-
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Jun 2023To summarize available evidence comparing the transdermal and the oral administration routes of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in postmenopausal women. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To summarize available evidence comparing the transdermal and the oral administration routes of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in postmenopausal women.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the literature on multiple databases between January 1990 and December 2021. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing the transdermal and oral administration routes of estrogens for HRT in postmenopausal women regarding at least one of the outcomes of interest: cardiovascular risk, venous thromboembolism (VTE), lipid metabolism, carbohydrate metabolism, bone mineral density (BMD), and risk of pre-malignant and malignant endometrial lesions, or breast cancer.
RESULTS
The systematic literature search identified a total of 1369 manuscripts, of which 51 were included. Most studies were observational and of good quality, whereas the majority of randomized controlled trials presented a high or medium risk of bias. Oral and transdermal administration routes are similar regarding BMD, glucose metabolism, and lipid profile improvements, as well as do not appear different regarding breast cancer, endometrial disease, and cardiovascular risk. Identified literature provides clear evidence only for the VTE risk, which is higher with the oral administration route.
CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence comparing the transdermal and oral administration routes for HRT is limited and of low quality, recommending further investigations. VTE risk can be considered the clearest and strongest clinical difference between the two administration routes, supporting the transdermal HRT as safer than the oral administration route.
Topics: Female; Humans; Postmenopause; Estrogen Replacement Therapy; Venous Thromboembolism; Administration, Cutaneous; Estrogens; Hormone Replacement Therapy; Breast Neoplasms; Administration, Oral; Lipids
PubMed: 35713694
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-022-06647-5 -
Clinical Pharmacokinetics Aug 2022Metoprolol is recommended for therapeutic use in multiple cardiovascular conditions, thyroid crisis, and circumscribed choroidal hemangioma. A detailed systematic review...
BACKGROUND
Metoprolol is recommended for therapeutic use in multiple cardiovascular conditions, thyroid crisis, and circumscribed choroidal hemangioma. A detailed systematic review on the metoprolol literature would be beneficial to assess all pharmacokinetic parameters in humans and their respective effects on patients with hepatic, renal, and cardiovascular diseases. This review combines all the pharmacokinetic data on metoprolol from various accessible studies, which may assist in clinical decision making.
METHODOLOGY
The Google Scholar and PubMed databases were searched to screen articles associated with the clinical pharmacokinetics of metoprolol. The comprehensive literature search retrieved 41 articles including data on plasma concentration-time profiles after intravenous and oral (immediate-release, controlled-release, slow-release, or extended-release) routes of administration, and at least one pharmacokinetic parameter was reported in all studies included.
RESULTS
Out of 41 retrieved articles, six were after intravenous and 12 were after oral administration in healthy individuals. The oral studies depict a dose-dependent increase in maximum plasma concentration (C), time to reach maximum plasma concentration (T), and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC). Two studies were conducted in R- and S-enantiomers, in which one study reported the gender differences, depicting greater C and AUC among women, whereas in another study S-metoprolol was found to have higher values of C, T, and AUC in comparison with R-metoprolol. Results in different diseases depicted that after IV administration of 20 mg, patients with renal impairment showed an increase in clearance (CL) (60 L/h vs 48 L/h) compared with healthy subjects, whereas a decrease in CL (36.6 ± 7.8 L/h vs 48 ± 6.6 L/h) was seen in patients with hepatic cirrhosis at a similar dose. In comparison with a single oral dose following administration of 15 mg IV in three divided doses, patients having an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) showed an increase in C (823 nmol/L vs 248 nmol/L) at a steady state. Twenty different studies have reported significant changes in CL, C and AUC of metoprolol when it is co-administered with other drugs. One study has reported a drug-food interaction for metoprolol but no significant changes were seen in the C and AUC.
CONCLUSION
This review summarizes all the pharmacokinetic parameters of metoprolol after pooling up-to-date data from all the studies available. The summarized pharmacokinetic data presented in this review can assist in developing and evaluating pharmacokinetic models of metoprolol. Moreover, this data can provide practitioners with an insight into dosage adjustments among the diseased populations and can assist in preventing potential adverse drug reactions. This review can also help avoid side effects and drug-drug interactions.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Area Under Curve; Female; Food-Drug Interactions; Humans; Liver; Metoprolol
PubMed: 35764772
DOI: 10.1007/s40262-022-01145-y -
Oral and intravenous steroids for multiple sclerosis relapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of Neurology Aug 2017Glucocorticoids are the standard of care for multiple sclerosis (MS) relapses, but the most desirable route of administration is still matter of debate. The aim of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Glucocorticoids are the standard of care for multiple sclerosis (MS) relapses, but the most desirable route of administration is still matter of debate. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of oral versus intravenous steroids for treatment of acute relapses in patients with MS. Randomized or quasi-randomized, parallel group trials with direct comparison between oral and intravenous steroid treatment in MS patients with acute relapse were identified through a systematic literature search. Six trials were included involving 419 participants, 210 for oral, and 209 for intravenous groups, respectively. The weighted mean differences (WMDs) in the Kurtzke's Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score reduction between the oral and intravenous groups were 0.32 [(-0.09 to 0.73); p = 0.129] and 0.11 [(-0.12 to 0.33); p = 0.355] at 1 and 4 weeks after treatment, respectively. The risk ratios (RRs) for improvement by at least one EDSS point were 0.79 [(0.37-1.68); p = 0.539] at week 1 and 0.92 (0.76-1.12); p = 0.400] at week 4. There were no differences in the relapse rate and relapse freedom at 6 months between groups. The WMDs in the mean percentage reduction of Gadolinium-enhancing lesions between oral and intravenous arms were 0.14 (-0.02, 0.29); p = 0.083] and 0.04 (-0.19, 0.28); p = 0.705] at 1 and 4 weeks from treatment. Among the adverse events, insomnia was significantly associated with the oral route of steroid administration [RR 1.25 (1.07-1.46); p = 0.005]. In adult patients with acute MS relapse, there were no clear-cut differences in the efficacy and overall tolerability between oral and intravenous steroids.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Administration, Oral; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Immunologic Factors; Multiple Sclerosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Steroids
PubMed: 28492970
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-017-8505-0 -
Diseases of the Colon and Rectum Jul 2015Oral mechanical bowel preparation is often used before elective colorectal surgery to reduce postoperative complications. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Oral mechanical bowel preparation is often used before elective colorectal surgery to reduce postoperative complications.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to synthesize the evidence on the comparative effectiveness and safety of oral mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation or enema.
DATA SOURCES
We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and CINAHL without any language restrictions (last search on September 6, 2013). We also searched the US Food and Drug Administration Web site and ClinicalTrials.gov and supplemented our searches by asking technical experts and perusing reference lists.
STUDY SELECTION
We included English-language, full-text reports of randomized clinical trials and nonrandomized comparative studies of patients undergoing elective colon or rectal surgery. For adverse events we also included single-group cohort studies of at least 200 participants.
INTERVENTIONS
Interventions included oral mechanical bowel preparation, oral mechanical bowel preparation plus enema, enema only, and no oral mechanical bowel preparation or enema.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Anastomotic leakage, all-cause mortality, wound infection, peritonitis/intra-abdominal abscess, reoperation, surgical site infection, quality of life, length of stay, and adverse events were measured. We synthesized results across studies qualitatively and with Bayesian random-effects meta-analyses.
RESULTS
A total of 18 randomized clinical trials, 7 nonrandomized comparative studies, and 6 single-group cohorts were included. In meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials, the credibility intervals of the summary OR included the null value of 1.0 for comparisons of oral mechanical bowel preparation and either no oral preparation or enema for overall mortality, anastomotic leakage, wound infection, peritonitis, surgical site infection, and reoperation. These results were robust to extensive sensitivity analyses. Evidence on adverse events was sparse.
LIMITATIONS
The study was limited by weaknesses in the underlying evidence, such as incomplete reporting of relevant information, exclusion of non-English and relevant unpublished studies, and possible missed indexing of nonrandomized studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results could not exclude modest beneficial or harmful effects of oral mechanical bowel preparation compared with no preparation or enema.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Cathartics; Colon; Enema; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Preoperative Care; Rectum
PubMed: 26200685
DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000375 -
Nutrients Jun 2022Psoriasis is an inflammatory autoimmune skin disease with various clinical manifestations. The aim of this review was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Oral Administration of East Asian Herbal Medicine for Inflammatory Skin Lesions in Plaque Psoriasis: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Exploration of Core Herbal Materials.
Psoriasis is an inflammatory autoimmune skin disease with various clinical manifestations. The aim of this review was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral administration of East Asian herbal medicine (EAHM) for inflammatory skin lesions in psoriasis and to explore core herbal materials for drug discovery. A comprehensive search was conducted in 10 electronic databases for randomized controlled trials from their inception until 29 July 2021. Statistical analysis was performed in R version 4.1.2 and R studio. When heterogeneity in studies was detected, the cause was identified through sensitivity analysis, meta-regression, and subgroup analysis. Methodological quality was independently assessed using the revised tool for risk of bias in randomized trials. A total of 56 trials with 4966 psoriasis patients met the selection criteria. Meta-analysis favored EAHM monotherapy on Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 70 (RR: 1.2845; 95% CI: 1.906 to 1.3858, p < 0.0001), PASI 60 (RR: 1.1923; 95% CI: 1.1134 to 1.2769, p < 0.0001), continuous PASI score (MD: −2.3386, 95% CI: −3.3068 to −1.3704, p < 0.0001), IL-17, IL-23, TNF-α, and Dermatology Life Quality Index. Patients treated with EAHM monotherapy had significantly reduced adverse events incidence rate. In addition, based on additional examination of the herb data included in this meta-analysis, 16 core materials were identified. They are utilized in close proximity to one another, and all have anti-inflammatory properties. The findings in this study support that oral EAHM monotherapy may be beneficial for inflammatory skin lesions in psoriasis. Meanwhile, the identified core materials are expected to be utilized as useful drug candidate hypotheses through follow-up studies on individual pharmacological activities and synergistic effects.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Herbal Medicine; Humans; Medicine, East Asian Traditional; Psoriasis; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 35745164
DOI: 10.3390/nu14122434 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Aug 2013Amoebic dysentery is caused by the protozoan parasite Entamoeba histolytica. It is transmitted in areas where poor sanitation allows contamination of drinking water and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Amoebic dysentery is caused by the protozoan parasite Entamoeba histolytica. It is transmitted in areas where poor sanitation allows contamination of drinking water and food with faeces. In these areas, up to 40% of people with diarrhoea may have amoebic dysentery.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of drug treatments for amoebic dysentery in endemic areas? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2013 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 6 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: diiodohydroxyquinoline (iodoquinol), diloxanide, emetine, metronidazole, nitazoxanide, ornidazole, paromomycin, secnidazole, and tinidazole.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Diarrhea; Dysentery, Amebic; Entamoeba histolytica; Feces; Humans; Metronidazole; Paromomycin; Tinidazole
PubMed: 23991750
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2011About 10% of people present to primary healthcare services with sore throat each year. The causative organisms of sore throat may be bacteria (most commonly... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
About 10% of people present to primary healthcare services with sore throat each year. The causative organisms of sore throat may be bacteria (most commonly Streptococcus) or viruses (typically rhinovirus), although it is difficult to distinguish bacterial from viral infections clinically.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to reduce symptoms of acute infective sore throat? What are the effects of interventions to prevent complications of acute infective sore throat? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to January 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 8 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics, corticosteroids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, and probiotics.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Pharyngitis; Streptococcus
PubMed: 21477389
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2011Amoebic dysentery is caused by the protozoan parasite Entamoeba histolytica. It is transmitted in areas where poor sanitation allows contamination of drinking water and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Amoebic dysentery is caused by the protozoan parasite Entamoeba histolytica. It is transmitted in areas where poor sanitation allows contamination of drinking water and food with faeces. In these areas, up to 40% of people with diarrhoea may have amoebic dysentery.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of drug treatments for amoebic dysentery in endemic areas? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 6 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: diiodohydroxyquinoline (iodoquinol), diloxanide, emetine, metronidazole, nitazoxanide, ornidazole, paromomycin, secnidazole, and tinidazole.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Diarrhea; Dysentery, Amebic; Entamoeba histolytica; Humans; Incidence; Iodoquinol; Metronidazole; Paromomycin; Tinidazole
PubMed: 21477391
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2009Croup leads to signs of upper airway obstruction, and must be differentiated from acute epiglottitis, bacterial tracheitis, or an inhaled foreign body. Croup affects... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Croup leads to signs of upper airway obstruction, and must be differentiated from acute epiglottitis, bacterial tracheitis, or an inhaled foreign body. Croup affects about 3% of children a year, usually between the ages of 6 months and 3 years, and 75% of infections are caused by Parainfluenza virus. Symptoms usually resolve within 48 hours, but severe infection can, rarely, lead to pneumonia, and to respiratory failure and arrest.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments in children with: mild croup; moderate to severe croup; and impending respiratory failure because of severe croup? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 43 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics, corticosteroids, dexamethasone (intramuscular, oral, single-dose oral, route of administration), heliox, humidification, intermittent positive pressure breathing, L-adrenaline, nebulised adrenaline (epinephrine), nebulised budesonide, nebulised short-acting beta(2) agonists, oral decongestants, oral prednisolone, oxygen, and sedatives.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Oral; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Budesonide; Croup; Dexamethasone; Epinephrine; Humans; Infant
PubMed: 19445760
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Aug 2011Bronchiectasis is usually a complication of previous lower respiratory infection, and causes chronic cough and copious production of sputum, which is often purulent.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Bronchiectasis is usually a complication of previous lower respiratory infection, and causes chronic cough and copious production of sputum, which is often purulent. Bronchiectasis may cause signs of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It can also be associated with cystic fibrosis and other congenital disorders, foreign body inhalation, and other causes of lung damage.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments in people with bronchiectasis but without cystic fibrosis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2011 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
RESULTS
We found 19 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: anticholinergic therapy, beta(2) agonists, bronchopulmonary hygiene physical therapy, corticosteroids (inhaled, oral), exercise or physical training, hyperosmolar agents (inhaled), leukotriene receptor antagonists, methyl-xanthines (oral), mucolytics (bromhexine or deoxyribonuclease), prolonged-use antibiotics, and surgery.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Oral; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Bronchiectasis; Cystic Fibrosis; Humans; Leukotriene Antagonists; Lung
PubMed: 21846412
DOI: No ID Found