-
Journal of Patient Safety Jun 2021Teach-back methods are reported to improve patient outcomes by encouraging patient understanding and participation and are increasingly being used in various clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Teach-back methods are reported to improve patient outcomes by encouraging patient understanding and participation and are increasingly being used in various clinical settings. This study attempts to identify the effectiveness of discharge education using the teach-back method on 30-day readmission.
METHODS
MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were used to search experimental studies. The search terms were "discharged patient," "teach-back," and "30-day readmission" published in English up until July 2017. Two trained reviewers performed a critical appraisal of retrieved studies using the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Nonrandomized Studies. Data were analyzed using Cochrane Review Manager (Revman) software 5.2.
RESULTS
A total of five studies were analyzed (3 studies on heart failure, 1 study on total joint replacement, and 1 study on a coronary artery bypass graft). The main content of the teach-back education was to confirm and reinforce the patients' comprehension of health-related information. Among the five studies, three studies were included in the meta-analysis. The odds ratio of 30-day readmission for discharge education with the teach-back method and usual care was 0.55 (95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.91; P = 0.02). The I2 score was 0%, which means that the analyzed studies are homogeneous.
CONCLUSIONS
The results indicate that discharge education with the teach-back method resulted in a 45% reduction in 30-day readmission. However, only a few studies were included in the analysis, and they showed a high risk of selection bias. Therefore, we suggest that well-designed randomized controlled trials be conducted.
Topics: Humans; Patient Discharge; Patient Readmission
PubMed: 30882616
DOI: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000596 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Topiramate is a newer broad-spectrum antiepileptic drug (AED). Some studies have shown the benefits of topiramate in the treatment of juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME).... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Topiramate is a newer broad-spectrum antiepileptic drug (AED). Some studies have shown the benefits of topiramate in the treatment of juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME). However, there are no current systematic reviews to determine the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate in people with JME. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015, and last updated in 2019.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate in the treatment of JME.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) on 26 August 2021, and MEDLINE (Ovid 1946 to 26 August 2021). CRS Web includes randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Cochrane Epilepsy.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating topiramate versus placebo or other AED treatment for people with JME, with the outcomes of proportion of responders and proportion of participants experiencing adverse events (AEs).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified records, selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, cross-checked the data for accuracy and assessed the methodological quality of the studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three studies with a total of 83 participants. For efficacy, a greater proportion of participants in the topiramate group had a 50% or greater reduction in primarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS), compared with participants in the placebo group (RR 4.00, 95% CI 1.08 to 14.75; 1 study, 22 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no significant differences between topiramate and valproate for participants responding with a 50% or greater reduction in myoclonic seizures (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.15; one study, 23 participants; very-low certainty evidence) or in PGTCS (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.21; one study, 16 participants, very-low certainty evidence), or participants becoming seizure-free (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.11; one study, 27 participants; very-low certainty evidence). Concerning tolerability, we ranked AEs associated with topiramate as moderate to severe, while we ranked 59% of AEs linked to valproate as severe complaints (2 studies, 61 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Moreover, systemic toxicity scores were higher in the valproate group than the topiramate group. Overall we judged all three studies to be at high risk of attrition bias and at unclear risk of reporting bias. We judged the studies to be at low to unclear risk of bias for the remaining domains (selection bias, performance bias, detection bias and other bias). We judged the overall certainty of the evidence for the outcomes as very low using the GRADE approach.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We have found no new studies since the last version of this review was published in 2019. This review does not provide sufficient evidence to support topiramate for the treatment of people with JME. Based on the current limited available data, topiramate seems to be better tolerated than valproate, but has no clear benefits over valproate in terms of efficacy. Well-designed, double-blind RCTs with large samples are required to test the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate in people with JME.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Humans; Myoclonic Epilepsy, Juvenile; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Topiramate; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 34817852
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010008.pub5 -
World Journal of Emergency Surgery :... Dec 2023To assess the efficacy of artificial intelligence (AI) models in diagnosing and prognosticating acute appendicitis (AA) in adult patients compared to traditional... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
To assess the efficacy of artificial intelligence (AI) models in diagnosing and prognosticating acute appendicitis (AA) in adult patients compared to traditional methods. AA is a common cause of emergency department visits and abdominal surgeries. It is typically diagnosed through clinical assessments, laboratory tests, and imaging studies. However, traditional diagnostic methods can be time-consuming and inaccurate. Machine learning models have shown promise in improving diagnostic accuracy and predicting outcomes.
MAIN BODY
A systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines was conducted, searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Studies were evaluated for risk of bias using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Data points extracted included model type, input features, validation strategies, and key performance metrics.
RESULTS
In total, 29 studies were analyzed, out of which 21 focused on diagnosis, seven on prognosis, and one on both. Artificial neural networks (ANNs) were the most commonly employed algorithm for diagnosis. Both ANN and logistic regression were also widely used for categorizing types of AA. ANNs showed high performance in most cases, with accuracy rates often exceeding 80% and AUC values peaking at 0.985. The models also demonstrated promising results in predicting postoperative outcomes such as sepsis risk and ICU admission. Risk of bias was identified in a majority of studies, with selection bias and lack of internal validation being the most common issues.
CONCLUSION
AI algorithms demonstrate significant promise in diagnosing and prognosticating AA, often surpassing traditional methods and clinical scores such as the Alvarado scoring system in terms of speed and accuracy.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Artificial Intelligence; Appendicitis; Prognosis; Algorithms; Machine Learning; Acute Disease
PubMed: 38114983
DOI: 10.1186/s13017-023-00527-2 -
The Science of the Total Environment Sep 2023As climate change exerts wide ranging health impacts, there is a surge of interest in the associations between climatic factors and mental and behavioral disorders... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
As climate change exerts wide ranging health impacts, there is a surge of interest in the associations between climatic factors and mental and behavioral disorders (MBDs). Existing quantitative syntheses focus mainly on heat and high temperature exposure, neglecting the effects of other climatic factors and their synergies. The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence of associations between climatic exposure and combined mental and behavioral health conditions and specific mental disorders (e.g., schizophrenia, dementia). A systematic search was conducted April 11-16, 2022 using Web of Science, Medline, ProQuest, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Environment Complete. Screening and eligibility screening followed inclusion criteria based on population, exposure, comparator, and outcome guidelines. Risk of bias assessment was performed, a narrative synthesis was first presented for all studies, and random-effect meta-analyses were performed when at least three studies were available for a specific exposure-outcome pair. Certainty of evidence was evaluated following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. The search process yielded 7696 initial results, from which we identified 88 studies to include in the review set. Climatic factors reported included air temperature, solar radiation/sunshine, barometric pressure, precipitation, relative humidity, wind direction/speed, and thermal index. Outcomes including MBD incidences (e.g., schizophrenia, mood disorders, neurotic disorders), mental health-related mortality, and self-reported psychological states. Meta-analysis showed that heatwaves (pooled RR = 1.05, 95 % CI = 1.02-1.08) and extreme high temperatures (99th percentile: pooled RR = 1.18, 95 % CI = 1.08-1.29) were associated with higher risk of MBD. Cold extremes, however, were not associated with MBD risk. The findings further identified an association between increases in a thermal index (i.e., apparent temperature) and elevated risk of MBD (pooled RR = 1.06, 95 % CI = 1.03-1.12); specifically, a 99th percentile high temperature was associated with increased schizophrenia risk (pooled RR = 1.07, 95 % CI = 1.01-1.12). Risk of bias assessment showed most studies to have low or moderately low risks, while a few studies were rated probably high in confounding, selection bias, outcome measurement, and reporting bias. GRADE evaluation revealed moderate certainty of evidence on thermal comfort index and MBD, but low certainty related to air temperature or sunshine duration. These findings call attention to the heterogeneity of exposure measures and the utility of thermal indices that consider the synergistic effects of meteorological factors. Methodological concerns such as the linearity assumption and cumulative effects are discussed.
Topics: Humans; Mental Disorders; Mental Health; Selection Bias; Hot Temperature; Risk
PubMed: 37257626
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164435 -
Telemedicine Reports 2023Asynchronous telemedicine (ATM), which describes telemedical interaction between a patient and provider where neither party communicates simultaneously, is an important... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Asynchronous telemedicine (ATM), which describes telemedical interaction between a patient and provider where neither party communicates simultaneously, is an important telemedicine modality that is seeing increased use. In this article, we summarize the published peer-reviewed literature specifically related to ATM to (1) identify terms or phrases that are used to describe ATM, (2) ascertain how this research has thus far addressed the various aspects of the quadruple aim of medicine, and (3) assess the methodological rigor of research on ATM. We also divided the literature into pre- and post-COVID-19 onset periods to identify potential variations in the literature between these two periods.
METHODS
This systematic literature review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The literature search, utilizing multiple databases and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, initially produced 2624 abstracts for review. De-duplication and screening ultimately yielded 104 articles for data extraction.
RESULTS
"Store-and-forward" and variations of "e-visit" were the most frequently used alternative terms for ATM. Care quality was the most frequently addressed aspect of the Quadruple Aim of Medicine-more than double any other category-followed by patient satisfaction. We separated cost of care into two categories: patients' cost of care and providers' cost to provide care. Patient cost of care was the third most addressed aspect of the Quadruple Aim of Medicine followed by provider well-being and provider's cost to provide care. Methodological rigor of the studies was also addressed, with only 2 quantitative studies ranked "Strong," 5 ranked "Moderate," and 97 ranked "Weak." Qualitative studies were generally acceptable but struggled methodologically with accounting for all participants and articulation of results.
CONCLUSIONS
Although "store-and-forward" is somewhat more frequently used in the studies included in this review, variants of "e-visit," are growing in recent usage. Given the relative newness of modality, it is not surprising that quality of care is the most researched aspect of the Quadruple Aim of Medicine in ATM research. We anticipate more balance between these areas as research in this field matures. Primary areas of research need currently relate to practitioners-specifically their costs of providing care and well-being. Finally, future ATM research needs to address research challenges of selection bias and blinding in quantitative studies and improved participant tracking and articulation of both study design and results in qualitative studies.
PubMed: 38143795
DOI: 10.1089/tmr.2023.0052 -
Updates in Surgery Oct 2023Laser-assisted resection (LAR) of pulmonary metastases offers several potential advantages compared to conventional surgical techniques. However, the technical details,... (Review)
Review
Laser-assisted resection (LAR) of pulmonary metastases offers several potential advantages compared to conventional surgical techniques. However, the technical details, indications and outcomes of LAR have not been extensively reviewed. We conducted a systematic literature search to identify all original articles reporting on LAR of pulmonary metastases. All relevant outcomes, including morbidity rate, R0 rate, pulmonary function tests, overall- (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) rates were collected. Additionally, a comparison between outcomes obtained by laser-assisted and conventional resection techniques was provided. Of 2629 articles found by the initial search, 12 were selected for the systematic review. Following LAR, the R0 rate ranged between 72 and 100% and the morbidity rate ranged from 0 to 27.5%. The postoperative decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s varied between 3.4 and 11%. Median OS and RFS were 42-77.6 months and 9-34.1 months, respectively. Compared with patients treated by other resection techniques, patients treated by LAR frequently had a higher number of metastases and a higher rate of bilateral disease. Despite this, no significant differences were observed in R0 rate, morbidity rate, and median OS rate, while only 1 study found a lower RFS rate in the LAR cohort. Although selection bias limits the comparability of outcomes, the findings of this review suggest that LAR is a valid alternative to conventional procedures of lung metastasectomy. The main difficulties of this technique consist in the adoption of a video-assisted thoracoscopic approach, and in the pathologic assessment of resection margins.
PubMed: 37347356
DOI: 10.1007/s13304-023-01564-x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2023Keratoconus remains difficult to diagnose, especially in the early stages. It is a progressive disorder of the cornea that starts at a young age. Diagnosis is based on... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Keratoconus remains difficult to diagnose, especially in the early stages. It is a progressive disorder of the cornea that starts at a young age. Diagnosis is based on clinical examination and corneal imaging; though in the early stages, when there are no clinical signs, diagnosis depends on the interpretation of corneal imaging (e.g. topography and tomography) by trained cornea specialists. Using artificial intelligence (AI) to analyse the corneal images and detect cases of keratoconus could help prevent visual acuity loss and even corneal transplantation. However, a missed diagnosis in people seeking refractive surgery could lead to weakening of the cornea and keratoconus-like ectasia. There is a need for a reliable overview of the accuracy of AI for detecting keratoconus and the applicability of this automated method to the clinical setting.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms for detecting keratoconus in people presenting with refractive errors, especially those whose vision can no longer be fully corrected with glasses, those seeking corneal refractive surgery, and those suspected of having keratoconus. AI could help ophthalmologists, optometrists, and other eye care professionals to make decisions on referral to cornea specialists. Secondary objectives To assess the following potential causes of heterogeneity in diagnostic performance across studies. • Different AI algorithms (e.g. neural networks, decision trees, support vector machines) • Index test methodology (preprocessing techniques, core AI method, and postprocessing techniques) • Sources of input to train algorithms (topography and tomography images from Placido disc system, Scheimpflug system, slit-scanning system, or optical coherence tomography (OCT); number of training and testing cases/images; label/endpoint variable used for training) • Study setting • Study design • Ethnicity, or geographic area as its proxy • Different index test positivity criteria provided by the topography or tomography device • Reference standard, topography or tomography, one or two cornea specialists • Definition of keratoconus • Mean age of participants • Recruitment of participants • Severity of keratoconus (clinically manifest or subclinical) SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, OpenGrey, the ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 29 November 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included cross-sectional and diagnostic case-control studies that investigated AI for the diagnosis of keratoconus using topography, tomography, or both. We included studies that diagnosed manifest keratoconus, subclinical keratoconus, or both. The reference standard was the interpretation of topography or tomography images by at least two cornea specialists.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted the study data and assessed the quality of studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. When an article contained multiple AI algorithms, we selected the algorithm with the highest Youden's index. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 63 studies, published between 1994 and 2022, that developed and investigated the accuracy of AI for the diagnosis of keratoconus. There were three different units of analysis in the studies: eyes, participants, and images. Forty-four studies analysed 23,771 eyes, four studies analysed 3843 participants, and 15 studies analysed 38,832 images. Fifty-four articles evaluated the detection of manifest keratoconus, defined as a cornea that showed any clinical sign of keratoconus. The accuracy of AI seems almost perfect, with a summary sensitivity of 98.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 97.6% to 99.1%) and a summary specificity of 98.3% (95% CI 97.4% to 98.9%). However, accuracy varied across studies and the certainty of the evidence was low. Twenty-eight articles evaluated the detection of subclinical keratoconus, although the definition of subclinical varied. We grouped subclinical keratoconus, forme fruste, and very asymmetrical eyes together. The tests showed good accuracy, with a summary sensitivity of 90.0% (95% CI 84.5% to 93.8%) and a summary specificity of 95.5% (95% CI 91.9% to 97.5%). However, the certainty of the evidence was very low for sensitivity and low for specificity. In both groups, we graded most studies at high risk of bias, with high applicability concerns, in the domain of patient selection, since most were case-control studies. Moreover, we graded the certainty of evidence as low to very low due to selection bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. We could not explain the heterogeneity between the studies. The sensitivity analyses based on study design, AI algorithm, imaging technique (topography versus tomography), and data source (parameters versus images) showed no differences in the results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
AI appears to be a promising triage tool in ophthalmologic practice for diagnosing keratoconus. Test accuracy was very high for manifest keratoconus and slightly lower for subclinical keratoconus, indicating a higher chance of missing a diagnosis in people without clinical signs. This could lead to progression of keratoconus or an erroneous indication for refractive surgery, which would worsen the disease. We are unable to draw clear and reliable conclusions due to the high risk of bias, the unexplained heterogeneity of the results, and high applicability concerns, all of which reduced our confidence in the evidence. Greater standardization in future research would increase the quality of studies and improve comparability between studies.
Topics: Humans; Artificial Intelligence; Keratoconus; Cross-Sectional Studies; Physical Examination; Case-Control Studies
PubMed: 37965960
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014911.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Hypertension is considered to be a serious health problem worldwide. Controlling and lowering blood pressure are of significant benefit to people with hypertension... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hypertension is considered to be a serious health problem worldwide. Controlling and lowering blood pressure are of significant benefit to people with hypertension because hypertension is a risk factor for stroke, heart disease, and cardiovascular disease. Roselle, the tropical plant Hibiscus sabdariffa, also commonly called sour tea or red tea, has been used as both a thirst-quenching drink and for medicinal purposes.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of Roselle on blood pressure in people with primary hypertension.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases and trials registers for randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register (to 6 August 2021), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2021, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 5 August 2021), Embase Ovid (1974 to 5 August 2021), ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (to 6 August 2021), Web of Science Clarivate (to 7 August 2021), Food Science and Technology Abstracts Clarivate (to 7 August 2021), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 6 August 2021), and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (to 6 August 2021). We searched Google Scholar and OpenSIGLE. We also handsearched local and regional Chinese databases: CBM, CMCC, TCMLARS, CNKI, CMAC, and the Index to Chinese Periodical Literature (to 14 September 2020), as well as Thai databases (ThaiJO, CUIR, TDC, CMU e-Theses, TCTR) (to 3 October 2020). There were no language or publication date restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought RCTs evaluating the use of any forms of Roselle with placebo or no treatment in adults with hypertension. Our primary outcome was change in trough and/or peak systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP). Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to adverse effects, change in pulse pressure, and change in heart rate.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All search results were managed using Covidence and re-checked for the number of records, inclusion and exclusion of studies with Mendeley reference management software. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors worked independently in parallel for screening (titles and abstracts, and full reports), data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and assessment of the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consultation with the third review author if necessary. We presented mean difference (MD) of change in SBP and DBP with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
For this update, only one RCT with a parallel-group design involving 60 participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus fulfilled the inclusion criteria. This study investigated the effect of Roselle extract capsules (total dose of 5600 mg) compared with placebo (lactose) at eight weeks. The study was at low risk of selection bias, performance bias, and detection bias. Conversely, it was at high risk of attrition bias, reporting bias, and other bias (baseline imbalance). We have very little confidence in the effect estimate of Roselle on change-from-baseline in both SBP and DBP between the two groups. The MD of change in SBP was 1.65, 95% CI -7.89 to 11.19 mmHg, 52 participants, very low-certainty evidence. The MD of change in DBP was 4.60, 95% CI -1.38 to 10.58 mmHg, 52 participants, very low-certainty evidence. Our secondary outcomes of withdrawals due to adverse effects, change in pulse pressure, and change in heart rate were not reported. Due to the limited available data, no secondary analyses were performed (subgroup and sensitivity analysis).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence is currently insufficient to determine the effectiveness of Roselle compared to placebo for controlling or lowering blood pressure in people with hypertension. The certainty of evidence was very low due to methodological limitations, imprecision, and indirectness. There is a need for rigorous RCTs that address the review question.
Topics: Adult; Blood Pressure; Cardiovascular Diseases; Hibiscus; Humans; Hypertension; Systole
PubMed: 34837382
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007894.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021This is an updated Cochrane Review, first published in 2006 and updated in 2014. Gout is one of the most common rheumatic diseases worldwide. Despite the use of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated Cochrane Review, first published in 2006 and updated in 2014. Gout is one of the most common rheumatic diseases worldwide. Despite the use of colchicine as one of the first-line therapies for the treatment of acute gout, evidence for its benefits and harms is relatively limited.
OBJECTIVES
To update the available evidence of the benefits and harms of colchicine for the treatment of acute gout.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated the search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP registries to 28 August 2020. We did not impose any date or language restrictions in the search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (quasi-RCTs) evaluating colchicine therapy compared with another therapy (placebo or active) in acute gout; low-dose colchicine at clinically relevant doses compared with placebo was the primary comparison. The major outcomes were pain, participant global assessment of treatment success (proportion with 50% or greater decrease in pain from baseline up to 32 to 36 hours), reduction of inflammation, function of target joint, serious adverse events, total adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane in this review update.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four trials (803 randomised participants), including two new trials, in this updated review. One three-arm trial compared high-dose colchicine (52 participants), low-dose colchicine (74 participants) and placebo (59 participants); one trial compared high-dose colchicine with placebo (43 participants); one trial compared low-dose colchicine with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (399 participants); and one trial compared low-dose colchicine with Chuanhu anti-gout mixture (traditional Chinese Medicine compound) (176 participants). We did not identify any trials comparing colchicine to glucocorticoids (by any route). The mean age of participants ranged from 51.2 to 70 years, and trial duration from 48 hours to 12 weeks. Two trials were at low risk of bias, one was possibly susceptible to selection bias (random sequence generation), reporting bias and other bias, and one open-label trial was at high risk of performance and detection bias. For the primary comparison, low-quality evidence from one trial (103 participants, downgraded for imprecision and bias) suggests low-dose colchicine may improve treatment outcome compared to placebo with little or no increased risk of adverse events. The number of people who reported treatment success (50% or greater pain reduction) at 32 to 36 hours was slightly larger with low-dose colchicine (418 per 1000) compared with placebo (172 per 1000; risk ratio (RR) 2.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 5.64; absolute improvement 25% more reported success (7% more to 42% more, the 95% CIs include both a clinically important and unimportant benefit); relative change of 143% more people reported treatment success (5% more to 464% more). The incidence of total adverse events was 364 per 1000 with low-dose colchicine compared with 276 per 1000 with placebo: RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.56; absolute difference 9% more events with low-dose colchicine (9% fewer to 43% more, the 95% CIs include both a clinically important effect and no effect); relative change of 32% more events (32% fewer to 156% more). No participants withdrew due to adverse events or reported any serious adverse events. Pain, inflammation and function were not reported. Low-quality evidence (downgraded for imprecision and bias) from two trials (124 participants) suggests that high-dose colchicine compared to placebo may improve symptoms, but with increased risk of harms. More participants reported treatment success at 32 to 36 hours with high-dose colchicine (518 per 1000) compared with placebo (240 per 1000): RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.65, absolute improvement 28% (8% more to 46% more); more also had reduced inflammation at this time point with high-dose colchicine (504 per 1000) compared with placebo (48 per 1000): RR 10.50, 95% CI 1.48 to 74.38; absolute improvement 45% greater (22% greater to 68% greater); but more adverse events were reported with high-dose colchicine (829 per 1000 compared with 260 per 1000): RR 3.21, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.11, absolute difference 57% (26% more to 74% more). Pain and function were not reported. Low-quality evidence from a single trial comparing high-dose to low-dose colchicine indicates there may be little or no difference in benefit in terms of treatment success at 32 to 36 hours but more adverse events associated with the higher dose. Similarly, low-quality evidence from a single trial indicates there may also be little or no benefit of low-dose colchicine over NSAIDs in terms of treatment success and pain reduction at seven days, with a similar number of adverse events reported at four weeks follow-up. Reduction of inflammation, function of target joint and withdrawals due to adverse events were not reported in either of these trials, and pain was not reported in the high-dose versus low-dose colchicine trial. We were unable to estimate the risk of serious adverse events for most comparisons as there were few events reported in the trials. One trial (399 participants) reported three serious adverse (one in a participant receiving low-dose colchicine and two in participants receiving NSAIDs), due to reasons unrelated to the trial (low-quality evidence downgraded for bias and imprecision).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found low-quality evidence that low-dose colchicine may be an effective treatment for acute gout when compared to placebo and low-quality evidence that its benefits may be similar to NSAIDs. We downgraded the evidence for bias and imprecision. While both high- and low-dose colchicine improve pain when compared to placebo, low-quality evidence suggests that high-dose (but not low-dose) colchicine may increase the number of adverse events compared to placebo, while low-quality evidence indicates that the number of adverse events may be similar with low-dose colchicine and NSAIDs. Further trials comparing colchicine to placebo or other treatment will likely have an important impact on our confidence in the effect estimates and may change the conclusions of this review. There are no trials reporting the effect of colchicine in populations with comorbidities or in comparison with other commonly used treatments, such as glucocorticoids.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Child, Preschool; Colchicine; Glucocorticoids; Gout; Humans; Infant; Pain
PubMed: 34438469
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006190.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2024Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynaecological cancers in the world. Rates of endometrial cancer are rising, in part because of rising obesity rates.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynaecological cancers in the world. Rates of endometrial cancer are rising, in part because of rising obesity rates. Endometrial hyperplasia is a precancerous condition in women that can lead to endometrial cancer if left untreated. Endometrial hyperplasia occurs more commonly than endometrial cancer. Progesterone tablets that are currently used to treat women with endometrial hyperplasia are associated with adverse effects in up to 84% of women. A levonorgestrel intrauterine device may improve compliance, but it is invasive, is not acceptable to all women, and is associated with irregular vaginal bleeding in 82% of cases. Therefore, an alternative treatment for women with endometrial hyperplasia is needed. Metformin, a drug that is often used to treat people with diabetes, has been shown, in some human studies, to reverse endometrial hyperplasia. However, the effectiveness and safety of metformin for treatment of endometrial hyperplasia remain uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of metformin in treating women with endometrial hyperplasia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, LILACS, and two trials registers from inception to 5 September 2022. We searched the bibliographies of all relevant studies, and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials comparing metformin (used alone or in combination with other medical therapies) versus placebo, no treatment, any conventional medical treatment, or any other active intervention for women with histologically confirmed endometrial hyperplasia of any type.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data from included studies, assessed the risk of bias in the included studies, and assessed the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. We resolved disagreements by discussion or by deferring to a third review author. When study details were missing, review authors contacted the study authors. The primary outcome of this review was regression of endometrial hyperplasia histology (with or without atypia) towards normal histology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven RCTs, in which a total of 387 women took part. In the comparison, Metformin plus megestrol versus megestrol alone, we rated the certainty of the evidence as low for the outcome, regression of endometrial hyperplasia. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low for the rest of the outcomes, in all three comparisons. Although there was a low risk of selection bias, there was a high risk of bias in the blinding of personnel and outcome assessment (performance bias and detection bias) in many studies. This update identified four new RCTs and six ongoing RCTs. Metformin versus megestrol We are uncertain whether metformin increases the regression of endometrial hyperplasia towards normal histology over megestrol (odds ratio (OR) 4.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 15.32; P = 0.006; 2 RCTs, 83 participants; I² = 7%; very low-certainty evidence). This evidence suggests that if the rate of regression with megestrol is 61%, the rate of regression with metformin would be between 71% and 96%. It is unresolved whether metformin results in different rates of abnormal uterine bleeding or hysterectomy compared to megestrol. No study in this comparison reported progression of hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, health-related quality of life, or adverse effects during treatment. Metformin plus megestrol versus megestrol monotherapy The combination of metformin and megestrol may enhance the regression of endometrial hyperplasia towards normal histology more than megestrol alone (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.65 to 6.51; P = 0.0007; 4 RCTs, 258 participants; I² = 0%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the rate of regression with megestrol monotherapy is 54%, the rate of regression with the addition of metformin would be between 66% and 84%. In one study, 3/8 (37.5%) of participants who took metformin had nausea that settled without further treatment. It is unresolved whether the combination of metformin and megestrol results in different rates of recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, progression of endometrial hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, or hysterectomy compared to megestrol monotherapy. No study in this comparison reported abnormal uterine bleeding, or health-related quality of life. Metformin plus levonorgestrel (intrauterine system) versus levonorgestrel (intrauterine system) monotherapy We are uncertain whether there is a difference between groups in the regression of endometrial hyperplasia towards normal histology (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.56; 1 RCT, 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This evidence suggests that if the rate of regression with levonorgestrel monotherapy is 96%, the rate of regression with the addition of metformin would be between 73% and 100%. It is unresolved whether the combination of metformin and levonorgestrel results in different rates of abnormal uterine bleeding, hysterectomy, or the development of adverse effects during treatment compared to levonorgestrel monotherapy. No study in this comparison reported recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, progression of hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, or health-related quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Review authors found insufficient evidence to either support or refute the use of metformin, specifically megestrol acetate, given alone or in combination with standard therapy, for the treatment of women with endometrial hyperplasia. Robustly designed and adequately powered randomised controlled trials, yielding long-term outcome data are still needed to address this clinical question.
Topics: Female; Humans; Endometrial Hyperplasia; Hypoglycemic Agents; Metformin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38695827
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012214.pub3