-
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research Sep 2023The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to systematically identify and review the efficacy of pharmacological treatments in men with osteoporosis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to systematically identify and review the efficacy of pharmacological treatments in men with osteoporosis.
METHODS
Medline (via Ovid) and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched up to May 2023 for any randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the efficacy of osteoporotic treatment on the evolution of Bone Mineral Density (BMD) and incidence of fractures of men suffering from primary osteoporosis. If at least two studies used the same pharmacological treatment and evaluated the same outcome, a random effect model meta-analysis was applied to reported pooled mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
From the 1,061 studies identified through bibliographic search, 21 RCTs fitted the inclusion criteria. Bisphosphonates (k = 10, n = 2992 men with osteoporosis) improved all three BMD sites compared to placebo; lumbar spine: MD + 4.75% (95% CI 3.45, 6.05); total hip: MD + 2.72% (95% CI 2.06; 3.37); femoral neck: MD + 2.26% (95% CI 1.67; 2.85). Denososumab (k = 2, n = 242), Teriparatide (k = 2, n = 309) and Abaloparatide (k = 2, n = 248) also produced significant improvement of all sites BMD compared to placebo. Romosozumab was only identified in one study and was therefore not meta-analysed. In this study, Romosozumab increased significantly BMD compared to placebo. Incident fractures were reported in 16 RCTs but only four reported fractures as the primary outcome. Treatments were associated with a lower incidence of fractures.
CONCLUSIONS
Medications used in the management of osteoporosis in women appear to provide similar benefits in men with osteoporosis. Therefore, the algorithm for the management of osteoporosis in men could be similar to the one previously recommended for the management of osteoporosis in women.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Osteoporosis; Bone Density; Diphosphonates; Fractures, Bone
PubMed: 37400668
DOI: 10.1007/s40520-023-02478-9 -
Nutrients Aug 2023To determine the effectiveness of whey protein (WP) supplementation during resistance exercise training (RET) vs. RET with or without placebo supplementation on skeletal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effectiveness of Whey Protein Supplementation during Resistance Exercise Training on Skeletal Muscle Mass and Strength in Older People with Sarcopenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the effectiveness of whey protein (WP) supplementation during resistance exercise training (RET) vs. RET with or without placebo supplementation on skeletal muscle mass, strength, and physical performance in older people with Sarcopenia.
METHODS
Electronic searches in the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, SPORTDiscus, Epistemonikos, and CINAHL databases were performed until 20 January 2023. Randomized clinical trials conducted on sarcopenic adults aged 60 or older were included. The studies had to compare the effectiveness of the addition of supplements based on concentrated, isolated, or hydrolyzed whey protein during RET and compare it with RET with or without placebo supplementation on skeletal muscle mass and strength changes. The study selection process, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were carried out by two independent reviewers.
RESULTS
Seven randomized clinical trials (591 participants) were included, and five of them provided data for quantitative synthesis. The overall pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) estimate showed a small effect size in favor of RET plus WP for skeletal muscle mass according to appendicular muscle index, with statistically significant differences compared with RET with or without the placebo group (SMD = 0.24; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.42; = 0.01; = 0%, = 0.42). The overall pooled mean difference (MD) estimate showed a significant difference of +2.31 kg (MD = 2.31 kg; 95% CI, 0.01 to 4.6; = 0.05; = 81%, < 0.001) in handgrip strength in the RET plus WP group compared with the RET group with or without placebo. The narrative synthesis revealed discordance between the results of the studies on physical performance.
CONCLUSIONS
WP supplementation during RET is more effective in increasing handgrip strength and skeletal muscle mass in older people with Sarcopenia compared with RET with or without placebo supplementation. However, the effect sizes were small, and the MD did not exceed the minimally important clinical difference. The quality of the evidence was low to very low according, to the GRADE approach. Further research is needed in this field.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Aged; Sarcopenia; Whey Proteins; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Hand Strength; Resistance Training; Dietary Supplements
PubMed: 37571361
DOI: 10.3390/nu15153424 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2023Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common diseases in childhood for which antibiotics are commonly prescribed; a systematic review reported a pooled prevalence... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common diseases in childhood for which antibiotics are commonly prescribed; a systematic review reported a pooled prevalence of 85.6% in high-income countries. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in the Cochrane Library in 1997 and updated in 1999, 2005, 2009, 2013 and 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of antibiotics for children with AOM.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Current Contents, CINAHL, LILACS and two trial registers. The date of the search was 14 February 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing 1) antimicrobial drugs with placebo, and 2) immediate antibiotic treatment with expectant observation (including delayed antibiotic prescribing) in children with AOM.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion and extracted data using the standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were: 1) pain at various time points (24 hours, two to three days, four to seven days, 10 to 14 days), and 2) adverse effects likely to be related to the use of antibiotics. Secondary outcomes were: 1) abnormal tympanometry findings, 2) tympanic membrane perforation, 3) contralateral otitis (in unilateral cases), 4) AOM recurrences, 5) serious complications related to AOM and 6) long-term effects (including the number of parent-reported AOM symptom episodes, antibiotic prescriptions and health care utilisation as assessed at least one year after randomisation). We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome of interest.
MAIN RESULTS
Antibiotics versus placebo We included 13 trials (3401 children and 3938 AOM episodes) from high-income countries, which we assessed at generally low risk of bias. Antibiotics do not reduce pain at 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.01; 5 trials, 1394 children; high-certainty evidence), or at four to seven days (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.14; 7 trials, 1264 children), but result in almost a third fewer children having pain at two to three days (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.88; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 20; 7 trials, 2320 children; high-certainty evidence), and likely result in two-thirds fewer having pain at 10 to 12 days (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66; NNTB 7; 1 trial, 278 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Antibiotics increase the risk of adverse events such as vomiting, diarrhoea or rash (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.63; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 14; 8 trials, 2107 children; high-certainty evidence). Antibiotics reduce the risk of children having abnormal tympanometry findings at two to four weeks (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; NNTB 11; 7 trials, 2138 children), slightly reduce the risk of experiencing tympanic membrane perforations (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.89; NNTB 33; 5 trials, 1075 children) and halve the risk of contralateral otitis episodes (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.95; NNTB 11; 4 trials, 906 children). However, antibiotics do not reduce the risk of abnormal tympanometry findings at six to eight weeks (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.13; 3 trials, 953 children) and at three months (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.34; 3 trials, 809 children) or late AOM recurrences (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.11; 6 trials, 2200 children). Severe complications were rare, and the evidence suggests that serious complications do not differ between children treated with either antibiotics or placebo. Immediate antibiotics versus expectant observation We included six trials (1556 children) from high-income countries. The evidence suggests that immediate antibiotics may result in a reduction of pain at two to three days (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.79; NNTB 8; 1 trial, 396 children; low-certainty evidence), but probably do not reduce the risk of pain at three to seven days (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.12; 4 trials, 959 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and may not reduce the risk of pain at 11 to 14 days (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10; 1 trial, 247 children; low-certainty evidence). Immediate antibiotics increase the risk of vomiting, diarrhoea or rash (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.51; NNTH 10; 3 trials, 946 children; high-certainty evidence). Immediate antibiotics probably do not reduce the proportion of children with abnormal tympanometry findings at four weeks and evidence suggests that immediate antibiotics may not reduce the risk of tympanic membrane perforation and AOM recurrences. No serious complications occurred in either group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review reveals that antibiotics probably have no effect on pain at 24 hours, a slight effect on pain in the days following and only a modest effect on the number of children with tympanic perforations, contralateral otitis episodes and abnormal tympanometry findings at two to four weeks compared with placebo in children with AOM. In high-income countries, most cases of AOM spontaneously remit without complications. The benefits of antibiotics must be weighed against the possible harms: for every 14 children treated with antibiotics, one child experienced an adverse event (such as vomiting, diarrhoea or rash) that would not have occurred if antibiotics were withheld. For most children with mild disease in high-income countries, an expectant observational approach seems justified. Therefore, clinical management should emphasise advice about adequate analgesia and the limited role for antibiotics.
Topics: Child; Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Tympanic Membrane Perforation; Acute Disease; Otitis Media; Pain; Diarrhea; Exanthema; Vomiting
PubMed: 37965923
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000219.pub5 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023Gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) is characterised by the regurgitation of gastric contents into the oesophagus. GOR is a common presentation in infancy, both in primary... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) is characterised by the regurgitation of gastric contents into the oesophagus. GOR is a common presentation in infancy, both in primary and secondary care, affecting approximately 50% of infants under three months old. The natural history of GOR in infancy is generally of a self-limiting condition that improves with age, but older children and children with co-existing medical conditions can have more protracted symptoms. The distinction between gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) and GOR is debated. Current National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines define GORD as GOR causing symptoms severe enough to merit treatment. This is an update of a review first published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of pharmacological treatments for GOR in infants and children.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science up to 17 September 2022. We also searched for ongoing trials in clinical trials registries, contacted experts in the field, and searched the reference lists of trials and reviews for any additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any currently-available pharmacological treatment for GOR in children with placebo or another medication. We excluded studies assessing dietary management of GORD and studies of thickened feeds. We included studies in infants and children up to 16 years old.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 36 RCTs involving 2251 children and infants. We were able to extract summary data from 14 RCTs; the remaining trials had insufficient data for extraction. We were unable to pool results in a meta-analysis due to methodological differences in the included studies (including heterogeneous outcomes, study populations, and study design). We present the results in two groups by age: infants up to 12 months old, and children aged 12 months to 16 years old. Infants Omeprazole versus placebo: there is no clear effect on symptoms from omeprazole. One study (30 infants; very low-certainty evidence) showed cry/fuss time in infants aged three to 12 months had altered from 246 ± 105 minutes/day at baseline (mean +/- standard deviation (SD)) to 191 ± 120 minutes/day in the omeprazole group and from 287 ± 132 minutes/day to 201 ± 100 minutes/day in the placebo group (mean difference (MD) 10 minutes/day lower (95% confidence interval (CI) -89.1 to 69.1)). The reflux index changed in the omeprazole group from 9.9 ± 5.8% in 24 hours to 1.0 ± 1.3% and in the placebo group from 7.2 ± 6.0% to 5.3 ± 4.9% in 24 hours (MD 7% lower, 95% CI -4.7 to -9.3). Omeprazole versus ranitidine: one study (76 infants; very low-certainty evidence) showed omeprazole may or may not provide symptomatic benefit equivalent to ranitidine. Symptom scores in the omeprazole group changed from 51.9 ± 5.4 to 2.4 ± 1.2, and in the ranitidine group from 47 ± 5.6 to 2.5 ± 0.6 after two weeks: MD -4.97 (95% CI -7.33 to -2.61). Esomeprazole versus placebo: esomeprazole appeared to show no additional reduction in the number of GORD symptoms compared to placebo (1 study, 52 neonates; very low-certainty evidence): both the esomeprazole group (184.7 ± 78.5 to 156.7 ± 75.1) and placebo group (183.1 ± 77.5 to 158.3 ± 75.9) improved: MD -3.2 (95% CI -4.6 to -1.8). Children Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) at different doses may provide little to no symptomatic and endoscopic benefit. Rabeprazole given at different doses (0.5 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg) may provide similar symptom improvement (127 children in total; very low-certainty evidence). In the lower-dose group (0.5 mg/kg), symptom scores improved in both a low-weight group of children (< 15 kg) (mean -10.6 ± SD 11.13) and a high-weight group of children (> 15 kg) (mean -13.6 ± 13.1). In the higher-dose groups (1 mg/kg), scores improved in the low-weight (-9 ± 11.2) and higher-weight groups (-8.3 ± 9.2). For the higher-weight group, symptom score mean difference between the two different dosing regimens was 2.3 (95% CI -2 to 6.6), and for the lower-weight group, symptom score MD was 4.6 (95% CI -2.9 to 12). Pantoprazole: pantoprazole may or may not improve symptom scores at 0.3 mg/kg, 0.6 mg/kg, and 1.2 mg/kg pantoprazole in children aged one to five years by week eight, with no difference between 0.3 mg/kg and 1.2 mg/kg dosing (0.3 mg/kg mean -2.4 ± 1.7; 1.2 mg/kg -1.7 ± 1.2: MD 0.7 (95% CI -0.4 to 1.8)) (one study, 60 children; very low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient summary data to assess other medications.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very low-certainty evidence about symptom improvements and changes in pH indices for infants. There are no summary data for endoscopic changes. Medications may or may not provide a benefit (based on very low-certainty evidence) for infants whose symptoms remain bothersome, despite nonmedical interventions or parental reassurance. If a medication is required, there is no clear evidence based on summary data for omeprazole, esomeprazole (in neonates), H₂antagonists, and alginates for symptom improvements (very low-certainty evidence). Further studies with longer follow-up are needed. In older children with GORD, in studies with summary data extracted, there is very low-certainty evidence that PPIs (rabeprazole and pantoprazole) may or may not improve GORD outcomes. No robust data exist for other medications. Further RCT evidence is required in all areas, including subgroups (preterm babies and children with neurodisabilities).
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Esomeprazole; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Omeprazole; Pantoprazole; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Rabeprazole; Ranitidine
PubMed: 37635269
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008550.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability globally. It generates considerable direct costs (healthcare) and indirect costs (lost productivity). The many... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability globally. It generates considerable direct costs (healthcare) and indirect costs (lost productivity). The many available treatments for LBP include exercise therapy, which is practised extensively worldwide.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of exercise therapy for acute non-specific low back pain in adults compared to sham/placebo treatment or no treatment at short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term follow-up.
SEARCH METHODS
This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005. We conducted an updated search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, and two trial registers. We screened the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews published since 2004.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that examined the effects of exercise therapy on non-specific LBP lasting six weeks or less in adults. Major outcomes for this review were pain, functional status, and perceived recovery. Minor outcomes were return to work, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. Our main comparisons were exercise therapy versus sham/placebo treatment and exercise therapy versus no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. We evaluated outcomes at short-term follow-up (time point within three months and closest to six weeks after randomisation; main follow-up), intermediate-term follow-up (between nine months and closest to six months), and long-term follow-up (after nine months and closest to 12 months); and we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 studies (13 from the previous review, 10 new studies) that involved 2674 participants and provided data for 2637 participants. Three small studies are awaiting classification, and four eligible studies are ongoing. Included studies were conducted in Europe (N = 9), the Asia-Pacific region (N = 9), and North America (N = 5); and most took place in a primary care setting (N = 12), secondary care setting (N = 6), or both (N = 1). In most studies, the population was middle-aged and included men and women. We judged 10 studies (43%) at low risk of bias with regard to sequence generation and allocation concealment. Blinding is not feasible in exercise therapy, introducing performance and detection bias. There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo treatment has no clinically relevant effect on pain scores in the short term (mean difference (MD) -0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.79 to 4.19; 1 study, 299 participants). The absolute difference was 1% less pain (95% CI 4% more to 6% less), and the relative difference was 4% less pain (95% CI 20% more to 28% less). The mean pain score was 20.1 (standard deviation (SD) 21) for the intervention group and 20.9 (SD 23) for the control group. There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with sham/placebo treatment has no clinically relevant effect on functional status scores in the short term (MD 2.00, 95% CI -2.20 to 6.20; 1 study, 299 participants). The absolute difference was 2% worse functional status (95% CI 2% better to 6% worse), and the relative difference was 15% worse (95% CI 17% better to 47% worse). The mean functional status score was 15.3 (SD 19) for the intervention group and 13.3 (SD 18) for the control group. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for pain and functional status by one level for risk of bias and by two levels for imprecision (only one study with fewer than 400 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence that exercise therapy compared with no treatment has no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term (2 studies, 157 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by two levels for imprecision and by one level for inconsistency. One study associated exercise with small benefits and the other found no differences. The first study was conducted in an occupational healthcare centre, where participants received one exercise therapy session. The other study was conducted in secondary and tertiary care settings, where participants received treatment three times per week for six weeks. We did not pool data from these studies owing to considerable clinical heterogeneity. In two studies, there were no reported adverse events. One study reported adverse events unrelated to exercise therapy. The remaining studies did not report whether any adverse events had occurred. Owing to insufficient reporting of adverse events, we were unable to reach any conclusions on the safety or harms related to exercise therapy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Exercise therapy compared to sham/placebo treatment may have no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term in people with acute non-specific LBP, but the evidence is very uncertain. Exercise therapy compared to no treatment may have no clinically relevant effect on pain or functional status in the short term in people with acute non-specific LBP, but the evidence is very uncertain. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to very low for inconsistency, risk of bias concerns, and imprecision (few participants).
Topics: Adult; Male; Middle Aged; Female; Humans; Low Back Pain; Exercise Therapy; Acute Pain; Exercise; Asia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37646368
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009365.pub2 -
Journal of Translational Medicine Jul 2023This systematic review and meta-analysis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of probiotics supplementation on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The effects of probiotics supplementation on glycaemic control among adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of probiotics supplementation on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) based on the data from the randomised clinical trials (RCTs).
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Sciences, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from the inception to October 2022, and RCTs about probiotics and T2DM were collected. The standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to estimate the effects of probiotics supplementation on glycaemic control related parameters, e.g. fasting blood glucose (FBG), insulin, haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and homeostasis model of assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR).
RESULTS
Thirty RCTs including 1,827 T2MD patients were identified. Compared with the placebo group, the probiotics supplementation group had a significant decrease in the parameters of glycaemic control, including FBG (SMD = - 0.331, 95% CI - 0.424 to - 0.238, P < 0.001), insulin (SMD = - 0.185, 95% CI - 0.313 to - 0.056, P = 0.005), HbA1c (SMD = - 0.421, 95% CI - 0.584 to - 0.258, P < 0.001), and HOMA-IR (SMD = - 0.224, 95% CI - 0.342 to - 0.105, P < 0.001). Further subgroup analyses showed that the effect was larger in the subgroups of Caucasians, high baseline body mass index (BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m), Bifidobacterium and food-type probiotics (P < 0.050).
CONCLUSION
This study supported that probiotics supplementation had favourable effects on glycaemic control in T2DM patients. It may be a promising adjuvant therapy for patients with T2DM.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Glycated Hemoglobin; Blood Glucose; Glycemic Control; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Probiotics; Insulin Resistance; Insulin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37415167
DOI: 10.1186/s12967-023-04306-0 -
Menopause (New York, N.Y.) Jan 2024The neurokinin 3 receptor antagonist fezolinetant 45 mg/d significantly reduced frequency/severity of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS) of menopause compared... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of fezolinetant with hormone and nonhormone therapies for treatment of vasomotor symptoms due to menopause.
IMPORTANCE
The neurokinin 3 receptor antagonist fezolinetant 45 mg/d significantly reduced frequency/severity of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS) of menopause compared with placebo in two phase 3 randomized controlled trials. Its efficacy relative to available therapies is unknown.
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare efficacy with fezolinetant 45 mg and hormone therapy (HT) and non-HT for VMS in postmenopausal women.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
Using OvidSP, we systematically searched multiple databases for phase 3 or 4 randomized controlled trials in postmenopausal women with ≥7 moderate to severe VMS per day or ≥50 VMS per week published/presented in English through June 25, 2021. Mean change in frequency and severity of moderate to severe VMS from baseline to week 12 and proportion of women with ≥75% reduction in VMS frequency at week 12 were assessed using fixed-effect models.
FINDINGS
The network meta-analysis included data from the pooled phase 3 fezolinetant trials plus 23 comparator publications across the outcomes analyzed (frequency, 19 [34 regimens]; severity, 6 [7 regimens]; ≥75% response, 9 [15 regimens]). Changes in VMS frequency did not differ significantly between fezolinetant 45 mg and any of the 27 HT regimens studied. Fezolinetant 45 mg reduced the frequency of moderate to severe VMS events per day significantly more than all non-HTs evaluated: paroxetine 7.5 mg (mean difference [95% credible interval {CrI}], 1.66 [0.63-2.71]), desvenlafaxine 50 to 200 mg (mean differences [95% CrI], 1.12 [0.10-2.13] to 2.16 [0.90-3.40]), and gabapentin ER 1800 mg (mean difference [95% CrI], 1.63 [0.48-2.81]), and significantly more than placebo (mean difference, 2.78 [95% CrI], 1.93-3.62]). Tibolone 2.5 mg (the only HT regimen evaluable for severity) significantly reduced VMS severity compared with fezolinetant 45 mg. Fezolinetant 45 mg significantly reduced VMS severity compared with desvenlafaxine 50 mg and placebo and did not differ significantly from higher desvenlafaxine doses or gabapentin ER 1800 mg. For ≥75% responder rates, fezolinetant 45 mg was less effective than tibolone 2.5 mg (not available in the United States) and conjugated estrogens 0.625 mg/bazedoxifene 20 mg (available only as 0.45 mg/20 mg in the United States), did not differ significantly from other non-HT regimens studied and was superior to desvenlafaxine 50 mg and placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
The only HT regimens that showed significantly greater efficacy than fezolinetant 45 mg on any of the outcomes analyzed are not available in the United States. Fezolinetant 45 mg once daily was statistically significantly more effective than other non-HTs in reducing the frequency of moderate to severe VMS.
RELEVANCE
These findings may inform decision making with regard to the individualized management of bothersome VMS due to menopause.
Topics: Female; Humans; Hot Flashes; Desvenlafaxine Succinate; Network Meta-Analysis; Gabapentin; Bayes Theorem; Menopause; Estrogens, Conjugated (USP)
PubMed: 38016166
DOI: 10.1097/GME.0000000000002281 -
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 -
European Journal of Medical Research Nov 2023Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a worldwide public health problem and is difficult to cure. Drugs aimed at slowing the progression of the disease have been developed, with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a worldwide public health problem and is difficult to cure. Drugs aimed at slowing the progression of the disease have been developed, with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granting accelerated approval for aducanumab on June 21, 2021 and a new accelerated approval for lecanemab on January 22, 2023. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of FDA-approved anti-amyloid-β (anti-Aβ) monoclonal antibodies (mabs) for the treatment of AD.
METHOD
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched to identify relevant studies published before May 2023. Efficacy outcomes included Aβ, neuroimaging, and biomarker outcomes. Safety outcomes included amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with edema or effusions (ARIA-E) and ARIA with cerebral microhemorrhages, cerebral macrohemorrhages, or superficial siderosis (ARIA-H). Review Manager 5.4 software was used to assess the data. The standard mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were analyzed and calculated with a random effect model or a fixed effect model.
RESULT
Overall, 4471 patients from 6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with 2190 patients in the treatment group and 2281 patients in the placebo group meeting the inclusion criteria. FDA-approved anti-Aβ mabs showed statistically significant improvements in clinical outcomes, including CDR-SB (P = 0.01), ADCS-ADL-MCI (P = 0.00003), ADCOMS (P < 0.00001), ADAS-Cog (P < 0.00001). Moreover, FDA-approved anti-Aβ mabs increased cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Aβ1-42 (P = 0.002) and plasma Aβ42/40 ratios (P = 0.0008). They also decreased CSF P-Tau (P < 0.00001), CSF T-Tau (P < 0.00001), and plasma p-tau181 (P < 0.00001). FDA-approved anti-Aβ mabs perform neuroimaging changes in amyloid Positron Emission Tomography Standardized Uptake Value ratio (PET SUVr) (P < 0.00001). However, compared with placebo, FDA-approved anti-Aβ mabs had higher risk of ARIA-E (P < 0.00001) and ARIA-H (P < 0001).
CONCLUSION
FDA-approved anti-Aβ mabs have a role in slowing disease progression in patients with AD, at the cost of an increased probability of side effects.
Topics: United States; Humans; Alzheimer Disease; United States Food and Drug Administration; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Amyloid beta-Peptides; Biomarkers
PubMed: 38017568
DOI: 10.1186/s40001-023-01512-w