-
Nutrients Jul 2022Although the effects of caffeine supplementation on combat sports performance have been extensively investigated, there is currently no consensus regarding its ergogenic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Acute Effects of Caffeine Supplementation on Physical Performance, Physiological Responses, Perceived Exertion, and Technical-Tactical Skills in Combat Sports: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Although the effects of caffeine supplementation on combat sports performance have been extensively investigated, there is currently no consensus regarding its ergogenic benefits.This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to summarize the studies investigating the effects of caffeine supplementation on different aspects of performance in combat sports and to quantitatively analyze the results of these studies to better understand the ergogenic effect of caffeine on combat sports outcomes. A systematic search for randomized placebo-controlled studies investigating the effects of caffeine supplementation on combat sports' performance was performed through Scopus, Pubmed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases up to 18 April 2022. Random-effects meta-analyses of standardized mean differences (Hedge's g) were performed to analyze the data. Twenty-six studies of good and excellent methodological quality (based on the Pedro scale) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis results revealed caffeine has a small but evident effect size (ES) on handgrip strength (ES = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.52; = 0.02), and total number of throws during the special judo fitness test (SJFT) (ES = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.78; = 0.02). Regarding the physiological responses, caffeine increased blood lactate concentration ([La]) in anaerobic exercise (ES = 1.23; 95% CI: 0.29 to 2.18; = 0.01) and simulated combat (ES = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.34 to 1.47; = 0.002). For Heart Rate (HR), caffeine increased HR final (ES = 0.31; 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.52; = 0.003), and HR 1min (ES = 0.20; 95% CI 0.004 to 0.40; = 0.045). However, caffeine had no impact on the countermovement jump height, the SJFT index, the judogi strength-endurance test, the number and duration of offensive actions, HR at the end of the fight, and the rating of perceived exertion. Caffeine supplementation may be ergogenic for a range of combat sports aspects involving isometric strength, anaerobic power, reaction time, and anaerobic metabolism. However, supplementation effects might be ineffective under certain circumstances, indicating supplementation needs to take into account the performance metric in question prior to creating a dosing protocol.
Topics: Athletic Performance; Caffeine; Dietary Supplements; Hand Strength; Performance-Enhancing Substances; Physical Exertion; Physical Functional Performance
PubMed: 35889953
DOI: 10.3390/nu14142996 -
Nutrients Jan 2023The plant extract guarana is known for its caffeine content and other bioactive ingredients, which purportedly may improve cognitive performance. Recent reviews have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The plant extract guarana is known for its caffeine content and other bioactive ingredients, which purportedly may improve cognitive performance. Recent reviews have examined the effects of chronic supplementation of guarana in clinical populations; however, the acute effects of guarana on cognitive tasks, while of interest, have produced mixed results. Whether acute guarana ingestion improves human cognitive performance was assessed by performing a systematic review coupled with a meta-analysis. Eight placebo-controlled studies were identified and met the inclusion criteria providing data on 328 participants. The dose of guarana (37.5 to 500 mg) with reported caffeine content (4.3 to 100 mg) varied. Effect sizes (ESs) were calculated as the standardized mean difference and meta-analyses were completed using a random-effects model. The ESs for guarana averaged across a variety of cognitive measures and outcome variables were less than trivial (Hedge’s g = 0.076, p = 0.14). Using a subgroup meta-analysis (Q = 12.9, p < 0.001), ESs indicating a faster response time for guarana vs. a placebo (g = 0.202, p = 0.005) differed from the accuracy measures (g = −0.077, p = 0.4) which were non-significant. For response time, guarana ingested in a capsule (g = 0.111) tended to differ (Q = 2.96, p = 0.085) compared to guarana when dissolved in liquid (g = 0.281). Meta-regression of the study ESs of overall cognitive task performance was not related to the guarana dose (R2 < 0.001) or to the time allowed prior to cognitive testing (R2 < 0.001). Acute guarana ingestion had a small effect on the response time (faster performance) during a variety of cognitive tasks without affecting the accuracy. Whether the changes were linked to the caffeine content or other bioavailable substances in guarana is unknown. Additional studies that directly compare matched doses of caffeine versus guarana are needed to understand its effects on cognitive performance.
Topics: Humans; Caffeine; Paullinia; Plant Extracts; Reaction Time; Cognition
PubMed: 36678305
DOI: 10.3390/nu15020434 -
Nutrients Dec 2022Most intervention studies investigating the effects of ergogenic aids (EAs) on sports performance have been carried out in the male population. Thus, the aim of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Most intervention studies investigating the effects of ergogenic aids (EAs) on sports performance have been carried out in the male population. Thus, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the effects in the existing literature of EAs used by female athletes on performance. A literature research was conducted, and a descriptive analysis of the articles included in the systematic review was carried out. Meta-analyses could be performed on 32 of the included articles, evaluating performance in strength, sprint, and cardiovascular capacity. A random-effects model and the standardized mean differences (SMD) ± 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. The results showed that caffeine helped to improve jumping performance, isometric strength values, and the number of repetitions until failure. Caffeine and sodium phosphate helped to improve sprint performance. Aerobic tests could be improved with the use of taurine, caffeine, and beta-alanine. No conclusive effects of beetroot juice, polyphenols, or creatine in improving aerobic performance were shown. In terms of anaerobic variables, both caffeine and sodium phosphate could help to improve repeated sprint ability. More studies are needed in female athletes that measure the effects of different EAs on sports performance, such as beetroot juice, beta-alanine or sodium phosphate, as the studies to date are scarce and there are many types of EA that need to be further considered in this population, such as creatine and taurine.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Caffeine; Creatine; Athletic Performance; Athletes; Antioxidants; Performance-Enhancing Substances; beta-Alanine; Physical Functional Performance; Dietary Supplements
PubMed: 36615738
DOI: 10.3390/nu15010081 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Among people with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) who are engaged in clinical care, prescription rates of psychotropic medications are high, despite... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Among people with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) who are engaged in clinical care, prescription rates of psychotropic medications are high, despite the fact that medication use is off-label as a treatment for BPD. Nevertheless, people with BPD often receive several psychotropic drugs at a time for sustained periods.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of pharmacological treatment for people with BPD.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases and four trials registers up to February 2022. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for additional data from published and unpublished trials, and handsearched relevant journals. We did not restrict the search by year of publication, language or type of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological treatment to placebo, other pharmacologic treatments or a combination of pharmacologic treatments in people of all ages with a formal diagnosis of BPD. The primary outcomes were BPD symptom severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes, and psychosocial functioning. Secondary outcomes were individual BPD symptoms, depression, attrition and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We performed data analysis using Review Manager 5 and quantified the statistical reliability of the data using Trial Sequential Analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 46 randomised controlled trials (2769 participants) in this review, 45 of which were eligible for quantitative analysis and comprised 2752 participants with BPD in total. This is 18 more trials than the 2010 review on this topic. Participants were predominantly female except for one trial that included men only. The mean age ranged from 16.2 to 39.7 years across the included trials. Twenty-nine different types of medications compared to placebo or other medications were included in the analyses. Seventeen trials were funded or partially funded by the pharmaceutical industry, 10 were funded by universities or research foundations, eight received no funding, and 11 had unclear funding. For all reported effect sizes, negative effect estimates indicate beneficial effects by active medication. Compared with placebo, no difference in effects were observed on any of the primary outcomes at the end of treatment for any medication. Compared with placebo, medication may have little to no effect on BPD symptom severity, although the evidence is of very low certainty (antipsychotics: SMD -0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to 0.08; 8 trials, 951 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.65 to 1.18; 2 trials, 87 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.57; 4 trials, 265 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on self-harm, indicating little to no effect (antipsychotics: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.84; 2 trials, 76 participants; antidepressants: MD 0.45 points on the Overt Aggression Scale-Modified-Self-Injury item (0-5 points), 95% CI -10.55 to 11.45; 1 trial, 20 participants; mood stabilisers: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.48; 1 trial, 276 participants). The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on suicide-related outcomes, with little to no effect (antipsychotics: SMD 0.05, 95 % CI -0.18 to 0.29; 7 trials, 854 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.26, 95% CI -1.62 to 1.09; 2 trials, 45 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.36, 95% CI -1.96 to 1.25; 2 trials, 44 participants). Very low-certainty evidence shows little to no difference between medication and placebo on psychosocial functioning (antipsychotics: SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.00; 7 trials, 904 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.06; 4 trials, 161 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.26; 2 trials, 214 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests that antipsychotics may slightly reduce interpersonal problems (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.08; 8 trials, 907 participants), and that mood stabilisers may result in a reduction in this outcome (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.02; 4 trials, 300 participants). Antidepressants may have little to no effect on interpersonal problems, but the corresponding evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.55; 2 trials, 119 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about dropout rates compared with placebo by antipsychotics (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.38; 13 trials, 1216 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference in dropout rates between antidepressants (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.76; 6 trials, 289 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.15; 9 trials, 530 participants), compared to placebo. Reporting on adverse events was poor and mostly non-standardised. The available evidence on non-serious adverse events was of very low certainty for antipsychotics (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.29; 5 trials, 814 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; 1 trial, 276 participants). For antidepressants, no data on adverse events were identified.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review included 18 more trials than the 2010 version, so larger meta-analyses with more statistical power were feasible. We found mostly very low-certainty evidence that medication may result in no difference in any primary outcome. The rest of the secondary outcomes were inconclusive. Very limited data were available for serious adverse events. The review supports the continued understanding that no pharmacological therapy seems effective in specifically treating BPD pathology. More research is needed to understand the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of BPD better. Also, more trials including comorbidities such as trauma-related disorders, major depression, substance use disorders, or eating disorders are needed. Additionally, more focus should be put on male and adolescent samples.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Male; Female; Young Adult; Adult; Borderline Personality Disorder; Reproducibility of Results; Antidepressive Agents; Depressive Disorder, Major; Antipsychotic Agents
PubMed: 36375174
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012956.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Lumbosacral radicular pain (commonly called sciatica) is a syndrome involving patients who report radiating leg pain. Epidural corticosteroid injections deliver a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Lumbosacral radicular pain (commonly called sciatica) is a syndrome involving patients who report radiating leg pain. Epidural corticosteroid injections deliver a corticosteroid dose into the epidural space, with the aim of reducing the local inflammatory process and, consequently, relieving the symptoms of lumbosacral radicular pain. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review published in Annals of Internal Medicine in 2012. Some placebo-controlled trials have been published recently, which highlights the importance of updating the previous review.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the efficacy and safety of epidural corticosteroid injections compared with placebo injection on pain and disability in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases without language limitations up to 25 September 2019: Cochrane Back and Neck group trial register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and two trial registers. We also performed citation tracking of included studies and relevant systematic reviews in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies that compared epidural corticosteroid injections of any corticosteroid drug to placebo injections in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. We accepted all three anatomical approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) to delivering corticosteroids into the epidural space. We considered trials that included a placebo treatment as delivery of an inert substance (i.e. one with no pharmacologic activity), an innocuous substance (e.g. normal saline solution), or a pharmacologically active substance but not one considered to provide sustained benefit (e.g. local anaesthetic), either into the epidural space (i.e. to mimic epidural corticosteroid injection) or adjacent spinal tissue (i.e. subcutaneous, intramuscular, or interspinous tissue). We also included trials in which a local anaesthetic with a short duration of action was used as a placebo and injected together with corticosteroid in the intervention group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently performed the screening, data extraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessments. In case of insufficient information, we contacted the authors of the original studies or estimated the data. We grouped the outcome data into four time points of assessment: immediate (≤ 2 weeks), short term (> 2 weeks but ≤ 3 months), intermediate term (> 3 months but < 12 months), and long term (≥ 12 months). We assessed the overall quality of evidence for each outcome and time point using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 25 clinical trials (from 29 publications) investigating the effects of epidural corticosteroid injections compared to placebo in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. The included studies provided data for a total of 2470 participants with a mean age ranging from 37.3 to 52.8 years. Seventeen studies included participants with lumbosacral radicular pain with a diagnosis based on clinical assessment and 15 studies included participants with mixed duration of symptoms. The included studies were conducted mainly in North America and Europe. Fifteen studies did not report funding sources, five studies reported not receiving funding, and five reported receiving funding from a non-profit or government source. Eight trials reported data on pain intensity, 12 reported data on disability, and eight studies reported data on adverse events. The duration of the follow-up assessments ranged from 12 hours to 1 year. We considered eight trials to be of high quality because we judged them as having low risk of bias in four out of the five bias domains. We identified one ongoing trial in a trial registry. Epidural corticosteroid injections were probably slightly more effective compared to placebo in reducing leg pain at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -4.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.77 to -1.09 on a 0 to 100 scale; 8 trials, n = 949; moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias)). For disability, epidural corticosteroid injections were probably slightly more effective compared to placebo in reducing disability at short-term follow-up (MD -4.18, 95% CI -6.04 to -2.17, on a 0 to 100 scale; 12 trials, n = 1367; moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias)). The treatment effects are small, however, and may not be considered clinically important by patients and clinicians (i.e. MD lower than 10%). Most trials provided insufficient information on how or when adverse events were assessed (immediate or short-term follow-up) and only reported adverse drug reactions - that is, adverse events that the trialists attributed to the study treatment. We are very uncertain that epidural corticosteroid injections make no difference compared to placebo injection in the frequency of minor adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.42; 8 trials, n = 877; very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision)). Minor adverse events included increased pain during or after the injection, non-specific headache, post-dural puncture headache, irregular periods, accidental dural puncture, thoracic pain, non-local rash, sinusitis, vasovagal response, hypotension, nausea, and tinnitus. One study reported a major drug reaction for one patient on anticoagulant therapy who had a retroperitoneal haematoma as a complication of the corticosteroid injection.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This study found that epidural corticosteroid injections probably slightly reduced leg pain and disability at short-term follow-up in people with lumbosacral radicular pain. In addition, no minor or major adverse events were reported at short-term follow-up after epidural corticosteroid injections or placebo injection. Although the current review identified additional clinical trials, the available evidence still provides only limited support for the use of epidural corticosteroid injections in people with lumbosacral radicular pain as the treatment effects are small, mainly evident at short-term follow-up and may not be considered clinically important by patients and clinicians (i.e. mean difference lower than 10%). According to GRADE, the quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate, suggesting that further studies are likely to play an important role in clarifying the efficacy and tolerability of this treatment. We recommend that further trials should attend to methodological features such as appropriate allocation concealment and blinding of care providers to minimise the potential for biased estimates of treatment and harmful effects.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Injections, Epidural; Lumbosacral Region; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sciatica
PubMed: 32271952
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013577 -
The American Journal of Geriatric... Jan 2024Emerging evidence suggests that glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) may exert positive effects in patients with depression. Our aim was to conduct a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM/HYPOTHESIS
Emerging evidence suggests that glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) may exert positive effects in patients with depression. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the antidepressant effects of GLP-1RAs.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies investigating the effects of GLP-1RAs versus placebo or other antidiabetic therapies on depressive symptoms were searched for using multiple electronic sources (CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, China Network Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biomedical Database, Wan Fang data, and Chinese Scientific Journals Database) from inception to February 16, 2023. We utilized a random effects model to analyze standardized mean differences for the change in depression rating scales comparing GLP-1RA treated groups with control treated groups.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis comprising 2,071 participants included 5 randomized controlled trials and 1 prospective cohort study. The meta-analysis indicated that the change from baseline in depression rating scale scores decreased significantly when patients received treatment with GLP-1RAs compared to control treatments (SMD = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.21, -0.03], p <0.01, I = 0%, p = 0.52). The subgroup analysis showed that the effects of GLP-1RAs on depressive symptoms were consistent in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (SMD = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.21, -0.03], p <0.01, I = 2%, p = 0.40).
CONCLUSIONS
Adults treated with GLP-1RAs showed significant reductions in the depression rating scale scores compared to those treated with control substances. Our findings suggest that GLP-1RAs may be a potential treatment for alleviating depressive symptoms in humans.
Topics: Humans; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists; Prospective Studies; Hypoglycemic Agents; Antidepressive Agents
PubMed: 37684186
DOI: 10.1016/j.jagp.2023.08.010 -
Nutrients Oct 2020Citicoline is a chemical compound involved in the synthesis of cell membranes. It also has other, not yet explained functions. Research on the use of citicoline is...
Citicoline is a chemical compound involved in the synthesis of cell membranes. It also has other, not yet explained functions. Research on the use of citicoline is conducted in neurology, ophthalmology, and psychiatry. Citicoline is widely available as a dietary supplement. It is often used to enhance cognitive functions. In our article, accessible databases were searched for articles regarding citicoline use in neurological diseases. This article has a systemic review form. After rejecting non-eligible reports, 47 remaining articles were reviewed. The review found that citicoline has been proven to be a useful compound in preventing dementia progression. It also enhances cognitive functions among healthy individuals and improves prognosis after stroke. In an animal model of nerve damage and neuropathy, citicoline stimulated regeneration and lessened pain. Among patients who underwent brain trauma, citicoline has an unclear clinical effect. Citicoline has a wide range of effects and could be an essential substance in the treatment of many neurological diseases. Its positive impact on learning and cognitive functions among the healthy population is also worth noting.
Topics: Animals; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Cognition; Cytidine Diphosphate Choline; Dementia; Disease Models, Animal; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Nervous System Diseases; Neuralgia; Neurotransmitter Agents; Peripheral Nervous System; Stroke
PubMed: 33053828
DOI: 10.3390/nu12103113 -
Nutrients May 2020Nitric oxide related ergogenic aids such as arginine (Arg) have shown to impact positively on sport performance through several physiological and metabolic mechanisms.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Nitric oxide related ergogenic aids such as arginine (Arg) have shown to impact positively on sport performance through several physiological and metabolic mechanisms. However, research results have shown to be controversial. The great differences regarding required metabolic pathways and physiological demands between aerobic and anaerobic sport disciplines could be the reasons. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of Arg supplementation on aerobic (≤VOmax) and anaerobic (>VOmax) performance. Likewise, to show the effective dose and timing of this supplementation. A structured search was carried out in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement and PICOS guidelines in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science (WOS), and Scopus databases from inception to January 2020. Eighteen studies were included which compare Arg supplementation with placebo in an identical situation and testing its effects on aerobic and anaerobic performance tests. Trials analyzing supplementation with other supplements were removed and there was not athlete's level, gender, ethnicity, or age filters. The performed meta-analysis included 15 studies and random effects model and pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) were used according to Hedges' g. Results revealed that Arg supplementation could improve aerobic (SMD, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.12 to 1.56; magnitude of SMD (MSMD), large; I2, 89%; = 0.02) and anaerobic (SMD, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.43; MSMD, small; I2, 0%; = 0.01) performance tests. In conclusion, acute Arg supplementation protocols to improve aerobic and anaerobic performance should be adjusted to 0.15 g/kg of body weight ingested between 60-90 min before. Moreover, chronic Arg supplementation should include 1.5-2 g/day for 4-7 weeks in order to improve aerobic performance, and 10-12 g/day for 8 weeks to enhance anaerobic performance.
Topics: Aerobiosis; Anaerobiosis; Arginine; Athletic Performance; Body Weight; Dietary Supplements; Energy Metabolism; Female; Humans; Male; Nitric Oxide; Performance-Enhancing Substances
PubMed: 32370176
DOI: 10.3390/nu12051300 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020The prevalence of substance use, both prescribed and non-prescribed, is increasing in many areas of the world. Substance use by women of childbearing age contributes to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The prevalence of substance use, both prescribed and non-prescribed, is increasing in many areas of the world. Substance use by women of childbearing age contributes to increasing rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). Neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS) is a newer term describing the subset of NAS related to opioid exposure. Non-pharmacological care is the first-line treatment for substance withdrawal in newborns. Despite the widespread use of non-pharmacological care to mitigate symptoms of NAS, there is not an established definition of, and standard for, non-pharmacological care practices in this population. Evaluation of safety and efficacy of non-pharmacological practices could provide clear guidance for clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of non-pharmacological treatment of infants at risk for, or having symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal on the length of hospitalization and use of pharmacological treatment for symptom management. Comparison 1: in infants at risk for, or having early symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal, does non-pharmacological treatment reduce the length of hospitalization and use of pharmacological treatment? Comparison 2: in infants receiving pharmacological treatment for symptoms consistent with opioid withdrawal, does concurrent non-pharmacological treatment reduce duration of pharmacological treatment, maximum and cumulative doses of opioid medication, and length of hospitalization?
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search CENTRAL (2019, Issue 10); Ovid MEDLINE; and CINAHL on 11 October 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included trials comparing single or bundled non-pharmacological interventions to no non-pharmacological treatment or different single or bundled non-pharmacological interventions. We assessed non-pharmacological interventions independently and in combination based on sufficient similarity in population, intervention, and comparison groups studied. We categorized non-pharmacological interventions as: modifying environmental stimulation, feeding practices, and support of the mother-infant dyad. We presented non-randomized studies identified in the search process narratively.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes in infants at risk for, or having early symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal included length of hospitalization and pharmacological treatment with one or more doses of opioid or sedative medication. Primary outcomes in infants receiving opioid treatment for symptoms consistent with opioid withdrawal included length of hospitalization, length of pharmacological treatment with opioid or sedative medication, and maximum and cumulative doses of opioid medication.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified six RCTs (353 infants) in which infants at risk for, or having symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal participated between 1975 and 2018. We identified no RCTs in which infants receiving opioid treatment for symptoms consistent with opioid withdrawal participated. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low to low. We also identified and excluded 34 non-randomized studies published between 2005 and 2018, including 29 in which infants at risk for, or having symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal participated and five in which infants receiving opioid treatment for symptoms consistent with opioid withdrawal participated. We identified seven preregistered interventional clinical trials that may qualify for inclusion at review update when complete. Of the six RCTs, four studies assessed modifying environmental stimulation in the form of a mechanical rocking bed, prone positioning, non-oscillating waterbed, or a low-stimulation nursery; one study assessed feeding practices (comparing 24 kcal/oz to 20 kcal/oz formula); and one study assessed support of the maternal-infant dyad (tailored breastfeeding support). There was no evidence of a difference in length of hospitalization in the one study that assessed modifying environmental stimulation (mean difference [MD) -1 day, 95% confidence interval [CI) -2.82 to 0.82; 30 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and the one study of support of the maternal-infant dyad (MD -8.9 days, 95% CI -19.84 to 2.04; 14 infants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies of feeding practices evaluated the length of hospitalization. There was no evidence of a difference in use of pharmacological treatment in three studies of modifying environmental stimulation (typical risk ratio [RR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; 92 infants; low-certainty evidence), one study of feeding practices (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.33; 49 infants; very low-certainty evidence), and one study of support of the maternal-infant dyad (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.90; 14 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Reported secondary outcomes included neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, days to regain birth weight, and weight nadir. One study of support of the maternal-infant dyad reported NICU admission (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.90; 14 infants; very low-certainty evidence). One study of feeding practices reported days to regain birth weight (MD 1.10 days, 95% CI 2.76 to 0.56; 46 infants; very low-certainty evidence). One study that assessed modifying environmental stimulation reported weight nadir (MD -0.28, 95% CI -1.15 to 0.59; 194 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and one study of feeding practices reported weight nadir (MD -0.8, 95% CI -2.24 to 0.64; 46 infants; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain whether non-pharmacological care for opioid withdrawal in newborns affects important clinical outcomes including length of hospitalization and use of pharmacological treatment based on the six included studies. The outcomes identified for this review were of very low- to low-certainty evidence. Combined analysis was limited by heterogeneity in study design and intervention definitions as well as the number of studies. Many prespecified outcomes were not reported. Although caregivers are encouraged by experts to optimize non-pharmacological care for opioid withdrawal in newborns prior to initiating pharmacological care, we do not have sufficient evidence to inform specific clinical practices. Larger well-designed studies are needed to determine the effect of non-pharmacological care for opioid withdrawal in newborns.
Topics: Beds; Breast Feeding; Environment Design; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant Equipment; Infant, Newborn; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Length of Stay; Narcotics; Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome; Nurseries, Infant; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Patient Positioning; Prone Position; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33348423
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013217.pub2 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Nov 2020To determine the most effective interventions in recently detoxified, alcohol dependent patients for implementation in primary care. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine the most effective interventions in recently detoxified, alcohol dependent patients for implementation in primary care.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomised controlled trials comparing two or more interventions that could be used in primary care. The population was patients with alcohol dependency diagnosed by standardised clinical tools and who became detoxified within four weeks.
DATA EXTRACTION
Outcomes of interest were continuous abstinence from alcohol (effectiveness) and all cause dropouts (as a proxy for acceptability) at least 12 weeks after start of intervention.
RESULTS
64 trials (43 interventions) were included. The median probability of abstinence across placebo arms was 25%. Compared with placebo, the only intervention associated with increased probability of abstinence and moderate certainty evidence was acamprosate (odds ratio 1.86, 95% confidence interval 1.49 to 2.33, corresponding to an absolute probability of 38%). Of the 62 included trials that reported all cause dropouts, interventions associated with a reduced number of dropouts compared with placebo (probability 50%) and moderate certainty of evidence were acamprosate (0.73, 0.62 to 0.86; 42%), naltrexone (0.70, 0.50 to 0.98; 41%), and acamprosate-naltrexone (0.30, 0.13 to 0.67; 17%). Acamprosate was the only intervention associated with moderate confidence in the evidence of effectiveness and acceptability up to 12 months. It is uncertain whether other interventions can help maintain abstinence and reduce dropouts because of low confidence in the evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence is lacking for benefit from interventions that could be implemented in primary care settings for alcohol abstinence, other than for acamprosate. More evidence from high quality randomised controlled trials is needed, as are strategies using combined interventions (combinations of drug interventions or drug and psychosocial interventions) to improve treatment of alcohol dependency in primary care.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42016049779.
Topics: Adult; Alcohol Abstinence; Alcoholism; Behavior Therapy; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Primary Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33239318
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m3934