteria for eligibility were a duration of 2-16 weeks with masked outcome assessments, and we included combination, add-on design, and monotherapy studies. The co-primary outcomes were depressive symptoms, examined with standardised mean differences (SMDs), and manic switch, examined with odds ratios (ORs). We also investigated dropouts due to any reason, inefficacy, adverse events, and important side-effects as secondary outcomes. The confidence in the evidence was evaluated using Confidence-In-Network-Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020171726.
RESULTS
We analysed data from 101 randomised controlled trials covering 20 081 participants, 8063 men (41·7%) and 11 263 women (58·3%; sex not available in four studies), mean age 41·0 years (range of means 28·7-53·6 years), and 68 medications and placebo. Ethnicity data were not available. With moderate confidence in the evidence, olanzapine plus fluoxetine, quetiapine, olanzapine, lurasidone, lumateperone, cariprazine, and lamotrigine were more efficacious than placebo in reducing depressive symptoms, with SMDs ranging from 0·41 (95% CI 0·19-0·64) for olanzapine plus fluoxetine to 0·16 (0·03-0·29) for lamotrigine. Several other drugs might also be efficacious, but the confidence in the evidence was very low to low. Antidepressants as a class seem to be efficacious, but had a higher risk for manic switch compared to antipsychotics. Medications differed in their side-effect profiles.
INTERPRETATION
This is, to our knowledge, the largest network meta-analysis of pharmacotherapy for bipolar depression to date. Olanzapine plus fluoxetine, quetiapine, olanzapine, lurasidone, lumateperone, cariprazine, and lamotrigine were found to be more efficacious than placebo in adults with acute bipolar depression, with good confidence in the evidence, and to differ in their side-effect profiles. These findings can inform evidence-based care and the development of treatment guidelines internationally.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Male; Adult; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Bipolar Disorder; Depression; Fluoxetine; Lamotrigine; Olanzapine; Lurasidone Hydrochloride; Quetiapine Fumarate; Network Meta-Analysis; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
PubMed: 37595997
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(23)00199-2 -
The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports... Jun 2024We aimed to quantify the proportion not attributable to the specific effects (PCE) of physical therapy interventions for musculoskeletal pain. Intervention systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Which Portion of Physiotherapy Treatments' Effect Is Not Attributable to the Specific Effects in People With Musculoskeletal Pain? A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials.
We aimed to quantify the proportion not attributable to the specific effects (PCE) of physical therapy interventions for musculoskeletal pain. Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched Ovid, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, PEDro, Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry, and SPORTDiscus databases from inception to April 2023. Randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating the effect of physical therapy interventions on musculoskeletal pain. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). The proportion of physical therapy interventions effect that was not explained by the specific effect of the intervention was calculated, using the proportion not attributable to the specific effects (PCE) metric, and a quantitative summary of the data from the studies was conducted using the random-effects inverse-variance model (Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method). Sixty-eight studies were included in the systematic review (participants: n = 5238), and 54 placebo-controlled trials informed our meta-analysis (participants: n = 3793). Physical therapy interventions included soft tissue techniques, mobilization, manipulation, taping, exercise therapy, and dry needling. Placebo interventions included manual, nonmanual interventions, or both. The proportion not attributable to the specific effects of mobilization accounted for 88% of the immediate overall treatment effect for pain intensity (PCE = 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57, 1.20). In exercise therapy, this proportion accounted for 46% of the overall treatment effect for pain intensity (PCE = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.52). The PCE in manipulation excelled in short-term pain relief (PCE = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.62, 1.01) and in mobilization in long-term effects (PCE = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.76, 0.96). In taping, the PCE accounted for 64% of disability improvement (PCE = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.48, 0.80). The outcomes of physical therapy interventions for musculoskeletal pain were significantly influenced by factors not attributable to the specific effects of the interventions. Boosting these factors consciously to enhance therapeutic outcomes represents an ethical opportunity that could benefit patients. .
Topics: Humans; Musculoskeletal Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Physical Therapy Modalities; Exercise Therapy
PubMed: 38602164
DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2024.12126 -
Journal of Asthma and Allergy 2023Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) is a key feature of asthma. Biologic therapies used to treat asthma target specific components of the inflammatory pathway, and their... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) is a key feature of asthma. Biologic therapies used to treat asthma target specific components of the inflammatory pathway, and their effects on AHR can provide valuable information about the underlying disease pathophysiology. This review summarizes the available evidence regarding the effects of biologics on allergen-specific and non-allergen-specific airway responses in patients with asthma.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, including risk-of-bias assessment. PubMed and Ovid were searched for studies published between January 1997 and December 2021. Eligible studies were randomized, placebo-controlled trials that assessed the effects of biologics on AHR, early allergic response (EAR) and/or late allergic response (LAR) in patients with asthma.
RESULTS
Thirty studies were identified for inclusion. Bronchoprovocation testing was allergen-specific in 18 studies and non-allergen-specific in 12 studies. Omalizumab reduced AHR to methacholine, acetylcholine or adenosine monophosphate (3/9 studies), and reduced EAR (4/5 studies) and LAR (2/3 studies). Mepolizumab had no effect on AHR (3/3 studies), EAR or LAR (1/1 study). Tezepelumab reduced AHR to methacholine or mannitol (3/3 studies), and reduced EAR and LAR (1/1 study). Pitrakinra reduced LAR, with no effect on AHR (1/1 study). Etanercept reduced AHR to methacholine (1/2 studies). No effects were observed for lebrikizumab, tocilizumab, efalizumab, IMA-638 and anti-OX40 ligand on AHR, EAR or LAR; benralizumab on LAR; tralokinumab on AHR; and Ro-24-7472 on AHR or LAR (all 1/1 study each). No dupilumab or reslizumab studies were identified.
CONCLUSION
Omalizumab and tezepelumab reduced EAR and LAR to allergens. Tezepelumab consistently reduced AHR to methacholine or mannitol. These findings provide insights into AHR mechanisms and the precise effects of asthma biologics. Furthermore, findings suggest that tezepelumab broadly targets allergen-specific and non-allergic forms of AHR, and the underlying cells and mediators involved in asthma.
PubMed: 37496824
DOI: 10.2147/JAA.S410592 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2023A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset and reaches a peak within 10 minutes. The main symptoms involve bodily systems, such as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset and reaches a peak within 10 minutes. The main symptoms involve bodily systems, such as racing heart, chest pain, sweating, shaking, dizziness, flushing, churning stomach, faintness and breathlessness. Other recognised panic attack symptoms involve fearful cognitions, such as the fear of collapse, going mad or dying, and derealisation (the sensation that the world is unreal). Panic disorder is common in the general population with a prevalence of 1% to 4%. The treatment of panic disorder includes psychological and pharmacological interventions, including antidepressants and benzodiazepines.
OBJECTIVES
To compare, via network meta-analysis, individual drugs (antidepressants and benzodiazepines) or placebo in terms of efficacy and acceptability in the acute treatment of panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. To rank individual active drugs for panic disorder (antidepressants, benzodiazepines and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To rank drug classes for panic disorder (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), mono-amine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and benzodiazepines (BDZs) and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To explore heterogeneity and inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence in a network meta-analysis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, CENTRAL, CDSR, MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and PsycINFO to 26 May 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people aged 18 years or older of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. We included trials that compared the effectiveness of antidepressants and benzodiazepines with each other or with a placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data and continuous data as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD): response to treatment (i.e. substantial improvement from baseline as defined by the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), total number of dropouts due to any reason (as a proxy measure of treatment acceptability: dichotomous outcome), remission (i.e. satisfactory end state as defined by global judgement of the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), panic symptom scales and global judgement (continuous outcome), frequency of panic attacks (as recorded, for example, by a panic diary; continuous outcome), agoraphobia (dichotomous outcome). We assessed the certainty of evidence using threshold analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
Overall, we included 70 trials in this review. Sample sizes ranged between 5 and 445 participants in each arm, and the total sample size per study ranged from 10 to 1168. Thirty-five studies included sample sizes of over 100 participants. There is evidence from 48 RCTs (N = 10,118) that most medications are more effective in the response outcome than placebo. In particular, diazepam, alprazolam, clonazepam, paroxetine, venlafaxine, clomipramine, fluoxetine and adinazolam showed the strongest effect, with diazepam, alprazolam and clonazepam ranking as the most effective. We found heterogeneity in most of the comparisons, but our threshold analyses suggest that this is unlikely to impact the findings of the network meta-analysis. Results from 64 RCTs (N = 12,310) suggest that most medications are associated with either a reduced or similar risk of dropouts to placebo. Alprazolam and diazepam were associated with a lower dropout rate compared to placebo and were ranked as the most tolerated of all the medications examined. Thirty-two RCTs (N = 8569) were included in the remission outcome. Most medications were more effective than placebo, namely desipramine, fluoxetine, clonazepam, diazepam, fluvoxamine, imipramine, venlafaxine and paroxetine, and their effects were clinically meaningful. Amongst these medications, desipramine and alprazolam were ranked highest. Thirty-five RCTs (N = 8826) are included in the continuous outcome reduction in panic scale scores. Brofaromine, clonazepam and reboxetine had the strongest reductions in panic symptoms compared to placebo, but results were based on either one trial or very small trials. Forty-one RCTs (N = 7853) are included in the frequency of panic attack outcome. Only clonazepam and alprazolam showed a strong reduction in the frequency of panic attacks compared to placebo, and were ranked highest. Twenty-six RCTs (N = 7044) provided data for agoraphobia. The strongest reductions in agoraphobia symptoms were found for citalopram, reboxetine, escitalopram, clomipramine and diazepam, compared to placebo. For the pooled intervention classes, we examined the two primary outcomes (response and dropout). The classes of medication were: SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs. For the response outcome, all classes of medications examined were more effective than placebo. TCAs as a class ranked as the most effective, followed by BDZs and MAOIs. SSRIs as a class ranked fifth on average, while SNRIs were ranked lowest. When we compared classes of medication with each other for the response outcome, we found no difference between classes. Comparisons between MAOIs and TCAs and between BDZs and TCAs also suggested no differences between these medications, but the results were imprecise. For the dropout outcome, BDZs were the only class associated with a lower dropout compared to placebo and were ranked first in terms of tolerability. The other classes did not show any difference in dropouts compared to placebo. In terms of ranking, TCAs are on average second to BDZs, followed by SNRIs, then by SSRIs and lastly by MAOIs. BDZs were associated with lower dropout rates compared to SSRIs, SNRIs and TCAs. The quality of the studies comparing antidepressants with placebo was moderate, while the quality of the studies comparing BDZs with placebo and antidepressants was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In terms of efficacy, SSRIs, SNRIs (venlafaxine), TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs may be effective, with little difference between classes. However, it is important to note that the reliability of these findings may be limited due to the overall low quality of the studies, with all having unclear or high risk of bias across multiple domains. Within classes, some differences emerged. For example, amongst the SSRIs paroxetine and fluoxetine seem to have stronger evidence of efficacy than sertraline. Benzodiazepines appear to have a small but significant advantage in terms of tolerability (incidence of dropouts) over other classes.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Panic Disorder; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Paroxetine; Fluoxetine; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors; Alprazolam; Clomipramine; Reboxetine; Clonazepam; Desipramine; Network Meta-Analysis; Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Benzodiazepines; Diazepam
PubMed: 38014714
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012729.pub3 -
Cureus Dec 2023With increasing life expectancy, the quest for skin rejuvenation has gained prominence among individuals of diverse age groups. The popularity of nutricosmetics, notably... (Review)
Review
With increasing life expectancy, the quest for skin rejuvenation has gained prominence among individuals of diverse age groups. The popularity of nutricosmetics, notably dietary supplements, has garnered significant attention in recent years. Many scientific investigations have amassed compelling evidence highlighting the positive impact of hydrolyzed collagen supplementation in mitigating the visible signs of skin aging. This study aims to know the powerful effect of hydrolyzed collagen on the skin. This research method is to conduct a systematic review followed by a meta-analysis of the clinical trial focusing on randomized, double-blind, and controlled trials that examined the oral consumption of hydrolyzed collagen and reported outcomes related to skin aging, wrinkles, moisture levels, elasticity, and firmness. The selected articles from CENTRAL, PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect databases were published from 2017 to 2023. The subsequent meta-analysis, comprising 14 distinct studies and a collective cohort of 967 participants, revealed encouraging findings favoring hydrolyzed collagen supplementation. It consistently demonstrated substantial enhancements in skin moisture levels and elasticity compared to the placebo group, a trend robustly corroborated by subgroup analysis. These compelling findings underscore the effectiveness of a 12-week regimen of hydrolyzed collagen supplementation in revitalizing the skin by augmenting its hydration and elasticity.
PubMed: 38192916
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.50231 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic antigen-mediated eosinophilic inflammatory disease isolated to the esophagus. As a clinicopathologic disorder, a diagnosis of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic antigen-mediated eosinophilic inflammatory disease isolated to the esophagus. As a clinicopathologic disorder, a diagnosis of EoE requires a constellation of clinical symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and histologic findings (at least 15 eosinophils/high-powered microscope field (eos/hpf)). Current guidelines no longer require the failure of response to proton pump inhibitor medications to establish a diagnosis of EoE, but continue to suggest the exclusion of other etiologies of esophageal eosinophilia. The treatment goals for EoE are improvement in clinical symptoms, resolution of esophageal eosinophilia and other histologic abnormalities, endoscopic improvement, improved quality of life, improved esophageal function, minimized adverse effects of treatment, and prevention of disease progression and subsequent complications. Currently, there is no cure for EoE, making long-term treatment necessary. Standard treatment modalities include dietary modifications, esophageal dilation, and pharmacologic therapy. Effective pharmacologic therapies include corticosteroids, rapidly emerging biological therapies, and proton pump inhibitor medications.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of medical interventions for people with eosinophilic esophagitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP to 3 March 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any medical intervention or food elimination diet for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis, either alone or in combination, to any other intervention (including placebo).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Pairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as a risk ratio (RR) and as the mean or standardized mean difference (MD/SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were: clinical, histological, and endoscopic improvement, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: serious and total adverse events, and quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 41 RCTs with 3253 participants. Eleven studies included pediatric patients while the rest recruited both children and adults. Four studies were in patients with inactive disease while the rest were in patients with active disease. We identified 19 intervention comparisons. In this abstract we present the results of the primary outcomes for the two main comparisons: corticosteroids versus placebo and biologics versus placebo, based on the prespecified outcomes defined of the primary studies. Fourteen studies compared corticosteroids to placebo for induction of remission and the risk of bias for these studies was mostly low. Corticosteroids may lead to slightly better clinical improvement (20% higher), measured dichotomously (risk ratio (RR) 1.74, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.80; 6 studies, 583 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 4; low certainty), and may lead to slightly better clinical improvement, measured continuously (standard mean difference (SMD) 0.51, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.85; 5 studies, 475 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids lead to a large histological improvement (63% higher), measured dichotomously (RR 11.94, 95% CI 6.56 to 21.75; 12 studies, 978 participants; NNTB = 3; high certainty), and may lead to histological improvement, measured continuously (SMD 1.42, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.82; 5 studies, 449 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids may lead to little to no endoscopic improvement, measured dichotomously (RR 2.60, 95% CI 0.82 to 8.19; 5 studies, 596 participants; low certainty), and may lead to endoscopic improvement, measured continuously (SMD 1.33, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.08; 5 studies, 596 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids may lead to slightly fewer withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.96; 14 studies, 1032 participants; low certainty). Nine studies compared biologics to placebo for induction of remission. Biologics may result in little to no difference in clinical improvement, measured dichotomously (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.52; 5 studies, 410 participants; low certainty), and may result in better clinical improvement, measured continuously (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.78; 7 studies, 387 participants; moderate certainty). Biologics result in better histological improvement (55% higher), measured dichotomously (RR 6.73, 95% CI 2.58 to 17.52; 8 studies, 925 participants; NNTB = 2; moderate certainty). We could not draw conclusions for this outcome when measured continuously (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.66; 6 studies, 370 participants; very low certainty). Biologics may result in little to no difference in endoscopic improvement, measured dichotomously (effect not estimable, low certainty). We cannot draw conclusions for this outcome when measured continuously (SMD 2.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 5.22; 1 study, 11 participants; very low certainty). There may be no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.74; 8 studies, 792 participants; low certainty).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Corticosteroids (as compared to placebo) may lead to clinical symptom improvement when reported both as dichotomous and continuous outcomes, from the primary study definitions. Corticosteroids lead to a large increase in histological improvement (dichotomous outcome) and may increase histological improvement (continuous outcome) when compared to placebo. Corticosteroids may or may not increase endoscopic improvement (depending on whether the outcome is measured dichotomously or continuously). Withdrawals due to adverse events (dichotomous outcome) may occur less frequently when corticosteroids are compared to placebo. Biologics (as compared to placebo) may not lead to clinical symptom improvement when reported as a dichotomous outcome and may lead to an increase in clinical symptom improvement (as a continuous outcome), from the primary study definitions. Biologics lead to a large increase in histological improvement when reported as a dichotomous outcome, but this is uncertain when reported as a continuous outcome, as compared to placebo. Biologics may not increase endoscopic improvement (dichotomous outcome), but this is uncertain when measured as a continuous outcome. Withdrawals due to adverse events as a dichotomous outcome may occur as frequently when biologics are compared to placebo.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Biological Products; Chronic Disease; Eosinophilic Esophagitis; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Remission Induction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37470293
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004065.pub4 -
Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) Jul 2023Knee osteoarthritis is the most popular type of osteoarthritis that causes extreme pain in the elderly. Currently, there is no cure for osteoarthritis. To lessen... (Review)
Review
Knee osteoarthritis is the most popular type of osteoarthritis that causes extreme pain in the elderly. Currently, there is no cure for osteoarthritis. To lessen clinical symptoms, glucosamine was suggested. The primary goal of our systematic review study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of glucosamine based on recent studies. Electronic databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane were used to assess the randomized controlled trial (RCT). From the beginning through March 2023, the papers were checked, and if they fulfilled the inclusion criteria, they were then examined. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scales were considered the main outcome measures. A total of 15 studies were selected. Global pain was significantly decreased in comparison to placebo, as measured by the VAS index, with an overall effect size of standardized mean difference (SMD) of -7.41 ([95% CI] 14.31, 0.51). The WOMAC scale confirmed that pain, stiffness, and physical function had improved, however the effects were insufficient. A statistical update also revealed that there were no reports of serious medication interactions or significant adverse events. To summarize, glucosamine is more effective than a placebo at reducing pain in knee osteoarthritis patients. In long-term treatment, oral glucosamine sulfate 1500 mg/day is believed to be well tolerated.
PubMed: 37489348
DOI: 10.3390/pharmacy11040117 -
JAMA Dermatology Dec 2023Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are increasingly used across a range of dermatologic conditions. Adverse events of acne have been noted in some studies in clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are increasingly used across a range of dermatologic conditions. Adverse events of acne have been noted in some studies in clinical practice, but the scope of this outcome across JAK inhibitors has not been established.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically analyze all published phase 2 and 3 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of JAK inhibitors for the risk of acne as an adverse effect of these medications.
DATA SOURCES
Comprehensive search of Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed databases through January 31, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Inclusion criteria were phase 2 and 3 placebo-controlled RCTs of JAK inhibitors published in English with reported adverse events of acne.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently reviewed and extracted information from all included studies.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of acne following JAK inhibitor use. A meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models.
RESULTS
A total of 25 unique studies (10 839 unique participants; 54% male and 46% female) were included in the final analysis. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was calculated to be 3.83 (95% CI, 2.76-5.32) with increased ORs for abrocitinib (13.47 [95% CI, 3.25-55.91]), baricitinib (4.96 [95% CI, 2.52-9.78]), upadacitinib (4.79 [95% CI, 3.61-6.37]), deucravacitinib (2.64 [95% CI, 1.44-4.86]), and deuruxolitinib (3.30 [95% CI, 1.22-8.93]). Estimated ORs were higher across studies investigating the use of JAK inhibitors for the management of dermatologic compared with nondermatologic conditions (4.67 [95% CI, 3.10-7.05]) as well as for JAK1-specific inhibitors (4.69 [95% CI, 3.56-6.18]), combined JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitors (3.43 [95% CI, 2.14-5.49]), and tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitors (2.64 [95% CI, 1.44-4.86]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, JAK inhibitor use was associated with an elevated odds of acne. Patients should be properly counseled on this potential adverse effect of these medications before treatment initiation. Future studies are needed to further elucidate the pathophysiology of this association.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Acne Vulgaris
PubMed: 37851459
DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2023.3830 -
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