-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2021Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.
SEARCH METHODS
For this living systematic review we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to September 2020: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers to the same date. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to eligible RCTs.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse events). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons, according to CINeMA, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer on treatment hierarchy: 0% (treatment is the worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (treatment is the best for effectiveness or safety).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 158 studies (18 new studies for the update) in our review (57,831 randomised participants, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (58%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 20 treatments. In all, 133 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (53/158) as being at high risk of bias; 25 were at an unclear risk, and 80 at low risk. Most studies (123/158) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report their source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in reaching PASI 90. At class level, in reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the non-biological systemic agents. At drug level, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, risankizumab and guselkumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Ustekinumab and adalimumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than etanercept; ustekinumab was more effective than certolizumab, and the clinical effectiveness of ustekinumab and adalimumab was similar. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and three non-biological drugs: fumaric acid esters (FAEs), ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab, and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar, except for ixekizumab which had a better chance of reaching PASI 90 compared with secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab. The clinical effectiveness of these seven drugs was: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 50.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 20.96 to 120.67, SUCRA = 93.6; high-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 32.48, 95% CI 27.13 to 38.87; SUCRA = 90.5; high-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.76, 95% CI 23.96 to 34.54; SUCRA = 84.6; high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86; SUCRA = 81.4; high-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 25.79, 95% CI 21.61 to 30.78; SUCRA = 76.2; high-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.52, 95% CI 21.25 to 30.64; SUCRA = 75; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 23.55, 95% CI 19.48 to 28.48; SUCRA = 68.4; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as mirikizumab, tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to moderate certainty for all the comparisons. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the evidence for all the interventions was of low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials directly comparing active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between non-biological systemic agents and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Chronic Disease; Cytokines; Female; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Male; Middle Aged; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Network Meta-Analysis; Placebos; Psoriasis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 33871055
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub4 -
Gastroenterology Apr 2020Increased levels of galectin 3 have been associated with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and contribute to toxin-induced liver fibrosis in mice. GR-MD-02... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Increased levels of galectin 3 have been associated with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and contribute to toxin-induced liver fibrosis in mice. GR-MD-02 (belapectin) is an inhibitor of galectin 3 that reduces liver fibrosis and portal hypertension in rats and was safe and well tolerated in phase 1 studies. We performed a phase 2b, randomized trial of the safety and efficacy of GR-MD-02 in patients with NASH, cirrhosis, and portal hypertension.
METHODS
Patients with NASH, cirrhosis, and portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient [HVPG] ≥ 6 mm Hg) from 36 centers were randomly assigned, in a double-blind manner, to groups that received biweekly infusions of belapectin 2 mg/kg (n = 54), 8 mg/kg (n = 54), or placebo (n = 54) for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in HVPG (Δ HVPG) at the end of the 52-week period compared with baseline. Secondary endpoints included changes in liver histology and development of liver-related outcomes.
RESULTS
We found no significant difference in ΔHVPG between the 2 mg/kg belapectin group and placebo group (-0.28 mm HG vs 0.10 mm HG, P = 1.0) or between the 8 mg/kg belapectin and placebo group (-0.25 mm HG vs 0.10 mm HG, P = 1.0). Belapectin had no significant effect on fibrosis or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score, and liver-related outcomes did not differ significantly among groups. In an analysis of a subgroup of patients without esophageal varices at baseline (n = 81), 2 mg/kg belapectin was associated with a reduction in HVPG at 52 weeks compared with baseline (P = .02) and reduced development of new varices (P = .03). Belapectin (2 mg/kg) was well tolerated and produced no safety signals.
CONCLUSIONS
In a phase 2b study of 162 patients with NASH, cirrhosis, and portal hypertension, 1 year of biweekly infusion of belapectin was safe but not associated with significant reduction in HVPG or fibrosis compared with placebo. However, in a subgroup analysis of patients without esophageal varices, 2 mg/kg belapectin did reduce HVPG and development of varices. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02462967.
Topics: Aged; Biopsy; Blood Proteins; Double-Blind Method; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Galectin 3; Galectins; Humans; Hypertension, Portal; Infusions, Intravenous; Liver; Liver Cirrhosis; Male; Middle Aged; Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; Pectins; Placebos; Portal Pressure; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31812510
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.11.296 -
The Lancet. Gastroenterology &... Oct 2021Current treatments for functional dyspepsia have limited efficacy or present safety issues. We aimed to assess spore-forming probiotics in functional dyspepsia as... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Current treatments for functional dyspepsia have limited efficacy or present safety issues. We aimed to assess spore-forming probiotics in functional dyspepsia as monotherapy or add-on therapy to long-term treatment with proton-pump inhibitors.
METHODS
In this single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial that took place at University Hospitals Leuven (Leuven, Belgium), adult patients (≥18 years) with functional dyspepsia (as defined by Rome IV criteria, on proton-pump inhibitors or off proton-pump inhibitors) were randomly assigned (1:1) via computer-generated blocked lists, stratified by proton-pump inhibitor status, to receive 8 weeks of treatment with probiotics (Bacillus coagulans MY01 and Bacillus subtilis MY02, 2·5 × 10 colony-forming units per capsule) or placebo consumed twice per day, followed by an open-label extension phase of 8 weeks. Individuals with a history of abdominal surgery, diabetes, coeliac or inflammatory bowel disease, active psychiatric conditions, and use of immunosuppressant drugs, antibiotics, or probiotics in the past 3 months were excluded. All patients and on-site study personnel were masked to treatment allocation in the first 8 weeks. Symptoms, immune activation, and faecal microbiota were assessed and recorded. The primary endpoint was a decrease of at least 0·7 in the postprandial distress syndrome (PDS) score of the Leuven Postprandial Distress Scale in patients with a baseline PDS score of 1 or greater (at least mild symptoms), assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04030780.
FINDINGS
Between June 3, 2019, and March 11, 2020, of 93 individuals assessed for eligibility, we included 68 patients with functional dyspepsia (51 [75%] women, mean age 40·1 years [SD 14·4], 34 [50%] on proton-pump inhibitors). We randomly assigned 32 participants to probiotics and 36 to placebo. The proportion of clinical responders was higher with probiotics (12 [48%] of 25) than placebo (six [20%] of 30; relative risk 1·95 [95% CI 1·07-4·11]; p=0·028). The number of patients with adverse events was similar with probiotics (five [16%] of 32) and placebo (12 [33%] of 36). Two serious adverse events occurring during the open-label phase (appendicitis and syncope in two separate patients) were assessed as unlikely to be related to the study product.
INTERPRETATION
In this exploratory study, B coagulans MY01 and B subtilis MY02 were efficacious and safe in the treatment of functional dyspepsia. Participants had potentially beneficial immune and microbial changes, which could provide insights into possible underlying mechanisms as future predictors or treatment targets.
FUNDING
MY HEALTH.
Topics: Adult; Bacillus coagulans; Bacillus subtilis; Belgium; Case-Control Studies; Dietary Supplements; Double-Blind Method; Dyspepsia; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pilot Projects; Placebos; Prevalence; Probiotics; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Safety; Spores; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34358486
DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00226-0 -
Clinical and Translational Science May 2021VM202 is a plasmid DNA encoding two isoforms of hepatocyte growth factor (HGF). A previous phase II study in subjects with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN)... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
VM202 is a plasmid DNA encoding two isoforms of hepatocyte growth factor (HGF). A previous phase II study in subjects with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) showed significant reductions in pain. A phase III study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of VM202 in DPN. The trial was conducted in two parts, one for 9 months (DPN 3-1) with 500 subjects (VM202: 336 subjects; and placebo: 164) and a preplanned subset of 101 subjects (VM202: 65 subjects; and placebo: 36) with a noninterventional extension to 12 months (DPN 3-1b). VM202 or placebo was administered to calf muscles on days 0 and 14, and on days 90 and 104. The primary end point in DPN 3-1 was change from baseline in the mean 24-h Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain score. In DPN 3-1b, the primary end point was safety, whereas the secondary efficacy end point was change in the mean pain score. VM202 was well-tolerated in both studies without significant adverse events. VM202 failed to meet its efficacy end points in DPN 3-1. In DPN 3-1b, however, VM202 showed significant and clinically meaningful pain reduction versus placebo. Pain reduction in DPN 3-1b was even greater in subjects not receiving gabapentin or pregabalin, confirming an observation noted in the phase II study. In DPN 3-1b, symptomatic relief was maintained for 8 months after the last injection suggesting that VM202 treatment might change disease progression. Despite the perplexing discrepancy between the two studies, the safety and long-lasting pain-relieving effects of VM202 observed in DPN 3-1b warrant another rigorous phase III study. Study Highlights WHAT IS THE CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ON THE TOPIC? Current therapies for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) are palliative and do not target the underlying mechanisms. Moreover, symptomatic relief is often limited with existing neuropathic pain drugs. Thus, there is a great medical need for safer and effective treatments for DPN. WHAT QUESTION DID THIS STUDY ADDRESS? Can nonviral gene delivery of hepatocyte growth factor reduce pain in patients with DPN and potentially modify progression of the disorder? WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD TO OUR KNOWLEDGE? Nonviral gene therapy can be used safely and practically to treat DPN. HOW MIGHT THIS CHANGE CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY OR TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE? As the first gene medicine to enter advanced clinical trials for the treatment of DPN, this study provides the proof of concept of an entirely new potential approach to the disorder.
Topics: Aged; Diabetic Neuropathies; Double-Blind Method; Female; Genetic Therapy; Hepatocyte Growth Factor; Humans; Injections, Intramuscular; Male; Middle Aged; Neuralgia; Pain Measurement; Placebos; Plasmids; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33465273
DOI: 10.1111/cts.12977 -
International Review of Neurobiology 2020Determinants of placebo effects and placebo response can be considered from multiple intrinsic and extrinsic perspectives. Intrinsic factors may influence the patient... (Review)
Review
Determinants of placebo effects and placebo response can be considered from multiple intrinsic and extrinsic perspectives. Intrinsic factors may influence the patient and the clinician/researcher. Patient expectations and previous experiences are considered two of the major intrinsic determinants of placebo response. Other patient determinants include the neural systems under treatment/study, situational factors and reactions to the environment, and personality traits. Clinician/researcher determinants of placebo response include personality factors such as empathy, perceived expertise, the clinical relationship with the patient, and the clinician's belief in the efficacy of the treatment. Extrinsic determinants include the type of study design, influence of advertising or branding, and forces expressed by the cultural milieu. These determinants do not act in isolation, but rather form a complex interaction that ultimately impacts the promotion or deterrence of the placebo effect in clinical and research settings.
Topics: Anticipation, Psychological; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Personality; Placebo Effect; Placebos; Professional-Patient Relations; Research Design; Signal Transduction
PubMed: 32563291
DOI: 10.1016/bs.irn.2020.03.029 -
JAMA Network Open Oct 2020Chronic low back pain has high societal and personal impact but remains challenging to treat. Electroacupuncture has demonstrated superior analgesia compared with... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
IMPORTANCE
Chronic low back pain has high societal and personal impact but remains challenging to treat. Electroacupuncture has demonstrated superior analgesia compared with placebo in animal studies but has not been extensively studied in human chronic pain conditions.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the treatment effect of real electroacupuncture vs placebo in pain and disability among adults with chronic low back pain and to explore psychophysical, affective, and demographic factors associated with response to electroacupuncture vs placebo in treating chronic low back pain.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 2, 2016, and December 18, 2018, at a single center in Stanford, California. Primary outcomes were collected at approximately 2 weeks before and after intervention. Participants included English-speaking adults with at least 6 months of chronic low back pain, pain intensity of at least 4 on a scale of 0 to 10, and no radiculopathy. Data analyses for this intent-to-treat study were conducted from June 2019 to June 2020.
INTERVENTIONS
Twelve sessions of real or placebo (sham) electroacupuncture administered twice a week over 6 weeks.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The main outcome was change in pain severity from baseline to 2 weeks after completion of treatment, measured by the National Institutes of Health PROMIS pain intensity scale. A secondary outcome was change in the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Baseline factors potentially associated with these outcomes included psychophysical testing (ie, thermal temporal summation, conditioned pain modulation, pressure pain threshold), participant's self-report (ie, widespread pain, coping strategies, expectations, self-efficacy, and pain catastrophizing), and demographic characteristics (eg, age, sex, and race).
RESULTS
A total of 121 adults were recruited to the study, among whom 59 participants (mean [SD] age, 46.8 [11.9] years; 36 [61.0%] women) were randomized to real electroacupuncture and 62 participants (mean [SD] age, 45.6 [12.8] years; 33 [53.2%] women) were randomized to sham electroacupuncture. At baseline, the mean (SD) PROMIS T-score was 50.49 (3.36) in the real electroacupuncture group and 51.71 (4.70) in the sham acupuncture group, and the mean (SD) RMDQ score was 10.16 (4.76) in the real electroacupuncture group and 10.03 (5.45) in the sham acupuncture group. After adjusting for baseline pain scores, there was no statistically significant difference between groups in change in T-scores 2 weeks after completion of treatment (real electroacupuncture: -4.33; 95% CI, -6.36 to -2.30; sham acupuncture: -2.90; 95% CI, -4.85 to -0.95; difference: -2.09; 95% CI, -4.27 to 0.09; P = .06). After adjusting for baseline RMDQ, there was a significantly greater reduction in RMDQ in the real electroacupuncture group (-2.77; 95% CI, -4.11 to -1.43) compared with the sham electroacupuncture group (-0.67; 95% CI, -1.88 to 0.55; difference: -2.11; 95% CI, -3.75 to -0.47; P = .01). Within the real electroacupuncture group, effective coping at baseline was associated with greater RMDQ reduction (r = -0.32; 95% CI, -0.54 to -0.05; P = .02), and White race was associated with worse outcomes in PROMIS score (β = 3.791; 95% CI, 0.616 to 6.965; P = .02) and RMDQ (β = 2.878; 95% CI, 0.506 to 5.250; P = .02).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This randomized clinical trial found no statistically significant difference in change in PROMIS pain score in real electroacupuncture vs sham electroacupuncture. There was a statistically significant treatment effect for the secondary outcome of RMDQ compared with sham electroacupuncture. Effective coping skills and non-White race were associated with response to electroacupuncture.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02890810.
Topics: Adult; Aged; California; Double-Blind Method; Electroacupuncture; Female; Humans; Low Back Pain; Male; Middle Aged; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Placebos; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33107921
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.22787 -
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology... Mar 2020The ACTIVE study demonstrated the antifracture efficacy of abaloparatide in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. ACTIVExtend demonstrated sustained fracture risk... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
CONTEXT
The ACTIVE study demonstrated the antifracture efficacy of abaloparatide in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. ACTIVExtend demonstrated sustained fracture risk reduction with alendronate in abaloparatide-treated participants from ACTIVE. A direct comparison of the efficacy of abaloparatide and antiresorptive therapies has not been performed.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this analysis is to compare the antifracture efficacy of abaloparatide in ACTIVE with that of alendronate in ACTIVExtend.
DESIGN
In this post hoc analysis, the rate of new vertebral fractures for women in ACTIVExtend (N = 1139) was calculated based on baseline and endpoint radiographs for placebo or abaloparatide in ACTIVE and alendronate in ACTIVExtend. Vertebral fracture rates between abaloparatide and alendronate were compared in a Poisson regression model. Fracture rates for nonvertebral and clinical fractures were compared based on a Poisson model during 18 months of abaloparatide or placebo treatment in ACTIVE and 18 months of alendronate treatment in ACTIVExtend.
RESULTS
The vertebral fracture rate was lower during abaloparatide treatment in ACTIVE (0.47 fractures/100 patient-years) than alendronate treatment in ACTIVExtend (1.66 fractures/100 patient-years) (relative risk reduction 71%; P = .027). Although the comparisons did not meet statistical significance, after switching from placebo (ACTIVE) to alendronate (ACTIVExtend), the rate of new vertebral fractures decreased from 2.49 to 1.66 fractures per 100 patient-years, and after switching from abaloparatide to alendronate from 0.47 to 0.19 fractures per 100 patient-years. The rates of nonvertebral fractures and clinical fractures were not significantly different.
CONCLUSION
Initial treatment with abaloparatide may result in greater vertebral fracture reduction compared with alendronate in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.
Topics: Aged; Alendronate; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Femur Neck; Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Middle Aged; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Osteoporotic Fractures; Parathyroid Hormone-Related Protein; Placebos; Radiography; Risk Factors; Spinal Fractures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31674644
DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgz162 -
International Review of Neurobiology 2020Placebos impact epilepsy in a number of ways. Through randomized clinical trials, explicit clinical use, and also through implicit clinical use, placebos play a role in... (Review)
Review
Placebos impact epilepsy in a number of ways. Through randomized clinical trials, explicit clinical use, and also through implicit clinical use, placebos play a role in epilepsy. This chapter will discuss the reasons placebo is used, the determinants of placebo response in epilepsy, observations about placebo specific to epilepsy, and ways in which clinical trial design is impacted by placebo.
Topics: Animals; Anticonvulsants; Clinical Trials as Topic; Epilepsy; Humans; Models, Statistical; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Placebo Effect; Placebos; Research Design
PubMed: 32563290
DOI: 10.1016/bs.irn.2020.03.033 -
International Review of Neurobiology 2020Placebo effects influence symptom perceptions and treatment outcomes. Placebo effects can be explored in laboratory settings controlling for natural history and... (Review)
Review
Placebo effects influence symptom perceptions and treatment outcomes. Placebo effects can be explored in laboratory settings controlling for natural history and expectations. Such a mechanistic approach to neurological disorders has been implemented in the domain of chronic clinical pain and other neurological disorders. This article therefore focuses on definitions and historical notes related to placebo effects and mechanisms of placebo effects in chronic pain. Knowledge on mechanisms of placebo effects could inform current clinical practice for the treatment of neurological disorders by focusing on patients (and providers) expectations for outcome optimization.
Topics: Analgesia; Anticipation, Psychological; Brain; Chronic Pain; Conditioning, Psychological; Humans; Nervous System Diseases; Placebo Effect; Placebos
PubMed: 32563287
DOI: 10.1016/bs.irn.2020.04.001 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020Pain after caesarean sections (CS) can affect the well-being of the mother and her ability with her newborn. Conventional pain-relieving strategies are often underused... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pain after caesarean sections (CS) can affect the well-being of the mother and her ability with her newborn. Conventional pain-relieving strategies are often underused because of concerns about the adverse maternal and neonatal effects. Complementary alternative therapies (CAM) may offer an alternative for post-CS pain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of CAM for post-caesarean pain.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, LILACS, PEDro, CAMbase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (6 September 2019), and checked the reference lists of retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs, comparing CAM, alone or associated with other forms of pain relief, versus other treatments or placebo or no treatment, for the treatment of post-CS pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 37 studies (3076 women) which investigated eight different CAM therapies for post-CS pain relief. There is substantial heterogeneity among the trials. We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to small numbers of women participating in the trials and to risk of bias related to lack of blinding and inadequate reporting of randomisation processes. None of the trials reported pain at six weeks after discharge. Primary outcomes were pain and adverse effects, reported per intervention below. Secondary outcomes included vital signs, rescue analgesic requirement at six weeks after discharge; all of which were poorly reported, not reported, or we are uncertain as to the effect Acupuncture or acupressure We are very uncertain if acupuncture or acupressure (versus no treatment) or acupuncture or acupressure plus analgesia (versus placebo plus analgesia) has any effect on pain because the quality of evidence is very low. Acupuncture or acupressure plus analgesia (versus analgesia) may reduce pain at 12 hours (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.64 to 0.07; 130 women; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) and 24 hours (SMD -0.63, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.26; 2 studies; 130 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether acupuncture or acupressure (versus no treatment) or acupuncture or acupressure plus analgesia (versus analgesia) has any effect on the risk of adverse effects because the quality of evidence is very low. Aromatherapy Aromatherapy plus analgesia may reduce pain when compared with placebo plus analgesia at 12 hours (mean difference (MD) -2.63 visual analogue scale (VAS), 95% CI -3.48 to -1.77; 3 studies; 360 women; low-certainty evidence) and 24 hours (MD -3.38 VAS, 95% CI -3.85 to -2.91; 1 study; 200 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if aromatherapy plus analgesia has any effect on adverse effects (anxiety) compared with placebo plus analgesia. Electromagnetic therapy Electromagnetic therapy may reduce pain compared with placebo plus analgesia at 12 hours (MD -8.00, 95% CI -11.65 to -4.35; 1 study; 72 women; low-certainty evidence) and 24 hours (MD -13.00 VAS, 95% CI -17.13 to -8.87; 1 study; 72 women; low-certainty evidence). Massage We identified six studies (651 women), five of which were quasi-RCTs, comparing massage (foot and hand) plus analgesia versus analgesia. All the evidence relating to pain, adverse effects (anxiety), vital signs and rescue analgesic requirement was very low-certainty. Music Music plus analgesia may reduce pain when compared with placebo plus analgesia at one hour (SMD -0.84, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.46; participants = 115; studies = 2; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence), 24 hours (MD -1.79, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.91; 1 study; 38 women; low-certainty evidence), and also when compared with analgesia at one hour (MD -2.11, 95% CI -3.11 to -1.10; 1 study; 38 women; low-certainty evidence) and at 24 hours (MD -2.69, 95% CI -3.67 to -1.70; 1 study; 38 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether music plus analgesia has any effect on adverse effects (anxiety), when compared with placebo plus analgesia because the quality of evidence is very low. Reiki We are uncertain if Reiki plus analgesia compared with analgesia alone has any effect on pain, adverse effects, vital signs or rescue analgesic requirement because the quality of evidence is very low (one study, 90 women). Relaxation Relaxation may reduce pain compared with standard care at 24 hours (MD -0.53 VAS, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.01; 1 study; 60 women; low-certainty evidence). Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation TENS (versus no treatment) may reduce pain at one hour (MD -2.26, 95% CI -3.35 to -1.17; 1 study; 40 women; low-certainty evidence). TENS plus analgesia (versus placebo plus analgesia) may reduce pain compared with placebo plus analgesia at one hour (SMD -1.10 VAS, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.82; 3 studies; 238 women; low-certainty evidence) and at 24 hours (MD -0.70 VAS, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.53; 108 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). TENS plus analgesia (versus placebo plus analgesia) may reduce heart rate (MD -7.00 bpm, 95% CI -7.63 to -6.37; 108 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) and respiratory rate (MD -1.10 brpm, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.94; 108 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if TENS plus analgesia (versus analgesia) has any effect on pain at six hours or 24 hours, or vital signs because the quality of evidence is very low (two studies, 92 women).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Some CAM therapies may help reduce post-CS pain for up to 24 hours. The evidence on adverse events is too uncertain to make any judgements on safety and we have no evidence about the longer-term effects on pain. Since pain control is the most relevant outcome for post-CS women and their clinicians, it is important that future studies of CAM for post-CS pain measure pain as a primary outcome, preferably as the proportion of participants with at least moderate (30%) or substantial (50%) pain relief. Measuring pain as a dichotomous variable would improve the certainty of evidence and it is easy to understand for non-specialists. Future trials also need to be large enough to detect effects on clinical outcomes; measure other important outcomes as listed lin this review, and use validated scales.
Topics: Acupressure; Acupuncture Analgesia; Adolescent; Adult; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesics; Aromatherapy; Bias; Cesarean Section; Combined Modality Therapy; Complementary Therapies; Female; Humans; Massage; Music Therapy; Pain, Postoperative; Placebos; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Relaxation Therapy; Therapeutic Touch; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Young Adult
PubMed: 32871021
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011216.pub2