-
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies Jun 2021Elevated lipid profiles and impaired glucose homeostasis are risk factors for several cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), which, subsequently, represent a leading cause of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Elevated lipid profiles and impaired glucose homeostasis are risk factors for several cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), which, subsequently, represent a leading cause of early mortality, worldwide. The aim of the current study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of apple cider vinegar (ACV) on lipid profiles and glycemic parameters in adults.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in electronic databases, including Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Knowledge, from database inception to January 2020. All clinical trials which investigated the effect of ACV on lipid profiles and glycemic indicators were included. Studies were excluded if ACV was used in combination with other interventions or when the duration of intervention was < 2 weeks. To account for between-study heterogeneity, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Overall, nine studies, including 10 study arms, were included in this meta-analysis. We found that ACV consumption significantly decreased serum total cholesterol (- 6.06 mg/dL; 95% CI: - 10.95, - 1.17; I: 39%), fasting plasma glucose (- 7.97 mg/dL; 95% CI: - 13.74, - 2.21; I: 75%), and HbA1C concentrations (- 0.50; 95% CI: - 0.90, - 0.09; I: 91%). No significant effect of ACV consumption was found on serum LDL-C, HDL-C, fasting insulin concentrations, or HOMA-IR. The stratified analysis revealed a significant reduction of serum TC and TG in a subgroup of patients with type 2 diabetes, those who took ≤15 mL/day of ACV, and those who consumed ACV for > 8-weeks, respectively. Furthermore, ACV consumption significantly decreased FPG levels in a subgroup of studies that administered ACV for > 8-weeks. Further, ACV intake appeared to elicit an increase in FPG and HDL-C concentrations in apparently healthy participants.
CONCLUSION
We found a significant favorable effect of ACV consumption on FPG and blood lipid levels.
Topics: Acetic Acid; Blood Glucose; Cholesterol; Cholesterol, HDL; Cholesterol, LDL; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Insulin; Malus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34187442
DOI: 10.1186/s12906-021-03351-w -
The Medical Journal of Australia Apr 2023To review and synthesise the global evidence regarding the health effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes, vapes). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To review and synthesise the global evidence regarding the health effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes, vapes).
STUDY DESIGN
Umbrella review (based on major independent reviews, including the 2018 United States National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM] report) and top-up systematic review of published, peer-reviewed studies in humans examining the relationship of e-cigarette use to health outcomes published since the NASEM report.
DATA SOURCES
Umbrella review: eight major independent reviews published 2017-2021. Systematic review: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO (articles published July 2017 - July 2020 and not included in NASEM review).
DATA SYNTHESIS
Four hundred eligible publications were included in our synthesis: 112 from the NASEM review, 189 from our top-up review search, and 99 further publications cited by other reviews. There is conclusive evidence linking e-cigarette use with poisoning, immediate inhalation toxicity (including seizures), and e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI; largely but not exclusively for e-liquids containing tetrahydrocannabinol and vitamin E acetate), as well as for malfunctioning devices causing injuries and burns. Environmental effects include waste, fires, and generation of indoor airborne particulate matter (substantial to conclusive evidence). There is substantial evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes can cause dependence or addiction in non-smokers, and strong evidence that young non-smokers who use e-cigarettes are more likely than non-users to initiate smoking and to become regular smokers. There is limited evidence that freebase nicotine e-cigarettes used with clinical support are efficacious aids for smoking cessation. Evidence regarding effects on other clinical outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, development, and mental and reproductive health, is insufficient or unavailable.
CONCLUSION
E-cigarettes can be harmful to health, particularly for non-smokers and children, adolescents, and young adults. Their effects on many important health outcomes are uncertain. E-cigarettes may be beneficial for smokers who use them to completely and promptly quit smoking, but they are not currently approved smoking cessation aids. Better quality evidence is needed regarding the health impact of e-cigarette use, their safety and efficacy for smoking cessation, and effective regulation.
REGISTRATION
Systematic review: PROSPERO, CRD42020200673 (prospective).
Topics: Young Adult; Adolescent; Child; Humans; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Nicotine; Prospective Studies; Smoking; Smoking Cessation
PubMed: 36939271
DOI: 10.5694/mja2.51890 -
European Urology Dec 2022Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examined the role of adding androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSIs), including abiraterone acetate (ABI), apalutamide,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Androgen Receptor Signaling Inhibitors in Addition to Docetaxel with Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
CONTEXT
Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examined the role of adding androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSIs), including abiraterone acetate (ABI), apalutamide, darolutamide (DAR), and enzalutamide (ENZ), to docetaxel (DOC) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).
OBJECTIVE
To analyze the oncologic benefit of triplet combination therapies using ARSI + DOC + ADT, and comparing them with available treatment regimens in patients with mHSPC.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Three databases and meetings abstracts were queried in April 2022 for RCTs analyzing patients treated with first-line combination systemic therapy for mHSPC. The primary interests of measure were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the differential outcomes in patients with low- and high-volume disease as well as de novo and metachronous metastasis.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Overall, 11 RCTs were included for meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMAs). We found that the triplet combinations outperformed DOC + ADT in terms of OS (pooled hazard ratio [HR]: 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-0.84) and PFS (pooled HR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.42-0.58). There was no statistically significant difference between patients with low- and high-volume disease in terms of an OS benefit from adding an ARSI to DOC +ADT (both HR: 0.79; p = 1). Based on NMAs, triplet therapy also outperformed ARSI + ADT in terms of OS (DAR + DOC + ADT: pooled HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.55-0.99) and PFS (ABI + DOC + ADT: HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.51-0.91, and ENZ + DOC + ADT: HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.53-0.93). An analysis of treatment ranking among de novo mHSPC patients showed that triplet therapy had the highest likelihood of improved OS in patients with high-volume disease; however, doublet therapy using ARSI + ADT had the highest likelihood of improved OS in patients with low-volume disease.
CONCLUSIONS
We found that the triplet combination therapy improves survival endpoints in mHSPC patients compared with currently available doublet treatment regimens. Our findings need to be confirmed in further head-to-head trials with longer follow-up and among various patient populations.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Our study suggests that triplet therapy with androgen receptor signaling inhibitor, docetaxel, androgen deprivation therapy prolongs survival in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer compared with the current standard doublet therapy.
Topics: Humans; Male; Docetaxel; Androgen Antagonists; Androgens; Receptors, Androgen; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 35995644
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.08.002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019Halitosis or bad breath is a symptom in which a noticeably unpleasant breath odour is present due to an underlying oral or systemic disease. 50% to 60% of the world... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Halitosis or bad breath is a symptom in which a noticeably unpleasant breath odour is present due to an underlying oral or systemic disease. 50% to 60% of the world population has experienced this problem which can lead to social stigma and loss of self-confidence. Multiple interventions have been tried to control halitosis ranging from mouthwashes and toothpastes to lasers. This new Cochrane Review incorporates Cochrane Reviews previously published on tongue scraping and mouthrinses for halitosis.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this review were to assess the effects of various interventions used to control halitosis due to oral diseases only. We excluded studies including patients with halitosis secondary to systemic disease and halitosis-masking interventions.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 April 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library (searched 8 April 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 April 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 April 2019). We also searched LILACS BIREME (1982 to 19 April 2019), the National Database of Indian Medical Journals (1985 to 19 April 2019), OpenGrey (1992 to 19 April 2019), and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 19 April 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (8 April 2019), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (8 April 2019), the ISRCTN Registry (19 April 2019), the Clinical Trials Registry - India (19 April 2019), were searched for ongoing trials. We also searched the cross-references of included studies and systematic reviews published on the topic. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which involved adults over the age of 16, and any intervention for managing halitosis compared to another or placebo, or no intervention. The active interventions or controls were administered over a minimum of one week and with no upper time limit. We excluded quasi-randomised trials, trials comparing the results for less than one week follow-up, and studies including advanced periodontitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two pairs of review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 44 trials in the review with 1809 participants comparing an intervention with a placebo or a control. The age of participants ranged from 17 to 77 years. Most of the trials reported on short-term follow-up (ranging from one week to four weeks). Only one trial reported long-term follow-up (three months). Three studies were at low overall risk of bias, 16 at high overall risk of bias, and the remaining 25 at unclear overall risk of bias. We compared different types of interventions which were categorised as mechanical debridement, chewing gums, systemic deodorising agents, topical agents, toothpastes, mouthrinse/mouthwash, tablets, and combination methods. Mechanical debridement: for mechanical tongue cleaning versus no tongue cleaning, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported organoleptic test (OLT) scores (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.07; 2 trials, 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Chewing gums: for 0.6% eucalyptus chewing gum versus placebo chewing gum, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.11; 1 trial, 65 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Systemic deodorising agents: for 1000 mg champignon versus placebo, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome patient-reported visual analogue scale (VAS) scores (MD -1.07, 95% CI -14.51 to 12.37; 1 trial, 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for dentist-reported OLT score or adverse events. Topical agents: for hinokitiol gel versus placebo gel, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.27, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.72; 1 trial, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Toothpastes: for 0.3% triclosan toothpaste versus control toothpaste, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -3.48, 95% CI -3.77 to -3.19; 1 trial, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Mouthrinse/mouthwash: for mouthwash containing chlorhexidine and zinc acetate versus placebo mouthwash, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.18; 1 trial, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Tablets: no data were reported on key outcomes for this comparison. Combination methods: for brushing plus cetylpyridium mouthwash versus brushing, the evidence was uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.24; 1 trial, 70 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found low- to very low-certainty evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions for managing halitosis compared to placebo or control for the OLT and patient-reported outcomes tested. We were unable to draw any conclusions regarding the superiority of any intervention or concentration. Well-planned RCTs need to be conducted by standardising the interventions and concentrations.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Chewing Gum; Chlorhexidine; Dental Scaling; Female; Halitosis; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Mouthwashes; Oral Health; Oral Hygiene; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tongue; Toothbrushing; Toothpastes; Young Adult
PubMed: 31825092
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012213.pub2 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Jan 2022Outcomes of treatment of tuberculosis patients with regimens including pretomanid have not yet been systematically reviewed. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Outcomes of treatment of tuberculosis patients with regimens including pretomanid have not yet been systematically reviewed.
OBJECTIVES
To appraise existing evidence on efficacy and safety of pretomanid in tuberculosis.
DATA SOURCES
Pubmed, clinicaltrials.gov. and Cochrane library.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Quantitative studies presenting original data on clinical efficacy or safety of pretomanid.
PARTICIPANTS
Patients with tuberculosis.
INTERVENTIONS
Treatment with pretomanid or pretomanid-containing regimens in minimum one study group.
METHODS
Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data on efficacy (early bactericidal activity, bactericidal activity, end-of-treatment outcomes and acquired resistance) and safety were summarized in tables. Mean differences in efficacy outcomes between regimens across studies were calculated.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included; four randomized controlled trials on 2-week early bactericidal activity in rifampicin-susceptible tuberculosis, three trials with randomized rifampicin-susceptible tuberculosis arms and a single rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis arm (two on 8-week bactericidal activity, one on end-of-treatment outcomes), one single-arm trial with end-of-treatment outcomes in highly resistant tuberculosis. Activity of pretomanid-moxifloxacin-pyrazinamide was superior to standard treatment on daily change in colony-forming units at days 0-2, 0-56 and 7-56 and time to culture conversion in rifampicin-susceptible tuberculosis (hazard ratio: 1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.7), but not at end of treatment in one study. This study was stopped due to serious hepatotoxic adverse events, including three deaths, in 4% (95% CI 2-8) patients on pretomanid-moxifloxacin-pyrazinamide and none in controls. In patients with uncomplicated rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis on pretomanid-moxifloxacin-pyrazinamide treatment, 91% (95% CI 59-100) had favourable end-of-treatment outcomes. In patients with highly resistant tuberculosis, 90% (95% CI 83-95) on pretomanid-bedaquiline-linezolid had favourable outcomes six months after treatment, but linezolid-related toxicity was frequent. No acquired resistance to pretomanid was reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests an important role for pretomanid in rifampicin-resistant and highly resistant tuberculosis. Trials comparing pretomanid to existing core and companion drugs are needed to further define that role.
Topics: Antitubercular Agents; Humans; Linezolid; Moxifloxacin; Nitroimidazoles; Pyrazinamide; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rifampin; Tuberculosis; Tuberculosis, Multidrug-Resistant
PubMed: 34400340
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.08.007 -
Journal of Global Antimicrobial... Mar 2021American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America (ATS/IDSA) guidelines suggest that linezolid (LZD) is preferred over vancomycin (VCM) for treating... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America (ATS/IDSA) guidelines suggest that linezolid (LZD) is preferred over vancomycin (VCM) for treating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia. We conducted a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis to compare VCM and LZD efficacy against proven MRSA pneumonia.
METHODS
We searched EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PubMed up to November 2019. The outcomes of the meta-analysis were mortality, clinical cure, microbiological evaluation, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 1239 patients and eight retrospective cohort or case-control studies (CSs) with a total 6125 patients were identified. Clinical cure and microbiological eradication rates were significantly increased in patients treated with LZD in RCTs (clinical cure: risk ratio (RR) = 0.81, 95% confidential interval (CI) = 0.71-0.92; microbiological eradication: RR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.62-0.81) and CSs (clinical cure: odds ratio (OR) = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.18-0.69). However, mortality was comparable between patients treated with VCM and LZD in RCTs (RR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.88-1.32) and CSs (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.94-1.53). Likewise, there was no significant difference in adverse events between VCM and LZD in CSs (thrombocytopenia: OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.50-1.82; nephrotoxicity: OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 0.85-3.45).
CONCLUSIONS
According to our meta-analysis of RCTs and CSs conducted worldwide, we found robust evidence to corroborate the IDSA guidelines for the treatment of proven MRSA pneumonia.
Topics: Acetamides; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Linezolid; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Oxazolidinones; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vancomycin
PubMed: 33401013
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgar.2020.12.009 -
Seizure Nov 2022Multiple interventions have been studied for benzodiazepine-resistant status epilepticus (SE) in children and adults. This review aimed to summarize the available... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Multiple interventions have been studied for benzodiazepine-resistant status epilepticus (SE) in children and adults. This review aimed to summarize the available evidence and provide estimates of comparative effectiveness and ranking of treatment effects.
METHODS
All randomized controlled trials studying patients (>1 month of age) with benzodiazepine-resistant SE were included. Outcomes including seizure cessation within 60 min, seizure freedom for 24 h, death, respiratory depression warranting intubation and cardiovascular instability were studied. Conventional and network meta-analyses (NMA) were done.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies were included (16 in NMA). Phenobarbital and high-dose levetiracetam were significantly superior to phenytoin with respect to seizure cessation within 60 min. Network ranking demonstrated that phenobarbital had the highest probability of being the best among the studied interventions followed by high-dose levetiracetam and high-dose valproate. Network meta-analysis was limited by predominant indirect evidence and high heterogeneity.On pairwise comparisons, phenobarbital was found to be associated with a higher risk of need for intubation and cardiovascular instability. Levetiracetam had a better safety profile than fosphenytoin.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on low quality evidence, phenobarbital appears to be the most effective agent for seizure cessation within 60 min of administration in patients with benzodiazepine resistant status epilepticus. High-dose levetiracetam, high-dose valproate and fosphenytoin are probably equally effective. Choice of medication may be guided by effectiveness, safety concerns, availability, cost and systemic co-morbidities.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Anticonvulsants; Benzodiazepines; Levetiracetam; Network Meta-Analysis; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Seizures; Status Epilepticus; Valproic Acid; Drug Resistance; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36209676
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2022.09.017 -
Epilepsy & Behavior : E&B May 2021To understand the currently available post-marketing real-world evidence of the incidences of and discontinuations due to the BAEs of irritability, anger, and aggression... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To understand the currently available post-marketing real-world evidence of the incidences of and discontinuations due to the BAEs of irritability, anger, and aggression in people with epilepsy (PWE) treated with the anti-seizure medications (ASMs) brivaracetam (BRV), levetiracetam (LEV), perampanel (PER), and topiramate (TPM), as well as behavioral adverse events (BAEs) in PWE switching from LEV to BRV.
METHODS
A systematic review of published literature using the Cochrane Library, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Embase was performed to identify retrospective and prospective observational studies reporting the incidence of irritability, anger, or aggression with BRV, LEV, PER, or TPM in PWE. The incidences of these BAEs and the rates of discontinuation due to each were categorized by ASM, and where possible, weighted means were calculated but not statistically assessed. Behavioral and psychiatric adverse events in PWE switching from LEV to BRV were summarized descriptively.
RESULTS
A total of 1500 records were identified in the searches. Of these, 44 published articles reporting 42 studies met the study criteria and were included in the data synthesis, 7 studies were identified in the clinical trial database, and 5 studies included PWE switching from LEV to BRV. Studies included a variety of methods, study populations, and definitions of BAEs. While a wide range of results was reported across studies, weighted mean incidences were 5.6% for BRV, 9.9% for LEV, 12.3% for PER, and 3.1% for TPM for irritability; 3.3%* for BRV, 2.5% for LEV, 2.0% for PER, and 0.2%* for TPM for anger; and 2.5% for BRV, 2.6% for LEV, 4.4% for PER, and 0.5%* for TPM for aggression. Weighted mean discontinuation rates were 0.8%* for BRV, 3.4% for LEV, 3.0% for PER, and 2.2% for TPM for irritability and 0.8%* for BRV, 2.4% for LEV, 9.2% for PER, and 1.2%* for TPM for aggression. There were no discontinuations for anger. Switching from LEV to BRV led to improvement in BAEs in 33.3% to 83.0% of patients (weighted mean, 66.6%). *Denotes only 1 study.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review characterizes the incidences of irritability, anger, and aggression with BRV, LEV, PER, and TPM, and it provides robust real-world evidence demonstrating that switching from LEV to BRV may improve BAEs. While additional data remain valuable due to differences in methodology (which make comparisons difficult), these results improve understanding of the real-world incidences of discontinuations due to these BAEs in clinical practice and can aid in discussions and treatment decision-making with PWE.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Humans; Levetiracetam; Nitriles; Observational Studies as Topic; Pyridones; Pyrrolidinones; Retrospective Studies; Topiramate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33839453
DOI: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2021.107939 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Acne is an inflammatory disorder with a high global burden. It is common in adolescents and primarily affects sebaceous gland-rich areas. The clinical benefit of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acne is an inflammatory disorder with a high global burden. It is common in adolescents and primarily affects sebaceous gland-rich areas. The clinical benefit of the topical acne treatments azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, sulphur, zinc, and alpha-hydroxy acid is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of topical treatments (azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, zinc, alpha-hydroxy acid, and sulphur) for acne.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to May 2019: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Clinical randomised controlled trials of the six topical treatments compared with other topical treatments, placebo, or no treatment in people with acne.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Key outcomes included participants' global self-assessment of acne improvement (PGA), withdrawal for any reason, minor adverse events (assessed as total number of participants who experienced at least one minor adverse event), and quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 49 trials (3880 reported participants) set in clinics, hospitals, research centres, and university settings in Europe, Asia, and the USA. The vast majority of participants had mild to moderate acne, were aged between 12 to 30 years (range: 10 to 45 years), and were female. Treatment lasted over eight weeks in 59% of the studies. Study duration ranged from three months to three years. We assessed 26 studies as being at high risk of bias in at least one domain, but most domains were at low or unclear risk of bias. We grouped outcome assessment into short-term (less than or equal to 4 weeks), medium-term (from 5 to 8 weeks), and long-term treatment (more than 8 weeks). The following results were measured at the end of treatment, which was mainly long-term for the PGA outcome and mixed length (medium-term mainly) for minor adverse events. Azelaic acid In terms of treatment response (PGA), azelaic acid is probably less effective than benzoyl peroxide (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.95; 1 study, 351 participants), but there is probably little or no difference when comparing azelaic acid to tretinoin (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14; 1 study, 289 participants) (both moderate-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in PGA when comparing azelaic acid to clindamycin (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.38; 1 study, 229 participants; low-quality evidence), but we are uncertain whether there is a difference between azelaic acid and adapalene (1 study, 55 participants; very low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence indicates there may be no differences in rates of withdrawal for any reason when comparing azelaic acid with benzoyl peroxide (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.29; 1 study, 351 participants), clindamycin (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.56; 2 studies, 329 participants), or tretinoin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.47; 2 studies, 309 participants), but we are uncertain whether there is a difference between azelaic acid and adapalene (1 study, 55 participants; very low-quality evidence). In terms of total minor adverse events, we are uncertain if there is a difference between azelaic acid compared to adapalene (1 study; 55 participants) or benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 30 participants) (both very low-quality evidence). There may be no difference when comparing azelaic acid to clindamycin (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.35; 1 study, 100 participants; low-quality evidence). Total minor adverse events were not reported in the comparison of azelaic acid versus tretinoin, but individual application site reactions were reported, such as scaling. Salicylic acid For PGA, there may be little or no difference between salicylic acid and tretinoin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 1 study, 46 participants; low-quality evidence); we are not certain whether there is a difference between salicylic acid and pyruvic acid (1 study, 86 participants; very low-quality evidence); and PGA was not measured in the comparison of salicylic acid versus benzoyl peroxide. There may be no difference between groups in withdrawals when comparing salicylic acid and pyruvic acid (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.50; 1 study, 86 participants); when salicylic acid was compared to tretinoin, neither group had withdrawals (both based on low-quality evidence (2 studies, 74 participants)). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in withdrawals between salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 41 participants; very low-quality evidence). For total minor adverse events, we are uncertain if there is any difference between salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 41 participants) or tretinoin (2 studies, 74 participants) (both very low-quality evidence). This outcome was not reported for salicylic acid versus pyruvic acid, but individual application site reactions were reported, such as scaling and redness. Nicotinamide Four studies evaluated nicotinamide against clindamycin or erythromycin, but none measured PGA. Low-quality evidence showed there may be no difference in withdrawals between nicotinamide and clindamycin (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.60; 3 studies, 216 participants) or erythromycin (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.46 to 4.22; 1 study, 158 participants), or in total minor adverse events between nicotinamide and clindamycin (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.99; 3 studies, 216 participants; low-quality evidence). Total minor adverse events were not reported in the nicotinamide versus erythromycin comparison. Alpha-hydroxy (fruit) acid There may be no difference in PGA when comparing glycolic acid peel to salicylic-mandelic acid peel (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.26; 1 study, 40 participants; low-quality evidence), and we are uncertain if there is a difference in total minor adverse events due to very low-quality evidence (1 study, 44 participants). Neither group had withdrawals (2 studies, 84 participants; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to benzoyl peroxide, azelaic acid probably leads to a worse treatment response, measured using PGA. When compared to tretinoin, azelaic acid probably makes little or no difference to treatment response. For other comparisons and outcomes the quality of evidence was low or very low. Risk of bias and imprecision limit our confidence in the evidence. We encourage the comparison of more methodologically robust head-to-head trials against commonly used active drugs.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Adapalene; Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Benzoyl Peroxide; Bias; Child; Clindamycin; Dermatologic Agents; Dicarboxylic Acids; Erythromycin; Female; Glycolates; Humans; Keratolytic Agents; Male; Mandelic Acids; Niacinamide; Patient Dropouts; Pyruvic Acid; Quality of Life; Salicylic Acid; Sulfur; Tretinoin; Young Adult; Zinc
PubMed: 32356369
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011368.pub2 -
Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2022This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2017. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2017. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for focal onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however, a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure of 12 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, eventrate, zonisamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with focal onset seizures (simple focal, complex focal or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 12 April 2021: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to April 09, 2021). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This was an individual participant data (IPD) and network meta-analysis (NMA) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to treatment failure', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', and 'time to first seizure post-randomisation'. We performed frequentist NMA to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 12 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct 'pairwise' estimates and NMA results via node splitting. Results are presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using the CiNeMA approach, based on the GRADE framework. We have also provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
IPD were provided for at least one outcome of this review for 14,789 out of a total of 22,049 eligible participants (67% of total data) from 39 out of the 89 eligible trials (43% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 50 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions. No IPD were available from a single trial of eslicarbazepine acetate, so this AED could not be included in the NMA. Network meta-analysis showed high-certainty evidence that for our primary outcome, 'time to treatment failure', for individuals with focal seizures; lamotrigine performs better than most other treatments in terms of treatment failure for any reason and due to adverse events, including the other first-line treatment carbamazepine; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for lamotrigine versus: eventrate 1.01 (0.88 to 1.20), zonisamide 1.18 (0.96 to 1.44), lacosamide 1.19 (0.90 to 1.58), carbamazepine 1.26 (1.10 to 1.44), oxcarbazepine 1.30 (1.02 to 1.66), sodium valproate 1.35 (1.09 to 1.69), phenytoin 1.44 (1.11 to 1.85), topiramate 1.50 (1.23 to 1.81), gabapentin 1.53 (1.26 to 1.85), phenobarbitone 1.97 (1.45 to 2.67). No significant difference between lamotrigine and eventrate was shown for any treatment failure outcome, and both AEDs seemed to perform better than all other AEDs. For people with generalised onset seizures, evidence was more limited and of moderate certainty; no other treatment performed better than first-line treatment sodium valproate, but there were no differences between sodium valproate, lamotrigine or eventrate in terms of treatment failure; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for sodium valproate versus: lamotrigine 1.06 (0.81 to 1.37), eventrate 1.13 (0.89 to 1.42), gabapentin 1.13 (0.61 to 2.11), phenytoin 1.17 (0.80 to 1.73), oxcarbazepine 1.24 (0.72 to 2.14), topiramate 1.37 (1.06 to 1.77), carbamazepine 1.52 (1.18 to 1.96), phenobarbitone 2.13 (1.20 to 3.79), lacosamide 2.64 (1.14 to 6.09). Network meta-analysis also showed high-certainty evidence that for secondary remission outcomes, few notable differences were shown for either seizure type; for individuals with focal seizures, carbamazepine performed better than gabapentin (12-month remission) and sodium valproate (six-month remission). No differences between lamotrigine and any AED were shown for individuals with focal seizures, or between sodium valproate and other AEDs for individuals with generalised onset seizures. Network meta-analysis also showed high- to moderate-certainty evidence that, for 'time to first seizure,' in general, the earliest licensed treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for individuals with focal seizures; phenobarbitone performed better than both first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine. There were no notable differences between the newer drugs (oxcarbazepine, topiramate, gabapentin, eventrate, zonisamide and lacosamide) for either seizure type. Generally, direct evidence (where available) and network meta-analysis estimates were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping. There was no important indication of inconsistency between direct and network meta-analysis results. The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders; however, reporting of adverse events was highly variable across AEDs and across studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
High-certainty evidence demonstrates that for people with focal onset seizures, current first-line treatment options carbamazepine and lamotrigine, as well as newer drug eventrate, show the best profile in terms of treatment failure and seizure control as first-line treatments. For people with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types), current first-line treatment sodium valproate has the best profile compared to all other treatments, but lamotrigine and eventrate would be the most suitable alternative first-line treatments, particularly for those for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option. Further evidence from randomised controlled trials recruiting individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types) is needed.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Child; Epilepsies, Partial; Epilepsy; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Phenytoin
PubMed: 35363878
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011412.pub4