-
Journal of Strength and Conditioning... Jul 2024Pairwise comparison of heavy dynamic strength and fast dynamic strength interventions on sprint performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res...
Pairwise comparison of heavy dynamic strength and fast dynamic strength interventions on sprint performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 38(8): 1509-1520, 2024-Previous studies have shown that both heavy dynamic strength (HDS) and fast dynamic strength (FDS) training can be used to improve sprint performance; however, a review and meta-analysis investigating pairwise studies that compare these two training interventions have not been performed. The aims of the study were to systematically review and analyze HDS and FDS training methodologies and evaluate their effect size difference, in pairwise comparison studies to determine and compare their effects on sprint performance. Databases were systematically searched using Boolean phrasing to identify eligible articles, and meta-analyses were performed on the extracted data. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria, which resulted in data from 138 subjects across 24 separate sprint assessments. Overall, there was a small effect in favor of FDS (standardized mean difference = 0.27, 95% confidence intervals [-0.07; 0.60], 95% prediction intervals [-1.01; 1.55]), but this was deemed not significant because of the wide-ranging prediction intervals. There is no distinguishable difference between HDS and FDS training on sprint performance. The wide-ranging prediction intervals suggest the variability is too great to determine whether one training type is more effective than the other. Practitioners should consider the individual needs of their athletes when deciding which training type to use for long-term sprint development.
PubMed: 38958937
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004839 -
Neurological Sciences : Official... Jul 2024Parkinson's disease (PD) patients often experience non-motor symptoms like depression and anxiety, significantly impacting their quality of life. With the limited...
BACKGROUND
Parkinson's disease (PD) patients often experience non-motor symptoms like depression and anxiety, significantly impacting their quality of life. With the limited effectiveness of pharmacological treatments, effective non-pharmacological interventions are needed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in reducing depression and anxiety symptoms in PD patients.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exploring CBT's effectiveness for depression and anxiety in PD patients were included. Studies published until April 2023 were identified from PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. Methodological quality was assessed using the Risk of Bias-2 (ROB-2) tool. Statistical analysis involved calculating the standardized mean difference (SMD) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Review Manager 5.4.1.
RESULTS
The systematic review included 12 studies involving 241 PD patients. CBT led to a substantial reduction in anxiety (SMD -0.95, 95% CI [-1.15 to -0.74], P < 0.00001) and depression (SMD -1.02, 95% CI [-1.39 to -0.65], P < 0.0001). Both traditional CBT and tele-CBT (administered over the phone or internet) were effective in treating depression and anxiety. Traditional CBT improved depression (SMD -1.16, 95% CI [-1.83 to -0.49], P < 0.00001), while tele-CBT showed comparable results (SMD -0.90, 95% CI [-1.31 to -0.48], P < 0.00001). For anxiety, both traditional CBT (SMD -0.94, 95% CI [-1.25 to -0.63], P < 0.00001) and tele-CBT (SMD -0.95, 95% CI [-1.22 to -0.67], P < 0.00001) significantly reduced symptoms. In conclusion, this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated the efficacy of CBT in reducing depression and anxiety in PD patients. Healthcare providers are encouraged to integrate CBT into their treatment protocols. However, additional high-quality studies with longer-term follow-up assessments are needed to further enhance understanding in this area.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42023424758.
PubMed: 38958793
DOI: 10.1007/s10072-024-07659-6 -
Clinical Research in Cardiology :... Jul 2024Drug-coated balloon (DCB) is an established treatment option for in-stent restenosis and small vessel, de novo, coronary artery disease (CAD). Although the use of this...
Drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent for treating de novo large vessel coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 studies involving 2888 patients.
INTRODUCTION
Drug-coated balloon (DCB) is an established treatment option for in-stent restenosis and small vessel, de novo, coronary artery disease (CAD). Although the use of this tool is increasing in everyday practice, data regarding performance in the treatment of de novo, large vessel CAD (LV-CAD) is still lacking. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCB versus drug-eluting stent (DES) in this setting.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed including Medline, Embase, and Cochrane electronic databases up to January 24, 2024, for studies which compared the efficacy and safety of DCB versus DES in the treatment of de novo lesions in large vessels (≥ 2.5 mm), reporting at least one clinical outcome of interest (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023470417). The analyzed outcomes were cardiovascular death (CVD), myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), all-cause death (ACD), and late lumen loss (LLL) at follow-up. The effect size was estimated using a random effects model as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) and relative 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
A total of 13 studies (6 randomized controlled trials and 7 observational studies) involving 2888 patients (DCB n = 1334; DES n = 1533) with de novo LV-CAD were included in this meta-analysis following our inclusion criteria. No differences were observed between DCB and DES in terms of CVD (RR 0.49; 95% CI [0.23-1.03]; p = 0.06), MI (RR 0.48; 95% CI [0.16-1.45]; p = 0.89), TLR (RR 0.73; 95% CI [0.40-1.34]; p = 0.32), ACD (RR 0.78; 95% CI [0.57-1.07]; p = 0.12), and LLL (MD - 0.14; 95% CI [- 0.30 to 0.02]; p = 0.10) at follow-up. DES proved a higher mean acute gain versus DCB [1.94 (1.73, 2.14) vs 1.31 (1.02, 1.60); p = 0.0006].
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis showed that DCB PCI might provide a promising option for the management of selected, de novo LV-CAD compared to DES. However, more focused RCTs are needed to further prove the benefits of a "metal-free" strategy in this subset of CAD.
PubMed: 38958753
DOI: 10.1007/s00392-024-02481-8 -
European Journal of Physical and... Jul 2024Injections of botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) are the first-line treatment for spastic muscle overactivity (MO). Some authors observed that BoNT-A injections lead to...
INTRODUCTION
Injections of botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) are the first-line treatment for spastic muscle overactivity (MO). Some authors observed that BoNT-A injections lead to changes in muscle structure and muscle elasticity that are probably not completely reversible. This possible effect is critical, as it could lead to negative impacts on the effectiveness of BoNT-A interventions. Our study aimed to evaluate the current literature regarding changes in muscle elasticity and structure after BoNT-A injection, by diagnostic imaging, in neurological populations with MO. Our second objective was to pool all articles published on this topic in order to provide a quantitative synthesis of the data.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic search was conducted between October 2021 and April 2023 using different databases in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Two independent reviewers screened articles for inclusion, extracted data, and evaluated methodological quality of the studies. A meta-analysis was performed to compare muscle elasticity and structure before and after BoNT-A injections.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A sample of 34 studies was selected for qualitative review and 19 studies for quantitative review. Meta-analysis of pre-post studies demonstrated significant improvement with a medium effect size (standardized mean difference=0.74; 95% CI 0.46-1.02; P<0.001) of muscle elasticity assessed by ultrasound elastography (USE) 4 weeks after BoNT-A injection. No statistically significant difference was found for muscle thickness, pennation angle, and muscle echo-intensity assessed by magnetic resonance imaging and/or ultrasonography at short-term. On the other hand, normalized muscle volume decreased with a small effect size (standardized mean difference = -0.17; 95% CI -0.25 - -0.09; P<0.001) 6 months after BoNT-A injection.
CONCLUSIONS
Muscle elasticity measured by USE improves with a temporary effect at short-term following BoNT-A injections. Synthesis of studies that assesses muscle structure is hindered by methodological differences between studies. However, based on a small amount of data, normalized muscle volume seems to decrease at long-term after BoNT-A injections in children with CP suggesting that the timing of re-injection should be considered with caution in this population. Further work should focus on the long-term effect of repeated injections on muscle structure and elasticity in neurological populations.
PubMed: 38958691
DOI: 10.23736/S1973-9087.24.08029-8 -
Irish Journal of Medical Science Jul 2024Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are at higher risk of cardiovascular events, particularly acute myocardial infarction (MI). Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2... (Review)
Review
The effect of Empagliflozin on echocardiographic parameters in diabetic patients after acute myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are at higher risk of cardiovascular events, particularly acute myocardial infarction (MI). Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) can improve cardiac outcomes among heart failure individuals, however, the effects on acute myocardial infarction remain unclear. This meta-analysis investigates the impact of empagliflozin in diabetic patients following acute myocardial infarction. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science through August 10th, 2023. We included studies comparing empagliflozin versus placebo in diabetes patients with acute myocardial infarction. We used Revman to report the data as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI), and our effect size with a random effects model. Additionally, we performed Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to test the robustness of the results. The study protocol was published on PROSPERO with ID: CRD42023447733. Five studies with a total of 751 patients were included in our analysis. Empagliflozin was effective to improve LVEF% (MD: 1.80, 95% CI [0.50, 3.10], p = 0.007), left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) (MD: -9.93, 95% CI [-16.07, -3.80], p = 0.002), and left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) (MD: -7.91, 95% CI [-11.93, -3.88], p = 0.0001). However, there was no difference between empagliflozin and placebo groups in terms of NT-pro BNP (MD: - 136.59, 95% CI [-293.43, 20.25], p = 0.09), and HbA1c (MD: -0.72, 95% CI [-1.73, 0.29], p = 0.16). Additionally, empagliflozin did not prevent hospitalization due to heart failure (RR: 0.59, 95% CI [0.16, 2.24], p = 0.44, I-squared = 0%), and mortality (RR: 1.34, 95% CI [0.15,11.90], p = 0.79, I-squared = 25%). Empagliflozin initiation in diabetic patients following acute MI may improve echocardiographic parameters. However, empagliflozin might not be effective in heart failure prevention and optimal glycemic control in this patient population. Further large-scale trials are warranted to ascertain our findings.
PubMed: 38958683
DOI: 10.1007/s11845-024-03744-z -
American Journal of Physical Medicine &... Jul 2024To evaluate the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programs and other rehabilitation interventions in adults with asthma.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programs and other rehabilitation interventions in adults with asthma.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
RESULTS
MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature and CENTRAL were searched from inception to 31 May 2023. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022331440. Thirty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were analysed, and only 26 were pooled in the meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity of comparisons and outcomes across the studies. Pulmonary rehabilitation, compared with education associated with breathing exercises, may result in little to no difference in the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) (mean difference 0.01 score, 95% confidence interval -0.48 to 0.50, 163 participants, three studies, low certainty).
CONCLUSION
Our findings show that pulmonary rehabilitation, compared with education associated with breathing exercises, may result in little to no difference in the impact of asthma on health-related quality of life. Overall, the certainty of evidence was low or very low preventing any firm conclusion on the effects of single or combined rehabilitation interventions.
PubMed: 38958276
DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000002552 -
Child: Care, Health and Development Jul 2024Participation in life activities is an integral part of health and a main outcome of rehabilitation services for children and adolescents with disabilities. However,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Participation in life activities is an integral part of health and a main outcome of rehabilitation services for children and adolescents with disabilities. However, there is still no consensus on the most effective way to improve participation. The aim of this systematic review is to determine the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions on participation outcomes of children with cerebral palsy (CP).
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted, searching the databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, Web of Science and Scopus for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), between 2001 and 2023. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated children with CP undergoing any intervention and using any tool measuring participation as an outcome measure. A meta-analysis of treatment effect was conducted. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to identify the effect on participation when intervention targeted different International Classification of Functioning (ICF) domains.
RESULTS
A total of 1572 records were identified. Eight RCTs including 384 children (195 in the intervention group and 189 in the control group) were included in the systematic review and in the meta-analysis. A sensitivity analysis showed that interventions focusing on participation significantly improved participation; standardized mean difference (1.83; 95% CI: 1.33-2.32; Z = 7.21; P < 0.00001). When other types of interventions, that is, focusing on body functions and structures or activities, were used, then participation was not favourably affected.
INTERPRETATION
Interventions primarily targeting barriers to participation across several ICF domains have a greater influence on enhancing participation. Interventions aimed at enhancing specific motor skills, including gross and fine motor function or strength, do not necessarily have a positive impact on participation.
Topics: Humans; Cerebral Palsy; Child; Adolescent; Social Participation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Activities of Daily Living
PubMed: 38958263
DOI: 10.1111/cch.13301 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2024Schizophrenia is often a severe and disabling psychiatric disorder. Antipsychotics remain the mainstay of psychotropic treatment for people with psychosis. In limited... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Schizophrenia is often a severe and disabling psychiatric disorder. Antipsychotics remain the mainstay of psychotropic treatment for people with psychosis. In limited resource and humanitarian contexts, it is key to have several options for beneficial, low-cost antipsychotics, which require minimal monitoring. We wanted to compare oral haloperidol, as one of the most available antipsychotics in these settings, with a second-generation antipsychotic, olanzapine.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical benefits and harms of haloperidol compared to olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia study-based register of trials, which is based on monthly searches of CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and WHO ICTRP. We screened the references of all included studies. We contacted relevant authors of trials for additional information where clarification was required or where data were incomplete. The register was last searched on 14 January 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials comparing haloperidol with olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in global state, relapse, clinically important change in mental state, extrapyramidal side effects, weight increase, clinically important change in quality of life and leaving the study early due to adverse effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently evaluated and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB or NNTH) with 95% CI. For continuous data, we estimated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. For all included studies, we assessed risk of bias (RoB 1) and we used the GRADE approach to create a summary of findings table.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 68 studies randomising 9132 participants. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in clinically important change in global state (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02; 6 studies, 3078 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in relapse (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.02; 7 studies, 1499 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in overall mental state compared to olanzapine (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.81; 13 studies, 1210 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every eight people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this improvement. The evidence suggests that haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects compared to olanzapine (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.28 to 5.02; 14 studies, 3290 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every three people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one additional person would experience extrapyramidal side effects. For weight gain, the evidence suggests that there may be a large reduction in the risk with haloperidol compared to olanzapine (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; 18 studies, 4302 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 10 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience weight increase. A single study suggests that haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in quality of life compared to olanzapine (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 828 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every nine people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience clinically important improvement in quality of life. Haloperidol may result in an increase in the incidence of leaving the study early due to adverse effects compared to olanzapine (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.47; 21 studies, 5047 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 22 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this outcome. Thirty otherwise relevant studies and several endpoints from 14 included studies could not be evaluated due to inconsistencies and poor transparency of several parameters. Furthermore, even within studies that were included, it was often not possible to use data for the same reasons. Risk of bias differed substantially for different outcomes and the certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The most common risks of bias leading to downgrading of the evidence were blinding (performance bias) and selective reporting (reporting bias).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low to very low for the main outcomes in this review, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in terms of clinically important global state and relapse. Olanzapine may result in a slightly greater overall clinically important change in mental state and in a clinically important change in quality of life. Different side effect profiles were noted: haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects and olanzapine in a large increase in weight gain. The drug of choice needs to take into account side effect profiles and the preferences of the individual. These findings and the recent inclusion of olanzapine alongside haloperidol in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines should increase the likelihood of it becoming more easily available in low- and middle- income countries, thereby improving choice and providing a greater ability to respond to side effects for people with lived experience of schizophrenia. There is a need for additional research using appropriate and equivalent dosages of these drugs. Some of this research needs to be done in low- and middle-income settings and should actively seek to account for factors relevant to these. Research on antipsychotics needs to be person-centred and prioritise factors that are of interest to people with lived experience of schizophrenia.
Topics: Humans; Olanzapine; Schizophrenia; Haloperidol; Antipsychotic Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Administration, Oral; Quality of Life; Bias; Recurrence; Weight Gain; Adult
PubMed: 38958149
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013425.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2024Postoperative myocardial infarction (POMI) is associated with major surgeries and remains the leading cause of mortality and morbidity in people undergoing vascular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative myocardial infarction (POMI) is associated with major surgeries and remains the leading cause of mortality and morbidity in people undergoing vascular surgery, with an incidence rate ranging from 5% to 20%. Preoperative coronary interventions, such as coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), may help prevent acute myocardial infarction in the perioperative period of major vascular surgery when used in addition to routine perioperative drugs (e.g. statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and antiplatelet agents), CABG by creating new blood circulation routes that bypass the blockages in the coronary vessels, and PCI by opening up blocked blood vessels. There is currently uncertainty around the benefits and harms of preoperative coronary interventions.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of preoperative coronary interventions for preventing acute myocardial infarction in the perioperative period of major open vascular or endovascular surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, LILACS, and CINAHL EBSCO on 13 March 2023. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared the use of preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care versus usual care for preventing acute myocardial infarction during major open vascular or endovascular surgery. We included participants of any sex or any age undergoing major open vascular surgery, major endovascular surgery, or hybrid vascular surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes of interest were acute myocardial infarction, all-cause mortality, and adverse events resulting from preoperative coronary interventions. Our secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, quality of life, vessel or graft secondary patency, and length of hospital stay. We reported perioperative and long-term outcomes (more than 30 days after intervention). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs (1144 participants). Participants were randomised to receive either preoperative coronary revascularisation with PCI or CABG plus usual care or only usual care before major vascular surgery. One trial enrolled participants if they had no apparent evidence of coronary artery disease. Another trial selected participants classified as high risk for coronary disease through preoperative clinical and laboratorial testing. We excluded one trial from the meta-analysis because participants from both the control and the intervention groups were eligible to undergo preoperative coronary revascularisation. We identified a high risk of performance bias in all included trials, with one trial displaying a high risk of other bias. However, the risk of bias was either low or unclear in other domains. We observed no difference between groups for perioperative acute myocardial infarction, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 4.57; 2 trials, 888 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One trial showed a reduction in incidence of long-term (> 30 days) acute myocardial infarction in participants allocated to the preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care group, but the evidence was very uncertain (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.28; 1 trial, 426 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was little to no effect on all-cause mortality in the perioperative period when comparing the preoperative coronary intervention plus usual care group to usual care alone, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.04; 2 trials, 888 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of preoperative coronary interventions on long-term (follow up: 2.7 to 6.2 years) all-cause mortality (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.80; 2 trials, 888 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported no adverse effects related to coronary angiography, whereas the other two studies reported five deaths due to revascularisations. There may be no effect on cardiovascular mortality when comparing preoperative coronary revascularisation plus usual care to usual care in the short term (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.32; 1 trial, 426 participants; low-certainty evidence). Preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care in the short term may reduce length of hospital stay slightly when compared to usual care alone (mean difference -1.17 days, 95% CI -2.05 to -0.28; 1 trial, 462 participants; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to concerns about risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. None of the included trials reported on quality of life or vessel graft patency at either time point, and no study reported on adverse effects, cardiovascular mortality, or length of hospital stay at long-term follow-up.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care may have little or no effect on preventing perioperative acute myocardial infarction and reducing perioperative all-cause mortality compared to usual care, but the evidence is very uncertain. Similarly, limited, very low-certainty evidence shows that preoperative coronary interventions may have little or no effect on reducing long-term all-cause mortality. There is very low-certainty evidence that preoperative coronary interventions plus usual care may prevent long-term myocardial infarction, and low-certainty evidence that they may reduce length of hospital stay slightly, but not cardiovascular mortality in the short term, when compared to usual care alone. Adverse effects of preoperative coronary interventions were poorly reported in trials. Quality of life and vessel or graft patency were not reported. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence most frequently for high risk of bias, inconsistency, or imprecision. None of the analysed trials provided significant data on subgroups of patients who could potentially experience more substantial benefits from preoperative coronary intervention (e.g. altered ventricular ejection fraction). There is a need for evidence from larger and homogeneous RCTs to provide adequate statistical power to assess the role of preoperative coronary interventions for preventing acute myocardial infarction in the perioperative period of major open vascular or endovascular surgery.
Topics: Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Coronary Artery Bypass; Postoperative Complications; Endovascular Procedures; Vascular Surgical Procedures; Preoperative Care; Bias; Perioperative Period; Length of Stay
PubMed: 38958136
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014920.pub2 -
Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences Jul 2024Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a prevalent psychiatric condition and vortioxetine offers promising antidepressant effects due to its unique pharmacological profile....
AIM
Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a prevalent psychiatric condition and vortioxetine offers promising antidepressant effects due to its unique pharmacological profile. However, the dose-response relationships of vortioxetine for MDD is not well established. We aimed to conduct dose-response meta-analyses to fill this gap.
METHODS
We systematically searched multiple electronic databases for randomized controlled trials of vortioxetine for MDD, with the last search conducted on 08 February, 2024. The dose-response relationship was evaluated using a one-stage random-effects dose-response meta-analysis with restricted cubic spline model. The primary outcome was efficacy (mean change in depression scale score), with secondary outcomes including response, dropout for any reasons (acceptability), dropout for adverse events (tolerability), and any adverse events (safety).
RESULTS
The dose-response meta-analysis comprised 16 studies, with 4,294 participants allocated to the vortioxetine group and 2,299 participants allocated to the placebo group. The estimated 50% effective dose was 4.37 mg/day, and the near-maximal effective dose (95% effective dose) was 17.93 mg/day. Visual inspection of the dose-efficacy curve suggests that a plateau possibly had not been reached yet at 20 mg/day. Acceptability, tolerability and safety decreased as the dose increased. Subgroup analysis indicated that no significant differences were observed in acceptability, tolerability and safety among the dosage groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Vortioxetine may potentially provide additional therapeutic benefits when exceeding the current licensed dosage without significantly impacting safety. Conducting clinical trials exceeding the current approved dosage appears necessary to fully comprehend its efficacy and risk.
PubMed: 38957929
DOI: 10.1111/pcn.13709