-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Honey is a viscous, supersaturated sugar solution derived from nectar gathered and modified by the honeybee, Apis mellifera. Honey has been used since ancient times as a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Honey is a viscous, supersaturated sugar solution derived from nectar gathered and modified by the honeybee, Apis mellifera. Honey has been used since ancient times as a remedy in wound care. Evidence from animal studies and some trials has suggested that honey may accelerate wound healing.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the effects of honey compared with alternative wound dressings and topical treatments on the of healing of acute (e.g. burns, lacerations) and/or chronic (e.g. venous ulcers) wounds.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update of the review we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 15 October 2014); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to October Week 1 2014); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 13 October 2014); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 13 October 2014); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 15 October 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials that evaluated honey as a treatment for any sort of acute or chronic wound were sought. There was no restriction in terms of source, date of publication or language. Wound healing was the primary endpoint.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data from eligible trials were extracted and summarised by one review author, using a data extraction sheet, and independently verified by a second review author. All data have been subsequently checked by two more authors.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 26 eligible trials (total of 3011 participants). Three trials evaluated the effects of honey in minor acute wounds, 11 trials evaluated honey in burns, 10 trials recruited people with different chronic wounds including two in people with venous leg ulcers, two trials in people with diabetic foot ulcers and single trials in infected post-operative wounds, pressure injuries, cutaneous Leishmaniasis and Fournier's gangrene. Two trials recruited a mixed population of people with acute and chronic wounds. The quality of the evidence varied between different comparisons and outcomes. We mainly downgraded the quality of evidence for risk of bias, imprecision and, in a few cases, inconsistency.There is high quality evidence (2 trials, n=992) that honey dressings heal partial thickness burns more quickly than conventional dressings (WMD -4.68 days, 95%CI -5.09 to -4.28) but it is unclear if there is a difference in rates of adverse events (very low quality evidence) or infection (low quality evidence).There is very low quality evidence (4 trials, n=332) that burns treated with honey heal more quickly than those treated with silver sulfadiazine (SSD) (WMD -5.12 days, 95%CI -9.51 to -0.73) and high quality evidence from 6 trials (n=462) that there is no difference in overall risk of healing within 6 weeks for honey compared with SSD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02) but a reduction in the overall risk of adverse events with honey relative to SSD. There is low quality evidence (1 trial, n=50) that early excision and grafting heals partial and full thickness burns more quickly than honey followed by grafting as necessary (WMD 13.6 days, 95%CI 9.82 to 17.38).There is low quality evidence (2 trials, different comparators, n=140) that honey heals a mixed population of acute and chronic wounds more quickly than SSD or sugar dressings.Honey healed infected post-operative wounds more quickly than antiseptic washes followed by gauze and was associated with fewer adverse events (1 trial, n=50, moderate quality evidence, RR of healing 1.69, 95%CI 1.10 to 2.61); healed pressure ulcers more quickly than saline soaks (1 trial, n= 40, very low quality evidence, RR 1.41, 95%CI 1.05 to 1.90), and healed Fournier's gangrene more quickly than Eusol soaks (1 trial, n=30, very low quality evidence, WMD -8.00 days, 95%CI -6.08 to -9.92 days).The effects of honey relative to comparators are unclear for: venous leg ulcers (2 trials, n= 476, low quality evidence); minor acute wounds (3 trials, n=213, very low quality evidence); diabetic foot ulcers (2 trials, n=93, low quality evidence); Leishmaniasis (1 trial, n=100, low quality evidence); mixed chronic wounds (2 trials, n=150, low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It is difficult to draw overall conclusions regarding the effects of honey as a topical treatment for wounds due to the heterogeneous nature of the patient populations and comparators studied and the mostly low quality of the evidence. The quality of the evidence was mainly downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision. Honey appears to heal partial thickness burns more quickly than conventional treatment (which included polyurethane film, paraffin gauze, soframycin-impregnated gauze, sterile linen and leaving the burns exposed) and infected post-operative wounds more quickly than antiseptics and gauze. Beyond these comparisons any evidence for differences in the effects of honey and comparators is of low or very low quality and does not form a robust basis for decision making.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Apitherapy; Burns; Honey; Humans; Leg Ulcer; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Varicose Ulcer; Wound Healing; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 25742878
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005083.pub4 -
The Lancet. Oncology Jun 201635% of patients with pancreatic cancer have unresectable locally advanced disease at diagnosis. Several studies have examined systemic chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
35% of patients with pancreatic cancer have unresectable locally advanced disease at diagnosis. Several studies have examined systemic chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin and fluorouracil plus irinotecan and oxaliplatin) in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX as first-line treatment in this patient population.
METHODS
We systematically searched Embase, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed Publisher, Cochrane, and Google Scholar from July 1, 1994, to July 2, 2015, for studies of treatment-naive patients of any age who received FOLFIRINOX as first-line treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Our primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival; rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events; and the proportion of patients who underwent radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, surgical resection after FOLFIRINOX, and R0 resection. We evaluated survival outcomes with the Kaplan-Meier method with patient-level data. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and the proportion of patients who underwent subsequent radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy or resection, were pooled in a random-effects model.
FINDINGS
We included 13 studies comprising 689 patients, of whom 355 (52%) patients had locally advanced pancreatic cancer. 11 studies, comprising 315 patients with locally advanced disease, reported survival outcomes and were eligible for patient-level meta-analysis. Median overall survival from the start of FOLFIRINOX ranged from 10·0 months (95% CI 4·0-16·0) to 32·7 months (23·1-42·3) across studies with a pooled patient-level median overall survival of 24·2 months (95% CI 21·7-26·8). Median progression-free survival ranged from 3·0 months (95% CI not calculable) to 20·4 months (6·5-34·3) across studies with a patient-level median progression-free survival of 15·0 months (95% 13·8-16·2). In ten studies comprising 490 patients, 296 grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported (60·4 events per 100 patients). No deaths were attributed to FOLFIRINOX toxicity. The proportion of patients who underwent radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy ranged from 31% to 100% across studies. In eight studies, 154 (57%) of 271 patients received radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy after FOLFIRINOX. The pooled proportion of patients who received any radiotherapy treatment was 63·5% (95% CI 43·3-81·6, I(2) 90%). The proportion of patients who underwent surgical resection for locally advanced pancreatic cancer ranged from 0% to 43%. The proportion of patients who had R0 resection of those who underwent resection ranged from 50% to 100% across studies. In 12 studies, 91 (28%) of 325 patients underwent resection after FOLFIRINOX. The pooled proportion of patients who had resection was 25·9% (95% CI 20·2-31·9, I(2) 24%). R0 resection was reported in 60 (74%) of 81 patients. The pooled proportion of patients who had R0 resection was 78·4% (95% CI 60·2-92·2, I(2) 64%).
INTERPRETATION
Patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer treated with FOLFIRINOX had a median overall survival of 24·2 months-longer than that reported with gemcitabine (6-13 months). Future research should assess these promising results in a randomised controlled trial, and should establish which patients might benefit from radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy or resection after FOLFIRINOX.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Camptothecin; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Deoxycytidine; Fluorouracil; Humans; Irinotecan; Leucovorin; Neoplasm Staging; Organoplatinum Compounds; Oxaliplatin; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Prognosis; Survival Rate; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 27160474
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)00172-8 -
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official... Mar 2022To develop recommendations for adjuvant therapy for patients with resected stage II colon cancer.
PURPOSE
To develop recommendations for adjuvant therapy for patients with resected stage II colon cancer.
METHODS
ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of relevant studies and develop recommendations for clinical practice.
RESULTS
Twenty-one observational studies and six randomized controlled trials met the systematic review inclusion criteria.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) is not routinely recommended for patients with stage II colon cancer who are not in a high-risk subgroup. Patients with T4 tumors are at higher risk of recurrence and should be offered ACT, whereas patients with other high-risk factors, including sampling of fewer than 12 lymph nodes in the surgical specimen, perineural or lymphovascular invasion, poorly or undifferentiated tumor grade, intestinal obstruction, tumor perforation, or grade BD3 tumor budding, may be offered ACT. The addition of oxaliplatin to fluoropyrimidine-based ACT is not routinely recommended, but may be offered as a result of shared decision making. Patients with mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability tumors should not be routinely offered ACT; if the combination of mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability and high-risk factors results in a decision to offer ACT, oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is recommended. Duration of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is also addressed, with recommendations for 3 or 6 months of treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin, with decision making informed by key evidence of 5-year disease-free survival in each treatment subgroup and the rate of adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Brain Neoplasms; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Colonic Neoplasms; Colorectal Neoplasms; Fluorouracil; Humans; Leucovorin; Microsatellite Instability; Neoplasm Staging; Neoplastic Syndromes, Hereditary; Oxaliplatin
PubMed: 34936379
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.21.02538 -
International Journal of Urology :... Jan 2024Adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies have radically altered the treatment landscape for renal cell carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma. However, studies have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies have radically altered the treatment landscape for renal cell carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma. However, studies have reported negative data regarding adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies. Thus, this study aimed to assess the role of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for both renal cell carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma. A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Multiple databases were searched for articles published as of February 2023. Studies were deemed eligible if they evaluated disease-free survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma receiving adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Five studies met the inclusion criteria. In a network meta-analysis, pembrolizumab was shown to be the most effective regimen for patients with renal cell carcinoma, whereas nivolumab was found to be the most effective regimen for patients with urothelial carcinoma. Additionally, these results were consistently observed in a sub-analysis of the T stage. The present analysis provides findings that support the usefulness of adjuvant nivolumab therapy in urothelial carcinoma and adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy in renal cell carcinoma, in agreement with the currently available guidelines. However, the caveat is that the randomized controlled trials included in this analysis differed in important respects despite being similar in study design. Therefore, with these differences in mind, care needs to be taken when selecting patients for these immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies to maximize their benefits.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Carcinoma, Transitional Cell; Nivolumab; Network Meta-Analysis; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms; Immunotherapy; Adjuvants, Immunologic; Kidney Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37840031
DOI: 10.1111/iju.15319 -
Journal of Basic and Clinical... Nov 2020The objective of this study is to explore the efficacy and safety of -acetyl-cysteine (NAC) as adjuvant therapy in female infertility. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this study is to explore the efficacy and safety of -acetyl-cysteine (NAC) as adjuvant therapy in female infertility.
CONTENT
We performed a systematic literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Ovid databases through April 2019 for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness and safety of NAC as adjuvant therapy in female infertility. The outcomes assessed were rates of ovulation, pregnancy, miscarriage and multiple pregnancy, presented as pooled odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity and inconsistency of the measurements were identified through Cochrane's Q statistic and I2 statistic. We also performed a sensitivity analysis, publication bias (using funnel plot and Begg's test), and subgroup analysis.
SUMMARY
Fifteen RCTs recruiting 2330 female receiving NAC were included. The pooled estimate showed the statistically insignificant improvement in outcomes; clinical pregnancy rate 1.55 (95% CI 0.98-2.47; I2=68%; p<0.01), ovulation rate 1.77 (95% CI 0.76-4.14; I2=90%; p<0.01), multiple pregnancy rate 0.83 (95% CI 0.34-1.99; I2=10%; p=0.31) and miscarriage rate 0.76 (95% CI= 0.37, 1.53; I2=0%; p=0.69) . NAC was found less efficacious and safe than metformin in all outcomes. Overall, NAC showed statistically insignificant (OR=0.98-2.47).
OUTLOOK
NAC can be an effective adjuvant in PCOS related and unexplained female infertility. The effect could be more profound in women with high BMI, insulin resistance, and oxidative stress. However, the findings need further confirmation in well-designed randomized controlled trials to examine clinical outcomes such as live birth rate in more extended follow-up periods.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Acetylcysteine; Female; Humans; Infertility, Female; Live Birth; Ovulation Induction; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate
PubMed: 34592079
DOI: 10.1515/jbcpp-2020-0107 -
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 -
Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy Jul 2012Between 25 and 30% of patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer are classified as high risk for an adverse prognosis. A significant number of these will progress to... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Between 25 and 30% of patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer are classified as high risk for an adverse prognosis. A significant number of these will progress to biochemical or clinical relapse. As there is no consensus regarding the optimal treatment of these cases, a multimodal therapeutic approach, including radical prostatectomy, remains an option.
AREAS COVERED
The Pubmed/Medline database was searched to identify trials that have evaluated adjuvant and neoadjuvant pharmaceutical protocols combined with radical prostatectomy and provided information regarding efficacy and safety.
EXPERT OPINION
Improvements in adverse pathological findings, following operations in patients who received neoadjuvant treatment, have been reported in the majority of the reviewed studies. Furthermore, the addition of pharmacotherapy to radical prostatectomy has produced beneficial results in survival surrogates. However, no benefits in overall survival were observed with adjuvant or neoadjuvant protocols and toxicity was a concern, especially in combination regimens. New studies on the effects of current pharmacotherapy and of new agents on overall survival and quality of life, after defining well-established criteria for patient stratification and inclusion, are required urgently.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Humans; Male; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 22646741
DOI: 10.1517/14656566.2012.690398 -
Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine Apr 2017To systematically evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of Danshen Injection (, DS) as one adjuvant treatment for conventional therapy with Western medicine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of Danshen Injection (, DS) as one adjuvant treatment for conventional therapy with Western medicine (WM) for unstable angina pectoris (UAP).
METHODS
Using literature databases, a thorough and systematic retrieval of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DS plus WM with WM was conducted from inception to April 2015. The extracted data from included studies was analyzed by Review Manager 5.2 software. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the quality of included studies, and Begg's and Egger's tests conducted by Stata 12.0 were used to evaluate the potential presence of publication bias.
RESULTS
A total of 17 RCTs, which involving 1,433 participants, were identified and reviewed. The meta-analysis indicated that the combined use of DS and WM was significantly superior to WM alone for UAP in terms of the total effectiveness rate of angina pectoris [risk ratio (RR) =1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17, 1.29, P<0.01] and the total effectiveness rate of electrocardiogram (ECG) [RR=1.18, 95%CI: 1.06, 1.30, P=0.001]. Additionally, DS could also further reduce the content of fibrinogen, adjust blood lipid level, correct T wave inversion, and so on. Fifteen adverse drug reactions were reported in two studies, Four of which appeared in the experimental group.
CONCLUSION
Based on the systematic review, the combined use of DS and WM was more effective than WM alone, it can be further widely used in clinic, however, there was no exact conclusion for its safety.
Topics: Adjuvants, Pharmaceutic; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Angina, Unstable; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Electrocardiography; Female; Fibrinogen; Humans; Injections; Lipids; Male; Middle Aged; Publication Bias; Salvia miltiorrhiza; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27921196
DOI: 10.1007/s11655-016-2272-0 -
Heliyon Dec 2023The benefits and risks of adjuvant-associated COVID-19 vaccines (ACVs) are unclear. The study aimed to assess the immunogenicity and safety of ACVs compared with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The benefits and risks of adjuvant-associated COVID-19 vaccines (ACVs) are unclear. The study aimed to assess the immunogenicity and safety of ACVs compared with controls (placebo or the same vaccine without adjuvants [NACVs]).
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials sourced from PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically reviewed. Evaluators extracted information independently. The evidence quality was assessed using random-effects models. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.
RESULTS
Of the 33 studies, 27 analyzed immunogenicity (n = 9069, ACVs group; n = 3757, control), and 26 analyzed safety (n = 58669, ACVs groups; n = 30733 control). Compared with controls, full vaccination with ACVs produced significant immune responses (relative risk [RR] of seroneutralization reaction, 12.3; 95 % confidence interval [95 % CI], 6.92-21.89; standardized mean deviation of geometric mean titer 3.96, 95 % CI, 3.35-4.58). Additionally, ACVs produced significant immunoreactivity compared with NACVs only ( < 0.05). Furthermore, full vaccination with ACVs significantly increased the risk of local and systemic adverse reactions (AEs) compared with controls. However, vaccination with ACVs did not significantly increase the risk of systemic and localized AEs compared with vaccination with NACVs only (P > 0.05). It was observed that ACVs had a lower risk of all-cause mortality than controls (RR, 0.51; 95 % CI 0.30-0.87). It was further found that ACVs produced nAb response against all sublines of the Omicron variant, but the antibody titers were lower than those for the SARS-CoV-2 original strain.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this meta-analysis demonstrate that ACVs may have a superior effect and an acceptable safety in preventing COVID-19. Although these results suggest the potential of ACVs, further studies are required.
PubMed: 38125524
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22858 -
PloS One 2014Neuraxial application of dexmedetomidine (DEX) as adjuvant analgesic has been invetigated in some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but not been approved because of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Neuraxial application of dexmedetomidine (DEX) as adjuvant analgesic has been invetigated in some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but not been approved because of the inconsistency of efficacy and safety in these RCTs. We performed this meta-analysis to access the efficacy and safety of neuraxial DEX as local anaesthetic (LA) adjuvant.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception to June 2013 for RCTs that investigated the analgesia efficacy and safety for neuraxial application DEX as LA adjuvant. Effects were summarized using standardized mean differences (SMDs), weighed mean differences (WMDs) or odds ratio (OR) with suitable effect model. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain intensity and analgesic duration, bradycardia and hypotension.
RESULTS
Sixteen RCTs involving 1092 participants were included. Neuraxial DEX significantly decreased postoperative pain intensity (SMD, -1.29; 95% confidence interval (CI), -1.70 to -0.89; P<0.00001), prolonged analgesic duration (WMD, 6.93 hours; 95% CI, 5.23 to 8.62; P<0.00001) and increased the risk of bradycardia (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.18 to 6.10; P = 0.02). No evidence showed that neuraxial DEX increased the risk of other adverse events, such as hypotension (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.83 to 2.85; P = 0.17). Additionally, neuraxial DEX was associated with beneficial alterations in postoperative sedation scores and number of analgesic requirements, sensory and motor block characteristics, and intro-operative hemodynamics.
CONCLUSION
Neuraxial DEX is a favorable LA adjuvant with better and longer analgesia. The greatest concern is bradycardia. Further large sample trials with strict design and focusing on long-term outcomes are needed.
Topics: Analgesia; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Anesthesia; Anesthetics, Local; Bradycardia; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypotension; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 24671181
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093114