-
Lancet (London, England) Sep 2019Schizophrenia is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders in adults worldwide. Antipsychotic drugs are its treatment of choice, but there is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 32 oral antipsychotics for the acute treatment of adults with multi-episode schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Schizophrenia is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders in adults worldwide. Antipsychotic drugs are its treatment of choice, but there is controversy about which agent should be used. We aimed to compare and rank antipsychotics by quantifying information from randomised controlled trials.
METHODS
We did a network meta-analysis of placebo-controlled and head-to-head randomised controlled trials and compared 32 antipsychotics. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, BIOSIS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception to Jan 8, 2019. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We included randomised controlled trials in adults with acute symptoms of schizophrenia or related disorders. We excluded studies in patients with treatment resistance, first episode, predominant negative or depressive symptoms, concomitant medical illnesses, and relapse-prevention studies. Our primary outcome was change in overall symptoms measured with standardised rating scales. We also extracted data for eight efficacy and eight safety outcomes. Differences in the findings of the studies were explored in metaregressions and sensitivity analyses. Effect size measures were standardised mean differences, mean differences, or risk ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014014919.
FINDINGS
We identified 54 417 citations and included 402 studies with data for 53 463 participants. Effect size estimates suggested all antipsychotics reduced overall symptoms more than placebo (although not statistically significant for six drugs), with standardised mean differences ranging from -0·89 (95% CrI -1·08 to -0·71) for clozapine to -0·03 (-0·59 to 0·52) for levomepromazine (40 815 participants). Standardised mean differences compared with placebo for reduction of positive symptoms (31 179 participants) varied from -0·69 (95% CrI -0·86 to -0·52) for amisulpride to -0·17 (-0·31 to -0·04) for brexpiprazole, for negative symptoms (32 015 participants) from -0·62 (-0·84 to -0·39; clozapine) to -0·10 (-0·45 to 0·25; flupentixol), for depressive symptoms (19 683 participants) from -0·90 (-1·36 to -0·44; sulpiride) to 0·04 (-0·39 to 0·47; flupentixol). Risk ratios compared with placebo for all-cause discontinuation (42 672 participants) ranged from 0·52 (0·12 to 0·95; clopenthixol) to 1·15 (0·36 to 1·47; pimozide), for sedation (30 770 participants) from 0·92 (0·17 to 2·03; pimozide) to 10·20 (4·72 to 29·41; zuclopenthixol), for use of antiparkinson medication (24 911 participants) from 0·46 (0·19 to 0·88; clozapine) to 6·14 (4·81 to 6·55; pimozide). Mean differences compared to placebo for weight gain (28 317 participants) ranged from -0·16 kg (-0·73 to 0·40; ziprasidone) to 3·21 kg (2·10 to 4·31; zotepine), for prolactin elevation (21 569 participants) from -77·05 ng/mL (-120·23 to -33·54; clozapine) to 48·51 ng/mL (43·52 to 53·51; paliperidone) and for QTc prolongation (15 467 participants) from -2·21 ms (-4·54 to 0·15; lurasidone) to 23·90 ms (20·56 to 27·33; sertindole). Conclusions for the primary outcome did not substantially change after adjusting for possible effect moderators or in sensitivity analyses (eg, when excluding placebo-controlled studies). The confidence in evidence was often low or very low.
INTERPRETATION
There are some efficacy differences between antipsychotics, but most of them are gradual rather than discrete. Differences in side-effects are more marked. These findings will aid clinicians in balancing risks versus benefits of those drugs available in their countries. They should consider the importance of each outcome, the patients' medical problems, and preferences.
FUNDING
German Ministry of Education and Research and National Institute for Health Research.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antipsychotic Agents; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31303314
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31135-3 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) May 2023To review the comparative effectiveness of osteoporosis treatments, including the bone anabolic agents, abaloparatide and romosozumab, on reducing the risk of fractures... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Fracture risk reduction and safety by osteoporosis treatment compared with placebo or active comparator in postmenopausal women: systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of randomised clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE
To review the comparative effectiveness of osteoporosis treatments, including the bone anabolic agents, abaloparatide and romosozumab, on reducing the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women, and to characterise the effect of antiosteoporosis drug treatments on the risk of fractures according to baseline risk factors.
DESIGN
Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of randomised clinical trials.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify randomised controlled trials published between 1 January 1996 and 24 November 2021 that examined the effect of bisphosphonates, denosumab, selective oestrogen receptor modulators, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab compared with placebo or active comparator.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised controlled trials that included non-Asian postmenopausal women with no restriction on age, when interventions looked at bone quality in a broad perspective. The primary outcome was clinical fractures. Secondary outcomes were vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and major osteoporotic fractures, all cause mortality, adverse events, and serious cardiovascular adverse events.
RESULTS
The results were based on 69 trials (>80 000 patients). For clinical fractures, synthesis of the results showed a protective effect of bisphosphonates, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab compared with placebo. Compared with parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, bisphosphonates were less effective in reducing clinical fractures (odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 2.00). Compared with parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and romosozumab, denosumab was less effective in reducing clinical fractures (odds ratio 1.85, 1.18 to 2.92 for denosumab parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and 1.56, 1.02 to 2.39 for denosumab romosozumab). An effect of all treatments on vertebral fractures compared with placebo was found. In the active treatment comparisons, denosumab, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab were more effective than oral bisphosphonates in preventing vertebral fractures. The effect of all treatments was unaffected by baseline risk indicators, except for antiresorptive treatments that showed a greater reduction of clinical fractures compared with placebo with increasing mean age (number of studies=17; β=0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 0.99). No harm outcomes were seen. The certainty in the effect estimates was moderate to low for all individual outcomes, mainly because of limitations in reporting, nominally indicating a serious risk of bias and imprecision.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence indicated a benefit of a range of treatments for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women for clinical and vertebral fractures. Bone anabolic treatments were more effective than bisphosphonates in the prevention of clinical and vertebral fractures, irrespective of baseline risk indicators. Hence this analysis provided no clinical evidence for restricting the use of anabolic treatment to patients with a very high risk of fractures.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42019128391.
Topics: Humans; Female; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Postmenopause; Denosumab; Receptor, Parathyroid Hormone, Type 1; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Diphosphonates; Spinal Fractures; Risk Reduction Behavior; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37130601
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-068033 -
Nutrients Feb 2022High carbohydrate intakes are commonly recommended for athletes of various sports, including strength trainees, to optimize performance. However, the effect of... (Review)
Review
High carbohydrate intakes are commonly recommended for athletes of various sports, including strength trainees, to optimize performance. However, the effect of carbohydrate intake on strength training performance has not been systematically analyzed. A systematic literature search was conducted for trials that manipulated carbohydrate intake, including supplements, and measured strength, resistance training or power either acutely or after a diet and strength training program. Studies were categorized as either (1) acute supplementation, (2) exercise-induced glycogen depletion with subsequent carbohydrate manipulation, (3) short-term (2-7 days) carbohydrate manipulation or (4) changes in performance after longer-term diet manipulation and strength training. Forty-nine studies were included: 19 acute, six glycogen depletion, seven short-term and 17 long-term studies. Participants were strength trainees or athletes (39 studies), recreationally active (six studies) or untrained (four studies). Acutely, higher carbohydrate intake did not improve performance in 13 studies and enhanced performance in six studies, primarily in those with fasted control groups and workouts with over 10 sets per muscle group. One study found that a carbohydrate meal improved performance compared to water but not in comparison to a sensory-matched placebo breakfast. There was no evidence of a dose-response effect. After glycogen depletion, carbohydrate supplementation improved performance in three studies compared to placebo, in particular during bi-daily workouts, but not in research with isocaloric controls. None of the seven short-term studies found beneficial effects of carbohydrate manipulation. Longer-term changes in performance were not influenced by carbohydrate intake in 15 studies; one study favored the higher- and one the lower-carbohydrate condition. Carbohydrate intake per se is unlikely to strength training performance in a fed state in workouts consisting of up to 10 sets per muscle group. Performance during higher volumes may benefit from carbohydrates, but more studies with isocaloric control groups, sensory-matched placebos and locally measured glycogen depletion are needed.
Topics: Athletes; Dietary Carbohydrates; Dietary Supplements; Humans; Muscle, Skeletal; Physical Endurance; Resistance Training
PubMed: 35215506
DOI: 10.3390/nu14040856 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause of patient dissatisfaction and may lead to prolonged hospital stay and higher costs of care along with more severe complications. Many antiemetic drugs are available for prophylaxis. They have various mechanisms of action and side effects, but there is still uncertainty about which drugs are most effective with the fewest side effects.
OBJECTIVES
• To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacologic interventions (antiemetic drugs) against no treatment, against placebo, or against each other (as monotherapy or combination prophylaxis) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia • To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (monotherapy and combination prophylaxis) based on efficacy and safety • To identify the best dose or dose range of antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. The first search was performed in November 2017 and was updated in April 2020. In the update of the search, 39 eligible studies were found that were not included in the analysis (listed as awaiting classification).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness or side effects of single antiemetic drugs in any dose or combination against each other or against an inactive control in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. All antiemetic drugs belonged to one of the following substance classes: 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics. No language restrictions were applied. Abstract publications were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
A review team of 11 authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and subsequently extracted data. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses for drugs of direct interest (amisulpride, aprepitant, casopitant, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, dolasetron, droperidol, fosaprepitant, granisetron, haloperidol, meclizine, methylprednisolone, metoclopramide, ondansetron, palonosetron, perphenazine, promethazine, ramosetron, rolapitant, scopolamine, and tropisetron) compared to placebo (inactive control). We performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate the relative effects and ranking (with placebo as reference) of all available single drugs and combinations. Primary outcomes were vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively, serious adverse events (SAEs), and any adverse event (AE). Secondary outcomes were drug class-specific side effects (e.g. headache), mortality, early and late vomiting, nausea, and complete response. We performed subgroup network meta-analysis with dose of drugs as a moderator variable using dose ranges based on previous consensus recommendations. We assessed certainty of evidence of NMA treatment effects for all primary outcomes and drug class-specific side effects according to GRADE (CINeMA, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We restricted GRADE assessment to single drugs of direct interest compared to placebo.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 585 studies (97,516 randomized participants). Most of these studies were small (median sample size of 100); they were published between 1965 and 2017 and were primarily conducted in Asia (51%), Europe (25%), and North America (16%). Mean age of the overall population was 42 years. Most participants were women (83%), had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II (70%), received perioperative opioids (88%), and underwent gynaecologic (32%) or gastrointestinal surgery (19%) under general anaesthesia using volatile anaesthetics (88%). In this review, 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were compared. Most studies investigated only single drugs (72%) and included an inactive control arm (66%). The three most investigated single drugs in this review were ondansetron (246 studies), dexamethasone (120 studies), and droperidol (97 studies). Almost all studies (89%) reported at least one efficacy outcome relevant for this review. However, only 56% reported at least one relevant safety outcome. Altogether, 157 studies (27%) were assessed as having overall low risk of bias, 101 studies (17%) overall high risk of bias, and 327 studies (56%) overall unclear risk of bias. Vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively Relative effects from NMA for vomiting within 24 hours (282 RCTs, 50,812 participants, 28 single drugs, and 36 drug combinations) suggest that 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs showed a clinically important benefit (defined as the upper end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below a risk ratio (RR) of 0.8) compared to placebo. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs in preventing vomiting. However, single NK₁ receptor antagonists showed treatment effects similar to most of the drug combinations. High-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs reduce vomiting (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.38, high certainty, rank 3/28 of single drugs); ramosetron (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, high certainty, rank 5/28); granisetron (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.54, high certainty, rank 6/28); dexamethasone (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.57, high certainty, rank 8/28); and ondansetron (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.60, high certainty, rank 13/28). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs probably reduce vomiting: fosaprepitant (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, moderate certainty, rank 1/28) and droperidol (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69, moderate certainty, rank 20/28). Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol showed clinically important benefit, but low doses showed no clinically important benefit. Aprepitant was used mainly at high doses, ramosetron at recommended doses, and fosaprepitant at doses of 150 mg (with no dose recommendation available). Frequency of SAEs Twenty-eight RCTs were included in the NMA for SAEs (10,766 participants, 13 single drugs, and eight drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for SAEs when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to low. Droperidol (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 9.71, low certainty, rank 6/13) may reduce SAEs. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.36, very low certainty, rank 11/13), ramosetron (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.74, very low certainty, rank 7/13), granisetron (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 13.15, very low certainty, rank 10/13), dexamethasone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.85, very low certainty, rank 9/13), and ondansetron (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.10, very low certainty, rank 12/13). No studies reporting SAEs were available for fosaprepitant. Frequency of any AE Sixty-one RCTs were included in the NMA for any AE (19,423 participants, 15 single drugs, and 11 drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for any AE when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to moderate. Granisetron (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, moderate certainty, rank 7/15) probably has no or little effect on any AE. Dexamethasone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08, low certainty, rank 2/15) and droperidol (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, low certainty, rank 6/15) may reduce any AE. Ondansetron (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, low certainty, rank 9/15) may have little or no effect on any AE. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, very low certainty, rank 3/15) and ramosetron (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54, very low certainty, rank 11/15) on any AE. No studies reporting any AE were available for fosaprepitant. Class-specific side effects For class-specific side effects (headache, constipation, wound infection, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, arrhythmia, and QT prolongation) of relevant substances, the certainty of evidence for the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs mostly ranged from very low to low. Exceptions were that ondansetron probably increases headache (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, moderate certainty, rank 18/23) and probably reduces sedation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, moderate certainty, rank 5/24) compared to placebo. The latter effect is limited to recommended and high doses of ondansetron. Droperidol probably reduces headache (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, moderate certainty, rank 5/23) compared to placebo. We have high-certainty evidence that dexamethasone (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, high certainty, rank 16/24) has no effect on sedation compared to placebo. No studies assessed substance class-specific side effects for fosaprepitant. Direction and magnitude of network effect estimates together with level of evidence certainty are graphically summarized for all pre-defined GRADE-relevant outcomes and all drugs of direct interest compared to placebo in http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4066353.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found high-certainty evidence that five single drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron) reduce vomiting, and moderate-certainty evidence that two other single drugs (fosaprepitant and droperidol) probably reduce vomiting, compared to placebo. Four of the six substance classes (5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids) were thus represented by at least one drug with important benefit for prevention of vomiting. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than the corresponding single drugs in preventing vomiting. NK₁ receptor antagonists were the most effective drug class and had comparable efficacy to most of the drug combinations. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists were the best studied substance class. For most of the single drugs of direct interest, we found only very low to low certainty evidence for safety outcomes such as occurrence of SAEs, any AE, and substance class-specific side effects. Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol were more effective than low doses for prevention of vomiting. Dose dependency of side effects was rarely found due to the limited number of studies, except for the less sedating effect of recommended and high doses of ondansetron. The results of the review are transferable mainly to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting (i.e. healthy women undergoing inhalational anaesthesia and receiving perioperative opioids). Overall study quality was limited, but certainty assessments of effect estimates consider this limitation. No further efficacy studies are needed as there is evidence of moderate to high certainty for seven single drugs with relevant benefit for prevention of vomiting. However, additional studies are needed to investigate potential side effects of these drugs and to examine higher-risk patient populations (e.g. individuals with diabetes and heart disease).
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia, General; Antiemetics; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Placebos; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33075160
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012859.pub2 -
General Hospital Psychiatry 2022Caffeine has been purported to have anxiogenic and panicogenic properties, specifically salient in patients with panic disorder (PD). However, compilations of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Caffeine has been purported to have anxiogenic and panicogenic properties, specifically salient in patients with panic disorder (PD). However, compilations of the magnitude of the effect of caffeine on anxiety and panic attacks are lacking and potential dose-response relationships have not been examined.
OBJECTIVES
In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to examine the acute effects of placebo-controlled caffeine challenge on occurrence of panic attacks and subjective anxiety in patients with PD and healthy controls (HC), including dose-response relationships.
METHODS
Systematic searches were performed in six databases. We included blinded placebo-controlled studies of acute caffeine challenge on panic attacks and/or subjective anxiety in adult patients with PD.
RESULTS
Of the 1893 identified articles, ten met our inclusion criteria. The 9 studies investigating panic attacks included 237 patients, of which 51.1% had a panic attack following caffeine, but none after placebo. Six of these studies compared 128 patients with 115 healthy controls (HC), finding that patients (53.9%) were more vulnerable than HC (1.7%) for panic attacks following caffeine (log RR: 3.47; 95% CI 2.06-4.87). Six studies investigated subjective anxiety in 121 patients and 111 HC following caffeine, with an overall effect indicating increased sensitivity to the anxiogenic effects of caffeine in the patient group (Hedges' g = 1.02 [95% CI: 0.09-1.96]). The restricted range of caffeine employed [400-750 mg] and few studies (3) not using 480 mg prevented any meaningful analysis of a dose-response relationship.
LIMITATIONS
Of the ten studies included, only 2 reported anxiety data for the placebo condition, precluding a proper meta-analysis comparing anxiogenic effects of caffeine and placebo. The restricted dose range used prevented assessment of dose-response relationships.
CONCLUSIONS
The results confirm that caffeine at doses roughly equivalent to 5 cups of coffee induces panic attacks in a large proportion of PD patients and highly discriminates this population from healthy adults. Caffeine also increases anxiety in PD patients as well as among healthy adults at these doses although the exact relationship between caffeine-induced anxiety and panic attacks remains uncertain. The results suggest that caffeine targets important mechanisms related to the pathophysiology of PD.
IMPLICATIONS
Future studies should employ a wider range of caffeine doses and investigate contributions of biological and psychological mechanisms underlying the anxiogenic and panicogenic effects of caffeine. In the clinic, patients with PD should be informed about the panicogenic and anxiogenic effects of caffeine, with the caveat that little is known regarding smaller doses than 480 mg. Registration. PROSPERO (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero) registration number CRD42019120220.
Topics: Adult; Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Caffeine; Humans; Panic Disorder
PubMed: 34871964
DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2021.11.005 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023Tendinopathy is a growing global concern affecting many people, like athletes, workers, and the elderly. Despite its commonality among the sporting population, there is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Tendinopathy is a growing global concern affecting many people, like athletes, workers, and the elderly. Despite its commonality among the sporting population, there is no practical clinical guideline for patellar tendinopathy (PT). Furthermore, there is conflicting evidence between clinical guidelines on shockwave therapy's application and clinical utility for Achilles tendinopathy (AT) and plantar fasciitis (PF). Thus, our aim of this study is to evaluate the evidence for shockwave therapy; to provide a Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) level of the evidence and effectiveness of shockwave therapy for patellar tendinopathy, Achilles tendinopathy, and Plantar fasciitis.
METHOD
Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (Medline), Embase, The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure database (CNKI) were searched to find relevant studies published before December 14, 2022.
RESULTS
Our study showed that for PT in the short term, extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) or ESWT + eccentric exercise (EE) has a negligible effect on pain and function compared to a placebo or placebo + EE. On the contrary, ESWT significantly affects pain compared to conservative treatment (CT). For AT, ESWT has a small inconclusive effect on pain and function in the short term compared to EE. On the other hand, a placebo outperformed ESWT in improving function for AT but not pain outcomes. PF showed that ESWT significantly affects short- and long-term pain and function. When ESWT was compared to other interventions such as low laser therapy (LLLT), corticosteroid injection (CSI), or CT, there was a small inconclusive effect on pain and function in the short term.
CONCLUSION
There is low-moderate evidence that ESWT has a negligible effect on pain and function for PT and AT. However, high-quality evidence suggests ESWT has a large effect on pain and function for PF.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023396835, identifier CRD42023396835.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Achilles Tendon; Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy; Fasciitis, Plantar; High-Energy Shock Waves; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Tendinopathy
PubMed: 37662911
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1193835 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prevalent and disabling disorder. Evidence that PTSD is characterised by specific psychobiological dysfunctions has contributed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prevalent and disabling disorder. Evidence that PTSD is characterised by specific psychobiological dysfunctions has contributed to a growing interest in the use of medication in its treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of medication for reducing PTSD symptoms in adults with PTSD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 11, November 2020); MEDLINE (1946-), Embase (1974-), PsycINFO (1967-) and PTSDPubs (all available years) either directly or via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR). We also searched international trial registers. The date of the latest search was 13 November 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacotherapy for adults with PTSD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors (TW, JI, and NP) independently assessed RCTs for inclusion in the review, collated trial data, and assessed trial quality. We contacted investigators to obtain missing data. We stratified summary statistics by medication class, and by medication agent for all medications. We calculated dichotomous and continuous measures using a random-effects model, and assessed heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
We include 66 RCTs in the review (range: 13 days to 28 weeks; 7442 participants; age range 18 to 85 years) and 54 in the meta-analysis. For the primary outcome of treatment response, we found evidence of beneficial effect for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.74; 8 studies, 1078 participants), which improved PTSD symptoms in 58% of SSRI participants compared with 35% of placebo participants, based on moderate-certainty evidence. For this outcome we also found evidence of beneficial effect for the noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant (NaSSA) mirtazapine: (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.94; 1 study, 26 participants) in 65% of people on mirtazapine compared with 22% of placebo participants, and for the tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) amitriptyline (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.96; 1 study, 40 participants) in 50% of amitriptyline participants compared with 17% of placebo participants, which improved PTSD symptoms. These outcomes are based on low-certainty evidence. There was however no evidence of beneficial effect for the number of participants who improved with the antipsychotics (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.67; 2 studies, 43 participants) compared to placebo, based on very low-certainty evidence. For the outcome of treatment withdrawal, we found evidence of a harm for the individual SSRI agents compared with placebo (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.87; 14 studies, 2399 participants). Withdrawals were also higher for the separate SSRI paroxetine group compared to the placebo group (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.29; 5 studies, 1101 participants). Nonetheless, the absolute proportion of individuals dropping out from treatment due to adverse events in the SSRI groups was low (9%), based on moderate-certainty evidence. For the rest of the medications compared to placebo, we did not find evidence of harm for individuals dropping out from treatment due to adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this review support the conclusion that SSRIs improve PTSD symptoms; they are first-line agents for the pharmacotherapy of PTSD, based on moderate-certainty evidence. The NaSSA mirtazapine and the TCA amitriptyline may also improve PTSD symptoms, but this is based on low-certainty evidence. In addition, we found no evidence of benefit for the number of participants who improved following treatment with the antipsychotic group compared to placebo, based on very low-certainty evidence. There remain important gaps in the evidence base, and a continued need for more effective agents in the management of PTSD.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Amitriptyline; Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Antipsychotic Agents; Humans; Middle Aged; Mirtazapine; Paroxetine; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Young Adult
PubMed: 35234292
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002795.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Despite conflicting evidence, chest physiotherapy has been widely used as an adjunctive treatment for adults with pneumonia. This is an update of a review first... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite conflicting evidence, chest physiotherapy has been widely used as an adjunctive treatment for adults with pneumonia. This is an update of a review first published in 2010 and updated in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches in the following databases to May 2022: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via OvidSP, MEDLINE via OvidSP (from 1966), Embase via embase.com (from 1974), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (from 1929), CINAHL via EBSCO (from 2009), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (from 1978).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the efficacy of chest physiotherapy for treating pneumonia in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two new trials in this update (540 participants), for a total of eight RCTs (974 participants). Four RCTs were conducted in the United States, two in Sweden, one in China, and one in the United Kingdom. The studies looked at five types of chest physiotherapy: conventional chest physiotherapy; osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT, which includes paraspinal inhibition, rib raising, and myofascial release); active cycle of breathing techniques (which includes active breathing control, thoracic expansion exercises, and forced expiration techniques); positive expiratory pressure; and high-frequency chest wall oscillation. We assessed four trials as at unclear risk of bias and four trials as at high risk of bias. Conventional chest physiotherapy (versus no physiotherapy) may have little to no effect on improving mortality, but the certainty of evidence is very low (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 7.13; 2 trials, 225 participants; I² = 0%). OMT (versus placebo) may have little to no effect on improving mortality, but the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.50; 3 trials, 327 participants; I² = 0%). Similarly, high-frequency chest wall oscillation (versus no physiotherapy) may also have little to no effect on improving mortality, but the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.29; 1 trial, 286 participants). Conventional chest physiotherapy (versus no physiotherapy) may have little to no effect on improving cure rate, but the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.55; 2 trials, 225 participants; I² = 85%). Active cycle of breathing techniques (versus no physiotherapy) may have little to no effect on improving cure rate, but the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.23; 1 trial, 32 participants). OMT (versus placebo) may improve cure rate, but the certainty of evidence is very low (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.51; 2 trials, 79 participants; I² = 0%). OMT (versus placebo) may have little to no effect on mean duration of hospital stay, but the certainty of evidence is very low (mean difference (MD) -1.08 days, 95% CI -2.39 to 0.23; 3 trials, 333 participants; I² = 50%). Conventional chest physiotherapy (versus no physiotherapy, MD 0.7 days, 95% CI -1.39 to 2.79; 1 trial, 54 participants) and active cycle of breathing techniques (versus no physiotherapy, MD 1.4 days, 95% CI -0.69 to 3.49; 1 trial, 32 participants) may also have little to no effect on duration of hospital stay, but the certainty of evidence is very low. Positive expiratory pressure (versus no physiotherapy) may reduce the mean duration of hospital stay by 1.4 days, but the certainty of evidence is very low (MD -1.4 days, 95% CI -2.77 to -0.03; 1 trial, 98 participants). Positive expiratory pressure (versus no physiotherapy) may reduce the duration of fever by 0.7 days, but the certainty of evidence is very low (MD -0.7 days, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.04; 1 trial, 98 participants). Conventional chest physiotherapy (versus no physiotherapy, MD 0.4 days, 95% CI -1.01 to 1.81; 1 trial, 54 participants) and OMT (versus placebo, MD 0.6 days, 95% CI -1.60 to 2.80; 1 trial, 21 participants) may have little to no effect on duration of fever, but the certainty of evidence is very low. OMT (versus placebo) may have little to no effect on the mean duration of total antibiotic therapy, but the certainty of evidence is very low (MD -1.07 days, 95% CI -2.37 to 0.23; 3 trials, 333 participants; I² = 61%). Active cycle of breathing techniques (versus no physiotherapy) may have little to no effect on duration of total antibiotic therapy, but the certainty of evidence is very low (MD 0.2 days, 95% CI -4.39 to 4.69; 1 trial, 32 participants). High-frequency chest wall oscillation plus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage (versus fibrobronchoscope alveolar lavage alone) may reduce the MD of intensive care unit (ICU) stay by 3.8 days (MD -3.8 days, 95% CI -5.00 to -2.60; 1 trial, 286 participants) and the MD of mechanical ventilation by three days (MD -3 days, 95% CI -3.68 to -2.32; 1 trial, 286 participants), but the certainty of evidence is very low. One trial reported transient muscle tenderness emerging after OMT in two participants. In another trial, three serious adverse events led to early withdrawal after OMT. One trial reported no adverse events after positive expiratory pressure treatment. Limitations of this review were the small sample size and unclear or high risk of bias of the included trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The inclusion of two new trials in this update did not change the main conclusions of the original review. The current evidence is very uncertain about the effect of chest physiotherapy on improving mortality and cure rate in adults with pneumonia. Some physiotherapies may slightly shorten hospital stays, fever duration, and ICU stays, as well as mechanical ventilation. However, all of these findings are based on very low certainty evidence and need to be further validated.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Physical Therapy Modalities; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Therapy
PubMed: 36066373
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006338.pub4 -
European Journal of Pain (London,... Jan 2023Phantom limb pain (PLP) concerns >50% of amputees and has a negative impact on their rehabilitation, mental health and quality of life. Mirror therapy (MT) is a... (Review)
Review
Effect of mirror therapy in the treatment of phantom limb pain in amputees: A systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled trials does not find any evidence of efficacy.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Phantom limb pain (PLP) concerns >50% of amputees and has a negative impact on their rehabilitation, mental health and quality of life. Mirror therapy (MT) is a promising strategy, but its effectiveness remains controversial. We performed a systematic review to: (i) evaluate the effectiveness of MT versus placebo in reducing PLP, and (ii) determine MT effect on disability and quality of life.
DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT
We selected randomized-controlled trials in five databases (Medline, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PEDro and Embase) that included patients with unilateral lower or upper limb amputation and PLP and that compared the effects on PLP of MT versus a placebo technique. The primary outcome was PLP intensity changes and the secondary outcomes were PLP duration, frequency, patients' disability and quality of life.
RESULTS
Among the five studies included, only one reported a significant difference between the MT group and control group, with a positive MT effect at week 4. Only one study assessed MT effect on disability and found a significant improvement in the MT group at week 10 and month 6.
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review did not allow concluding that MT reduces PLP and disability in amputees. This lack of strong evidence is probably due to (i) the low methodological quality of the included studies, and (ii) the lack of statistical power. Future trials should include a higher number of patients, increase the number and frequency of MT sessions, have a long-term follow-up and improve the methodological quality.
SIGNIFICANCE
Recent meta-analyses concluded that MT is effective for reducing phantom limb pain. Conversely, the present systematic review that included only studies with the best level of evidence did not find any evidence about its effectiveness for this condition. We identified many ways to improve future randomized-controlled trials on this topic: increasing the number of participants, reducing the intra-group heterogeneity, using a suitable placebo and intensifying the MT sessions and frequency.
Topics: Humans; Phantom Limb; Quality of Life; Mirror Movement Therapy; Amputees; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36094758
DOI: 10.1002/ejp.2035 -
Frontiers in Bioscience (Landmark... Aug 2021: Smart drugs are among the most common drugs used by students. It is estimated that they are second in incidence after cannabis. Although they are usually used for... (Review)
Review
: Smart drugs are among the most common drugs used by students. It is estimated that they are second in incidence after cannabis. Although they are usually used for diseases such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and dementia, in most cases the use of smart drugs is illegal and without a prescription. : A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. SCOPUS, Medline (using PubMed as a search engine), Embase, Web of Sciences, and Google Scholar were used as search engines from January 1, 1980 to June 1, 2021 to evaluate the association between smart drugs and neuro-enhancement. A total of 4715 articles were collected. Of these, 295 duplicates were removed. A total of 4380 articles did not meet the inclusion criteria. In conclusion, 48 articles were included in the present systematic review. : Most of the studies were survey studies, 1 was a prospective longitudinal study, 1 was a cross-over study, and 1 was an experimental study in an animal model (rats). The largest group of consumers was school or university students. The most frequent reasons for using smart drugs were: better concentration, neuro enhancement, stress reduction, time optimization, increased wake time, increased free time, and curiosity. There are conflicting opinions, in fact, regarding their actual functioning and benefit, it is not known whether the benefits reported by consumers are due to the drugs, the placebo effect or a combination of these. The real prevalence is underestimated: it is important that the scientific community focus on this issue with further studies on animal models to validate their efficacy.
Topics: Animals; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Cross-Over Studies; Longitudinal Studies; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Prospective Studies; Rats
PubMed: 34455764
DOI: 10.52586/4948