-
The Lancet. Psychiatry Jul 2020Depressive disorders are common in children and adolescents. Antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination are often used in routine clinical practice;... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Depressive disorders are common in children and adolescents. Antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination are often used in routine clinical practice; however, available evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of these interventions is inconclusive. Therefore, we sought to compare and rank all available treatment interventions for the acute treatment of depressive disorders in children and adolescents.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ProQuest, CINAHL, LiLACS, international trial registries, and the websites of regulatory agencies for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials from database inception until Jan 1, 2019. We included placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials of 16 antidepressants, seven psychotherapies, and five combinations of antidepressant and psychotherapy that are used for the acute treatment of children and adolescents (≤18 years old and of both sexes) with depressive disorder diagnosed according to standard operationalised criteria. Trials recruiting participants with treatment-resistant depression, bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, treatment duration of less than 4 weeks, or an overall sample size of fewer than ten patients were excluded. We extracted data following a predefined hierarchy of outcome measures, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using validated methods. Primary outcomes were efficacy (change in depressive symptoms) and acceptability (treatment discontinuation due to any cause). We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with credible intervals (CrIs) using network meta-analysis with random effects. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015020841.
FINDINGS
From 20 366 publications, we included 71 trials (9510 participants). Depressive disorders in most studies were moderate to severe. In terms of efficacy, fluoxetine plus cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was more effective than CBT alone (-0·78, 95% CrI -1·55 to -0·01) and psychodynamic therapy (-1·14, -2·20 to -0·08), but not more effective than fluoxetine alone (-0·22, -0·86 to 0·42). No pharmacotherapy alone was more effective than psychotherapy alone. Only fluoxetine plus CBT and fluoxetine were significantly more effective than pill placebo or psychological controls (SMDs ranged from -1·73 to -0·51); and only interpersonal therapy was more effective than all psychological controls (-1·37 to -0·66). Nortriptyline (SMDs ranged from 1·04 to 2·22) and waiting list (SMDs ranged from 0·67 to 2·08) were less effective than most active interventions. In terms of acceptability, nefazodone and fluoxetine were associated with fewer dropouts than sertraline, imipramine, and desipramine (ORs ranged from 0·17 to 0·50); imipramine was associated with more dropouts than pill placebo, desvenlafaxine, fluoxetine plus CBT, and vilazodone (2·51 to 5·06). Most of the results were rated as "low" to "very low" in terms of confidence of evidence according to Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis.
INTERPRETATION
Despite the scarcity of high-quality evidence, fluoxetine (alone or in combination with CBT) seems to be the best choice for the acute treatment of moderate-to-severe depressive disorder in children and adolescents. However, the effects of these interventions might vary between individuals, so patients, carers, and clinicians should carefully balance the risk-benefit profile of efficacy, acceptability, and suicide risk of all active interventions in young patients with depression on a case-by-case basis.
FUNDING
National Key Research and Development Program of China.
Topics: Adolescent; Antidepressive Agents; Child; Depressive Disorder; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Psychotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32563306
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30137-1 -
The British Journal of Dermatology Nov 2022Various treatments for acne vulgaris exist, but little is known about their comparative effectiveness in relation to acne severity. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Various treatments for acne vulgaris exist, but little is known about their comparative effectiveness in relation to acne severity.
OBJECTIVES
To identify best treatments for mild-to-moderate and moderate-to-severe acne, as determined by clinician-assessed morphological features.
METHODS
We undertook a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing topical pharmacological, oral pharmacological, physical and combined treatments for mild-to-moderate and moderate-to-severe acne, published up to May 2020. Outcomes included percentage change in total lesion count from baseline, treatment discontinuation for any reason, and discontinuation owing to side-effects. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and bias adjustment models. Effects for treatments with ≥ 50 observations each compared with placebo are reported below.
RESULTS
We included 179 RCTs with approximately 35 000 observations across 49 treatment classes. For mild-to-moderate acne, the most effective options for each treatment type were as follows: topical pharmacological - combined retinoid with benzoyl peroxide (BPO) [mean difference 26·16%, 95% credible interval (CrI) 16·75-35·36%]; physical - chemical peels, e.g. salicylic or mandelic acid (39·70%, 95% CrI 12·54-66·78%) and photochemical therapy (combined blue/red light) (35·36%, 95% CrI 17·75-53·08%). Oral pharmacological treatments (e.g. antibiotics, hormonal contraceptives) did not appear to be effective after bias adjustment. BPO and topical retinoids were less well tolerated than placebo. For moderate-to-severe acne, the most effective options for each treatment type were as follows: topical pharmacological - combined retinoid with lincosamide (clindamycin) (44·43%, 95% CrI 29·20-60·02%); oral pharmacological - isotretinoin of total cumulative dose ≥ 120 mg kg per single course (58·09%, 95% CrI 36·99-79·29%); physical - photodynamic therapy (light therapy enhanced by a photosensitizing chemical) (40·45%, 95% CrI 26·17-54·11%); combined - BPO with topical retinoid and oral tetracycline (43·53%, 95% CrI 29·49-57·70%). Topical retinoids and oral tetracyclines were less well tolerated than placebo. The quality of included RCTs was moderate to very low, with evidence of inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence. Uncertainty in findings was high, in particular for chemical peels, photochemical therapy and photodynamic therapy. However, conclusions were robust to potential bias in the evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
Topical pharmacological treatment combinations, chemical peels and photochemical therapy were most effective for mild-to-moderate acne. Topical pharmacological treatment combinations, oral antibiotics combined with topical pharmacological treatments, oral isotretinoin and photodynamic therapy were most effective for moderate-to-severe acne. Further research is warranted for chemical peels, photochemical therapy and photodynamic therapy for which evidence was more limited. What is already known about this topic? Acne vulgaris is the eighth most common disease globally. Several topical, oral, physical and combined treatments for acne vulgaris exist. Network meta-analysis (NMA) synthesizes direct and indirect evidence and allows simultaneous inference for all treatments forming an evidence network. Previous NMAs have assessed a limited range of treatments for acne vulgaris and have not evaluated effectiveness of treatments for moderate-to-severe acne. What does this study add? For mild-to-moderate acne, topical treatment combinations, chemical peels, and photochemical therapy (combined blue/red light; blue light) are most effective. For moderate-to-severe acne, topical treatment combinations, oral antibiotics combined with topical treatments, oral isotretinoin and photodynamic therapy (light therapy enhanced by a photosensitizing chemical) are most effective. Based on these findings, along with further clinical and cost-effectiveness considerations, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance recommends, as first-line treatments, fixed topical treatment combinations for mild-to-moderate acne and fixed topical treatment combinations, or oral tetracyclines combined with topical treatments, for moderate-to-severe acne.
Topics: Humans; Isotretinoin; Network Meta-Analysis; Acne Vulgaris; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Tetracycline
PubMed: 35789996
DOI: 10.1111/bjd.21739 -
Journal of the American Academy of... May 2024Acne vulgaris commonly affects adults, adolescents, and preadolescents aged 9 years or older.
BACKGROUND
Acne vulgaris commonly affects adults, adolescents, and preadolescents aged 9 years or older.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of acne.
METHODS
A work group conducted a systematic review and applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for assessing the certainty of evidence and formulating and grading recommendations.
RESULTS
This guideline presents 18 evidence-based recommendations and 5 good practice statements. Strong recommendations are made for benzoyl peroxide, topical retinoids, topical antibiotics, and oral doxycycline. Oral isotretinoin is strongly recommended for acne that is severe, causing psychosocial burden or scarring, or failing standard oral or topical therapy. Conditional recommendations are made for topical clascoterone, salicylic acid, and azelaic acid, as well as for oral minocycline, sarecycline, combined oral contraceptive pills, and spironolactone. Combining topical therapies with multiple mechanisms of action, limiting systemic antibiotic use, combining systemic antibiotics with topical therapies, and adding intralesional corticosteroid injections for larger acne lesions are recommended as good practice statements.
LIMITATIONS
Analysis is based on the best available evidence at the time of the systematic review.
CONCLUSIONS
These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of acne vulgaris.
Topics: Adult; Adolescent; Humans; Acne Vulgaris; Benzoyl Peroxide; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Isotretinoin; Retinoids; Dermatologic Agents
PubMed: 38300170
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2023.12.017 -
Clinical Laboratory Apr 2023Thrombophilia testing is controversial, not least because of its high cost. Because comprehensive valid testing requires standardized blood collection close by the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Thrombophilia testing is controversial, not least because of its high cost. Because comprehensive valid testing requires standardized blood collection close by the specialized laboratory, and interpretation of findings together with clinical data, often only part of the necessary laboratory analyses can be performed in remote central laboratories. Restrictive indications for testing, as have been recommended by previous reviews on the topic, have been based on incomplete analytics, studies with small case numbers, or short observation periods, and on an inappropriate, simple risk stratification for venous thromboembolism (VTE), further subdivided into provoked and unprovoked events.
METHODS
The authors reviewed four electronic databases for all peer-reviewed and in-press articles about thrombophilia, VTE, obstetric complications, and arterial thrombosis. After confirmation for relevance to the topic, 201 articles were accepted for inclusion in this article. This review summarizes the studies relevant to the evaluation of thrombophilic conditions, and their combination with each other and with clinical risk factors, to stratify individual risk for thromboembolism and obstetric complications.
RESULTS
Thrombophilia testing requires highly skilled personnel for laboratory analysis and interpretation. Clinical conditions that influence the results as well as special preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical aspects must be considered if valid results are to be obtained. Tests involved include the natural anticoagulants antithrombin, protein C, and protein S; the procoagulants fibrinogen (dysfibrinogen), prothrombin (mutation G20210A), factor V (Leiden mutation), factor VIII/von Willebrand factor/blood group ABO, factor IX, and factor XI; the anti-phospholipid antibodies to detect an antiphospholipid syndrome and potentially additional uncertain thrombophilic conditions. The risks of thrombophilic conditions and clinical risk factors for VTE are cumulative or even supra-additive. Scores from thrombophilic conditions and other genetic and nongenetic risk factors permit estimation of risk for first and recurrent VTE. Therapeutic strategies can be derived from this risk stratification.
CONCLUSIONS
Thrombophilia testing is indicated when the results have potential to influence the type and duration of treatment. Indications include certain patients after VTE; or patients without previous VTE but with positive family history regarding VTE or thrombophilia before major surgery, pregnancy, combined oral contraceptives, or hormone replacement therapy. Whether or not thrombophilia is present should help determine anticoagulation, hormonal contraception, or hormone replacement.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Venous Thromboembolism; Thrombophilia; Anticoagulants; Risk Factors
PubMed: 37057948
DOI: 10.7754/Clin.Lab.2022.220817 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Exercise has a number of health benefits and has been recommended as a treatment for primary dysmenorrhoea (period pain), but the evidence for its effectiveness on...
BACKGROUND
Exercise has a number of health benefits and has been recommended as a treatment for primary dysmenorrhoea (period pain), but the evidence for its effectiveness on primary dysmenorrhoea is unclear. This review examined the available evidence supporting the use of exercise to treat primary dysmenorrhoea.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of exercise for women with primary dysmenorrhoea.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED and CINAHL (from inception to July 2019). We searched two clinical trial databases (inception to March 2019) and handsearched reference lists and previous systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies if they randomised women with moderate-to-severe primary dysmenorrhoea to receive exercise versus no treatment, attention control, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or the oral contraceptive pill. Cross-over studies and cluster-randomised trials were not eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected the studies, assessed eligible studies for risk of bias, and extracted data from each study. We contacted study authors for missing information. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were menstrual pain intensity and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included overall menstrual symptoms, usage of rescue analgesic medication, restriction of daily life activities, absence from work or school and quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 12 trials with 854 women in the review, with 10 trials and 754 women in the meta-analysis. Nine of the 10 studies compared exercise with no treatment, and one study compared exercise with NSAIDs. No studies compared exercise with attention control or with the oral contraceptive pill. Studies used low-intensity exercise (stretching, core strengthening or yoga) or high-intensity exercise (Zumba or aerobic training); none of the included studies used resistance training.Exercise versus no treatmentExercise may have a large effect on reducing menstrual pain intensity compared to no exercise (standard mean difference (SMD) -1.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.06 to -1.66; 9 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), n = 632; I= 91%; low-quality evidence). This SMD corresponds to a 25 mm reduction on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) and is likely to be clinically significant. We are uncertain if there is any difference in adverse event rates between exercise and no treatment.We are uncertain if exercise reduces overall menstrual symptoms (as measured by the Moos Menstrual Distress Questionnaire (MMDQ)), such as back pain or fatigue compared to no treatment (mean difference (MD) -33.16, 95% CI -40.45 to -25.87; 1 RCT, n = 120; very low-quality evidence), or improves mental quality of life (MD 4.40, 95% CI 1.59 to 7.21; 1 RCT, n = 55; very low-quality evidence) or physical quality of life (as measured by the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12)) compared to no exercise (MD 3.40, 95% CI -1.68 to 8.48; 1 RCT, n = 55; very low-quality evidence) when compared to no treatment. No studies reported on any changes in restriction of daily life activities or on absence from work or school.Exercise versus NSAIDsWe are uncertain if exercise, when compared with mefenamic acid, reduced menstrual pain intensity (MD -7.40, 95% CI -8.36 to -6.44; 1 RCT, n = 122; very low-quality evidence), use of rescue analgesic medication (risk ratio (RR) 1.77, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.60; 1 RCT, n = 122; very low-quality evidence) or absence from work or school (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.03; 1 RCT, n = 122; very low-quality evidence). None of the included studies reported on adverse events, overall menstrual symptoms, restriction of daily life activities or quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The current low-quality evidence suggests that exercise, performed for about 45 to 60 minutes each time, three times per week or more, regardless of intensity, may provide a clinically significant reduction in menstrual pain intensity of around 25 mm on a 100 mm VAS. All studies used exercise regularly throughout the month, with some studies asking women not to exercise during menstruation. Given the overall health benefits of exercise, and the relatively low risk of side effects reported in the general population, women may consider using exercise, either alone or in conjunction with other modalities, such as NSAIDs, to manage menstrual pain. It is unclear if the benefits of exercise persist after regular exercise has stopped or if they are similar in women over the age of 25. Further research is required, using validated outcome measures, adequate blinding and suitable comparator groups reflecting current best practice or accounting for the extra attention given during exercise.
Topics: Dysmenorrhea; Exercise; Fatigue; Female; Humans; Menstruation; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31538328
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004142.pub4 -
Journal of Applied Physiology... Dec 2023Hormonal changes around ovulation divide the menstrual cycle (MC) into the follicular and luteal phases. In addition, oral contraceptives (OCs) have active (higher... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Hormonal changes around ovulation divide the menstrual cycle (MC) into the follicular and luteal phases. In addition, oral contraceptives (OCs) have active (higher hormone) and placebo phases. Although there are some MC-based effects on various physiological outcomes, we found these differences relatively subtle and difficult to attribute to specific hormones, as estrogen and progesterone fluctuate rather than operating in a complete on/off pattern as observed in cellular or preclinical models often used to substantiate human data. A broad review reveals that the differences between the follicular and luteal phases and between OC active and placebo phases are not associated with marked differences in exercise performance and appear unlikely to influence muscular hypertrophy in response to resistance exercise training. A systematic review and meta-analysis of substrate oxidation between MC phases revealed no difference between phases in the relative carbohydrate and fat oxidation at rest and during acute aerobic exercise. Vascular differences between MC phases are also relatively small or nonexistent. Although OCs can vary in composition and androgenicity, we acknowledge that much more work remains to be done in this area; however, based on what little evidence is currently available, we do not find compelling support for the notion that OC use significantly influences exercise performance, substrate oxidation, or hypertrophy. It is important to note that the study of females requires better methodological control in many areas. Previous studies lacking such rigor have contributed to premature or incorrect conclusions regarding the effects of the MC and systemic hormones on outcomes. While we acknowledge that the evidence in certain research areas is limited, the consensus view is that the impact of the MC and OC use on various aspects of physiology is small or nonexistent.
Topics: Female; Humans; Contraceptives, Oral; Menstrual Cycle; Hormones; Progesterone; Hypertrophy
PubMed: 37823207
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00346.2023 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jun 2020Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture.
BACKGROUND
Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of non-bisphosphonates {denosumab [Prolia; Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA], raloxifene [Evista; Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan], romosozumab [Evenity; Union Chimique Belge (UCB) S.A. (Brussels, Belgium) and Amgen Inc.] and teriparatide [Forsteo; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA]}, compared with each other, bisphosphonates or no treatment, for the prevention of fragility fracture.
DATA SOURCES
For the clinical effectiveness review, nine electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched up to July 2018.
REVIEW METHODS
A systematic review and network meta-analysis of fracture and femoral neck bone mineral density were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a model previously used to evaluate bisphosphonates was adapted. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. This was done for each non-bisphosphonate treatment, a strategy of no treatment, and the five bisphosphonate treatments previously evaluated. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and network meta-analysis. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. An NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net monetary benefit was estimated using non-parametric regression. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty.
RESULTS
Fifty-two randomised controlled trials of non-bisphosphonates were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review and an additional 51 randomised controlled trials of bisphosphonates were included in the network meta-analysis. All treatments had beneficial effects compared with placebo for vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures, with hazard ratios varying from 0.23 to 0.94, depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and the percentage change in bone mineral density were statistically significant for all treatments. The rate of serious adverse events varied across trials (0-33%), with most between-group differences not being statistically significant for comparisons with placebo/no active treatment, non-bisphosphonates or bisphosphonates. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were > £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for all non-bisphosphonate interventions compared with no treatment across the range of QFracture and FRAX scores expected in the population eligible for fracture risk assessment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for denosumab may fall below £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year at very high levels of risk or for high-risk patients with specific characteristics. Raloxifene was dominated by no treatment (resulted in fewer quality-adjusted life-years) in most risk categories.
LIMITATIONS
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are uncertain for very high-risk patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Non-bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are generally greater than the commonly applied threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107651.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 24, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: Bone Density Conservation Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Humans; Osteoporotic Fractures; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Teriparatide; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32588816
DOI: 10.3310/hta24290 -
Clinical Cardiology Aug 2023This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of single-pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive drugs in patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. Through Searching... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of single-pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive drugs in patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. Through Searching Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science collected only randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs in people with uncontrolled essential hypertension. The search period is from the establishment of the database to July 2022. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment, and statistical analyses were performed using Review Manage 5.3 and Stata 15.1 software. This review ultimately included 32 references involving 16 273 patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that a total of 11 single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs were included, namely: Amlodipine/valsartan, Telmisartan/amlodipine, Losartan/HCTZ, Candesartan/HCTZ, Amlodipine/benazepril, Telmisartan/HCTZ, Valsartan/HCTZ, Irbesartan/amlodipine, Amlodipine/losartan, Irbesartan/HCTZ, and Perindopril/amlodipine. According to SUCRA, Irbesartan/amlodipine may rank first in reducing systolic blood pressure (SUCRA: 92.2%); Amlodipine/losartan may rank first in reducing diastolic blood pressure (SUCRA: 95.1%); Telmisartan/amlodipine may rank first in blood pressure control rates (SUCRA: 83.5%); Amlodipine/losartan probably ranks first in diastolic response rate (SUCRA: 84.5%). Based on Ranking Plot of the Network, we can conclude that single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs are superior to monotherapy, and ARB/CCB combination has better advantages than other SPC in terms of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, blood pressure control rate, and diastolic response rate. However, due to the small number of some drug studies, the lack of relevant studies has led to not being included in this study, which may impact the results, and readers should interpret the results with caution.
Topics: Humans; Antihypertensive Agents; Losartan; Hypertension; Telmisartan; Irbesartan; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Hydrochlorothiazide; Valine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Amlodipine; Valsartan; Tetrazoles; Blood Pressure; Essential Hypertension
PubMed: 37432701
DOI: 10.1002/clc.24082 -
American Journal of Preventive Medicine Nov 2021Given mixed findings regarding the relationship between long-acting reversible contraception and condom use, this systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizes studies... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Given mixed findings regarding the relationship between long-acting reversible contraception and condom use, this systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizes studies comparing sexually transmitted infection‒related outcomes between users of long-acting reversible contraception (intrauterine devices, implants) and users of moderately effective contraceptive methods (oral contraceptives, injectables, patches, rings).
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Global Health, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched for articles published between January 1990 and July 2018. Eligible studies included those that (1) were published in the English language, (2) were published in a peer-reviewed journal, (3) reported empirical, quantitative analyses, and (4) compared at least 1 outcome of interest (condom use, sexual behaviors other than condom use, sexually transmitted infection‒related service receipt, or sexually transmitted infections/HIV) between users of long-acting reversible contraception and users of moderately effective methods. In 2020, pooled ORs were calculated for condom use, chlamydia/gonorrhea infection, and trichomoniasis infection; findings for other outcomes were synthesized qualitatively. The protocol is registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018109489).
RESULTS
A total of 33 studies were included. Long-acting reversible contraception users had decreased odds of using condoms compared with oral contraceptive users (OR=0.43, 95% CI=0.30, 0.63) and injectable, patch, or ring users (OR=0.58, 95% CI=0.48, 0.71); this association remained when limited to adolescents and young adults only. Findings related to multiple sex partners were mixed, and only 2 studies examined sexually transmitted infection testing, reporting mainly null findings. Pooled estimates for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea were null, but long-acting reversible contraception users had increased odds of trichomoniasis infection compared with oral contraceptive users (OR=2.01, 95% CI=1.11, 3.62).
DISCUSSION
Promoting condom use specifically for sexually transmitted infection prevention may be particularly important among long-acting reversible contraception users at risk for sexually transmitted infections, including adolescents and young adults.
Topics: Adolescent; Condoms; Contraception; Humans; Long-Acting Reversible Contraception; Safe Sex; Sexually Transmitted Diseases; Young Adult
PubMed: 34686301
DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2021.04.032 -
JAMA Psychiatry Mar 2020Cognitive behavioral therapy is recommended for anxiety-related disorders, but evidence for its long-term outcome is limited. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Cognitive behavioral therapy is recommended for anxiety-related disorders, but evidence for its long-term outcome is limited.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the long-term outcomes after cognitive behavioral therapy (compared with care as usual, relaxation, psychoeducation, pill placebo, supportive therapy, or waiting list) for anxiety disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).
DATA SOURCES
English-language publications were identified from PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Cochrane, OpenGrey (1980 to January 2019), and recent reviews. The search strategy included a combination of terms associated with anxiety disorders (eg, panic or phobi*) and study design (eg, clinical trial or randomized controlled trial).
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials on posttreatment and at least 1-month follow-up effects of cognitive behavioral therapy compared with control conditions among adults with generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, social anxiety disorder, specific phobia, PTSD, or OCD.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Researchers independently screened records, extracted statistics, and assessed study quality. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Hedges g was calculated for anxiety symptoms immediately after treatment and at 1 to 6 months, 6 to 12 months, and 12 months or more after treatment completion.
RESULTS
Of 69 randomized clinical trials (4118 outpatients) that were mainly of low quality, cognitive behavioral therapy compared with control conditions was associated with improved outcomes after treatment completion and at 1 to 6 months and at 6 to 12 months of follow-up for a generalized anxiety disorder (Hedges g, 0.07-0.40), panic disorder with or without agoraphobia (Hedges g, 0.22-0.35), social anxiety disorder (Hedges g, 0.34-0.60), specific phobia (Hedges g, 0.49-0.72), PTSD (Hedges g, 0.59-0.72), and OCD (Hedges g, 0.70-0.85). At a follow-up of 12 months or more, these associations were still significant for generalized anxiety disorder (Hedges g, 0.22; number of studies [k] = 10), social anxiety disorder (Hedges g, 0.42; k = 3), and PTSD (Hedges g, 0.84; k = 5), but not for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia (k = 5) and could not be calculated for specific phobia (k = 1) and OCD (k = 0). Relapse rates after 3 to 12 months were 0% to 14% but were reported in only 6 randomized clinical trials (predominantly for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety-related disorders is associated with improved outcomes compared with control conditions until 12 months after treatment completion. At a follow-up of 12 months or more, effects were small to medium for generalized anxiety disorder and social anxiety disorder, large for PTSD, and not significant or not available for other disorders. High-quality randomized clinical trials with 12 months or more of follow-up and reported relapse rates are needed.
Topics: Anxiety Disorders; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Humans; Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31758858
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.3986