-
RMD Open Dec 2023Synovitis acne pustulosis hyperostosis osteitis (SAPHO) is a rare heterogeneous disease of unknown aetiopathology. Externally validated and internationally agreed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Synovitis acne pustulosis hyperostosis osteitis (SAPHO) is a rare heterogeneous disease of unknown aetiopathology. Externally validated and internationally agreed diagnostic criteria or outcomes and, as a result, prospective randomised controlled trials in SAPHO are absent. Consequently, there is no agreed treatment standard. This study aimed to systematically collate and discuss treatment options in SAPHO.
METHODS
Following 'Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses' guidance, a systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases. Prospective clinical studies and retrospective case collections discussing management and outcomes in SAPHO involving five or more participants were included. Articles not published in English, studies not reporting defined outcomes, and studies solely relying on patient-reported outcomes were excluded.
RESULTS
A total of 28 studies (20 observational, 8 open-label clinical studies) reporting 796 patients of predominantly European ethnicity were included. Reported therapies varied greatly, with many centres using multiple treatments in parallel. Most patients (37.1%) received non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination. Bisphosphonates (22.1%), conventional (21.7%) and biological (11.3%) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were the next most frequently reported treatments. Reported outcomes varied and delivered mixed results, which complicates comparisons. Bisphosphonates demonstrated the most consistent improvement of osteoarticular symptoms and were associated with transient influenza-like symptoms. Paradoxical skin reactions were reported in patients treated with TNF inhibitors, but no serious adverse events were recorded. Most treatments had limited or mixed effects on cutaneous involvement. A recent study investigating the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib delivered promising results in relation to skin and nail involvement.
CONCLUSIONS
No single currently available treatment option sufficiently addresses all SAPHO-associated symptoms. Variable, sometimes descriptive outcomes and the use of treatment combinations complicate conclusions and treatment recommendations. Randomised clinical trials are necessary to generate reliable evidence.
Topics: Humans; Acquired Hyperostosis Syndrome; Osteitis; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Synovitis; Hyperostosis; Acne Vulgaris; Diphosphonates
PubMed: 38151265
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003688 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Pleural infection, including parapneumonic effusions and thoracic empyema, may complicate lower respiratory tract infections. Standard treatment of these collections in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pleural infection, including parapneumonic effusions and thoracic empyema, may complicate lower respiratory tract infections. Standard treatment of these collections in adults involves antibiotic therapy, effective drainage of infected fluid and surgical intervention if conservative management fails. Intrapleural fibrinolytic agents such as streptokinase and alteplase have been hypothesised to improve fluid drainage in complicated parapneumonic effusions and empyema and therefore improve treatment outcomes and prevent the need for thoracic surgical intervention. Intrapleural fibrinolytic agents have been used in combination with DNase, but this is beyond the scope of this review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of adding intrapleural fibrinolytic therapy to standard conservative therapy (intercostal catheter drainage and antibiotic therapy) in the treatment of complicated parapneumonic effusions and empyema.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal. We contacted trial authors for further information and requested details regarding the possibility of unpublished trials. The most recent search was conducted on 28 August 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients with post-pneumonic empyema or complicated parapneumonic effusions (excluding tuberculous effusions) who had not had prior surgical intervention or trauma comparing an intrapleural fibrinolytic agent (streptokinase, alteplase or urokinase) versus placebo or a comparison of two fibrinolytic agents.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data. We contacted study authors for further information. We used odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous data and reported 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures of meta-analysis. We applied the GRADE approach to summarise results and to assess the overall certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included in this review a total of 12 RCTs. Ten studies assessed fibrinolytic agents versus placebo (993 participants); one study compared streptokinase with urokinase (50 participants); and one compared alteplase versus urokinase (99 participants). The primary outcomes were death, requirement for surgical intervention, overall treatment failure and serious adverse effects. All studies were in the inpatient setting. Outcomes were measured at varying time points from hospital discharge to three months. Seven trials were at low or unclear risk of bias and two at high risk of bias due to inadequate randomisation and inappropriate study design respectively. We found no evidence of difference in overall mortality with fibrinolytic versus placebo (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.91; 8 studies, 867 participants; I² = 0%; moderate certainty of evidence). We found evidence of a reduction in surgical intervention with fibrinolysis in the same studies (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.68; 8 studies, 897 participants; I² = 51%; low certainty of evidence); and overall treatment failure (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.58; 7 studies, 769 participants; I² = 88%; very low certainty of evidence, with evidence of significant heterogeneity). We found no clear evidence of an increase in adverse effects with intrapleural fibrinolysis, although this cannot be excluded (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.57; low certainty of evidence). In a sensitivity analysis, the reduction in referrals for surgery and overall treatment failure with fibrinolysis disappeared when the analysis was confined to studies at low or unclear risk of bias. In a moderate-risk population (baseline 14% risk of death, 20% risk of surgery, 27% risk of treatment failure), intra-pleural fibrinolysis leads to 19 more deaths (36 fewer to 59 more), 115 fewer surgical interventions (150 fewer to 55 fewer) and 214 fewer overall treatment failures (252 fewer to 93 fewer) per 1000 people. A single study of streptokinase versus urokinase found no clear difference between the treatments for requirement for surgery (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.72; 50 participants; low-certainty evidence). A single study of alteplase versus urokinase showed no clear difference in requirement for surgery (OR alteplase versus urokinase 0.46, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.24) but an increased rate of adverse effects, primarily bleeding, with alteplase (OR 5.61, 95% CI 1.16 to 27.11; 99 participants; low-certainty evidence). This translated into 154 (6 to 499 more) serious adverse events with alteplase compared with urokinase per 1000 people treated.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In patients with complicated infective pleural effusion or empyema, intrapleural fibrinolytic therapy was associated with a reduction in the requirement for surgical intervention and overall treatment failure but with no evidence of change in mortality. Discordance between the negative largest trial of this therapy and other studies is of concern, however, as is an absence of significant effect when analysing low risk of bias trials only. The reasons for this difference are uncertain but may include publication bias. Intrapleural fibrinolytics may increase the rate of serious adverse events, but the evidence is insufficient to confirm or exclude this possibility.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drainage; Empyema, Pleural; Fibrinolytic Agents; Humans; Pleural Effusion; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Streptokinase; Thrombolytic Therapy; Tissue Plasminogen Activator; Urokinase-Type Plasminogen Activator
PubMed: 31684683
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002312.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic immune-mediated disease of the central nervous system, with an unpredictable course. Current MS therapies such as disease-modifying... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic immune-mediated disease of the central nervous system, with an unpredictable course. Current MS therapies such as disease-modifying therapies focus on treating exacerbations, preventing new exacerbations and avoiding the progression of disability. Siponimod (BAF312) is an oral treatment, a selective sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulator, for the treatment of adults with relapsing forms of MS including active, secondary progressive MS with relapses.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and adverse effects of siponimod as monotherapy or combination therapy versus placebo or any active comparator for people diagnosed with MS.
SEARCH METHODS
On 18 June 2020, we searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Trials Register, which contains studies from CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, and the trials registry databases ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We also handsearched relevant journals and screened the reference lists of published reviews and retrieved articles and searched reports (2004 to June 2020) from the MS societies in Europe and America.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised parallel controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated siponimod, as monotherapy or combination therapy, versus placebo or any active comparator in people with MS. There were no restrictions on dose or administration frequency.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We discussed disagreements and resolved them by consensus among the review authors. Our primary outcomes wereworsening disability , relapse and adverse events, and secondary outcomes were annualised relapse rate, gadolinium-enhancing lesions, new lesions or enlarged pre-existing lesions and mean change of brain volume. We independently evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. We contacted principal investigators of included studies for additional data or confirmation of data.
MAIN RESULTS
Two studies (1948 participants) met our selection criteria, 608 controls and 1334 treated with siponimod. The included studies compared siponimod with placebo. Overall, all studies had a high risk of bias due to selective reporting and attrition bias. Comparing siponimod administered at a dose of 2 mg to placebo, we found that siponimod may reduce the number of participants with disability progression at six months (56 fewer people per 1000; risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 0.94; 1 study, 1641 participants; low-certainty evidence) and annualised relapse rate (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.56; 2 studies, 1739 participants; low-certainty evidence). But it might lead to little reduction in the number of participants with new relapse (166 fewer people per 1000; RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.00; 1 study, 94 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We observed no evidence of a difference due to adverse events for siponimod at 2 mg compared to placebo (14 more people per 1000; RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.71; 2 studies, 1739 participants, low-certainty evidence). In addition, due to the high risk of inaccurate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data in the two included studies, we could not combine data for active lesions on MRI scans. Both studies had high attrition bias resulting from the unbalanced reasons for dropouts among groups and high risk of bias due to conflicts of interest. Siponimod may reduce the number of gadolinium-enhancing T1-weighted lesions at two years of follow-up (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.19; P < 0.0001; 1 study, 1641 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be no evidence of a difference between groups in the number of participants with at least one serious adverse event excluding relapses (113 more people per 1000; RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.37 to 8.77; 2 studies, 1739 participants; low-certainty evidence) at six months. No data were available regarding cardiac adverse events. In terms of safety profile, the most common adverse events associated with siponimod were headache, back pain, bradycardia, dizziness, fatigue, influenza, urinary tract infection, lymphopenia, nausea, alanine amino transferase increase and upper respiratory tract infection. These adverse events have dose-related effects and rarely led to discontinuation of treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of the RCTs included in this review, we are uncertain whether siponimod interventions are beneficial for people with MS. There was low-certainty evidence to support that siponimod at a dose of 2 mg orally once daily as monotherapy compared with placebo may reduce the annualised relapse rate and the number of participants who experienced disability worsening, at 6 months. However, the certainty of the evidence to support the benefit in reducing the number of people with a relapse is very low. The risk of withdrawals due to adverse events requires careful monitoring of participants over time. The duration of all studies was less than 24 months, so the efficacy and safety of siponimod over 24 months are still uncertain, and further exploration is needed in the future. There is no high-certainty data available to evaluate the benefit on MRI outcomes. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for all outcomes was low to very low, downgraded due to serious study limitations, imprecision and indirectness. We are uncertain whether siponimod is beneficial for people with MS. More new studies with robust methodology and longer follow-up are needed to evaluate the benefit of siponimod for the management of MS and to observe long-term adverse effects. Also, in addition to comparing with placebo, more new studies are needed to evaluate siponimod versus other therapeutic options.
Topics: Adult; Azetidines; Benzyl Compounds; Humans; Multiple Sclerosis; Multiple Sclerosis, Chronic Progressive
PubMed: 34783010
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013647.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Hypertension is considered to be a serious health problem worldwide. Controlling and lowering blood pressure are of significant benefit to people with hypertension... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hypertension is considered to be a serious health problem worldwide. Controlling and lowering blood pressure are of significant benefit to people with hypertension because hypertension is a risk factor for stroke, heart disease, and cardiovascular disease. Roselle, the tropical plant Hibiscus sabdariffa, also commonly called sour tea or red tea, has been used as both a thirst-quenching drink and for medicinal purposes.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of Roselle on blood pressure in people with primary hypertension.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases and trials registers for randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register (to 6 August 2021), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2021, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 5 August 2021), Embase Ovid (1974 to 5 August 2021), ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (to 6 August 2021), Web of Science Clarivate (to 7 August 2021), Food Science and Technology Abstracts Clarivate (to 7 August 2021), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 6 August 2021), and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (to 6 August 2021). We searched Google Scholar and OpenSIGLE. We also handsearched local and regional Chinese databases: CBM, CMCC, TCMLARS, CNKI, CMAC, and the Index to Chinese Periodical Literature (to 14 September 2020), as well as Thai databases (ThaiJO, CUIR, TDC, CMU e-Theses, TCTR) (to 3 October 2020). There were no language or publication date restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought RCTs evaluating the use of any forms of Roselle with placebo or no treatment in adults with hypertension. Our primary outcome was change in trough and/or peak systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP). Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to adverse effects, change in pulse pressure, and change in heart rate.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All search results were managed using Covidence and re-checked for the number of records, inclusion and exclusion of studies with Mendeley reference management software. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors worked independently in parallel for screening (titles and abstracts, and full reports), data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and assessment of the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consultation with the third review author if necessary. We presented mean difference (MD) of change in SBP and DBP with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
For this update, only one RCT with a parallel-group design involving 60 participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus fulfilled the inclusion criteria. This study investigated the effect of Roselle extract capsules (total dose of 5600 mg) compared with placebo (lactose) at eight weeks. The study was at low risk of selection bias, performance bias, and detection bias. Conversely, it was at high risk of attrition bias, reporting bias, and other bias (baseline imbalance). We have very little confidence in the effect estimate of Roselle on change-from-baseline in both SBP and DBP between the two groups. The MD of change in SBP was 1.65, 95% CI -7.89 to 11.19 mmHg, 52 participants, very low-certainty evidence. The MD of change in DBP was 4.60, 95% CI -1.38 to 10.58 mmHg, 52 participants, very low-certainty evidence. Our secondary outcomes of withdrawals due to adverse effects, change in pulse pressure, and change in heart rate were not reported. Due to the limited available data, no secondary analyses were performed (subgroup and sensitivity analysis).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence is currently insufficient to determine the effectiveness of Roselle compared to placebo for controlling or lowering blood pressure in people with hypertension. The certainty of evidence was very low due to methodological limitations, imprecision, and indirectness. There is a need for rigorous RCTs that address the review question.
Topics: Adult; Blood Pressure; Cardiovascular Diseases; Hibiscus; Humans; Hypertension; Systole
PubMed: 34837382
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007894.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Stroke is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Functional impairment, resulting in poor performance in activities of daily living (ADL) among stroke... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Stroke is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Functional impairment, resulting in poor performance in activities of daily living (ADL) among stroke survivors is common. Current rehabilitation approaches have limited effectiveness in improving ADL performance, function, muscle strength, and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect) after stroke, with improving cognition being the number one research priority in this field. A possible adjunct to stroke rehabilitation might be non-invasive brain stimulation by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to modulate cortical excitability, and hence to improve these outcomes in people after stroke.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of tDCS on ADL, arm and leg function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect), dropouts and adverse events in people after stroke.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and seven other databases in January 2019. In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials, we also searched trials registers and reference lists, handsearched conference proceedings, and contacted authors and equipment manufacturers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
This is the update of an existing review. In the previous version of this review, we focused on the effects of tDCS on ADL and function. In this update, we broadened our inclusion criteria to compare any kind of active tDCS for improving ADL, function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect) versus any kind of placebo or control intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and risk of bias, extracted data, and applied GRADE criteria. If necessary, we contacted study authors to ask for additional information. We collected information on dropouts and adverse events from the trial reports.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 67 studies involving a total of 1729 patients after stroke. We also identified 116 ongoing studies. The risk of bias did not differ substantially for different comparisons and outcomes. The majority of participants had ischaemic stroke, with mean age between 43 and 75 years, in the acute, postacute, and chronic phase after stroke, and level of impairment ranged from severe to less severe. Included studies differed in terms of type, location and duration of stimulation, amount of current delivered, electrode size and positioning, as well as type and location of stroke. We found 23 studies with 781 participants examining the effects of tDCS versus sham tDCS (or any other passive intervention) on our primary outcome measure, ADL after stroke. Nineteen studies with 686 participants reported absolute values and showed evidence of effect regarding ADL performance at the end of the intervention period (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.44; random-effects model; moderate-quality evidence). Four studies with 95 participants reported change scores, and showed an effect (SMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence). Six studies with 269 participants assessed the effects of tDCS on ADL at the end of follow-up and provided absolute values, and found improved ADL (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.62; moderate-quality evidence). One study with 16 participants provided change scores and found no effect (SMD -0.64, 95% CI -1.66 to 0.37; low-quality evidence). However, the results did not persist in a sensitivity analysis that included only trials with proper allocation concealment. Thirty-four trials with a total of 985 participants measured upper extremity function at the end of the intervention period. Twenty-four studies with 792 participants that presented absolute values found no effect in favour of tDCS (SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.38; moderate-quality evidence). Ten studies with 193 participants that presented change values also found no effect (SMD 0.33, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.79; low-quality evidence). Regarding the effects of tDCS on upper extremity function at the end of follow-up, we identified five studies with a total of 211 participants (absolute values) without an effect (SMD -0.00, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.39; moderate-quality evidence). Three studies with 72 participants presenting change scores found an effect (SMD 1.07; 95% CI 0.04 to 2.11; low-quality evidence). Twelve studies with 258 participants reported outcome data for lower extremity function and 18 studies with 553 participants reported outcome data on muscle strength at the end of the intervention period, but there was no effect (high-quality evidence). Three studies with 156 participants reported outcome data on muscle strength at follow-up, but there was no evidence of an effect (moderate-quality evidence). Two studies with 56 participants found no evidence of effect of tDCS on cognitive abilities (low-quality evidence), but one study with 30 participants found evidence of effect of tDCS for improving spatial neglect (very low-quality evidence). In 47 studies with 1330 participants, the proportions of dropouts and adverse events were comparable between groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.13; random-effects model; moderate-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence of very low to moderate quality on the effectiveness of tDCS versus control (sham intervention or any other intervention) for improving ADL outcomes after stroke. However, the results did not persist in a sensitivity analyses including only trials with proper allocation concealment. Evidence of low to high quality suggests that there is no effect of tDCS on arm function and leg function, muscle strength, and cognitive abilities in people after stroke. Evidence of very low quality suggests that there is an effect on hemispatial neglect. There was moderate-quality evidence that adverse events and numbers of people discontinuing the treatment are not increased. Future studies should particularly engage with patients who may benefit the most from tDCS after stroke, but also should investigate the effects in routine application. Therefore, further large-scale randomised controlled trials with a parallel-group design and sample size estimation for tDCS are needed.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Adult; Aged; Bias; Cognition Disorders; Confidence Intervals; Female; Humans; Lower Extremity; Male; Middle Aged; Motor Activity; Muscle Strength; Patient Dropouts; Perceptual Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function; Stroke Rehabilitation; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation; Upper Extremity
PubMed: 33175411
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009645.pub4 -
Systematic Reviews Aug 2023Subjective cognitive impairment (SCI) substantially increases dementia risk and is often conceptualised as the preclinical asymptomatic phase of the cognitive decline...
BACKGROUND
Subjective cognitive impairment (SCI) substantially increases dementia risk and is often conceptualised as the preclinical asymptomatic phase of the cognitive decline continuum. Due to the lack of pharmacological interventions available to treat SCI and reduce dementia risk, and the popularity of herbal and nutritional medicines, the primary aim of this review was to investigate the efficacy on cognitive function and safety of herbal and nutritional medicines (relative to a control) for older adults with and without SCI. The secondary aims were to describe the study characteristics and assess the methodological quality of included studies.
METHOD
Five databases (Cochrane, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and EMBASE) were searched from database inception with weekly alerts established until review finalisation on 18 September 2022. Articles were eligible if they included the following: study population of older adults with and without SCI, herbal and nutritional medicines as an intervention, evaluated cognitive outcomes and were randomised control trials.
RESULTS
Data were extracted from 21/7666 eligible full-text articles, and the risk of methodological bias was assessed (with SCI = 9/21; without SCI = 12/21). Most studies (20/21) employed parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled designs and were 12 weeks in length. Herbal supplements were widely used (17/21), namely a form of Ginkgo biloba (8/21) or Bacopa monnieri (6/21). Measures of cognition varied across studies, with 14/21 reporting improvements in at least one domain of cognitive functioning over time, in the intervention group (compared to control). A total of 14/21 studies were deemed as having an overall high methodological risk of bias, 6/21 had some concerns, and only one study (using an SCI population) was assessed as having a low risk of methodological bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, this review found that there is a low quality of evidence regarding the efficacy of cognitive function and safety of herbal and nutritional medicines for older adults with and without SCI, due to a high risk of bias across studies. Additionally, further work needs to be done in classifying and understanding SCI and selecting appropriate trial primary outcomes before future studies can more accurately determine the efficacy of interventions for this population.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Cognition; Cognitive Dysfunction; Databases, Factual; MEDLINE; Dementia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37592293
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02301-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2022This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review published in 2015. Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder, characterised by recurring, unprovoked seizures. Vagus... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review published in 2015. Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder, characterised by recurring, unprovoked seizures. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a neuromodulatory treatment that is used as an adjunctive therapy for treating people with drug-resistant epilepsy. VNS consists of chronic, intermittent electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve, delivered by a programmable pulse generator.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of VNS when used as add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS), and MEDLINE Ovid on 3 March 2022. We imposed no language restrictions. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered parallel or cross-over, randomised, double-blind, controlled trials of VNS as add-on treatment, which compared high- and low-level stimulation (including three different stimulation paradigms: rapid, mild, and slow duty-cycle), and VNS stimulation versus no stimulation, or a different intervention. We considered adults or children with drug-resistant focal seizures who were either not eligible for surgery, or who had failed surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods, assessing the following outcomes: 1. 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency 2. Treatment withdrawal (any reason) 3. Adverse effects 4. Quality of life (QoL) 5. Cognition 6. Mood
MAIN RESULTS
We did not identify any new studies for this update, therefore, the conclusions are unchanged. We included the five randomised controlled trials (RCT) from the last update, with a total of 439 participants. The baseline phase ranged from 4 to 12 weeks, and double-blind treatment phases from 12 to 20 weeks. We rated two studies at an overall low risk of bias, and three at an overall unclear risk of bias, due to lack of reported information about study design. Effective blinding of studies of VNS is difficult, due to the frequency of stimulation-related side effects, such as voice alteration. The risk ratio (RR) for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 2.64; 4 RCTs, 373 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), showing that high frequency VNS was over one and a half times more effective than low frequency VNS. The RR for treatment withdrawal was 2.56 (95% CI 0.51 to 12.71; 4 RCTs, 375 participants; low-certainty evidence). Results for the top five reported adverse events were: hoarseness RR 2.17 (99% CI 1.49 to 3.17; 3 RCTs, 330 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); cough RR 1.09 (99% CI 0.74 to 1.62; 3 RCTs, 334 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); dyspnoea RR 2.45 (99% CI 1.07 to 5.60; 3 RCTs, 312 participants; low-certainty evidence); pain RR 1.01 (99% CI 0.60 to 1.68; 2 RCTs; 312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); paraesthesia 0.78 (99% CI 0.39 to 1.53; 2 RCTs, 312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Results from two studies (312 participants) showed that a small number of favourable QOL effects were associated with VNS stimulation, but results were inconclusive between high- and low-level stimulation groups. One study (198 participants) found inconclusive results between high- and low-level stimulation for cognition on all measures used. One study (114 participants) found the majority of participants showed an improvement in mood on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale compared to baseline, but results between high- and low-level stimulation were inconclusive. We found no important heterogeneity between studies for any of the outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
VNS for focal seizures appears to be an effective and well-tolerated treatment. Results of the overall efficacy analysis show that high-level stimulation reduced the frequency of seizures better than low-level stimulation. There were very few withdrawals, which suggests that VNS is well tolerated. Adverse effects associated with implantation and stimulation were primarily hoarseness, cough, dyspnoea, pain, paraesthesia, nausea, and headache, with hoarseness and dyspnoea more likely to occur with high-level stimulation than low-level stimulation. However, the evidence for these outcomes is limited, and of moderate to low certainty. Further high-quality research is needed to fully evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of VNS for drug-resistant focal seizures.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Child; Cough; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Dyspnea; Hoarseness; Humans; Pain; Paresthesia; Seizures; Vagus Nerve Stimulation
PubMed: 35833911
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002896.pub3 -
Molecular Psychiatry Jul 2021Many epidemiological studies have highlighted the link between vitamin D deficiency and schizophrenia. In particular, two prominent studies report an association between... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Many epidemiological studies have highlighted the link between vitamin D deficiency and schizophrenia. In particular, two prominent studies report an association between neonatal vitamin D deficiency and an increased risk of schizophrenia. In parallel, much has been learnt about the role of vitamin D in the developing central nervous system over the last two decades. Studies in rodent models of developmental vitamin D (DVD)-deficiency describe how brain development is altered leading to a range of neurobiological and behavioral phenotypes of interest to schizophrenia. While glutamate and gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) systems have been little investigated in these models, alterations in developing dopamine systems are frequently reported. There have been far more studies reporting patients with schizophrenia have an increased risk of vitamin D deficiency compared to well controls. Here we have conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that basically confirms this association and extends this to first-episode psychosis. However, patients with schizophrenia also have poorer general health, poorer diets, are frequently less active and also have an increased risk of other medical conditions, all factors which reduce circulating vitamin D levels. Therefore, we would urge caution in any causal interpretation of this association. We also summarize the inconsistent results from existing vitamin D supplementation trials in patients with schizophrenia. In respect to animal models of adult vitamin D deficiency, such exposures produce subtle neurochemical alterations and effects on cognition but do not appear to produce behavioral phenotypes of relevance to schizophrenia. We conclude, the hypothesis that vitamin D deficiency during early life may increase the risk of schizophrenia remains plausible and warrants ongoing research.
Topics: Animals; Cognition; Dopamine; Humans; Schizophrenia; Vitamin D; Vitamin D Deficiency
PubMed: 33500553
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-021-01025-0 -
Advances in Nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) Sep 2023Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death globally. Habitual consumption of tree nuts and peanuts is associated with cardioprotective benefits.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death globally. Habitual consumption of tree nuts and peanuts is associated with cardioprotective benefits. Food-based dietary guidelines globally recommend nuts as a key component of a healthy diet. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to examine the relationship between tree nut and peanut consumption and risk factors for CVD in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (PROSPERO: CRD42022309156). MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central databases were searched up to 26 September, 2021. All RCT studies that assessed the effects of tree nut or peanut consumption of any dose on CVD risk factors were included. Review Manager software was used to conduct a random effect meta-analysis for CVD outcomes from RCTs. Forest plots were generated for each outcome, between-study heterogeneity was estimated using the I test statistic and funnel plots and Egger's test for outcomes with ≥10 strata. The quality assessment used the Health Canada Quality Appraisal Tool, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE). A total of 153 articles describing 139 studies (81 parallel design and 58 cross-over design) were included in the systematic review, with 129 studies in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed a significant decrease for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), TC:high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, LDL cholesterol:HDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B (apoB) following nut consumption. However, the quality of evidence was "low" for only 18 intervention studies. The certainty of the body of evidence for TC:HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol:HDL cholesterol, and apoB were "moderate" because of inconsistency, for TG were "low," and for LDL cholesterol and TC were "very low" because of inconsistency and the likelihood of publication bias. The findings of this review provide evidence of a combined effect of tree nuts and peanuts on a range of biomarkers to create an overall CVD risk reduction.
Topics: Humans; Cardiovascular Diseases; Nuts; Arachis; Cholesterol, LDL; Cholesterol, HDL; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Cholesterol; Triglycerides; Apolipoproteins B
PubMed: 37149262
DOI: 10.1016/j.advnut.2023.05.004 -
Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery &... Oct 2021Since its introduction in the early 1960s, the multiple cannulated screw fixation method has been developed for use in femoral neck fractures (FNFs); however, the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Since its introduction in the early 1960s, the multiple cannulated screw fixation method has been developed for use in femoral neck fractures (FNFs); however, the parallelism of screws remains controversial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies published before June 2, 2020, that compared the use of parallel and non-parallel screw fixation for the treatment of FNF. The pooled analysis was designed to identify differences between the two groups and focused on postoperative complications, including fracture nonunion and osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH).
RESULTS
Over four studies, we enrolled 445 patients, including 195 patients with fixed FNF with parallel trajectory screws and 250 patients with fixed FNF with non-parallel screws. The pooled analysis showed no difference in the nonunion rates (odds ratio (OR)=0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.24-3.44; p=0.89) and no significant difference in the incidence of ONFH between parallel and non-parallel screw fixation (OR=0.74; 95% CI: 0.21-2.63; p=0.64).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this meta-analysis reveal that screw parallelism in multiple cannulated screw fixation of FNF has no relationship with either the fracture nonunion rate or the incidence of postoperative ONFH.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
III; meta-analysis.
Topics: Bone Screws; Femoral Neck Fractures; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Fractures, Ununited; Humans; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 34217865
DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2021.103005