-
Clinical Nutrition ESPEN Jun 2020Clinical evidence which investigated the effects of l-carnitine, a vitamin-like substance, on weight loss had led to inconsistent results. This study therefore aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effects of l-carnitine supplementation on weight loss and body composition: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 37 randomized controlled clinical trials with dose-response analysis.
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Clinical evidence which investigated the effects of l-carnitine, a vitamin-like substance, on weight loss had led to inconsistent results. This study therefore aimed to examine the effect of l-carnitine supplementation on body weight and composition by including the maximum number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to conduct a dose-response analysis, for the first time.
METHODS AND RESULTS
Online databases were searched up to January 2019. In total, 37 RCTs (with 2292 participants) were eligible. Meta-analysis showed that l-carnitine supplementation significantly decreased body weight [Weighted mean difference (WMD) = -1.21 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.73, -0.68; P < 0.001], body mass index (BMI) (WMD = -0.24 kg/m, 95% CI: -0.37, -0.10; P = 0.001), and fat mass (WMD = -2.08 kg, 95% CI: -3.44, -0.72; P = 0.003). No significant effect was seen for waist circumference (WC) and body fat percent. The meta-analysis of high-quality RCTs only confirmed the effect on body weight. A non-linear dose-response association was seen between l-carnitine supplementation and body weight reduction (P < 0.001) suggesting that ingestion of 2000 mg l-carnitine per day provides the maximum effect in adults. This association was not seen for BMI, WC and body fat percent.
CONCLUSIONS
l-carnitine supplementation provides a modest reducing effect on body weight, BMI and fat mass, especially among adults with overweight/obesity.
Topics: Adult; Body Composition; Body Weight; Carnitine; Dietary Supplements; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Weight Loss
PubMed: 32359762
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2020.03.008 -
Molecular Psychiatry Jan 2023A systematic review and random-effects model network meta-analysis were conducted to compare the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety of antidepressants to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and random-effects model network meta-analysis were conducted to compare the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety of antidepressants to treat adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) in the maintenance phase. This study searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases and included only double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials with an enrichment design: patients were stabilized on the antidepressant of interest during the open-label study and then randomized to receive the same antidepressant or placebo. The outcomes were the 6-month relapse rate (primary outcome, efficacy), all-cause discontinuation (acceptability), discontinuation due to adverse events (tolerability), and the incidence of individual adverse events. The risk ratio with a 95% credible interval was calculated. The meta-analysis comprised 34 studies (n = 9384, mean age = 43.80 years, and %females = 68.10%) on 20 antidepressants (agomelatine, amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, tianeptine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine) and a placebo. In terms of the 6-month relapse rate, amitriptyline, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, tianeptine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine outperformed placebo. Compared to placebo, desvenlafaxine, paroxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine had lower all-cause discontinuation; however, sertraline had a higher discontinuation rate due to adverse events. Compared to placebo, venlafaxine was associated with a lower incidence of dizziness, while desvenlafaxine, sertraline, and vortioxetine were associated with a higher incidence of nausea/vomiting. In conclusion, desvenlafaxine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine had reasonable efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability in the treatment of adults with stable MDD.
Topics: Female; Humans; Adult; Depressive Disorder, Major; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Sertraline; Citalopram; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Vortioxetine; Fluoxetine; Paroxetine; Mirtazapine; Amitriptyline; Desvenlafaxine Succinate; Fluvoxamine; Reboxetine; Network Meta-Analysis; Antidepressive Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36253442
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-022-01824-z -
JAMA Network Open Oct 2020Acetaminophen (paracetamol) and ibuprofen are the most widely prescribed and available over-the-counter medications for management of fever and pain in children. Despite... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Acetaminophen (paracetamol) and ibuprofen are the most widely prescribed and available over-the-counter medications for management of fever and pain in children. Despite the common use of these medications, treatment recommendations for young children remain divergent.
OBJECTIVE
To compare acetaminophen with ibuprofen for the short-term treatment of fever or pain in children younger than 2 years.
DATA SOURCES
Systematic search of the databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov and the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry from inception to March 2019, with no language limits.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies of any design that included children younger than 2 years and directly compared acetaminophen with ibuprofen, reporting antipyretic, analgesic, and/or safety outcomes were considered. There were no limits on length of follow-up.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline, 2 authors independently extracted data and assessed quality. Data were pooled using a fixed-effects method if I2 was less than 50% and using a random-effects method if I2 was 50% or greater.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcomes were fever or pain within 4 hours of treatment onset. Safety outcomes included serious adverse events, kidney impairment, gastrointestinal bleeding, hepatotoxicity, severe soft tissue infection, empyema, and asthma and/or wheeze.
RESULTS
Overall, 19 studies (11 randomized; 8 nonrandomized) of 241 138 participants from 7 countries and various health care settings (hospital-based and community-based) were included. Compared with acetaminophen, ibuprofen resulted in reduced temperature at less than 4 hours (4 studies with 435 participants; standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.08-0.67; P = .01; I2 = 49%; moderate quality evidence) and at 4 to 24 hours (5 studies with 879 participants; SMD, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.03-0.45; P = .03; I2 = 57%; moderate-quality evidence) and less pain at 4 to 24 hours (2 studies with 535 participants; SMD, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.03-0.37; P = .02; I2 = 25%; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events were uncommon. Acetaminophen and ibuprofen appeared to have similar serious adverse event profiles (7 studies with 27 932 participants; ibuprofen vs aceteminophen: odds ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.87-1.33; P = .50, I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this study, use of ibuprofen vs acetaminophen for the treatment of fever or pain in children younger than 2 years was associated with reduced temperature and less pain within the first 24 hours of treatment, with equivalent safety.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Child, Preschool; Female; Fever; Humans; Ibuprofen; Infant; Male; Pain
PubMed: 33125495
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.22398 -
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Oct 2022Rapid cycling is a common and disabling phenomenon in individuals with bipolar disorders. In the absence of a recent literature examination, this systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Rapid cycling is a common and disabling phenomenon in individuals with bipolar disorders. In the absence of a recent literature examination, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesise the evidence of efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of treatments for individuals with rapid cycling bipolar disorder (RCBD).
METHOD
A systematic search was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials assigning participants with RCBD to pharmacological and/or non-pharmacological interventions. Study inclusion and data extraction were undertaken by two reviewers independently. The primary outcome was continuous within-subject RCBD illness severity before and after treatment. Pre-post random effects meta-analyses were conducted for each outcome/intervention arm studied, generating a standardised effect size (hedge's g) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
A total of 34 articles describing 30 studies were included. A total of 16 separate pharmacological treatments were examined in contrast to 1 psychological therapy study. Only quetiapine and lamotrigine were assessed in >5 studies. By assessing 95% CI overlap of within-subject efficacy effects compared to placebo, the only interventions suggesting significant depression benefits (placebo g = 0.60) were olanzapine (with/without fluoxetine; g = 1.01), citalopram (g = 1.10) and venlafaxine (g = 2.48). For mania, benefits were indicated for quetiapine (g = 1.01), olanzapine (g = 1.19) and aripiprazole (g = 1.09), versus placebo (g = 0.33). Most of these effect sizes were from only one trial per treatment. Heterogeneity between studies was variable, and 20% were rated to have a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
While many interventions appeared efficacious, there was a lack of robust evidence for most treatments. Given the limited and heterogeneous evidence base, the optimal treatment strategies for people with RCBD are yet to be established.
Topics: Aripiprazole; Bipolar Disorder; Citalopram; Fluoxetine; Humans; Lamotrigine; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 35778967
DOI: 10.1111/acps.13471 -
Molecular Psychiatry Mar 2022The gabapentinoids, gabapentin, and pregabalin, target the αδ subunits of voltage-gated calcium channels. Initially licensed for pain and seizures, they have become... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The gabapentinoids, gabapentin, and pregabalin, target the αδ subunits of voltage-gated calcium channels. Initially licensed for pain and seizures, they have become widely prescribed drugs. Many of these uses are off-label for psychiatric indications, and there is increasing concern about their safety, so it is particularly important to have good evidence to justify this usage. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence for three of their common psychiatric uses: bipolar disorder, anxiety, and insomnia. Fifty-five double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 15 open-label studies were identified. For bipolar disorder, four double-blind RCTs investigating gabapentin, and no double-blind RCTs investigating pregabalin, were identified. A quantitative synthesis could not be performed due to heterogeneity in the study population, design and outcome measures. Across the anxiety spectrum, a consistent but not universal effect in favour of gabapentinoids compared to placebo was seen (standardised mean difference [SMD] ranging between -2.25 and -0.25). Notably, pregabalin (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.18) and gabapentin (SMD -0.92, 95% CI -1.32 to -0.52) were more effective than placebo in reducing preoperative anxiety. In insomnia, results were inconclusive. We conclude that there is moderate evidence of the efficacy of gabapentinoids in anxiety states, but minimal evidence in bipolar disorder and insomnia and they should be used for these disorders only with strong justification. This recommendation applies despite the attractive pharmacological and genetic rationale for targeting voltage-gated calcium channels.
Topics: Amines; Anxiety; Bipolar Disorder; Calcium Channels; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Gabapentin; Humans; Pregabalin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 34819636
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-021-01386-6 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Apr 2022This article discusses current literature on the use of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)-assisted psychotherapy in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This article discusses current literature on the use of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)-assisted psychotherapy in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). MDMA, the intended active ingredient in illicit Ecstasy or Molly products, is a psychedelic that causes an elevated mood, feeling of bonding, and increased energy. In MDMA-assisted psychotherapy, patients are subjected to 2 or 3 multihour sessions of therapy with a team of psychiatrists. The dosing of MDMA is used to allow the therapist to probe the underlying trauma without causing emotional distress. The use of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy treatment reduced patient's Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) scores from baseline more than control psychotherapy (-22.03; 95%CI, -38.53 to -5.52) but with high statistical heterogeneity. MDMA-assisted psychotherapy enhanced the achievement of clinically significant reductions in CAPS scores (relative risk, 3.65; 95%CI, 2.39-5.57) and CAPS score reductions sufficient to no longer meet the definition of PTSD (relative risk, 2.10; 95%CI, 1.37-3.21) with no detected statistical heterogeneity. While therapy was generally safe and well tolerated, bruxism, anxiety, jitteriness, headache, and nausea are commonly reported. While MDMA-assisted psychotherapy has been shown to be an effective therapy for patients with PTSD with a reasonable safety profile, use of unregulated MDMA or use in the absence of a strongly controlled psychotherapeutic environment has considerable risks.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; N-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine; Psychotherapy; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34708874
DOI: 10.1002/jcph.1995 -
JAMA Network Open Oct 2021New therapeutic classes of migraine-specific treatment have been developed, including 5-hydroxytryptamine1F receptor agonists (lasmiditan) and calcitonin gene-related... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
New therapeutic classes of migraine-specific treatment have been developed, including 5-hydroxytryptamine1F receptor agonists (lasmiditan) and calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists (rimegepant and ubrogepant).
OBJECTIVE
To compare outcomes associated with the use of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant vs triptans for acute management of migraine headaches.
DATA SOURCES
The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and PubMed were searched from inception to March 5, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Double-blind randomized clinical trials examining current available migraine-specific acute treatments were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was applied to extract the data according to a predetermined list of variables of interest, and all network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was the odds ratio (OR) for freedom from pain (hereafter referred to as pain freedom) at 2 hours after the dose, and the secondary outcomes were ORs for pain relief at 2 hours after the dose and any adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 64 randomized clinical trials were included (46 442 participants; 74%-87% women; age range, 36-43 years). Most of the included treatments were associated with reduced pain at 2 hours compared with placebo. Most triptans were associated with higher ORs for pain freedom at 2 hours compared with lasmiditan (range: OR, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.06-2.80] to OR, 3.40 [95% CI, 2.12-5.44]), rimegepant (range: OR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.07-2.33] to OR, 3.13 [95% CI, 2.16-4.52]), and ubrogepant (range: OR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.00-2.37] to OR, 3.05 [95% CI, 2.02-4.60]). Most triptans were associated with higher ORs for pain relief at 2 hours compared with lasmiditan (range: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.09-1.96] to OR, 3.31 [95% CI, 2.41-4.55]), rimegepant (range: OR, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.01-1.76] to OR, 3.01 [95% CI, 2.33-3.88]), and ubrogepant (range: OR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.02-1.88] to OR, 3.13 [95% CI, 2.35-4.15]). The comparisons between lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant were not statistically significant for both pain freedom and pain relief at 2 hours. Lasmiditan was associated with the highest risk of any adverse events, and certain triptans (rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan) were also associated with a higher risk of any adverse events than the calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
For pain freedom or pain relief at 2 hours after the dose, lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant were associated with higher ORs compared with placebo but lower ORs compared with most triptans. However, the lack of cardiovascular risks for these new classes of migraine-specific treatments may offer an alternative to triptans.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Migraine Disorders; Tryptamines
PubMed: 34633423
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.28544 -
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy Oct 2023To review the available literature regarding the treatment effects and efficacy of benzonatate needed to better inform patients, providers, and regulators evaluating its... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To review the available literature regarding the treatment effects and efficacy of benzonatate needed to better inform patients, providers, and regulators evaluating its role in modern medical therapies.
DATA SOURCES
Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane Library, and Scopus for original research articles evaluating the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety profile of benzonatate from January 1956 through August 2022.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
The identified studies were screened for relevance and then assessed for inclusion through a full-text review, data extraction, and quality assessment by multiple reviewers using the online software Covidence.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The selection process resulted in 37 articles consisting of 21 cohort studies, 5 experimental studies, and 11 case studies and series. Initial clinical studies exploring potential therapeutic benefits collected data from very small populations and limited clinical settings. Safety is primarily assessed in terms of toxicity due to overdose or inappropriate use. Quality assessment raised concerns for high degrees of biases primarily related to the limited sample size, data collection, generalizability, and study design.
RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
This review reveals substantial limitations within existing evidence pertaining to the safety and clinical effectiveness of benzonatate and thus, a need for large observational studies or randomized trials to better characterize its role and value in modern medical practice.
CONCLUSIONS
Rising safety concerns should bring closer scrutiny upon the prescription of benzonatate whose approval is founded upon evidence that would not stand up to current regulatory review.
Topics: Humans; Butylamines; Drug Overdose; Text Messaging
PubMed: 36688284
DOI: 10.1177/10600280221135750 -
Annales Pharmaceutiques Francaises Sep 2022Beta-blockers have long been successfully used for the treatment of both supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias. However, differences exist between their chemical... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Beta-blockers have long been successfully used for the treatment of both supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias. However, differences exist between their chemical structure, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties (absorption, bioavailability, metabolism, hydrophilic or lipophilic character, selective or non-selective nature, the presence or absence of intrinsic sympathomimetic activity), which may confer different antiarrhythmic properties to different beta-blockers. The aim of this study was to analyze the current existing evidence for bisoprolol for the treatment of both supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Using the keywords "bisoprolol" and "arrhythmias" or "atrial fibrillation" or "ventricular tachycardia" or "premature ventricular complexes" or "ventricular fibrillation", the Medline database was searched for articles in English or French until April 2020 assessing the role of bisoprolol in the treatment of arrhythmias. Data was then analyzed according to the type of arrhythmia treated and the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
A total of 325 studies were identified, of which 28 were considered relevant to the current topic. Among these studies, 19 assessed the role of bisoprolol for the treatment of supraventricular arrhythmias, 8 its role in treating ventricular arrhythmias and 1 its role in supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias. The quality of evidence varied from low (7 studies) to high (5 studies).
CONCLUSION
Current evidence exists supporting the use of bisoprolol for the treatment of supraventricular arrhythmias, especially for rate control during atrial fibrillation. Evidence also exists for its efficacy in the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias, both in primary and in secondary prevention.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Atrial Fibrillation; Bisoprolol; Humans
PubMed: 35093388
DOI: 10.1016/j.pharma.2022.01.007 -
Psychiatry Research May 2022There are currently no evidence-based treatment recommendations for impulse control disorders, which include intermittent explosive disorder (IED), kleptomania and... (Review)
Review
There are currently no evidence-based treatment recommendations for impulse control disorders, which include intermittent explosive disorder (IED), kleptomania and pyromania. Therefore, this systematic review sought to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated pharmacological treatments for impulse control disorders, to evaluate their efficacy and tolerability. Searches were conducted within MEDLINE, PsychINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. Eight studies were included, six investigated pharmacotherapies for IED, while two investigated management for kleptomania. For the treatment of IED, oxcarbazepine and fluoxetine were the most efficacious. Importantly, divalproex was not superior to placebo in decreasing IED symptoms and was associated with significant adverse effects. In the treatment of kleptomania, only naltrexone was effective. The existing data suggest that the pharmacological treatment for impulse control disorders is an understudied area of psychiatry. Much of the current research on impulse control disorders focuses on management with anticonvulsants and antidepressants. Further studies conducted on these interventions in this population may yield promising results.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders; Fluoxetine; Humans; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 35305343
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114499