-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020Motor imagery (MI) is defined as a mentally rehearsed task in which movement is imagined but is not performed. The approach includes repetitive imagined body movements... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Motor imagery (MI) is defined as a mentally rehearsed task in which movement is imagined but is not performed. The approach includes repetitive imagined body movements or rehearsing imagined acts to improve motor performance.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the treatment effects of MI for enhancing ability to walk among people following stroke.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group registry, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and seven other databases. We also searched trial registries and reference lists. The last searches were conducted on 24 February 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using MI alone or associated with action observation or physical practice to improve gait in individuals after stroke. The critical outcome was the ability to walk, assessed using either a continuous variable (walking speed) or a dichotomous variable (dependence on personal assistance). Important outcomes included walking endurance, motor function, functional mobility, and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected the trials according to pre-defined inclusion criteria, extracted the data, assessed the risk of bias, and applied the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. The review authors contacted the study authors for clarification and missing data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 studies, involving a total of 762 participants. Participants were in the acute, subacute, or chronic stages of stroke, and had a mean age ranging from 50 to 78 years. All participants presented at least some gait deficit. All studies compared MI training versus other therapies. Most of the included studies used MI associated with physical practice in the experimental groups. The treatment time for the experimental groups ranged from two to eight weeks. There was a high risk of bias for at least one assessed domain in 20 of the 21 included studies. Regarding our critical outcome, there was very low-certainty evidence that MI was more beneficial for improving gait (walking speed) compared to other therapies at the end of the treatment (pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.44; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.81; P = 0.02; six studies; 191 participants; I² = 38%). We did not include the outcome of dependence on personal assistance in the meta-analysis, because only one study provided information regarding the number of participants that became dependent or independent after interventions. For our important outcomes, there was very low-certainty evidence that MI was no more beneficial than other interventions for improving motor function (pooled mean difference (MD) 2.24, 95% CI -1.20 to 5.69; P = 0.20; three studies; 130 participants; I² = 87%) and functional mobility at the end of the treatment (pooled SMD 0.55, 95% CI -0.45 to 1.56; P = 0.09; four studies; 116 participants; I² = 64.2%). No adverse events were observed in those studies that reported this outcome (seven studies). We were unable to pool data regarding walking endurance and all other outcomes at follow-up.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found very low-certainty evidence regarding the short-term benefits of MI on walking speed in individuals who have had a stroke, compared to other therapies. Evidence was insufficient to estimate the effect of MI on the dependence on personal assistance and walking endurance. Compared with other therapies, the evidence indicates that MI does not improve motor function and functional mobility after stroke (very low-certainty evidence). Evidence was also insufficient to estimate the effect of MI on gait, motor function, and functional mobility after stroke compared to placebo or no intervention. Motor Imagery and other therapies used for gait rehabilitation after stroke do not appear to cause significant adverse events.
Topics: Aged; Bias; Female; Gait Disorders, Neurologic; Humans; Imagery, Psychotherapy; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke; Stroke Rehabilitation; Walking Speed
PubMed: 32970328
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013019.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a behaviourally diagnosed condition. It is defined by impairments in social communication or the presence of restricted or repetitive... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a behaviourally diagnosed condition. It is defined by impairments in social communication or the presence of restricted or repetitive behaviours, or both. Diagnosis is made according to existing classification systems. In recent years, especially following publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth Edition (DSM-5; APA 2013), children are given the diagnosis of ASD, rather than subclassifications of the spectrum such as autistic disorder, Asperger syndrome, or pervasive developmental disorder - not otherwise specified. Tests to diagnose ASD have been developed using parent or carer interview, child observation, or a combination of both.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objectives1. To identify which diagnostic tools, including updated versions, most accurately diagnose ASD in preschool children when compared with multi-disciplinary team clinical judgement.2. To identify how the best of the interview tools compare with CARS, then how CARS compares with ADOS.a. Which ASD diagnostic tool - among ADOS, ADI-R, CARS, DISCO, GARS, and 3di - has the best diagnostic test accuracy?b. Is the diagnostic test accuracy of any one test sufficient for that test to be suitable as a sole assessment tool for preschool children?c. Is there any combination of tests that, if offered in sequence, would provide suitable diagnostic test accuracy and enhance test efficiency?d. If data are available, does the combination of an interview tool with a structured observation test have better diagnostic test accuracy (i.e. fewer false-positives and fewer false-negatives) than either test alone?As only one interview tool was identified, we modified the first three aims to a single aim (Differences between protocol and review): This Review evaluated diagnostic tests in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Specificity is the most important factor for diagnosis; however, both sensitivity and specificity are of interest in this Review because there is an inherent trade-off between these two factors.Secondary objectives1. To determine whether any diagnostic test has greater diagnostic test accuracy for age-specific subgroups within the preschool age range.
SEARCH METHODS
In July 2016, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 10 other databases, and the reference lists of all included publications.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Publications had to: 1. report diagnostic test accuracy for any of the following six included diagnostic tools: Autism Diagnostic Interview - Revised (ADI-R), Gilliam Autism Rating Scale (GARS), Diagnostic Interview for Social and Communication Disorder (DISCO), Developmental, Dimensional, and Diagnostic Interview (3di), Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule - Generic (ADOS), and Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS); 2. include children of preschool age (under six years of age) suspected of having an ASD; and 3. have a multi-disciplinary assessment, or similar, as the reference standard.Eligible studies included cohort, cross-sectional, randomised test accuracy, and case-control studies. The target condition was ASD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed all studies for inclusion and extracted data using standardised forms. A third review author settled disagreements. We assessed methodological quality using the QUADAS-2 instrument (Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy - Revised). We conducted separate univariate random-effects logistical regressions for sensitivity and specificity for CARS and ADI-R. We conducted meta-analyses of pairs of sensitivity and specificity using bivariate random-effects methods for ADOS.
MAIN RESULTS
In this Review, we included 21 sets of analyses reporting different tools or cohorts of children from 13 publications, many with high risk of bias or potential conflicts of interest or a combination of both. Overall, the prevalence of ASD for children in the included analyses was 74%.For versions and modules of ADOS, there were 12 analyses with 1625 children. Sensitivity of ADOS ranged from 0.76 to 0.98, and specificity ranged from 0.20 to 1.00. The summary sensitivity was 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 0.97), and the summary specificity was 0.80 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.88).For CARS, there were four analyses with 641 children. Sensitivity of CARS ranged from 0.66 to 0.89, and specificity ranged from 0.21 to 1.00. The summary sensitivity for CARS was 0.80 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.91), and the summary specificity was 0.88 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.96).For ADI-R, there were five analyses with 634 children. Sensitivity for ADI-R ranged from 0.19 to 0.75, and specificity ranged from 0.63 to 1.00. The summary sensitivity for the ADI-R was 0.52 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.71), and the summary specificity was 0.84 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.95).Studies that compared tests were few and too small to allow clear conclusions.In two studies that included analyses for both ADI-R and ADOS, tests scored similarly for sensitivity, but ADOS scored higher for specificity. In two studies that included analyses for ADI-R, ADOS, and CARS, ADOS had the highest sensitivity and CARS the highest specificity.In one study that explored individual and additive sensitivity and specificity of ADOS and ADI-R, combining the two tests did not increase the sensitivity nor the specificity of ADOS used alone.Performance for all tests was lower when we excluded studies at high risk of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We observed substantial variation in sensitivity and specificity of all tests, which was likely attributable to methodological differences and variations in the clinical characteristics of populations recruited.When we compared summary statistics for ADOS, CARS, and ADI-R, we found that ADOS was most sensitive. All tools performed similarly for specificity. In lower prevalence populations, the risk of falsely identifying children who do not have ASD would be higher.Now available are new versions of tools that require diagnostic test accuracy assessment, ideally in clinically relevant situations, with methods at low risk of bias and in children of varying abilities.
PubMed: 30075057
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009044.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Approximately 80% of breast cancers amongst premenopausal women are hormone receptor-positive. Adjuvant endocrine therapy is an integral component of care for hormone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Approximately 80% of breast cancers amongst premenopausal women are hormone receptor-positive. Adjuvant endocrine therapy is an integral component of care for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and in premenopausal women includes oestrogen receptor blockade with tamoxifen, temporary suppression of ovarian oestrogen synthesis by luteinising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists, and permanent interruption of ovarian oestrogen synthesis with oophorectomy or radiotherapy. Recent international consensus statements recommend single-agent tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors with ovarian function suppression (OFS) as the current standard adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal women (often preceded by chemotherapy). This review examined the role of adding OFS to another treatment (i.e. chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, or both) or comparing OFS to no further adjuvant treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess effects of OFS for treatment of premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
For this review update, we searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 8), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 26 September 2019. We screened the reference lists of related articles, contacted trial authors, and applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised trials assessing any method of OFS, that is, oophorectomy, radiation-induced ovarian ablation, or LHRH agonists, as adjuvant treatment for premenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. We included studies that compared (1) OFS versus observation, (2) OFS + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy, (3) OFS + tamoxifen versus tamoxifen, and (4) OFS + chemotherapy + tamoxifen versus chemotherapy + tamoxifen.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Hazard ratios (HRs) were derived for time-to-event outcomes, and meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect model. The primary outcome measures were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Toxicity, contralateral breast cancer, and second malignancy were represented as risk ratios (RRs), and quality of life data were extracted when provided.
MAIN RESULTS
This review update included 15 studies involving 11,538 premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer; these studies were conducted from 1978 to 2014. Some of these treatments are not current standard of care, and early studies did not assess HER2 receptor status. Studies tested OFS versus observation (one study), OFS plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (six studies), OFS plus tamoxifen versus tamoxifen (six studies), and OFS plus chemotherapy and tamoxifen versus chemotherapy and tamoxifen (two studies). Of those studies that reported the chemotherapy regimen, an estimated 72% of women received an anthracycline. The results described below relate to the overall comparison of OFS versus no OFS. High-certainty evidence shows that adding OFS to treatment resulted in a reduction in mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.94; 11 studies; 10,374 women; 1933 reported events). This treatment effect was seen when OFS was added to observation, to tamoxifen, or to chemotherapy and tamoxifen. The effect on mortality was not observed when OFS was added to chemotherapy without tamoxifen therapy (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.09; 5 studies; 3087 women; median follow-up: range 7.7 to 12.1 years). The addition of OFS resulted in improved DFS (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.90; 10 studies; 8899 women; 2757 reported events; high-certainty evidence). The DFS treatment effect persisted when OFS was added to observation, to tamoxifen, and to chemotherapy and tamoxifen. The effect on DFS was reduced when OFS was added to chemotherapy without tamoxifen therapy (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.01; 5 studies; 2450 women). Heterogeneity was low to moderate across studies for DFS and OS (respectively). Evidence suggests that adding OFS slightly increases the incidence of hot flushes (grade 3/4 or any grade; risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.82; 6 studies; 5581 women; low-certainty evidence, as this may have been under-reported in these studies). Two other studies that could not be included in the meta-analysis reported a higher number of hot flushes in the OFS group than in the no-OFS group. Seven studies involving 5354 women collected information related to mood; however this information was reported as grade 3 or 4 depression, anxiety, or neuropsychiatric symptoms, or symptoms were reported without the grade. Two studies reported an increase in depression, anxiety, and neuropsychiatric symptoms in the OFS group compared to the no-OFS group, and five studies indicated an increase in anxiety in both treatment groups (but no difference between groups) or no difference overall in symptoms over time or between treatment groups. A single study reported bone health as osteoporosis (defined as T score < -2.5); this limited evidence suggests that OFS increases the risk of osteoporosis compared to no-OFS at median follow-up of 5.6 years (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.10 to 28.82; 2011 women; low-certainty evidence). Adding OFS to treatment likely reduces the risk of contralateral breast cancer (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.97; 9 studies; 9138 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life was assessed in five studies; four studies used validated tools, and the fifth study provided no information on how data were collected. Two studies reported worse quality of life indicators (i.e. vaginal dryness, day and night sweats) for women receiving OFS compared to those in the no-OFS group. The other two studies indicated worsening of symptoms (e.g. vasomotor, gynaecological, vaginal dryness, decline in sexual interest, bone and joint pain, weight gain); however these side effects were reported in both OFS and no-OFS groups. The study that did not use a validated quality of life tool described no considerable differences between groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review found evidence that supports adding OFS for premenopausal women with early, hormone receptor-positive breast cancers. The benefit of OFS persisted when compared to observation, and when added to endocrine therapy (tamoxifen) or chemotherapy and endocrine therapy (tamoxifen). The decision to use OFS may depend on the overall risk assessment based on tumour and patient characteristics, and may follow consideration of all side effects that occur with the addition of OFS.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Breast Neoplasms; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Female; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Premenopause; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Analysis; Tamoxifen; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32141074
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013538 -
Chest Oct 2023Primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) has several commonly used management strategies: observation, aspiration, and chest tube placement. Economic modelling of pooled...
BACKGROUND
Primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) has several commonly used management strategies: observation, aspiration, and chest tube placement. Economic modelling of pooled data comparing techniques has not been performed.
RESEARCH QUESTION
Based on studies from the past 20 years, which approach to management of PSP delivers the highest utility?
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
A systematic review of PSP management strategies (observation, aspiration, or chest tube placement) included in the Medline and EMBASE databases from January 1, 2000, through April 10, 2020, was conducted. Text screening, bias assessment, and data extraction were performed by two authors (G. E. and C. A. P.). Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined a priori. The primary outcome was PSP resolution after the initial intervention. Secondary outcomes were PSP recurrence, length of stay, rate of surgical management, and complications. The meta-analysis compared treatment arms; dichotomous outcomes were reported as relative risk (RRs) and continuous outcomes were reported as mean differences. A cost-utility analysis within the Canadian health care system context with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses was performed.
RESULTS
Five thousand one hundred seventy-nine articles were identified; after screening, 22 articles were included. Most trials showed a high risk of bias, but randomized trials showed a lower risk. Compared with chest tube placement, observation (mean difference, 5.17; 95% CI, 3.75-6.59; P < .01; I = 62%) and aspiration (mean difference, 2.72; 95% CI, 2.39-3.04; P < .01; I = 0%) showed a shorter length of stay. Compared with observation, chest tube placement (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.91; P < .01; I = 62%) and aspiration (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.88; P < .01; I = 67%) showed higher resolution without additional intervention. Two-year recurrence rates did not differ between management strategies. Observation showed the best utility (0.82) and lowest cost; observation was the optimal strategy in 98.2% of Monte Carlo simulations.
INTERPRETATION
Observation is the dominant choice compared with aspiration and chest tube placement for PSP. It should be considered as the first-line therapy in appropriately selected patients.
PubMed: 37209773
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2023.05.017 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Risks of stillbirth or neonatal death increase as gestation continues beyond term (around 40 weeks' gestation). It is unclear whether a policy of labour induction can... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Risks of stillbirth or neonatal death increase as gestation continues beyond term (around 40 weeks' gestation). It is unclear whether a policy of labour induction can reduce these risks. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review that was originally published in 2006 and subsequently updated in 2012 and 2018.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of a policy of labour induction at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation compared with a policy of awaiting spontaneous labour indefinitely (or until a later gestational age, or until a maternal or fetal indication for induction of labour arises) on pregnancy outcomes for the infant and the mother.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (17 July 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in pregnant women at or beyond 37 weeks, comparing a policy of labour induction with a policy of awaiting spontaneous onset of labour (expectant management). We also included trials published in abstract form only. Cluster-RCTs, quasi-RCTs and trials using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion in this review. We included pregnant women at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation. Since risk factors at this stage of pregnancy would normally require intervention, only trials including women at low risk for complications, as defined by trialists, were eligible. The trials of induction of labour in women with prelabour rupture of membranes at or beyond term were not considered in this review but are considered in a separate Cochrane Review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
In this updated review, we included 34 RCTs (reporting on over 21,000 women and infants) mostly conducted in high-income settings. The trials compared a policy to induce labour usually after 41 completed weeks of gestation (> 287 days) with waiting for labour to start and/or waiting for a period before inducing labour. The trials were generally at low to moderate risk of bias. Compared with a policy of expectant management, a policy of labour induction was associated with fewer (all-cause) perinatal deaths (risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.64; 22 trials, 18,795 infants; high-certainty evidence). There were four perinatal deaths in the labour induction policy group compared with 25 perinatal deaths in the expectant management group. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) with induction of labour, in order to prevent one perinatal death, was 544 (95% CI 441 to 1042). There were also fewer stillbirths in the induction group (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.75; 22 trials, 18,795 infants; high-certainty evidence); two in the induction policy group and 16 in the expectant management group. For women in the policy of induction arms of trials, there were probably fewer caesarean sections compared with expectant management (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.95; 31 trials, 21,030 women; moderate-certainty evidence); and probably little or no difference in operative vaginal births with induction (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.10; 22 trials, 18,584 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Induction may make little or difference to perineal trauma (severe perineal tear: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.26; 5 trials; 11,589 women; low-certainty evidence). Induction probably makes little or no difference to postpartum haemorrhage (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.15, 9 trials; 12,609 women; moderate-certainty evidence), or breastfeeding at discharge (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; 2 trials, 7487 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Very low certainty evidence means that we are uncertain about the effect of induction or expectant management on the length of maternal hospital stay (average mean difference (MD) -0.19 days, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.18; 7 trials; 4120 women; Tau² = 0.20; I² = 94%). Rates of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission were lower (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.96; 17 trials, 17,826 infants; high-certainty evidence), and probably fewer babies had Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes in the induction groups compared with expectant management (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96; 20 trials, 18,345 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Induction or expectant management may make little or no difference for neonatal encephalopathy (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.31; 2 trials, 8851 infants; low-certainty evidence, and probably makes little or no difference for neonatal trauma (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.49; 5 trials, 13,106 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) for induction compared with expectant management. Neurodevelopment at childhood follow-up and postnatal depression were not reported by any trials. In subgroup analyses, no differences were seen for timing of induction (< 40 versus 40-41 versus > 41 weeks' gestation), by parity (primiparous versus multiparous) or state of cervix for any of the main outcomes (perinatal death, stillbirth, NICU admission, caesarean section, operative vaginal birth, or perineal trauma).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a clear reduction in perinatal death with a policy of labour induction at or beyond 37 weeks compared with expectant management, though absolute rates are small (0.4 versus 3 deaths per 1000). There were also lower caesarean rates without increasing rates of operative vaginal births and there were fewer NICU admissions with a policy of induction. Most of the important outcomes assessed using GRADE had high- or moderate-certainty ratings. While existing trials have not yet reported on childhood neurodevelopment, this is an important area for future research. The optimal timing of offering induction of labour to women at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation needs further investigation, as does further exploration of risk profiles of women and their values and preferences. Offering women tailored counselling may help them make an informed choice between induction of labour for pregnancies, particularly those continuing beyond 41 weeks - or waiting for labour to start and/or waiting before inducing labour.
Topics: Cesarean Section; Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Infant; Infant Mortality; Infant, Newborn; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Labor, Induced; Perinatal Death; Pregnancy; Pregnancy, Prolonged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk; Stillbirth; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 32666584
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004945.pub5 -
American Journal of Clinical Dermatology Jul 2022The decision of when to discontinue systemic treatment after achieving remission in psoriasis is an important question. In this systematic review, we sought to evaluate...
BACKGROUND
The decision of when to discontinue systemic treatment after achieving remission in psoriasis is an important question. In this systematic review, we sought to evaluate time to relapse after the discontinuation of systemic treatment in psoriasis patients.
METHODS
Systematic searches of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were performed for randomized controlled studies reporting time to relapse after discontinuation of systemic drugs in psoriasis patients. In addition, pharmaceutical companies were contacted by the authors regarding missing data from the identified publications. In each publication, the time to psoriasis relapse and the timing of drug discontinuation were carefully assessed. The level of psoriasis control at the time of drug discontinuation and the definition used for psoriasis relapse were taken into account.
RESULTS
Thirty articles published before April 2021 were included in the systematic review. Four articles focused on conventional systemic treatments with methotrexate and/or cyclosporine, nine focused on tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists, eight focused on interleukin-17 (IL-17) antagonists, eight focused on IL-12/23 or IL-23 antagonists, and one focused on tofacitinib and apremilast. Different definitions were used to define psoriasis treatment success at the time of drug discontinuation. Similarly, heterogeneous criteria were used to define psoriasis relapse. Comparison between drugs was performed indirectly (i.e. across studies) for most drugs. Considering time of 50% loss of maximum Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) improvement, a shorter median time to psoriasis relapse was observed with traditional systemic treatment (~ 4 weeks) compared to biological agents (from 12 to ~ 34 weeks). When using stringent relapse criteria, such as loss of PASI 90, a longer time to relapse after treatment cessation was observed with IL-23 antagonists (21-42 weeks) versus IL-17 antagonists (7-24 weeks).
CONCLUSION
Biological agents are associated with a longer time to relapse than oral systemic agents after drug discontinuation. Among biologicals, IL-23 antagonists are associated with the longest time to relapse. These findings may have clinical consequences for the selection of systemic agents when intermittent treatment is necessary.
Topics: Chronic Disease; Cyclosporine; Humans; Interleukin-17; Interleukin-23; Methotrexate; Psoriasis; Recurrence; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome; Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors
PubMed: 35489008
DOI: 10.1007/s40257-022-00679-y -
Journal of the American Pharmacists... 2017Polypharmacy has been linked to a myriad of adverse consequences, and escalating rates of polypharmacy present an emerging concern, particularly among older adults. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Polypharmacy has been linked to a myriad of adverse consequences, and escalating rates of polypharmacy present an emerging concern, particularly among older adults. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the existing literature concerning the association between polypharmacy and mortality.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic literature review was done by searching the EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, and International Pharmaceutical Abstract databases to identify studies assessing the association between polypharmacy and death published until June 2016.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies that investigated the association between polypharmacy and mortality were eligible for this systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data were extracted by the first and second authors independently using a data extraction form. Disagreement was resolved by consensus. A meta-analysis was performed using random effect models. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I statistic.
RESULTS
Forty-seven studies were included in this meta-analysis. The underlying populations were heterogeneous (I= 91.5%). When defined as a discrete variable, pooled risk estimates demonstrated a significant association between polypharmacy and death (pooled-adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.08 [95% CI 1.04-1.12]). When defined categorically, a dose-response relationship was observed across escalating thresholds for defining polypharmacy. Categorical thresholds for polypharmacy using values of 1-4 medications, 5 medications, and 6-9 medications were significantly associated with death (P <0.05; aOR 1.24 [1.10-1.39], aOR 1.31 [1.17, 1.47], and aOR 1.59 [1.36-1.87], respectively). Excessive polypharmacy (ie, the use of 10 or more medications) was also associated with death (aOR 1.96 [1.42-2.71]).
CONCLUSIONS
Pooled risk estimates from this meta-analysis reveal that polypharmacy is associated with increased mortality risk, using both discrete and categorical definitions. The causality of this relationship remains unclear, but it emphasizes the need for approaches to health care delivery that achieve an optimal balance of risk and benefit in medication prescribing.
Topics: Cause of Death; Chi-Square Distribution; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Interactions; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Odds Ratio; Polypharmacy; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 28784299
DOI: 10.1016/j.japh.2017.06.002 -
Clinical Nursing Research May 2021Delirium is a reversible impairment of metabolism in the human brain. Early detection is important, and an effective screening tool for nurses is crucial. The Delirium... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Delirium is a reversible impairment of metabolism in the human brain. Early detection is important, and an effective screening tool for nurses is crucial. The Delirium Observation Screening (DOS) scale is one such screening tool; however, its diagnostic test accuracy has not yet been thoroughly examined. This study, therefore, aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the scale through a systematic review and meta-analysis. In July 2019, a search was conducted in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycARTICLES databases, and following a review against pre-defined eligibility criteria, eight studies were finally included. The quality assessment tool of diagnostic accuracy studies was applied to each study and a hierarchical regression model was used to calculate the pooled estimates of sensitivity (90%; 76%-97%, CI 95%) and specificity (92%; 88%-94%, CI 95%). The findings indicated a high diagnostic test accuracy for the DOS scale.
Topics: Delirium; Diagnostic Tests, Routine; Humans; Mass Screening; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 33174438
DOI: 10.1177/1054773820961234 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Diabetic retinopathy (DR) remains a major cause of sight loss worldwide, despite new therapies and improvements in the metabolic control of people living with diabetes.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Diabetic retinopathy (DR) remains a major cause of sight loss worldwide, despite new therapies and improvements in the metabolic control of people living with diabetes. Therefore, DR creates a physical and psychological burden for people, and an economic burden for society. Preventing the development and progression of DR, or avoiding the occurrence of its sight-threatening complications is essential, and must be pursued to save sight. Fenofibrate may be a useful strategy to achieve this goal, by reversing diabetes' effects and reducing inflammation in the retina, as well as improving dyslipidaemia and hypertriglyceridaemia. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the benefits and harms of fenofibrate for preventing the development and progression of diabetic retinopathy in people with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D), compared with placebo or observation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and three trials registers (February 2022).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included people with T1D or T2D, when these compared fenofibrate with placebo or with observation, and assessed the effect of fenofibrate on the development or progression of DR (or both).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods for data extraction and analysis. Our primary outcome was progression of DR, a composite outcome of 1) incidence of overt retinopathy for participants who did not have DR at baseline, or 2) advancing two or more steps on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) severity scale for participants who had any DR at baseline (or both), based on the evaluation of stereoscopic or non-stereoscopic fundus photographs, during the follow-up period. Overt retinopathy was defined as the presence of any DR observed on stereoscopic or non-stereoscopic colour fundus photographs. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of overt retinopathy, reduction in visual acuity of participants with a reduction in visual acuity of 10 ETDRS letters or more, proliferative diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic macular oedema; mean vision-related quality of life, and serious adverse events of fenofibrate. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two studies and their eye sub-studies (15,313 participants) in people with T2D. The studies were conducted in the US, Canada, Australia, Finland, and New Zealand; follow-up period was four to five years. One was funded by the government, the other by industry. Compared to placebo or observation, fenofibrate likely results in little to no difference in progression of DR (risk ratio (RR) 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.25; 1 study, 1012 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) in a population with and without overt retinopathy at baseline. Those without overt retinopathy at baseline showed little or no progression (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47; 1 study, 804 participants); those with overt retinopathy at baseline found that their DR progressed slowly (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.71; 1 study, 208 people; test for interaction P = 0.02). Compared to placebo or observation, fenofibrate likely resulted in little to no difference in either the incidence of overt retinopathy (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.09; 2 studies, 1631 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or the incidence of diabetic macular oedema (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.12 to 1.24; 1 study, 1012 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The use of fenofibrate increased severe adverse effects (RR 1.55; 95% CI 1.05 to 2.27; 2 studies, 15,313 participants; high-certainty evidence). The studies did not report on incidence of a reduction in visual acuity of 10 ETDRS letters or more, incidence of proliferative diabetic retinopathy, or mean vision-related quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current, moderate-certainty evidence suggests that in a mixed group of people with and without overt retinopathy, who live with T2D, fenofibrate likely results in little to no difference in progression of diabetic retinopathy. However, in people with overt retinopathy who live with T2D, fenofibrate likely reduces the progression. Serious adverse events were rare, but the risk of their occurrence was increased by the use of fenofibrate. There is no evidence on the effect of fenofibrate in people with T1D. More studies, with larger sample sizes, and participants with T1D are needed. They should measure outcomes that are important to people with diabetes, e.g. change in vision, reduction in visual acuity of 10 ETDRS letters or more, developing proliferative diabetic retinopathy; and evaluating the requirement of other treatments, e.g. injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies, steroids.
Topics: Humans; Diabetic Retinopathy; Fenofibrate; Macular Edema; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Retinal Diseases; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2
PubMed: 37310870
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013318.pub2 -
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and... Dec 2021Computed tomography (CT) analysis of body composition has garnered interest as a potential prognostic tool in those with cancer. A range of pre-defined thresholds... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Computed tomography (CT) analysis of body composition has garnered interest as a potential prognostic tool in those with cancer. A range of pre-defined thresholds currently exist within the literature to define low skeletal muscle mass and density. The aim of the present systematic review was to assess the prevalence of low skeletal muscle index (SMI) and density (SMD) within the literature, across a range of common solid tumours.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed was carried out to identify studies reporting CT analysis of SMI and SMD in patients with colorectal, oesophageal, gastric, hepatobiliary, pancreatic, breast, and lung cancer. The type of cancer, whether curative or non-curative disease, the anthropomorphic parameter studied, threshold used to define low SMI and SMD, and the prevalence of these anthropomorphic measurements within the population were recorded.
RESULTS
Of the 160 studies included, 156 reported an assessment of SMI and 35 reported assessment of SMD. The median prevalence of low SMI was 43% (30.1-57.1) and low SMD 49.4% (31.7-58.5) across the entire cohort. There was little variation in the prevalence of low SMI and SMD when studies were divided into curative and non-curative cohorts-40.7% (27.5-51.3) vs. 48.4% (30.9-60.1) and 37.8% (32.2-52.2) vs. 55.3% (38.5-64.7) respectively. When divided into colorectal, oesophageal, gastric, hepatobiliary, pancreatic, breast and lung cancers, similar prevalence of low SMI (46.0% %, 49.8%, 35.7%, 41.1%, 32.3%, 34%, and 49.5%) and low SMD were also observed (52.1%, 54.3%, 71.2%, 56.8%, 55.3%, and 52.6%). This was maintained when studies were stratified into cohorts by threshold used-low SMI (Martin 48.9%, Prado 49.9%, and Others 36.0%) and low SMD (Martin 52.4% and Others 48.6%).
CONCLUSIONS
Low SMI and SMD are endemic across a range of cancer types and disease stage, challenging pre-existing dogma of the determinants of prevalence.
Topics: Body Composition; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Muscle, Skeletal; Prognosis; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 34664431
DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.12831