-
CNS Drugs Jul 2021Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) experience relapses and sustained disability progression. Since 2004, the number of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS has...
BACKGROUND
Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) experience relapses and sustained disability progression. Since 2004, the number of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS has grown substantially. As a result, patients, healthcare providers, and insurers are increasingly interested in comparative efficacy and safety evaluations to distinguish between treatment options, but head-to-head studies between DMTs are limited.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the current study was to compare efficacy and safety outcomes with the DMTs ozanimod and dimethyl fumarate (DMF) using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to adjust for cross-trial differences in study design and population.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed to identify clinical studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of ozanimod compared with DMF. Individual patient-level data (IPD) for ozanimod were obtained from the SUNBEAM and RADIANCE Part B trials, and aggregate-level patient data (APD) for DMF were obtained from CONFIRM and DEFINE. A MAIC is used to weight IPD to APD based on important baseline patient characteristics considered to be effect modifiers or prognostic factors in order to balance the covariate distribution to establish more homogenous trial populations. Once trial populations are determined to be sufficiently homogenous, outcomes of interest are estimated and used to generate treatment effects between the weighted IPD and APD. We used MAIC methodology to compare efficacy and safety outcomes of interest between ozanimod 1.0 mg once daily (OD) and DMF 240 mg twice daily (BID), including confirmed disability progression (CDP) at 3 and 6 months, annualized relapse rate (ARR), proportion of patients relapsed, overall adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and discontinuations due to AEs.
RESULTS
After matching patient data, baseline patient characteristics were balanced between patients receiving ozanimod and those receiving DMF. Compared with DMF, ozanimod demonstrated significantly improved CDP at 3 months (hazard ratio 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.86), ARR (rate ratio [RR] 0.80; 95% CI 0.67-0.97), proportion of patients relapsed (odds ratio [OR] 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.83), overall AEs (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.08-0.16), SAEs (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.19-0.39), and discontinuations (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.07-0.17). CDP at 6 months did not differ significantly between the two agents (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.62-1.26).
CONCLUSIONS
After adjustment of baseline patient characteristics, the MAIC demonstrated that the efficacy and safety of ozanimod 1.0 mg OD was superior to that of DMF 240 mg BID. Although a MAIC is less likely to produce biased estimates than a naïve or a standard indirect treatment comparison via a common comparator, limitations include potential confounding due to unobserved and thus unaccounted for baseline differences.
Topics: Comparative Effectiveness Research; Dimethyl Fumarate; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Indans; Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting; Oxadiazoles; Sphingosine 1 Phosphate Receptor Modulators; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33847901
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-021-00805-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Renin inhibitors (RIs) reduce blood pressure more than placebo, with the magnitude of this effect thought to be similar to that for angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Renin inhibitors (RIs) reduce blood pressure more than placebo, with the magnitude of this effect thought to be similar to that for angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. However, a drug's efficacy in lowering blood pressure cannot be considered as a definitive indicator of its effectiveness in reducing mortality and morbidity. The effectiveness and safety of RIs compared to ACE inhibitors in treating hypertension is unknown.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of renin inhibitors compared to ACE inhibitors in people with primary hypertension.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Hypertension Group Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to August 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers about further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies (RCTs) with at least four weeks follow-up in people with primary hypertension, which compared renin inhibitors with ACE inhibitors and reported morbidity, mortality, adverse events or blood pressure outcomes. We excluded people with proven secondary hypertension.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risks of bias and entered the data for analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We include 11 RCTs involving 13,627 participants, with a mean baseline age from 51.5 to 74.2 years. Follow-up duration ranged from four weeks to 36.6 months. There was no difference between RIs and ACE inhibitors for the outcomes: all-cause mortality: risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.18; 5 RCTs, 5962 participants; low-certainty evidence; total myocardial infarction: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.22 to 3.39; 2 RCTs, 957 participants; very low-certainty evidence; adverse events: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03; 10 RTCs, 6007 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; serious adverse events: RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.64; 10 RTCs, 6007 participants; low-certainty evidence; and withdrawal due to adverse effects: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.06; 10 RTCs, 6008 participants; low-certainty evidence. No data were available for total cardiovascular events, heart failure, stroke, end-stage renal disease or change in heart rate. Low-certainty evidence suggested that RIs reduced systolic blood pressure: mean difference (MD) -1.72, 95% CI -2.47 to -0.97; 9 RCTs, 5001 participants; and diastolic blood pressure: MD -1.18, 95% CI -1.65 to -0.72; 9 RCTs, 5001 participants, to a greater extent than ACE inhibitors, but we judged this to be more likely due to bias than a true effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of hypertension, we have low certainty that renin inhibitors (RI) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors do not differ for all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction. We have low to moderate certainty that they do not differ for adverse events. Small reductions in blood pressure with renin inhibitors compared to ACE inhibitors are of low certainty. More independent, large, long-term trials are needed to compare RIs with ACE inhibitors, particularly assessing morbidity and mortality outcomes, but also on blood pressure-lowering effect.
Topics: Aged; Amides; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cause of Death; Female; Fumarates; Heart Rate; Humans; Irbesartan; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Lisinopril; Male; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; Patient Dropouts; Ramipril; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renin
PubMed: 33089502
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012569.pub2 -
International Journal of Molecular... Mar 2024Dimethyloxalylglycine (DMOG) has been found to stimulate osteogenesis and angiogenesis of stem cells, promoting neo-angiogenesis in bone tissue regeneration. In this... (Review)
Review
Dimethyloxalylglycine (DMOG) has been found to stimulate osteogenesis and angiogenesis of stem cells, promoting neo-angiogenesis in bone tissue regeneration. In this review, we conducted a comprehensive search of the literature to investigate the effects of DMOG on osteogenesis and bone regeneration. We screened the studies based on specific inclusion criteria and extracted relevant information from both in vitro and in vivo experiments. The risk of bias in animal studies was evaluated using the SYRCLE tool. Out of the 174 studies retrieved, 34 studies met the inclusion criteria (34 studies were analyzed in vitro and 20 studies were analyzed in vivo). The findings of the included studies revealed that DMOG stimulated stem cells' differentiation toward osteogenic, angiogenic, and chondrogenic lineages, leading to vascularized bone and cartilage regeneration. Addtionally, DMOG demonstrated therapeutic effects on bone loss caused by bone-related diseases. However, the culture environment in vitro is notably distinct from that in vivo, and the animal models used in vivo experiments differ significantly from humans. In summary, DMOG has the ability to enhance the osteogenic and angiogenic differentiation potential of stem cells, thereby improving bone regeneration in cases of bone defects. This highlights DMOG as a potential focus for research in the field of bone tissue regeneration engineering.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Osteogenesis; Bone Regeneration; Bone Diseases, Metabolic; Stem Cells; Amino Acids, Dicarboxylic
PubMed: 38612687
DOI: 10.3390/ijms25073879 -
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Apr 2022The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severity with disease modifying therapies (DMTs) in multiple sclerosis (MS) remains unclear, with some studies demonstrating...
BACKGROUND
The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severity with disease modifying therapies (DMTs) in multiple sclerosis (MS) remains unclear, with some studies demonstrating increased risks of infection with B-cell-depleting (anti-CD20) therapies and severity, while others fail to observe an association. Most existing studies are limited by a reliance on 'numerator' data (i.e., COVID-19 cases) only.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the risks of COVID-19 by DMT, this study aimed to assess both 'numerator' (patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection) and 'denominator' data (all patients treated with DMTs of interest) to determine if any DMTs impart an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or disease severity.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed charts and queried patients during clinic encounters in the NYU MS Comprehensive Care Center (MSCCC) for evidence of COVID-19 in all patients who were on the most commonly used DMTs in our clinic (sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1P) modulators (fingolimod/siponimod), rituximab, ocrelizumab, fumarates (dimethyl fumarate/diroximel fumarate), and natalizumab). COVID-19 status was determined by clinical symptoms (CDC case definition) and laboratory testing where available (SARS-CoV-2 PCR, SARS-CoV-2 IgG). Multivariable analyses were conducted to determine predictors of infection and severe disease (hospitalization or death) using SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals per DMT group and all individuals on a given DMT as denominator.
RESULTS
We identified 1,439 MS patients on DMTs of interest, of which 230 had lab-confirmed (n = 173; 75.2%) or suspected (n = 57; 24.8%) COVID-19. Infection was most frequent in those on rituximab (35/138; 25.4%), followed by fumarates (39/217; 18.0%), S1P modulators (43/250; 17.2%), natalizumab (36/245; 14.7%), and ocrelizumab (77/589; 13.1%). There were 14 hospitalizations and 2 deaths. No DMT was found to be significantly associated with increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Rituximab was a predictor of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 6.7; 95% CI 1.1-41.7) but did not reach statistical significance when the entire patient population on DMT was used (OR 2.8; 95% CI 0.6-12.2). No other DMT was associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19.
CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of COVID-19 risk among all patients on the commonly used DMTs did not demonstrate increased risk of infection with any DMT. Rituximab was associated with increased risk for severe disease.
Topics: COVID-19; Dimethyl Fumarate; Humans; Multiple Sclerosis; Natalizumab; Rituximab; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 35398713
DOI: 10.1016/j.msard.2022.103735 -
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine... Aug 2021Many radiotracers are currently available for the detection of recurrent prostate cancer (rPC), yet many have not been compared head-to-head in comparative imaging... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Many radiotracers are currently available for the detection of recurrent prostate cancer (rPC), yet many have not been compared head-to-head in comparative imaging studies. There is therefore an unmet need for evidence synthesis to guide evidence-based decisions in the selection of radiotracers. The objective of this study was therefore to assess the detection rate of various radiotracers for the rPC.
METHODS
The PUBMED, EMBASE, and the EU and NIH trials databases were searched without date or language restriction for comparative imaging tracers for 13 radiotracers of principal interest. Key search terms included 18F-PSMA-1007, 18F-DCPFyl, 68Ga-PSMA-11, 18F-PSMA-11, 68Ga-PSMA-I&T, 68Ga-THP-PSMA, 64Cu-PSMA-617, 18F-JK-PSMA-7, 18F-Fluciclovine, 18F-FABC, 18F-Choline, 11C-Choline, and 68Ga-RM2. Studies reporting comparative imaging data in humans in rPC were selected. Single armed studies and matched pair analyses were excluded. Twelve studies with eight radiotracers were eligible for inclusion. Two independent reviewers screened all studies (using the PRISMA-NMA statement) for inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (using the QUADAS-2 tool). A network meta-analysis was performed using Markov-Chain Monte Carlo Bayesian analysis to obtain estimated detection rate odds ratios for each tracer combination.
RESULTS
A majority of studies were judged to be at risk of publication bias. With the exception of 18F-PSMA-1007, little difference in terms of detection rate was revealed between the three most commonly used PSMA-radiotracers (Ga-PSMA-11, F-PSMA-1007, F-DCFPyl), which in turn showed clear superiority to choline and fluciclovine using the derived network.
CONCLUSION
Differences in patient-level detection rates were observed between PSMA- and choline-radiotracers. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to favour one of the four routinely used PSMA-radioligands (PSMA-11, PSMA-1007, PSMA-I&T, and DCFPyl) over another owing to the limited evidence base and risk of publication bias revealed by our systematic review. A further limitation was lack of reporting on diagnostic accuracy, which might favour radiotracers with low specificity in an analysis restricted only to detection rate. The NMA derived can be used to inform the design of future clinical trials and highlight areas where current evidence is weak.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Copper Radioisotopes; Glutarates; Humans; Male; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Network Meta-Analysis; Phosphinic Acids; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography; Prostatic Neoplasms; Pyridines
PubMed: 33550425
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-021-05210-9 -
BMC Anesthesiology Mar 2020The evidence base for the widely accepted standard regimen of succinylcholine for rapid sequence induction (1.0 mg kg) remains unclear. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The evidence base for the widely accepted standard regimen of succinylcholine for rapid sequence induction (1.0 mg kg) remains unclear.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing any succinylcholine regimen with the standard regimen (1.0 mg kg) and reporting on intubating conditions and/or apnoea times. Results were expressed as absolute risk differences (ARD) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data.
RESULTS
We retrieved six trials with relevant data of 864 patients (ASA 1 or 2, aged 18-65 years, body mass index < 30 kg m). Four regimens (0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 mg kg) were compared with 1.0 mg kg in at least three trials each, and three (0.8, 1.5, 2 mg kg) in one each. With 0.3 to 0.5 mg kg, the likelihood of excellent intubating conditions was significantly decreased (ARD - 22% to - 67%). With 0.3 and 0.4 mg kg, but not with 0.5, 0.6, 0.8, 1.5 and 2.0 mg kg, the likelihood of unacceptable intubating conditions was significantly increased (ARD + 22% and + 32%, respectively). With 2.0 mg kg, but not with 0.8 or 1.5 mg kg, the likelihood of excellent intubating conditions was significantly increased (ARD + 23%). Apnoea times were significantly shorter with regimens ≤0.8 mg kg (MD - 1.0 to - 3.4 min) but were not reported with 1.5 or 2.0 mg kg.
CONCLUSIONS
With succinylcholine regimens ≤0.5 mg kg, excellent intubating conditions are less likely and apnoea times are shorter, compared with 1 mg kg. With 0.3 and 0.4 mg kg, unacceptable intubating conditions are more common. Succinylcholine 1.5 mg kg does not produce more often excellent conditions compared with 1 mg kg, while 2.0 mg kg does, but the database with these regimens is weak and apnoea times remain unknown. Limited information size and strong statistical heterogeneity decrease the certainty of the evidence.
Topics: Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Neuromuscular Depolarizing Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rapid Sequence Induction and Intubation; Succinylcholine
PubMed: 32122305
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-020-00968-1 -
Advances in Therapy Jun 2020Triple inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β-agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) combination therapy is recommended for patients with chronic... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Efficacy of Budesonide/Glycopyrronium/Formoterol Fumarate Metered Dose Inhaler (BGF MDI) Versus Other Inhaled Corticosteroid/Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist/Long-Acting β-Agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) Triple Combinations in COPD: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Triple inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β-agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) combination therapy is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience further exacerbations/symptoms on dual LAMA/LABA or ICS/LABA therapy. The relative efficacy of budesonide/glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler 320/18/9.6 µg (BGF MDI) in COPD was compared with other ICS/LAMA/LABA fixed-dose and open combination therapies in a network meta-analysis (NMA).
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials of at least 10-week duration, including at least one fixed-dose or open combination triple therapy arm, in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. Studies were assessed for methodological quality and risk of bias. A three-level hierarchical Bayesian NMA model was used to determine the exacerbation rate per patient per year as well as the following outcomes at week 24: changes from baseline in pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV), post-dose peak FEV, and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score; proportion of SGRQ responders; and Transition Dyspnea Index focal score. Change from baseline in rescue medication use over weeks 12-24 was also analyzed. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were used to assess heterogeneity across studies.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies (n = 29,232 patients) contributed to the NMA. ICS/LABA dual combinations were combined as a single treatment group to create a connected network. Across all outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between BGF MDI and other triple ICS/LAMA/LABA fixed-dose (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol and beclomethasone dipropionate/glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate) and open combinations with data available within the network. Results from sensitivity analyses and meta-regression were consistent with the base-case scenario.
CONCLUSION
This NMA suggested that BGF MDI has comparable efficacy to other ICS/LAMA/LABA fixed-dose and open triple combination therapies in reducing exacerbations and improving lung function and symptoms in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. Further research is warranted as additional evidence regarding triple therapies, especially fixed-dose combinations, becomes available.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Aged; Bayes Theorem; Bronchodilator Agents; Budesonide; Drug Combinations; Dyspnea; Female; Forced Expiratory Volume; Formoterol Fumarate; Fumarates; Glycopyrrolate; Humans; Male; Metered Dose Inhalers; Middle Aged; Muscarinic Agonists; Muscarinic Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Respiratory Function Tests; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32335859
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-020-01311-3 -
International Journal of Sport... Jul 2021Citrulline malate (CitMal) is a dietary supplement that is suggested to enhance strength training performance. However, there is conflicting evidence on this matter.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Citrulline malate (CitMal) is a dietary supplement that is suggested to enhance strength training performance. However, there is conflicting evidence on this matter. Thus, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine whether supplementing with CitMal prior to strength training could increase the total number of repetitions performed before reaching voluntary muscular failure. A systematic search was conducted wherein the inclusion criteria were double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in healthy participants that examined the effect of CitMal on repetitions to failure during upper body and lower body resistance exercises. The Hedges's g standardized mean differences (SMD) between the placebo and CitMal trials were calculated and used in a random effect model. Two separate subanalyses were performed for upper body and lower body exercises. Eight studies, including 137 participants who consisted of strength-trained men (n = 101) and women (n = 26) in addition to untrained men (n = 9), fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Across the studies, 14 single-joint and multijoint exercises were performed with an average of 51 ± 23 total repetitions during 5 ± 3 sets per exercise at ∼70% of one-repetition maximum. Supplementing with 6-8 g of CitMal 40-60 min before exercise increased repetitions by 3 ± 5 (6.4 ± 7.9%) compared with placebo (p = .022) with a small SMD (0.196). The subanalysis for the lower body resulted in a tendency for an effect of the supplement (8.1 ± 8.4%, SMD: 0.27, p = .051) with no significant effect for the upper body (5.7 ± 8.4%, SMD: 0.16, p = .131). The current analysis observed a small ergogenic effect of CitMal compared with placebo. Acute CitMal supplementation may, therefore, delay fatigue and enhance muscle endurance during high-intensity strength training.
Topics: Adult; Bias; Citrulline; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Malates; Male; Performance-Enhancing Substances; Physical Endurance; Physical Functional Performance; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resistance Training; Time Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 34010809
DOI: 10.1123/ijsnem.2020-0295 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Anaemia is a condition where the number of red blood cells (and consequently their oxygen-carrying capacity) is insufficient to meet the body's physiological needs.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Anaemia is a condition where the number of red blood cells (and consequently their oxygen-carrying capacity) is insufficient to meet the body's physiological needs. Fortification of wheat flour is deemed a useful strategy to reduce anaemia in populations.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the benefits and harms of wheat flour fortification with iron alone or with other vitamins and minerals on anaemia, iron status and health-related outcomes in populations over two years of age.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, 21 other databases and two trials registers up to 21 July 2020, together with contacting key organisations to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included cluster- or individually-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) carried out among the general population from any country, aged two years and above. The interventions were fortification of wheat flour with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients. We included trials comparing any type of food item prepared from flour fortified with iron of any variety of wheat DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results and assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data from included studies and assessed risks of bias. We followed Cochrane methods in this review.
MAIN RESULTS
Our search identified 3538 records, after removing duplicates. We included 10 trials, involving 3319 participants, carried out in Bangladesh, Brazil, India, Kuwait, Philippines, South Africa and Sri Lanka. We identified two ongoing studies and one study is awaiting classification. The duration of interventions varied from 3 to 24 months. One study was carried out among adult women and one trial among both children and nonpregnant women. Most of the included trials were assessed as low or unclear risk of bias for key elements of selection, performance or reporting bias. Three trials used 41 mg to 60 mg iron/kg flour, three trials used less than 40 mg iron/kg and three trials used more than 60 mg iron/kg flour. One trial used various iron levels based on type of iron used: 80 mg/kg for electrolytic and reduced iron and 40 mg/kg for ferrous fumarate. All included studies contributed data for the meta-analyses. Iron-fortified wheat flour with or without other micronutrients added versus wheat flour (no added iron) with the same other micronutrients added Iron-fortified wheat flour with or without other micronutrients added versus wheat flour (no added iron) with the same other micronutrients added may reduce by 27% the risk of anaemia in populations (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.97; 5 studies, 2315 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether iron-fortified wheat flour with or without other micronutrients reduces iron deficiency (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.04; 3 studies, 748 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or increases haemoglobin concentrations (in g/L) (mean difference MD 2.75, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.80; 8 studies, 2831 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported data on adverse effects in children (including constipation, nausea, vomiting, heartburn or diarrhoea), except for risk of infection or inflammation at the individual level. The intervention probably makes little or no difference to the risk of Infection or inflammation at individual level as measured by C-reactive protein (CRP) (mean difference (MD) 0.04, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.11; 2 studies, 558 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Iron-fortified wheat flour with other micronutrients added versus unfortified wheat flour (nil micronutrients added) It is unclear whether wheat flour fortified with iron, in combination with other micronutrients decreases anaemia (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.46; 2 studies, 317 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The intervention probably reduces the risk of iron deficiency (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.99; 3 studies, 382 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and it is unclear whether it increases average haemoglobin concentrations (MD 2.53, 95% CI -0.39 to 5.45; 4 studies, 532 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported data on adverse effects in children. Nine out of 10 trials reported sources of funding, with most having multiple sources. Funding source does not appear to have distorted the results in any of the assessed trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Fortification of wheat flour with iron (in comparison to unfortified flour, or where both groups received the same other micronutrients) may reduce anaemia in the general population above two years of age, but its effects on other outcomes are uncertain. Iron-fortified wheat flour in combination with other micronutrients, in comparison with unfortified flour, probably reduces iron deficiency, but its effects on other outcomes are uncertain. None of the included trials reported data on adverse side effects except for risk of infection or inflammation at the individual level. The effects of this intervention on other health outcomes are unclear. Future studies at low risk of bias should aim to measure all important outcomes, and to further investigate which variants of fortification, including the role of other micronutrients as well as types of iron fortification, are more effective, and for whom.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anemia; Child; Child, Preschool; Edetic Acid; Female; Ferric Compounds; Ferrous Compounds; Flour; Food, Fortified; Fumarates; Hemoglobin A; Humans; Infant; Iron; Iron Deficiencies; Male; Micronutrients; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Triticum; Young Adult
PubMed: 33461239
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011302.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Anaemia is a condition where the number of red blood cells (and consequently their oxygen-carrying capacity) is insufficient to meet the body's physiologic needs.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Anaemia is a condition where the number of red blood cells (and consequently their oxygen-carrying capacity) is insufficient to meet the body's physiologic needs. Fortification of wheat flour is deemed a useful strategy to reduce anaemia in populations.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the benefits and harms of wheat flour fortification with iron alone or with other vitamins and minerals on anaemia, iron status and health-related outcomes in populations over two years of age.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and other databases up to 4 September 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included cluster- or individually randomised controlled trials (RCT) carried out among the general population from any country aged two years and above. The interventions were fortification of wheat flour with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients. Trials comparing any type of food item prepared from flour fortified with iron of any variety of wheat were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the search results and assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data from included studies and assessed risk of bias. We followed Cochrane methods in this review.
MAIN RESULTS
Our search identified 3048 records, after removing duplicates. We included nine trials, involving 3166 participants, carried out in Bangladesh, Brazil, India, Kuwait, Phillipines, Sri Lanka and South Africa. The duration of interventions varied from 3 to 24 months. One study was carried out among adult women and one trial among both children and nonpregnant women. Most of the included trials were assessed as low or unclear risk of bias for key elements of selection, performance or reporting bias. Three trials used 41 mg to 60 mg iron/kg flour, two trials used less than 40 mg iron/kg and three trials used more than 60 mg iron/kg flour. One trial employed various iron levels based on type of iron used: 80 mg/kg for electrolytic and reduced iron and 40 mg/kg for ferrous fumarate. All included studies contributed data for the meta-analyses. Seven studies compared wheat flour fortified with iron alone versus unfortified wheat flour, three studies compared wheat flour fortified with iron in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified wheat flour and two studies compared wheat flour fortified with iron in combination with other micronutrients versus fortified wheat flour with the same micronutrients (but not iron). No studies included a 'no intervention' comparison arm. None of the included trials reported any other adverse side effects (including constipation, nausea, vomiting, heartburn or diarrhoea). Wheat flour fortified with iron alone versus unfortified wheat flour (no micronutrients added) Wheat flour fortification with iron alone may have little or no effect on anaemia (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.07; 5 studies; 2200 participants; low-certainty evidence). It probably makes little or no difference on iron deficiency (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.07; 3 studies; 633 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and we are uncertain about whether wheat flour fortified with iron increases haemoglobin concentrations by an average 3.30 (g/L) (95% CI 0.86 to 5.74; 7 studies; 2355 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported data on adverse effects in children, except for risk of infection or inflammation at the individual level. The intervention probably makes little or no difference to risk of Infection or inflammation at individual level as measured by C-reactive protein (CRP) (moderate-certainty evidence). Wheat flour fortified with iron in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified wheat flour (no micronutrients added) Wheat flour fortified with iron, in combination with other micronutrients, may or may not decrease anaemia (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.31; 2 studies; 322 participants; low-certainty evidence). It makes little or no difference to average risk of iron deficiency (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.00; 3 studies; 387 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may or may not increase average haemoglobin concentrations (mean difference (MD) 3.29, 95% CI -0.78 to 7.36; 3 studies; 384 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trials reported data on adverse effects in children. Wheat flour fortified with iron in combination with other micronutrients versus fortified wheat flour with same micronutrients (but not iron) Given the very low certainty of the evidence, the review authors are uncertain about the effects of wheat flour fortified with iron in combination with other micronutrients versus fortified wheat flour with same micronutrients (but not iron) in reducing anaemia (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.71; 1 study; 127 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in reducing iron deficiency (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.97; 1 study; 127 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The intervention may make little or no difference to the average haemoglobin concentration (MD 0.81, 95% CI -1.28 to 2.89; 2 studies; 488 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trials reported data on the adverse effects in children. Eight out of nine trials reported source of funding with most having multiple sources. Funding source does not appear to have distorted the results in any of the assessed trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Eating food items containing wheat flour fortified with iron alone may have little or no effect on anaemia and probably makes little or no difference in iron deficiency. We are uncertain on whether the intervention with wheat flour fortified with iron increases haemoglobin concentrations improve blood haemoglobin concentrations. Consuming food items prepared from wheat flour fortified with iron, in combination with other micronutrients, has little or no effect on anaemia, makes little or no difference to iron deficiency and may or may not improve haemoglobin concentrations. In comparison to fortified flour with micronutrients but no iron, wheat flour fortified with iron with other micronutrients, the effects on anaemia and iron deficiency are uncertain as certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low. The intervention may make little or no difference to the average haemoglobin concentrations in the population. None of the included trials reported any other adverse side effects. The effects of this intervention on other health outcomes are unclear.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anemia; Child; Child, Preschool; Edetic Acid; Female; Ferric Compounds; Ferrous Compounds; Flour; Food, Fortified; Fumarates; Hemoglobin A; Humans; Infant; Iron; Iron Deficiencies; Male; Micronutrients; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Triticum; Young Adult
PubMed: 32677706
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011302.pub2