-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2024Manual therapy and prescribed exercises are often provided together or separately in contemporary clinical practice to treat people with lateral elbow pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Manual therapy and prescribed exercises are often provided together or separately in contemporary clinical practice to treat people with lateral elbow pain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both for adults with lateral elbow pain.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, and trial registries until 31 January 2024, unrestricted by language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials. Participants were adults with lateral elbow pain. Interventions were manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both. Primary comparators were placebo or minimal or no intervention. We also included comparisons of manual therapy and prescribed exercises with either intervention alone, with or without glucocorticoid injection. Exclusions were trials testing a single application of an intervention or comparison of different types of manual therapy or prescribed exercises.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial characteristics and numerical data, and assessed study risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The main comparisons were manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both compared with placebo treatment, and with minimal or no intervention. Major outcomes were pain, disability, heath-related quality of life, participant-reported treatment success, participant withdrawals, adverse events and serious adverse events. The primary endpoint was end of intervention for pain, disability, health-related quality of life and participant-reported treatment success and final time point for adverse events and withdrawals.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-three trials (1612 participants) met our inclusion criteria (mean age ranged from 38 to 52 years, 47% female, 70% dominant arm affected). One trial (23 participants) compared manual therapy to placebo manual therapy, 12 trials (1124 participants) compared manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both to minimal or no intervention, six trials (228 participants) compared manual therapy and exercise to exercise alone, one trial (60 participants) compared the addition of manual therapy to prescribed exercises and glucocorticoid injection, and four trials (177 participants) assessed the addition of manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both to glucocorticoid injection. Twenty-one trials without placebo control were susceptible to performance and detection bias as participants were not blinded to the intervention. Other biases included selection (nine trials, 39%, including two quasi-randomised), attrition (eight trials, 35%) and selective reporting (15 trials, 65%) biases. We report the results of the main comparisons. Manual therapy versus placebo manual therapy Low-certainty evidence, based upon a single trial (23 participants) and downgraded due to indirectness and imprecision, indicates manual therapy may reduce pain and elbow disability at the end of two to three weeks of treatment. Mean pain at the end of treatment was 4.1 points with placebo (0 to 10 scale) and 2.0 points with manual therapy, MD -2.1 points (95% CI -4.2 to -0.1). Mean disability was 40 points with placebo (0 to 100 scale) and 15 points with manual therapy, MD -25 points (95% CI -43 to -7). There was no follow-up beyond the end of treatment to show if these effects were sustained, and no other major outcomes were reported. Manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both versus minimal intervention Low-certainty evidence indicates manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both may slightly reduce pain and disability at the end of treatment, but the effects were not sustained, and there may be little to no improvement in health-related quality of life or number of participants reporting treatment success. We downgraded the evidence due to increased risk of performance bias and detection bias across all the trials, and indirectness due to the multimodal nature of the interventions included in the trials. At four weeks to three months, mean pain was 5.10 points with minimal treatment and manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both reduced pain by a MD of -0.53 points (95% CI -0.92 to -0.14, I = 43%; 12 trials, 1023 participants). At four weeks to three months, mean disability was 63.8 points with minimal or no treatment and manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both reduced disability by a MD of -5.00 points (95% CI -9.22 to -0.77, I = 63%; 10 trials, 732 participants). At four weeks to three months, mean quality of life was 73.04 points with minimal treatment on a 0 to 100 scale and prescribed exercises reduced quality of life by a MD of -5.58 points (95% CI -10.29 to -0.99; 2 trials, 113 participants). Treatment success was reported by 42% of participants with minimal or no treatment and 57.1% of participants with manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both, RR 1.36 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.93, I = 73%; 6 trials, 770 participants). We are uncertain if manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both results in more withdrawals or adverse events. There were 83/566 participant withdrawals (147 per 1000) from the minimal or no intervention group, and 77/581 (126 per 1000) from the manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both groups, RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.12, I = 0%; 12 trials). Adverse events were mild and transient and included pain, bruising and gastrointestinal events, and no serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events were reported by 19/224 (85 per 1000) in the minimal treatment group and 70/233 (313 per 1000) in the manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both groups, RR 3.69 (95% CI 0.98 to 13.97, I = 72%; 6 trials).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence from a single trial in people with lateral elbow pain indicates that, compared with placebo, manual therapy may provide a clinically worthwhile benefit in terms of pain and disability at the end of treatment, although the 95% confidence interval also includes both an important improvement and no improvement, and the longer-term outcomes are unknown. Low-certainty evidence from 12 trials indicates that manual therapy and exercise may slightly reduce pain and disability at the end of treatment, but this may not be clinically worthwhile and these benefits are not sustained. While pain after treatment was an adverse event from manual therapy, the number of events was too small to be certain.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Bias; Combined Modality Therapy; Exercise Therapy; Glucocorticoids; Injections, Intra-Articular; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tennis Elbow
PubMed: 38802121
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013042.pub2 -
Acta Chirurgiae Orthopaedicae Et... 2024Hip osteoarthritis (OA) has a prevalence of around 6.4% and is the second most commonly affected joint. This review aims to assess the clinical outcomes of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Viscosupplementation with High Molecular Weight Hyaluronic Acid for Hip Osteoarthritis: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Control Trials of the Efficacy on Pain, Functional Disability, and the Occurrence of Adverse Events.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
Hip osteoarthritis (OA) has a prevalence of around 6.4% and is the second most commonly affected joint. This review aims to assess the clinical outcomes of intra-articular high molecular weight hyaluronic acid (HMWHA) in the management of hip osteoarthritis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search across PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library for randomised trials investigating the effectiveness of high molecular weight hyaluronic acid (HMWHA) in the treatment of hip osteoarthritis. Quality and risk of bias assessments were performed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool. To synthesise the data, we utilised the Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) for assessing pain relief through the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Lequesne index (LI) for evaluating functional outcomes. Risk Ratio (RR) was calculated to assess the occurrence of complications.
RESULTS
A total of four studies involving HMWHA and control groups were included. The standardised mean difference (SMD) for the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (SMD -0.056; 95% CI; -0.351, 0.239; p = 0.709) and the Lequesne index (SMD -0.114; 95% CI; -0.524, 0.296; p = 0.585) were not statistically significant. Analysis for complications demonstrated an overall relative risk ratio (RR) of 0.879 (95% CI; 0.527, 1.466; p = 0.622), and was not statistically significant.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Intra-articular HMWHA in hip OA can significantly reduce pain and improve functional recovery when compared with the condition before treatment. However, there is no significant difference between HMWHA, or saline, or other therapeutic treatments. Currently, available evidence indicates that intra-articular HMWHA in hip OA would not increase the risk of adverse events.
KEY WORDS
hip osteoarthritis, hyaluronic acid, intra-articular, molecular weight, viscosupplementation.
Topics: Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Viscosupplementation; Viscosupplements; Injections, Intra-Articular; Pain Measurement; Molecular Weight; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38801667
DOI: 10.55095/ACHOT2024/009 -
Current Reviews in Clinical and... May 2024There is a lack of evidence on the effectiveness of antidotes in the management of organophosphate and carbamate (OPC) poisoning. We aimed to review the efficacy and...
OBJECTIVE
There is a lack of evidence on the effectiveness of antidotes in the management of organophosphate and carbamate (OPC) poisoning. We aimed to review the efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate in the management of OPC poisoning.
METHODOLOGY
Databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library were extensively searched from inception to November 2022 and updated till October 2023. Interventional, observational, and descriptive studies assessing the efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate administered in any dose, route, and duration for the management of OPC poisoning published in the English language were considered for this review. The treatment with any other regimen that did not include glycopyrrolate was regarded as the comparator. The survival, intensive care unit (ICU) days and ventilatory outcomes were considered efficacy outcomes, and adverse effects were considered safety outcomes. Suitable quality assessment tools were used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Two independent reviewers were involved in the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment and any discrepancies were resolved through mutual discussion or consultation with a third reviewer.
RESULTS
A total of 9 studies (2 RCTs, 4 cohorts, 1 case series, and 2 case reports) out of 591 nonduplicate records were considered for this review. Overall, the RCTs were observed to have a moderate quality, and observational studies and descriptive studies were found to have good quality. All the included studies used atropine administration as a standard treatment option along with glycopyrrolate. The OPC patients treated with glycopyrrolate had a fewer hospitalization days with comparable recovery and ventilatory outcomes than those that had not been treated with glycopyrrolate. The occurrence of adverse events and complications was lower in the glycopyrrolate group than in the control group.
CONCLUSION
Currently, there is a lack of comparative studies to recommend the use of glycopyrrolate in OPC poisoning, and further interventional studies are required to make an evidencebased recommendation on this topic.
PubMed: 38797902
DOI: 10.2174/0127724328290595240509051331 -
Phytomedicine : International Journal... Jul 2024Plant-derived extracellular vesicles (PDEs) are expected to be a compelling alternative for cancer treatment due to their low cytotoxicity, low immunogenicity, high... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Plant-derived extracellular vesicles (PDEs) are expected to be a compelling alternative for cancer treatment due to their low cytotoxicity, low immunogenicity, high yield, and potential anti-tumor efficacy. Despite the significant advantages of PDEs, the reliable evidence for PDEs as promising anti-tumor approach remains unsystematic and insufficient. Some challenges remain for the clinical application and large-scale industrial production of PDEs.
PURPOSE
Through systematic evaluation and meta-analysis, the objective was to provide scientific, systematic and reliable preclinical evidence to support the clinical use of PDEs in cancer therapy.
METHODS
The search for relevant literature, conducted up to March 2024, encompassed various databases including Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and the China Science and Technology Journal Database. The SYRCLE´s risk of bias tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the animal studies. For overall effect analysis and subgroup analysis, RevMan 5.4 and Stata 12.0 were utilized.
RESULTS
The analysis incorporated a total of 38 articles, comprising 29 in vivo studies and 9 in vitro studies. Meta-analysis indicated that PDEs significantly reduced cancer cell activity and induced apoptosis, reduced tumor volume and tumor weight when used as therapeutic agents, as well as exhibited synergistic anti-cancer via combination therapy. Additionally, PDEs-drugs exerted stronger inhibition of tumor volume compared to the free drug or commercial liposome-drugs. Their therapeutic effects were closely related to regulating tumor cell biological behavior and remodeling the tumor microenvironment. The safety was associated with administration route of PDEs, oral administration was currently preferred until more in-depth studies on the safety of other methods are conducted.
CONCLUSIONS
The meta-analysis revealed that PDEs have systematic and reliable preclinical evidence in preclinical studies of cancer therapy, and their efficacy and certain safety could support the clinical application of PDEs in cancer therapy. Of course, further researches are required for large-scale industrial production to meet the needs of clinical applications.
Topics: Extracellular Vesicles; Humans; Animals; Neoplasms; Apoptosis; Antineoplastic Agents, Phytogenic
PubMed: 38797028
DOI: 10.1016/j.phymed.2024.155750 -
The International Journal on Drug Policy Jun 2024A better understanding of global patterns of drug use among people who inject drugs can inform interventions to reduce harms related to different use profiles. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A better understanding of global patterns of drug use among people who inject drugs can inform interventions to reduce harms related to different use profiles. This review aimed to comprehensively present the geographical variation in drug consumption patterns among this population.
METHODS
Systematic searches of peer reviewed (PsycINFO, Medline, Embase) and grey literature published from 2008-2022 were conducted. Data on recent (past year) and lifetime drug use among people who inject drugs were included. Data were extracted on use of heroin, amphetamines, cocaine, benzodiazepines, cannabis, alcohol, and tobacco; where possible, estimates were disaggregated by route of administration (injecting, non-injecting, smoking). National estimates were generated and, where possible, regional, and global estimates were derived through meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Of 40,427 studies screened, 394 were included from 81 countries. Globally, an estimated 78.1 % (95 %CI:70.2-84.2) and 71.8 % (65.7-77.2) of people who inject drugs had recently used (via any route) and injected heroin, while an estimated 52.8 % (47.0-59.0) and 19.8 % (13.8-26.5) had recently used and injected amphetamines, respectively. Over 90 % reported recent tobacco use (93.5 % [90.8-95.3]) and recent alcohol use was 59.1 % (52.6-65.6). In Australasia recent heroin use was lowest (49.4 % [46.8-52.1]) while recent amphetamine injecting (64.0 % [60.8-67.1]) and recent use of cannabis (72.3 % [69.9-74.6]) were higher than in all other regions. Recent heroin use (86.1 % [78.3-91.4]) and non-injecting amphetamine use (43.3 % [38.4-48.3]) were highest in East and Southeast Asia. Recent amphetamine use (75.8 % [72.7-78.8]) and injecting heroin use (84.8 % (81.4-87.8) were highest in North America while non-injecting heroin use was highest in Western Europe (45.0 % [41.3-48.7]).
CONCLUSION
There is considerable variation in types of drugs and routes of administration used among people who inject drugs. This variation needs to be considered in national and global treatment and harm reduction interventions to target the specific behaviours and harms associated with these regional profiles of use.
Topics: Humans; Substance Abuse, Intravenous; Global Health
PubMed: 38796926
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104455 -
Scientific Reports May 2024Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) poses a significant global health challenge, prompting exploration of innovative treatments. This systematic review and meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) poses a significant global health challenge, prompting exploration of innovative treatments. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vitamin C supplementation in adults undergoing treatment for CAP. A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Clinical Trials.gov databases from inception to 17 November 2023 identified six randomized-controlled-trials (RCTs) meeting inclusion criteria. The primary outcome analysis revealed a non-significant trend towards reduced overall mortality in the vitamin C group compared to controls (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.09; p = 0.052; I = 0; p = 0.65). Sensitivity analysis, excluding corona-virus-disease 2019 (COVID-19) studies and considering the route of vitamin C administration, confirmed this trend. Secondary outcomes, including hospital length-of-stay (LOS), intensive-care-unit (ICU) LOS, and mechanical ventilation, exhibited mixed results. Notably, heterogeneity and publication bias were observed in hospital LOS analysis, necessitating cautious interpretation. Adverse effects were minimal, with isolated incidents of nausea, vomiting, hypotension, and tachycardia reported. This meta-analysis suggests potential benefits of vitamin C supplementation in CAP treatment. However, inconclusive findings and methodological limitations warrants cautious interpretation, emphasising the urgency for high-quality trials to elucidate the true impact of vitamin C supplementation in CAP management.
Topics: Humans; Ascorbic Acid; Community-Acquired Infections; Dietary Supplements; Pneumonia; Treatment Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Length of Stay; COVID-19; Respiration, Artificial
PubMed: 38783029
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-62571-5 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Jul 2024The efficacy of perineural vs intravenous dexamethasone as a local anaesthetic adjunct to increase duration of analgesia could be particular to specific peripheral nerve... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study Review
Intravenous versus perineural dexamethasone to prolong analgesia after interscalene brachial plexus block: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of perineural vs intravenous dexamethasone as a local anaesthetic adjunct to increase duration of analgesia could be particular to specific peripheral nerve blocks because of differences in systemic absorption depending on the injection site. Given this uncertainty, we performed a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis comparing dexamethasone administered perineurally or intravenously combined with local anaesthetic for interscalene brachial plexus block.
METHODS
Following a search of various electronic databases, we included 11 trials (1145 patients). The primary outcome was the duration of analgesia defined as the time between peripheral nerve block or onset of sensory blockade and the time to first analgesic request or initial report of pain.
RESULTS
The primary outcome, duration of analgesia, was greater in the perineural dexamethasone group, with a mean difference (95% confidence interval) of 122 (62-183) min, I=73%, P<0.0001. Trial sequential analysis indicated that firm evidence had been reached. The quality of evidence was downgraded to low, mainly because of moderate inconsistency and serious publication bias. No significant differences were present for any of the secondary outcomes, except for onset time of sensory and motor blockade and resting pain score at 12 h, but the magnitude of differences was not clinically relevant.
CONCLUSIONS
There is low-quality evidence that perineural administration of dexamethasone as a local anaesthetic adjunct increases duration of analgesia by an average of 2 h compared with intravenous injection for interscalene brachial plexus block. Given the limited clinical relevance of this difference, the off-label use of perineural administration, and the risk of drug crystallisation, we recommend intravenous dexamethasone administration.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL
PROSPERO (CRD42023466147).
Topics: Humans; Dexamethasone; Brachial Plexus Block; Analgesia; Pain, Postoperative; Administration, Intravenous; Anesthetics, Local; Brachial Plexus
PubMed: 38782616
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2024.03.042 -
BMJ Paediatrics Open May 2024To review the efficacy of nebulised magnesium sulfate (MgSO) in acute asthma in children. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To review the efficacy of nebulised magnesium sulfate (MgSO) in acute asthma in children.
METHODS
The authors searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published until 15 December 2023. RCTs were included if they compared the efficacy and safety of nebulised MgSO as a second-line agent in children presenting with acute asthma exacerbation. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and the Risk of Bias V.2 tool was used to assess the biases among them.
RESULTS
10 RCTs enrolling 2301 children with acute asthma were included. All trials were placebo controlled and administered nebulised MgSO/placebo and salbutamol (±ipratropium bromide). There was no significant difference in Composite Asthma Severity Score between the two groups (6 RCTs, 1953 participants; standardised mean difference: -0.09; 95% CI: -0.2 to +0.02, I=21%). Children in the MgSO group have significantly better peak expiratory flow rate (% predicted) than the control group (2 RCTs, 145 participants; mean difference: 19.3; 95% CI: 8.9 to 29.8; I=0%). There was no difference in the need for hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission or duration of hospital stay. Adverse events were minor, infrequent (7.3%) and similar among the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
There is low-certainty evidence that nebulised MgSO as an add-on second-line therapy for acute asthma in children does not reduce asthma severity or a need for hospitalisation. However, it was associated with slightly better lung functions. The current evidence does not support the routine use of nebulised MgSO in paediatric acute asthma management.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022373692.
Topics: Humans; Magnesium Sulfate; Asthma; Child; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Acute Disease; Administration, Inhalation; Bronchodilator Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anti-Asthmatic Agents
PubMed: 38782483
DOI: 10.1136/bmjpo-2024-002638 -
BMJ Paediatrics Open May 2024To develop evidence-based guidance for topical steroid use in paediatric eosinophilic oesophagitis (pEoE) in the UK for both induction and maintenance treatment. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To develop evidence-based guidance for topical steroid use in paediatric eosinophilic oesophagitis (pEoE) in the UK for both induction and maintenance treatment.
METHODS
A systematic literature review using Cochrane guidance was carried out by the British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (BSPGHAN) Eosinophilic Oesophagitis (EoE) Working Group (WG) and research leads to determine the evidence base for preparation, dosing and duration of use of swallowed topical steroid (STS) formulations in EoE. Seven themes relating to pEoE were reviewed by the WG, alongside the Cochrane review this formed the evidence base for consensus recommendations for pEoE in the UK. We provide an overview of practical considerations including treatment regimen and dosing. Oral viscous budesonide (OVB) and, if agreed by local regulatory committees, orodispersible budesonide (budesonide 1 mg tablets) were selected for ease of use and with most improvement in histology. A practical 'how to prepare and use' OVB appendix is included. Side effects identified included candidiasis and adrenal gland suppression. The use of oral systemic steroids in strictures is discussed briefly.
RESULTS
2638 citations were identified and 18 randomised controlled trials were included. Evidence exists for the use of STS for induction and maintenance therapy in EoE, especially regarding histological improvement. Using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation criteria, dosing of steroids by age (0.5 mg two times per day <10 years and 1 mg two times per day ≥10 years) for induction of at least 3 months was suggested based on evidence and practical consideration. Once histological remission is achieved, maintenance dosing of steroids appears to reduce the frequency and severity of relapse, as such a maintenance weaning regimen is proposed.
CONCLUSION
A practical, evidence-based flow chart and guidance recommendations with consensus from the EoE WG and education and research representatives of BSPGHAN were developed with detailed practical considerations for use in the UK.
Topics: Humans; Eosinophilic Esophagitis; Child; Budesonide; Administration, Topical; Evidence-Based Medicine; Glucocorticoids; United Kingdom; Administration, Oral
PubMed: 38782481
DOI: 10.1136/bmjpo-2023-002467 -
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Jul 2024Vaginal oestrogens can be used to treat genitourinary symptoms in women with early breast cancer. Studies evaluating vaginal oestrogens have commonly measured serum...
PURPOSE
Vaginal oestrogens can be used to treat genitourinary symptoms in women with early breast cancer. Studies evaluating vaginal oestrogens have commonly measured serum oestrogen levels as a surrogate marker of safety, but methods vary. We sought to summarise the data on serum oestrogen measurement in women with breast cancer using vaginal oestrogens to better understand the methods, levels and reliability.
METHODS
We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, SCOPUS and CINAHL from inception to October 2023 for clinical studies where serum oestrogen was measured in women with a history of early breast cancer using vaginal oestrogens. Studies with a reported testing methodology were included.
RESULTS
Nine studies met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Methods used to measure oestradiol and oestriol in selected studies included mass spectrometry and immunoassays; several studies used more than one with variable concordance. Mass spectrometry detected oestradiol levels down to a lower limit between 1.0 pg/mL and 3.0 pg/mL. Immunoassays such as ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay), ECLIA (enhanced chemiluminiscence immunoassay) and RIA (radioimmunoassay) had lower detection limits ranging between 0.8 pg/mL and 10 pg/mL. Studies were heterogeneous in testing techniques used, timing of testing, and the population including with subsequent varying results in the effect on oestrogens reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Adopting consistent and standardised methods of measuring oestrogens in clinical trials involving women with early breast cancer on vaginal oestrogens is critical. Serum oestrogens are used as a surrogate marker of safety in this population, and good-quality data are necessary to enable clinicians and patients to feel confident in prescribing and taking vaginal oestrogens. Mass spectrometry, although more expensive, gives more reliable results when dealing with very low levels of oestrogens often found in women on aromatase inhibitors, compared to immunoassays.
Topics: Female; Humans; Administration, Intravaginal; Breast Neoplasms; Cancer Survivors; Estradiol; Estriol; Estrogens; Vagina
PubMed: 38780887
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-024-07364-0