-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2020The symptoms and signs of schizophrenia have been linked to high levels of dopamine in specific areas of the brain (limbic system). Antipsychotic drugs block the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The symptoms and signs of schizophrenia have been linked to high levels of dopamine in specific areas of the brain (limbic system). Antipsychotic drugs block the transmission of dopamine in the brain and reduce the acute symptoms of the disorder. An original version of the current review, published in 2012, examined whether antipsychotic drugs are also effective for relapse prevention. This is the updated version of the aforesaid review.
OBJECTIVES
To review the effects of maintaining antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia compared to withdrawing these agents.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including the registries of clinical trials (12 November 2008, 10 October 2017, 3 July 2018, 11 September 2019).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised trials comparing maintenance treatment with antipsychotic drugs and placebo for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD), again based on a random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
The review currently includes 75 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 9145 participants comparing antipsychotic medication with placebo. The trials were published from 1959 to 2017 and their size ranged between 14 and 420 participants. In many studies the methods of randomisation, allocation and blinding were poorly reported. However, restricting the analysis to studies at low risk of bias gave similar results. Although this and other potential sources of bias limited the overall quality, the efficacy of antipsychotic drugs for maintenance treatment in schizophrenia was clear. Antipsychotic drugs were more effective than placebo in preventing relapse at seven to 12 months (primary outcome; drug 24% versus placebo 61%, 30 RCTs, n = 4249, RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.45, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 2 to 3; high-certainty evidence). Hospitalisation was also reduced, however, the baseline risk was lower (drug 7% versus placebo 18%, 21 RCTs, n = 3558, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57, NNTB 8, 95% CI 6 to 14; high-certainty evidence). More participants in the placebo group than in the antipsychotic drug group left the studies early due to any reason (at seven to 12 months: drug 36% versus placebo 62%, 24 RCTs, n = 3951, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65, NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 5; high-certainty evidence) and due to inefficacy of treatment (at seven to 12 months: drug 18% versus placebo 46%, 24 RCTs, n = 3951, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.44, NNTB 3, 95% CI 3 to 4). Quality of life might be better in drug-treated participants (7 RCTs, n = 1573 SMD -0.32, 95% CI to -0.57 to -0.07; low-certainty evidence); probably the same for social functioning (15 RCTs, n = 3588, SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.34; moderate-certainty evidence). Underpowered data revealed no evidence of a difference between groups for the outcome 'Death due to suicide' (drug 0.04% versus placebo 0.1%, 19 RCTs, n = 4634, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.97,low-certainty evidence) and for the number of participants in employment (at 9 to 15 months, drug 39% versus placebo 34%, 3 RCTs, n = 593, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.41, low certainty evidence). Antipsychotic drugs (as a group and irrespective of duration) were associated with more participants experiencing movement disorders (e.g. at least one movement disorder: drug 14% versus placebo 8%, 29 RCTs, n = 5276, RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.85, number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 20, 95% CI 14 to 50), sedation (drug 8% versus placebo 5%, 18 RCTs, n = 4078, RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.86, NNTH 50, 95% CI not significant), and weight gain (drug 9% versus placebo 6%, 19 RCTs, n = 4767, RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.35, NNTH 25, 95% CI 20 to 50).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For people with schizophrenia, the evidence suggests that maintenance on antipsychotic drugs prevents relapse to a much greater extent than placebo for approximately up to two years of follow-up. This effect must be weighed against the adverse effects of antipsychotic drugs. Future studies should better clarify the long-term morbidity and mortality associated with these drugs.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Bias; Dopamine Antagonists; Employment; Hospitalization; Humans; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Patient Dropouts; Placebos; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Schizophrenia; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 32840872
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008016.pub3 -
JAMA Nov 2019Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common complication of type 2 diabetes that can lead to end-stage kidney disease and is associated with high cardiovascular risk. Few... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
IMPORTANCE
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common complication of type 2 diabetes that can lead to end-stage kidney disease and is associated with high cardiovascular risk. Few treatments are available to prevent CKD in type 2 diabetes.
OBJECTIVE
To test whether supplementation with vitamin D3 or omega-3 fatty acids prevents development or progression of CKD in type 2 diabetes.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
Randomized clinical trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design conducted among 1312 adults with type 2 diabetes recruited between November 2011 and March 2014 from all 50 US states as an ancillary study to the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), coordinated by a single center in Massachusetts. Follow-up was completed in December 2017.
INTERVENTIONS
Participants were randomized to receive vitamin D3 (2000 IU/d) and omega-3 fatty acids (eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid; 1 g/d) (n = 370), vitamin D3 and placebo (n = 333), placebo and omega-3 fatty acids (n = 289), or 2 placebos (n = 320) for 5 years.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was change in glomerular filtration rate estimated from serum creatinine and cystatin C (eGFR) from baseline to year 5.
RESULTS
Among 1312 participants randomized (mean age, 67.6 years; 46% women; 31% of racial or ethnic minority), 934 (71%) completed the study. Baseline mean eGFR was 85.8 (SD, 22.1) mL/min/1.73 m2. Mean change in eGFR from baseline to year 5 was -12.3 (95% CI, -13.4 to -11.2) mL/min/1.73 m2 with vitamin D3 vs -13.1 (95% CI, -14.2 to -11.9) mL/min/1.73 m2 with placebo (difference, 0.9 [95% CI, -0.7 to 2.5] mL/min/1.73 m2). Mean change in eGFR was -12.2 (95% CI, -13.3 to -11.1) mL/min/1.73 m2 with omega-3 fatty acids vs -13.1 (95% CI, -14.2 to -12.0) mL/min/1.73 m2 with placebo (difference, 0.9 [95% CI, -0.7 to 2.6] mL/min/1.73 m2). There was no significant interaction between the 2 interventions. Kidney stones occurred among 58 participants (n = 32 receiving vitamin D3 and n = 26 receiving placebo) and gastrointestinal bleeding among 45 (n = 28 receiving omega-3 fatty acids and n = 17 receiving placebo).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Among adults with type 2 diabetes, supplementation with vitamin D3 or omega-3 fatty acids, compared with placebo, resulted in no significant difference in change in eGFR at 5 years. The findings do not support the use of vitamin D or omega-3 fatty acid supplementation for preserving kidney function in patients with type 2 diabetes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01684722.
Topics: Aged; Cholecalciferol; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Disease Progression; Docosahexaenoic Acids; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Eicosapentaenoic Acid; Fatty Acids, Omega-3; Female; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Glomerular Filtration Rate; Humans; Kidney; Kidney Calculi; Male; Medication Adherence; Middle Aged; Placebos; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Time Factors; United States; Vitamins
PubMed: 31703120
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.17380 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition affecting 10% to 15% of reproductive-age women and may cause dyspareunia, dysmenorrhoea, and infertility. One... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition affecting 10% to 15% of reproductive-age women and may cause dyspareunia, dysmenorrhoea, and infertility. One treatment strategy is combining surgery and medical therapy to reduce the recurrence of endometriosis. Though the combination of surgery and medical therapy appears to be beneficial, there is a lack of clarity about the appropriate timing of when medical therapy should be used in relation with surgery, that is, before, after, or both before and after surgery, to maximize treatment response.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of medical therapies for hormonal suppression before, after, or both before and after surgery for endometriosis for improving painful symptoms, reducing disease recurrence, and increasing pregnancy rates.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and two trials registers in November 2019 together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared medical therapies for hormonal suppression before, after, or before and after, therapeutic surgery for endometriosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we combined data using risk ratio (RR), standardized mean difference or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Primary outcomes were: painful symptoms of endometriosis as measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS) of pain, other validated scales or dichotomous outcomes; and recurrence of disease as evidenced by EEC (Endoscopic Endometriosis Classification), rAFS (revised American Fertility Society), or rASRM (revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine) scores at second-look laparoscopy.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 26 trials with 3457 women with endometriosis. We used the term "surgery alone" to refer to placebo or no medical therapy. Presurgical medical therapy compared with placebo or no medical therapy Compared to surgery alone, we are uncertain if presurgical medical hormonal suppression reduces pain recurrence at 12 months or less (dichotomous) (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.66; 1 RCT, n = 262; very low-quality evidence) or whether it reduces disease recurrence at 12 months - total (AFS score) (MD -9.6, 95% CI -11.42 to -7.78; 1 RCT, n = 80; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if presurgical medical hormonal suppression decreases disease recurrence at 12 months or less (EEC stage) compared to surgery alone (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; 1 RCT, n = 262; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if presurgical medical hormonal suppression improves pregnancy rates compared to surgery alone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.36; 1 RCT, n = 262; very low-quality evidence). No trials reported pelvic pain at 12 months or less (continuous) or disease recurrence at 12 months or less. Postsurgical medical therapy compared with placebo or no medical therapy We are uncertain about the improvement observed in pelvic pain at 12 months or less (continuous) between postsurgical medical hormonal suppression and surgery alone (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.31; 4 RCTs, n = 419; I = 94%; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference in pain recurrence at 12 months or less (dichotomous) between postsurgical medical hormonal suppression and surgery alone (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; 5 RCTs, n = 634; I = 20%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if postsurgical medical hormonal suppression improves disease recurrence at 12 months - total (AFS score) compared to surgery alone (MD -2.29, 95% CI -4.01 to -0.57; 1 RCT, n = 51; very low-quality evidence). Disease recurrence at 12 months or less may be reduced with postsurgical medical hormonal suppression compared to surgery alone (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.54; 4 RCTs, n = 433; I = 58%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain about the reduction observed in disease recurrence at 12 months or less (EEC stage) between postsurgical medical hormonal suppression and surgery alone (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.91; 1 RCT, n = 285; very low-quality evidence). Pregnancy rate is probably increased with postsurgical medical hormonal suppression compared to surgery alone (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.39; 11 RCTs, n = 932; I = 24%; moderate-quality evidence). Pre- and postsurgical medical therapy compared with surgery alone or surgery and placebo There were no trials identified in the search for this comparison. Presurgical medical therapy compared with postsurgical medical therapy We are uncertain about the difference in pain recurrence at 12 months or less (dichotomous) between postsurgical and presurgical medical hormonal suppression therapy (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.07; 2 RCTs, n = 326; I = 2%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain about the difference in disease recurrence at 12 months or less (EEC stage) between postsurgical and presurgical medical hormonal suppression therapy (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.28; 1 RCT, n = 273; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain about the difference in pregnancy rate between postsurgical and presurgical medical hormonal suppression therapy (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.21; 1 RCT, n = 273; very low-quality evidence). No trials reported pelvic pain at 12 months or less (continuous), disease recurrence at 12 months - total (AFS score) or disease recurrence at 12 months or less (dichotomous). Postsurgical medical therapy compared with pre- and postsurgical medical therapy There were no trials identified in the search for this comparison. Serious adverse effects for medical therapies reviewed There was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarding serious adverse effects, as no studies reported data suitable for analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our results indicate that the data about the efficacy of medical therapy for endometriosis are inconclusive, related to the timing of hormonal suppression therapy relative to surgery for endometriosis. In our various comparisons of the timing of hormonal suppression therapy, women who receive postsurgical medical therapy compared with no medical therapy or placebo may experience benefit in terms of disease recurrence and pregnancy. There is insufficient evidence regarding hormonal suppression therapy at other time points in relation to surgery for women with endometriosis.
Topics: Adult; Bias; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Combined Modality Therapy; Contraceptive Agents, Female; Endometriosis; Estrogen Antagonists; Female; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Middle Aged; Pain Measurement; Pelvic Pain; Placebos; Postoperative Care; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Secondary Prevention; Time Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 33206374
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003678.pub3 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Journal of Hepatology Feb 2022Rifaximin-α is efficacious for the prevention of recurrent hepatic encephalopathy (HE), but its mechanism of action remains unclear. We postulated that rifaximin-α... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Rifaximin-α is efficacious for the prevention of recurrent hepatic encephalopathy (HE), but its mechanism of action remains unclear. We postulated that rifaximin-α reduces gut microbiota-derived endotoxemia and systemic inflammation, a known driver of HE.
METHODS
In a placebo-controlled, double-blind, mechanistic study, 38 patients with cirrhosis and HE were randomised 1:1 to receive either rifaximin-α (550 mg BID) or placebo for 90 days.
PRIMARY OUTCOME
50% reduction in neutrophil oxidative burst (OB) at 30 days.
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
changes in psychometric hepatic encephalopathy score (PHES) and neurocognitive functioning, shotgun metagenomic sequencing of saliva and faeces, plasma and faecal metabolic profiling, whole blood bacterial DNA quantification, neutrophil toll-like receptor (TLR)-2/4/9 expression and plasma/faecal cytokine analysis.
RESULTS
Patients were well-matched: median MELD (11 rifaximin-α vs. 10 placebo). Rifaximin-α did not lead to a 50% reduction in spontaneous neutrophil OB at 30 days compared to baseline (p = 0.48). However, HE grade normalised (p = 0.014) and PHES improved (p = 0.009) after 30 days on rifaximin-α. Rifaximin-α reduced circulating neutrophil TLR-4 expression on day 30 (p = 0.021) and plasma tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) (p <0.001). Rifaximin-α suppressed oralisation of the gut, reducing levels of mucin-degrading sialidase-rich species, Streptococcus spp, Veillonella atypica and parvula, Akkermansia and Hungatella. Rifaximin-α promoted a TNF-α- and interleukin-17E-enriched intestinal microenvironment, augmenting antibacterial responses to invading pathobionts and promoting gut barrier repair. Those on rifaximin-α were less likely to develop infection (odds ratio 0.21; 95% CI 0.05-0.96).
CONCLUSION
Rifaximin-α led to resolution of overt and covert HE, reduced the likelihood of infection, reduced oralisation of the gut and attenuated systemic inflammation. Rifaximin-α plays a role in gut barrier repair, which could be the mechanism by which it ameliorates bacterial translocation and systemic endotoxemia in cirrhosis.
CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02019784.
LAY SUMMARY
In this clinical trial, we examined the underlying mechanism of action of an antibiotic called rifaximin-α which has been shown to be an effective treatment for a complication of chronic liver disease which effects the brain (termed encephalopathy). We show that rifaximin-α suppresses gut bacteria that translocate from the mouth to the intestine and cause the intestinal wall to become leaky by breaking down the protective mucus barrier. This suppression resolves encephalopathy and reduces inflammation in the blood, preventing the development of infection.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Double-Blind Method; Female; Gastrointestinal Agents; Hepatic Encephalopathy; Humans; Inflammation; Liver Cirrhosis; Male; Middle Aged; Mucins; Ontario; Placebos; Rifaximin
PubMed: 34571050
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.09.010 -
American Heart Journal Jan 2021Acute myocardial infarction (MI) patients remain at high risk for recurrent events. Cholesterol efflux, mediated by apolipoprotein A-I, removes excess cholesterol from...
Rationale and design of ApoA-I Event Reducing in Ischemic Syndromes II (AEGIS-II): A phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study to investigate the efficacy and safety of CSL112 in subjects after acute myocardial infarction.
Acute myocardial infarction (MI) patients remain at high risk for recurrent events. Cholesterol efflux, mediated by apolipoprotein A-I, removes excess cholesterol from atherosclerotic plaque and transports it to the liver for excretion. Impaired cholesterol efflux is associated with higher cardiovascular (CV) event rates among both patients with stable coronary artery disease and recent MI. CSL112, a novel intravenous formulation of apolipoprotein A-I (human) derived from human plasma, increases cholesterol efflux capacity. AEGIS-II is a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial investigating the efficacy and safety of CSL112 compared to placebo among high-risk acute MI participants. Eligibility criteria include age ≥ 18 years with type 1 (spontaneous) MI, evidence of multivessel stable coronary artery disease, and presence of diabetes requiring pharmacotherapy, or ≥2 of the following: age ≥ 65 years, prior MI, or peripheral artery disease. A target sample of 17,400 participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive 4 weekly infusions of CSL112 6 g or placebo, initiated prior to or on the day of discharge and within 5 days of first medical contact. The primary outcome is the time to first occurrence of the composite of CV death, MI, or stroke through 90 days. Key secondary outcomes include the total number of hospitalizations for coronary, cerebral, or peripheral ischemia through 90 days and time to first occurrence of the composite primary outcome through 180 and 365 days. AEGIS-II will be the first trial to formally test whether enhancing cholesterol efflux can reduce the rate of recurrent major adverse CV events.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Brain Ischemia; Cholesterol; Coronary Artery Disease; Diabetes Mellitus; Double-Blind Method; Drug Administration Schedule; Hospitalization; Ischemia; Lipoproteins, HDL; Liver; Myocardial Infarction; Myocardial Ischemia; Peripheral Vascular Diseases; Placebos; Plaque, Atherosclerotic; Stroke; Time Factors; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33065120
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2020.10.052 -
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