-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2020A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This may affect up to a quarter of all... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This may affect up to a quarter of all couples planning a child. It is estimated that for 40% to 50% of couples, subfertility may result from factors affecting women. Antioxidants are thought to reduce the oxidative stress brought on by these conditions. Currently, limited evidence suggests that antioxidants improve fertility, and trials have explored this area with varied results. This review assesses the evidence for the effectiveness of different antioxidants in female subfertility.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile women.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases (from their inception to September 2019), with no language or date restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED. We checked reference lists of relevant studies and searched the trial registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among women attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded trials comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and trials that only included fertile women attending a fertility clinic because of male partner infertility.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 63 trials involving 7760 women. Investigators compared oral antioxidants, including: combinations of antioxidants, N-acetylcysteine, melatonin, L-arginine, myo-inositol, carnitine, selenium, vitamin E, vitamin B complex, vitamin C, vitamin D+calcium, CoQ10, and omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant. Only 27 of the 63 included trials reported funding sources. Due to the very low-quality of the evidence we are uncertain whether antioxidants improve live birth rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (odds ratio (OR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 2.43; P < 0.001, I = 29%; 13 RCTs, 1227 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live birth rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 24% and 36%. Low-quality evidence suggests that antioxidants may improve clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.89; P < 0.001, I = 63%; 35 RCTs, 5165 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 25% and 30%. Heterogeneity was moderately high. Overall 28 trials reported on various adverse events in the meta-analysis. The evidence suggests that the use of antioxidants makes no difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.55; P = 0.46, I = 0%; 24 RCTs, 3229 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.56; P = 0.99, I = 0%; 9 RCTs, 1886 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of gastrointestinal disturbances (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.10; P = 0.47, I = 0%; 3 RCTs, 343 women; low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence showed that there was also no difference between the groups in rates of ectopic pregnancy (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 7.20; P = 0.69, I = 0%; 4 RCTs, 404 women). In the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison, low-quality evidence shows no difference in a lower dose of melatonin being associated with an increased live-birth rate compared with higher-dose melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live-birth rate of 24%, the rate among women using a lower dose of melatonin compared to a higher dose would be between 12% and 40%. Similarly with clinical pregnancy, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates between a lower and a higher dose of melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). Three trials reported on miscarriage in the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison (two used doses of melatonin and one compared N-acetylcysteine versus L-carnitine). There were no miscarriages in either melatonin trial. Multiple pregnancy and gastrointestinal disturbances were not reported, and ectopic pregnancy was reported by only one trial, with no events. The study comparing N-acetylcysteine with L-carnitine did not report live birth rate. Very low-quality evidence shows no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.00; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). Low quality evidence shows no difference in miscarriage (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.67; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). The study did not report multiple pregnancy, gastrointestinal disturbances or ectopic pregnancy. The overall quality of evidence was limited by serious risk of bias associated with poor reporting of methods, imprecision and inconsistency.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this review, there was low- to very low-quality evidence to show that taking an antioxidant may benefit subfertile women. Overall, there is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, multiple births, gastrointestinal effects or ectopic pregnancies, but evidence was of very low quality. At this time, there is limited evidence in support of supplemental oral antioxidants for subfertile women.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Administration, Oral; Antioxidants; Female; Humans; Infertility, Female; Live Birth; Minerals; Oxidative Stress; Pentoxifylline; Placebos; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Pregnancy, Multiple; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vitamins
PubMed: 32851663
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007807.pub4 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... May 2023Osteoradionecrosis of the jaws (ORNJ) is a severe and challenging complication of head and neck radiation therapy. Despite its aggressiveness and controversy respect to...
BACKGROUND
Osteoradionecrosis of the jaws (ORNJ) is a severe and challenging complication of head and neck radiation therapy. Despite its aggressiveness and controversy respect to its efficacy, surgical intervention remains the main treatment modality. Nevertheless, due to advances in the understanding of ORNJ physiopathology, new treatment alternatives such as the combination of pentoxifylline with tocopherol (PENTO) have emerged. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the reported efficacy of PENTO for the treatment of ORNJ. Material and Methods: Studies were search using Pubmed, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science data bases following the PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria were cohort, case series, randomized or non-randomized clinical studies published in English including human subjects who received PENTO as treatment for ORN of the jaws. Results: Eleven articles met the inclusion criteria and were included for data analysis. All studies reported patients with complete mucosal coverage with no exposed bone (considered healthy) after PENTO treatment, ranging from 16.6% to 100% of the patients, depending on the study. Clinical improvement or disease stabilization was reported between 7.6% and 66.6% of studied individuals, while disease progression was seen in only 5 studies involving 7.6 - 32% of patients.
CONCLUSIONS
PENTO treatment achieved a complete disease control in a significant number of patients in all studies. However, there is no standardized protocol for administering the therapy. It is necessary to determine the pharmacological doses and to evaluate the benefits of adding antibiotics and clodronate. Good quality clinical trials are needed to develop a successful algorithm for the management of ORN of the jaws.
Topics: Humans; Tocopherols; Pentoxifylline; Osteoradionecrosis; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Jaw
PubMed: 36641743
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.25729 -
PloS One 2022To evaluate the efficacy and safety of cilostazol, pentoxifylline, beraprost for intermittent claudication due to lower extremity arterial occlusive disease. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of cilostazol, pentoxifylline, beraprost for intermittent claudication due to lower extremity arterial occlusive disease.
METHODS
Randomized controlled clinical trials were identified from PubMed, Scopus, EMbase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, SinoMed, Wanfang and Chongqing VIP databases, from the database inception to 31/12/2021. The outcome measures were walking distance measured by treadmill (maximum and pain-free walking distance), ankle-brachial index and adverse events. The quality of included studies was assessed by the Cochrane bias risk assessment tool. A network meta-analysis was carried out with Stata 16.0 software.
RESULTS
There were 29 RCTs included in the study, covering total 5352 patients. Cilostazol was ranked first for both maximum and pain-free walking distance, followed by beraprost and pentoxifylline. For cilostazol, pentoxifylline and beraprost, maximum walking distance increased by 62.93 95%CI(44.06, 81.79), 32.72 95%CI(13.51, 55.79) and 43.90 95%CI(2.10, 85.71) meters, respectively relative to placebo, and pain-free walking distance increased by 23.92 95%CI(11.24, 36.61), 15.16 95%CI(2.33, 27.99) and 19.78 95%CI(-3.07, 42.62) meters. For cilostazol, pentoxifylline, beraprost and cilostazol combined with beraprost, ankle-brachial index increased by 0.06 95%CI(0.04, 0.07), -0.01 95%CI(-0.08, 0.05), 0.18 95%CI(0.12, 0.23) and 0.23 95%CI(0.18, 0.27), respectively relative to placebo. The pentoxifylline and cilostazol was associated with a lower ratio of adverse events than beraprost and cilostazol combined with beraprost.
CONCLUSION
Cilostazol, pentoxifylline and beraprost were all effective treatments for intermittent claudication; cilostazol with good tolerance was likely to be the most effective in walking distance, while beraprost and cilostazol combined with beraprost were more prominent in the ankle-brachial index.
Topics: Humans; Cilostazol; Intermittent Claudication; Network Meta-Analysis; Pentoxifylline; Vasodilator Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36318524
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275392 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Intermittent claudication (IC) is a symptom of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Pentoxifylline, one of many drugs... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Intermittent claudication (IC) is a symptom of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Pentoxifylline, one of many drugs used to treat IC, acts by decreasing blood viscosity, improving erythrocyte flexibility, and promoting microcirculatory flow and tissue oxygen concentration. Many studies have evaluated the efficacy of pentoxifylline in treating people with PAD, but results of these studies are variable. This is the second update of a review first published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy of pentoxifylline in improving the walking capacity (i.e. pain-free walking distance and total (absolute, maximum) walking distance) of people with stable intermittent claudication, Fontaine stage II.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 28 January 2020. There were no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all double-blind, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pentoxifylline versus placebo or any other pharmacological intervention in people with IC Fontaine stage II.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed the included studies, matched data and resolved disagreements by discussion. Review authors assessed the methodological quality of studies using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and collected results related to the outcomes of interest, pain-free walking distance (PFWD), total walking distance (TWD), ankle-brachial pressure index (ABI), quality of life (QoL) and side effects. Comparison of studies was based on duration and dose of pentoxifylline. We used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified no new eligible studies for this update. This review includes 24 studies with 3377 participants. Seventeen studies compared pentoxifylline versus placebo. The seven remaining studies compared pentoxifylline with flunarizine (one study), aspirin (one study), Gingko biloba extract (one study), nylidrin hydrochloride (one study), prostaglandin E1 (two studies), and buflomedil and nifedipine (one study). Risk of bias for the individual studies was generally unclear because there was a lack of methodological reporting for many of the included studies, especially regarding randomisation and allocation methods. Most included studies did not provide adequate information to allow selective reporting to be judged and did not report blinding of assessors. Heterogeneity between included studies was considerable with regards to multiple variables, including duration of treatment, dose of pentoxifylline, baseline walking distance and participant characteristics; therefore, pooled analysis for comparisons which included more than one study, was not possible. Pentoxifylline compared to placebo Of 17 studies comparing pentoxifylline with placebo, 11 reported PFWD and 14 reported TWD; the difference in percentage improvement in PFWD for pentoxifylline over placebo ranged from -33.8% to 73.9% and in TWD ranged from 1.2% to 155.9%. It was not possible to pool the data of the studies because data were insufficient and findings from individual trials were unclear. Most included studies suggested a possible improvement in PFWD and TWD for pentoxifylline over placebo (both low-certainty evidence). The five studies which evaluated pre-exercise ABI comparing pentoxifylline and placebo found no evidence of a difference (moderate-certainty evidence). Two of the three studies that evaluated QoL between people who received pentoxifylline and placebo were larger studies that used validated QoL tools and generally found no evidence of a difference between groups. One small, short-term study, which did not specify which QoL tool was used, reported improved QoL in the pentoxifylline group (moderate-certainty evidence). Pentoxifylline generally was well tolerated; the most commonly reported side effects consisted of gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea (low-certainty evidence). Certainty of the evidence from this review was low or moderate, with downgrading due to risk of bias concerns, inconsistencies between studies and the inability to evaluate imprecision because meta-analysis could not be undertaken. The seven remaining studies compared pentoxifylline with either flunarizine, aspirin, Gingko biloba extract, nylidrin hydrochloride, prostaglandin E1, or buflomedil and nifedipine; data were too limited to allow any meaningful conclusions to be made.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a lack of high-certainty evidence for the effects of pentoxifylline compared to placebo, or other treatments, for IC. There is low-certainty evidence that pentoxifylline may improve PFWD and TWD compared to placebo, but no evidence of a benefit to ABI or QoL (moderate-certainty evidence). Pentoxifylline was reported to be generally well tolerated (low-certainty evidence). Given the large degree of heterogeneity between the studies, the role of pentoxifylline for people with IC Fontaine class II remains uncertain.
Topics: Ankle Brachial Index; Humans; Intermittent Claudication; Pentoxifylline; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vasodilator Agents; Walking
PubMed: 33063850
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005262.pub4 -
Journal of Current Ophthalmology 2022To systematically review the role of antioxidants in management of patients with thyroid eye disease (TED). (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To systematically review the role of antioxidants in management of patients with thyroid eye disease (TED).
METHODS
A literature search of the electronic databases was performed without restrictions on the date of publication till the end of March 2021, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Clinical trials, case-control studies, cohorts, case series, case reports, and experimental (including ) studies in the English language were included. The primary outcome in human studies was improvement in severity, activity scores, and/or quality of life scores. There was a decrease in the level of HO-dependent oxidative stress, Hyaluronic acid release, reactive oxygen species, cell proliferation, or antifibrotic/antiproliferative actions in the studies.
RESULTS
Out of 374 initially screened articles, 157 studies were selected, the full texts of 82 were reviewed, and 14 papers were finally included. There were 4 clinical and 10 studies from 1993 to 2018. While β-carotene, retinol, Vitamin E, Vitamin C, melatonin, resveratrol, N-acetyl-l-cysteine, and quercetin showed some efficacy in studies; allopurinol, nicotinamide, pentoxifylline, and selenium (Se) were effective in both clinical and experimental reports. Se was the only recommended antioxidant based on one high-level randomized controlled trial.
CONCLUSION
While different antioxidants could potentially be effective in the management of TED, no strong recommendation for any or combination of antioxidants could be made to be implemented in the daily practice.
PubMed: 35620378
DOI: 10.4103/joco.joco_266_21 -
Systematic Reviews Aug 2023Chronic radiation proctitis (CRP) is a long-term complication of pelvic radiotherapy that manifests as rectal bleeding, diarrhoea, fistula formation and obstruction.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chronic radiation proctitis (CRP) is a long-term complication of pelvic radiotherapy that manifests as rectal bleeding, diarrhoea, fistula formation and obstruction. Treatments such as endoscopic argon plasma coagulation, hyperbaric oxygen therapy and rectal topical formalin have imposed a significant medical burden on CRP patients. In contrast, oral therapies offer a more accessible and acceptable option for managing CRP. Here, we conducted a systematic review of the efficacy of oral treatments for CRP to assess their potential as an effective and convenient treatment option for this condition.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Chinese VIP in February 2021. We included post-radiotherapy participants with CRP that compared oral medicine alone or in combination with other treatments versus control treatments. The primary outcomes were bleeding, diarrhoea and symptom score. Heterogeneity between studies was checked using Cochrane Q test statistics and I test statistics. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies.
RESULTS
We included 10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 retrospective study with 898 participants. Three placebo-controlled trials evaluated the effects of oral sucralfate on CRP, with meta-analysis showing no significant different with placebo arm. Four trials on TCM demonstrated significant improvement of symptoms, especially for the 3 trials on oral TCM drinks. Retinyl palmitate and high-fibre diet were found to reduce rectal bleeding. The combination of oral pentoxifylline and tocopherol did not significantly change the process of CRP.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study implies that oral TCM drinks, retinyl palmitate and a high-fiber diet showed significant improvement in CRP symptoms, but not with the combination of oral pentoxifylline and tocopherol. Further multicentre, larger-scale RCTs are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of these treatments and optimize treatment strategies, ultimately improving the quality of life for patients with CRP.
Topics: Humans; Pentoxifylline; Tocopherols; Diarrhea; Proctitis
PubMed: 37608385
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02294-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) affects between 4% and 12% of people aged 55 to 70 years, and 20% of people over 70 years. A common complaint is intermittent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) affects between 4% and 12% of people aged 55 to 70 years, and 20% of people over 70 years. A common complaint is intermittent claudication (exercise-induced lower limb pain relieved by rest). These patients have a three- to six-fold increase in cardiovascular mortality. Cilostazol is a drug licensed for the use of improving claudication distance and, if shown to reduce cardiovascular risk, could offer additional clinical benefits. This is an update of the review first published in 2007.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of cilostazol on initial and absolute claudication distances, mortality and vascular events in patients with stable intermittent claudication.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registries, on 9 November 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered double-blind, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cilostazol versus placebo, or versus other drugs used to improve claudication distance in patients with stable intermittent claudication.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trials for selection and independently extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. We assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. For dichotomous outcomes, we used odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and for continuous outcomes we used mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs. We pooled data using a fixed-effect model, or a random-effects model when heterogeneity was identified. Primary outcomes were initial claudication distance (ICD) and quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes were absolute claudication distance (ACD), revascularisation, amputation, adverse events and cardiovascular events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 double-blind, RCTs (3972 participants) comparing cilostazol with placebo, of which five studies also compared cilostazol with pentoxifylline. Treatment duration ranged from six to 26 weeks. All participants had intermittent claudication secondary to PAD. Cilostazol dose ranged from 100 mg to 300 mg; pentoxifylline dose ranged from 800 mg to 1200 mg. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded by one level for all studies because publication bias was strongly suspected. Other reasons for downgrading were imprecision, inconsistency and selective reporting. Cilostazol versus placebo Participants taking cilostazol had a higher ICD compared with those taking placebo (MD 26.49 metres; 95% CI 18.93 to 34.05; 1722 participants; six studies; low-certainty evidence). We reported QoL measures descriptively due to insufficient statistical detail within the studies to combine the results; there was a possible indication in improvement of QoL in the cilostazol treatment groups (low-certainty evidence). Participants taking cilostazol had a higher ACD compared with those taking placebo (39.57 metres; 95% CI 21.80 to 57.33; 2360 participants; eight studies; very-low certainty evidence). The most commonly reported adverse events were headache, diarrhoea, abnormal stools, dizziness, pain and palpitations. Participants taking cilostazol had an increased odds of experiencing headache compared to participants taking placebo (OR 2.83; 95% CI 2.26 to 3.55; 2584 participants; eight studies; moderate-certainty evidence).Very few studies reported on other outcomes so conclusions on revascularisation, amputation, or cardiovascular events could not be made. Cilostazol versus pentoxifylline There was no difference detected between cilostazol and pentoxifylline for improving walking distance, both in terms of ICD (MD 20.0 metres, 95% CI -2.57 to 42.57; 417 participants; one study; low-certainty evidence); and ACD (MD 13.4 metres, 95% CI -43.50 to 70.36; 866 participants; two studies; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported on QoL; the study authors reported no difference in QoL between the treatment groups (very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on revascularisation, amputation or cardiovascular events. Cilostazol participants had an increased odds of experiencing headache compared with participants taking pentoxifylline at 24 weeks (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.17; 982 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Cilostazol has been shown to improve walking distance in people with intermittent claudication. However, participants taking cilostazol had higher odds of experiencing headache. There is insufficient evidence about the effectiveness of cilostazol for serious events such as amputation, revascularisation, and cardiovascular events. Despite the importance of QoL to patients, meta-analysis could not be undertaken because of differences in measures used and reporting. Very limited data indicated no difference between cilostazol and pentoxifylline for improving walking distance and data were too limited for any conclusions on other outcomes.
Topics: Aged; Bias; Cilostazol; Humans; Intermittent Claudication; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; Pentoxifylline; Peripheral Vascular Diseases; Placebos; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke; Tetrazoles; Walking
PubMed: 34192807
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003748.pub5 -
Pain Reports 2022Pain is highly prevalent in patients with cancer-nearly 40% report moderate-severe pain, which is commonly treated with opioids. Increasing cancer survivorship, opioid... (Review)
Review
Pain is highly prevalent in patients with cancer-nearly 40% report moderate-severe pain, which is commonly treated with opioids. Increasing cancer survivorship, opioid epidemics in some regions of the world, and limited opioid access in other regions have focused attention on nonopioid treatments. Given the limitations of monotherapy, combining nonopioids-such as antiepileptics and antidepressants-have shown promise in noncancer pain. This review seeks to evaluate efficacy of nonopioid combinations for cancer-related pain. Systematic searches of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were conducted for double-blind, randomized, controlled trials comparing a nonopioid combination with at least one of its components and/or placebo. This search yielded 4 randomized controlled trials, published between 1998 and 2019 involving studies of (1) imipramine + diclofenac; (2) mitoxantrone + prednisone + clodronate; (3) pentoxifylline + tocopherol + clodronate; and (4) duloxetine + pregabalin + opioid. In the first 3 of these trials, trends favouring combination efficacy failed to reach statistical significance. However, in the fourth trial, duloxetine + pregabalin + opioid was superior to pregabalin + opioid. This review illustrates recognition for the need to evaluate nonopioid drug combinations in cancer pain, although few trials have been published to date. Given the growing practice of prescribing more than 1 nonopioid for cancer pain and the need to expand the evidence base for rational combination therapy, more high-quality trials in this area are needed.
PubMed: 35261931
DOI: 10.1097/PR9.0000000000000995 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Acute non-arteritic central retinal artery occlusion (CRAO) occurs as a sudden interruption of the blood supply to the retina and typically results in severe loss of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute non-arteritic central retinal artery occlusion (CRAO) occurs as a sudden interruption of the blood supply to the retina and typically results in severe loss of vision in the affected eye. Although many therapeutic interventions have been proposed, there is no generally agreed upon treatment regimen.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of treatments for acute non-arteritic CRAO.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2022, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 15 February 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any interventions with another treatment in participants with acute non-arteritic CRAO in one or both eyes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology and graded the certainty of the body of evidence for primary (mean change in best-corrected visual acuity [BCVA]) and secondary (quality of life and adverse events) outcomes using the GRADE classification.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six RCTs with 223 total participants with acute non-arteritic CRAO; the studies ranged in size from 10 to 84 participants. The included studies varied geographically: one in Australia, one in Austria and Germany, two in China, one in Germany, and one in Italy. We were unable to conduct any meta-analyses due to study heterogeneity. None of the included studies compared the same pair of interventions: 1) tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) versus intravenous saline; 2) t-PA versus isovolemic hemodilution, eyeball massage, intraocular pressure reduction, and anticoagulation; 3) nitroglycerin, methazolamide, mecobalamin tablets, vitamin B and B injections, puerarin and compound anisodine (also known as 654-2) along with oxygen inhalation, eyeball massage, tube expansion, and anticoagulation compared with and without intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA); 4) transcorneal electrical stimulation (TES) with 0 mA versus with 66% of the participant's individual electrical phosphene threshold (EPT) at 20 Hz (66%) versus with 150% of the participant's individual EPT (150%) at 20 Hz; 5) ophthalmic artery branch retrograde thrombolysis versus superselective ophthalmic artery thrombolysis; and 6) pentoxifylline versus placebo. There was no evidence of an important difference in visual acuity between participants treated with t-PA versus intravenous saline (mean difference [MD] at 1 month -0.15 logMAR, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.48 to 0.18; 1 study, 16 participants; low certainty evidence); t-PA versus isovolemic hemodilution, eyeball massage, intraocular pressure reduction, and anticoagulation (MD at 1 month -0.00 logMAR, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.23; 1 study, 82 participants; low certainty evidence); and TES with 0 mA versus TES with 66% of EPT at 20 Hz versus TES with 150% of EPT at 20 Hz. Participants treated with t-PA experienced higher rates of serious adverse effects. The other three comparisons did not report statistically significant differences. Other studies reported no data on secondary outcomes (quality of life or adverse events). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current research suggests that proposed interventions for acute non-arteritic CRAO may not be better than observation or treatments of any kind such as eyeball massage, oxygen inhalation, tube expansion, and anticoagulation, but the evidence is uncertain. Large, well-designed RCTs are necessary to determine the most effective treatment for acute non-arteritic CRAO.
Topics: Humans; Tissue Plasminogen Activator; Retinal Artery Occlusion; Anticoagulants; China
PubMed: 36715340
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001989.pub3 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2021Pentoxifylline (PTX) is a member of methylxanthine chemicals and a type of non-selective phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors, which has been used in male infertility... (Review)
Review
Pentoxifylline (PTX) is a member of methylxanthine chemicals and a type of non-selective phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors, which has been used in male infertility treatment to improve sperm quality and erectile dysfunction (ED) treatment. Mutually tight associations existed between ED and male infertility. Using PTX might kill two birds with one stone by improving sperm quality and erectile function in infertile men with ED. PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched by October 2021. Based on available evidence from observational studies and randomized-controlled trials (RCTs), we conducted a systematic review to summarize the efficacy and safety of PTX in treating ED and male infertility. The protocol of the article was registered and updated in PROSPERO (CRD42021291396). From 202 records, eight studies (7 RCTs) evaluating the role of PTX in ED and three studies (2 RCTs) assessing the efficacy of PTX in male infertility were included in the systematic review. Three studies (100.00%) and two studies (100.00%) reported the beneficial role of PTX in improving sperm progressive motility and normal sperm morphology rate, respectively. In contrast, only one study (33.33%) indicated the favorable role of PTX in enhancing sperm concentration. As for ED, three (60.00%) studies supported the treatment role of PTX alone in ED, and two studies (66.67%) favored the combination use of PTX and selective PDE5Is compared with selective PDE5Is alone. Safety analysis showed that PTX was a well-tolerated drug in ED and male infertility treatment. Given the association between ED and male infertility and satisfying findings from available evidence, PTX administration for the simultaneous treatment of poor sperm quality and mild ED in infertile men will highly enhance the treatment compliance. However, the finding should be treated carefully until validated by further studies.
PubMed: 35095501
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.789787