-
Dentistry Journal Apr 2024Caries and periodontitis are the most prevalent oral diseases worldwide. Major factors contributing to the development of these oral conditions include poor oral... (Review)
Review
Caries and periodontitis are the most prevalent oral diseases worldwide. Major factors contributing to the development of these oral conditions include poor oral hygiene, dental biofilm formation, high carbohydrates diet, smoking, other systemic diseases, and genetic factors. Various preventive measures have been established to mitigate the risk of caries and periodontal disease development. The present review aims to discuss the role of the probiotics and in the prevention and treatment of caries and periodontal diseases. The study was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and was registered on PROSPERO. The search involved PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus and considered the PICO format. Studies were screened by two reviewers independently, and disagreements were solved by consensus with a third reviewer. Data extraction included details about the type of probiotics, strains, and purpose of administration. A total of 15 RCTs were included, of which just 1 was about tooth cavities. Overall, 87% of the included studies were good-quality papers regarding the Jadad Scale. Several studies agreed on the potential of probiotics and , both alone and combined, to prevent and improve clinical outcomes in caries and periodontal treatments, weaker evidence is provided for the microbiological benefit.
PubMed: 38668014
DOI: 10.3390/dj12040102 -
Journal of Global Health Apr 2024Several reviews have been conducted on thromboprophylaxis in non-hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several reviews have been conducted on thromboprophylaxis in non-hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought to investigate the impact of prophylactic-dose direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in this population.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic-dose DOACs with placebo or no treatment in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 until September 2023. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and thromboembolic events, while major bleeding events were the primary safety outcome. We expressed continuous outcome data as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and dichotomous outcome data as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs.
RESULTS
We included six RCTs involving 4307 patients. Prophylactic-dose DOAC therapy compared with placebo or no treatment was associated with significantly decreased risks of the composite outcome of all-cause mortality and thromboembolic events (1.43% vs 2.67% (RR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.34-0.82, P = 0.004, I = 3%)). Major bleeding events were infrequent, and we detected no significant differences between patients assigned to prophylactic-dose DOACs vs placebo or no treatment (0.19% vs 0.05% (RR = 2.50; 95% CI = 0.49-12.87, P = 0.27, I = 0%)). The use of prophylactic-dose DOACs was also associated with a reduction in venous thromboembolism, with no difference in all-cause mortality, arterial thromboembolism, hospitalisations, and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding between two groups. Sensitivity analyses with the leave-one-out method for the primary efficacy and safety outcome did not change the effect estimate substantially.
CONCLUSIONS
We found that prophylaxis-dose DOACs could significantly improve clinical outcomes and reduce venous thrombotic events without increasing the risk of major bleeding events compared with placebo or no treatment in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO: CRD42023466889.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anticoagulants; Administration, Oral; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Thromboembolism; Hemorrhage
PubMed: 38665058
DOI: 10.7189/jogh.14.05015 -
Health Science Reports Apr 2024Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most common debilitating diseases among the aging population. is one potential treatment for OA. Here, we sought to evaluate the...
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most common debilitating diseases among the aging population. is one potential treatment for OA. Here, we sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of for treating patients with OA.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science were searched up to October 20, 2022. The primary outcome was changes in the pain score after receiving or control agents based on the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The secondary outcome was set as the frequency of adverse events reported during the follow-up period.
RESULTS
Six RCTs involving a total of 370 patients with knee OA were included in the present systematic review. Among the four screened studies, the topical administration of oil was found to be more effective than the placebo in relieving pain in three trials. Additionally, the oral use of oil was assessed in two trials, and an improvement in pain score relative to placebo was documented in only one of the studies. Also, the trial that evaluated the effectiveness of oral capsules did not demonstrate any difference in pain reduction between the intervention and placebo groups. Overall, either topical or oral administration of was well tolerated, and no serious adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSION
is generally safe, but conflicting findings from low-quality studies hinder the ability to make clinical recommendations for or against treating OA. Robust trials are needed for informed decisions.
PubMed: 38650731
DOI: 10.1002/hsr2.1989 -
BMJ Neurology Open 2024Migraine is the second most common prevalent disorder worldwide and is a top cause of disability with a substantial economic burden. Many preventive migraine medications...
BACKGROUND
Migraine is the second most common prevalent disorder worldwide and is a top cause of disability with a substantial economic burden. Many preventive migraine medications have notable side effects that affect different body organs.
METHOD
We systematically searched for published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using terms for migraine/headache and preventive medications. Using eligibility criteria, two reviewers independently assessed the articles. Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was applied to assess the quality of the studies. Data were classified by system organ class (SOC).
RESULTS
Thirty-two RCTs with 21 780 participants met the eligibility criteria for the incidence of adverse events (AEs). Additionally, 33 RCTs with 22 615 participants were included to synthesise the incidence of serious AEs (SAEs). The percentage of attributed AEs and SAEs to each SOC for 10 preventive drugs with different dosing regimens was calculated. Amitriptyline and topiramate had a higher incidence of nervous system disorders; Topiramate was also associated with a higher incidence of psychiatric disorders. All drugs showed a certain incidence of infections and infestations, with Onabotulinumtoxin A (BTA) having the lowest rate. BTA had a higher incidence of musculoskeletal disorders than the other drugs. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) such as fremanezumab and galcanezumab were linked to more general disorders and administration site conditions than other drugs.
CONCLUSION
Notably, the observed harm to SOCs varies among these preventive drugs. We suggest conducting head-to-head RCTs to evaluate the safety profile of oral medications, BTA, and CGRP MAbs in episodic and/or chronic migraine populations.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021265993.
PubMed: 38646505
DOI: 10.1136/bmjno-2023-000616 -
Health Technology Assessment... Apr 2024Bisphosphonates are a class of medication commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is recommended as the first-line treatment; however, long-term adherence (both...
BACKGROUND
Bisphosphonates are a class of medication commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is recommended as the first-line treatment; however, long-term adherence (both treatment compliance and persistence) is poor. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which can be given intravenously and have been shown to improve long-term adherence. However, the most clinically effective and cost-effective alternative bisphosphonate regimen remains unclear. What is the most cost-effective bisphosphonate in clinical trials may not be the most cost-effective or acceptable to patients in everyday clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES
1. Explore patient, clinician and stakeholder views, experiences and preferences of alendronate compared to alternative bisphosphonates. 2. Update and refine the 2016 systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of bisphosphonates, and estimate the value of further research into their benefits. 3. Undertake stakeholder/consensus engagement to identify important research questions and further rank research priorities.
METHODS
The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: • Stage 1A - we elicited patient and healthcare experiences to understand their preferences of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. This was undertaken by performing a systematic review and framework synthesis of qualitative studies, followed by semistructured qualitative interviews with participants. • Stage 1B - we updated and expanded the existing Health Technology Assessment systematic review and clinical and cost-effectiveness model, incorporating a more comprehensive review of treatment efficacy, safety, side effects, compliance and long-term persistence. • Stage 2 - we identified and ranked further research questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonates.
RESULTS
Patients and healthcare professionals identified a number of challenges in adhering to bisphosphonate medication, balancing the potential for long-term risk reduction against the work involved in adhering to oral alendronate. Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable, with such regimens perceived to be more straightforward to engage in, although a portion of patients taking alendronate were satisfied with their current treatment. Intravenous zoledronate was found to be the most effective, with higher adherence rates compared to the other bisphosphonates, for reducing the risk of fragility fracture. However, oral bisphosphonates are more cost-effective than intravenous zoledronate due to the high cost of zoledronate administration in hospital. The importance of including patients and healthcare professionals when setting research priorities is recognised. Important areas for research were related to patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, how to optimise long-term care and the cost-effectiveness of delivering zoledronate in an alternative, non-hospital setting.
CONCLUSIONS
Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable to patients and found to be the most effective bisphosphonate and with greater adherence; however, the cost-effectiveness relative to oral alendronate is limited by its higher zoledronate hospital administration costs.
FUTURE WORK
Further research is needed to support people to make decisions influencing treatment selection, effectiveness and optimal long-term care, together with the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous zoledronate administered in a non-hospital (community) setting.
LIMITATIONS
Lack of clarity and limitations in the many studies included in the systematic review may have under-interpreted some of the findings relating to effects of bisphosphonates.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This trial is registered as ISRCTN10491361.
FUNDING
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127550) and is published in full in ; Vol. 28, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Topics: Humans; Diphosphonates; Alendronate; Zoledronic Acid; Osteoporotic Fractures; Osteoporosis
PubMed: 38634483
DOI: 10.3310/WYPF0472 -
Cureus Mar 2024COVID-19, also known as coronavirus disease 2019, is an extremely contagious viral sickness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).... (Review)
Review
COVID-19, also known as coronavirus disease 2019, is an extremely contagious viral sickness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). After the first cases of this primarily respiratory viral illness were recorded in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, in late December 2019, SARS-CoV-2 rapidly disseminated across the globe. Consequently, on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared it a global pandemic. The rapid spread of the COVID-19 virus, coupled with subsequent lockdowns and social distancing measures, profoundly disrupted traditional healthcare delivery systems. Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine emerged as a pivotal solution for delivering healthcare services while minimizing exposure to the virus. This study aims to assess patient and provider satisfaction with telemedicine during this unprecedented period. A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed and Google Scholar using specific MeSH terms and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Literature Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to summarize patient and provider satisfaction concerning telemedicine using all the facts, evidence, and published literature. The analysis showed that although providers were generally satisfied with telemedicine, they were less satisfied than patients due to technical issues and difficulties transmitting documents. Patients reported high satisfaction with telemedicine, citing convenience and cost savings as major benefits. However, a lack of provider compensation was identified as a potential barrier to adoption. Most providers believed that telemedicine was only necessary in emergencies while a few recognized its potential for routine care. The study concludes that telemedicine has the potential to improve healthcare access and efficiency, but more research is needed to address technical and reimbursement issues and to determine the appropriate scope of telemedicine use. Overall, the findings of this study can inform future healthcare policies and regulations to ensure that telemedicine is used effectively and to the satisfaction of both patients and providers.
PubMed: 38628988
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.56308 -
Biomedical Reports May 2024Abrocitinib is a highly selective Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor that can block a multitude of inflammatory signaling pathways that underlie atopic dermatitis (AD). In...
Effects of abrocitinib on pruritus and eczema symptoms and tolerance in patients with moderate‑to‑severe atopic dermatitis in randomized, double‑blind and placebo‑controlled trials: A systematic review and a meta‑analysis.
Abrocitinib is a highly selective Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor that can block a multitude of inflammatory signaling pathways that underlie atopic dermatitis (AD). In addition, abrocitinib inhibits JAK1 signaling in sensory neurons to alleviate acute and chronic pruritus during AD. However, substantial variations in efficacy and safety risks remain due to variations in doses applied in clinical use. Therefore for the present study, differences in the efficacy and tolerability of 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib for treating pruritus and eczema symptoms in patients with moderate-to-severe AD were evaluated compared with placebo. Specifically, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of abrocitinib compared with placebo for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD were searched on Pubmed, E.B. Stephens Company, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Medical network, Web of Science and related Clinical Trials Registry up to November 2023. In total, two researchers evaluated the quality of the included literature according to the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews. RevMan 5.3 software was used to conduct a meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety indicators in a cross-comparison of the effects exerted by placebo and 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib. A total of 1,825 patients with moderate-to-severe AD were included across five double-blind, placebo RCTs. Compared with the placebo group, during the double-blind trial period, significant improvements were observed in the investigator's global assessment score, response rate of eczema area and severity index (EASI)-50, EASI-75, EASI-90 and pruritus numerical rating scale (P-NRS) in the 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib groups (P<0.05). However, pairwise control analysis of the 100 and 200 mg group yielded significant differences (P<0.05) in all of the aforementioned therapeutic indicators except for the P-NRS score. In terms of safety, compared with the placebo group, there were significantly higher incidence of nausea, upper respiratory tract viral infection, infections and infestations in the 100 mg abrocitinib group (P<0.05). In addition, there were significantly higher incidence of nausea, gastrointestinal disorder, headache and dizziness in the 200 mg group (P<0.05). There were also significant differences in the incidence of nausea, gastrointestinal disorder and dizziness between the 100 and 200 mg groups (P<0.05). For patients with moderate-to-severe AD, oral administration of 100 or 200 mg abrocitinib once/day was concluded to ameliorate skin pruritus and eczema symptoms to varying degrees, with the efficacy significantly superior at the 200 mg dose. However, the risk of a number of adverse reactions, such as headache, dizziness, nausea and gastrointestinal dysfunction, is also significantly increased. Therefore, patients should be made aware of the risk of adverse drug effects prior to the administration of long-term high abrocitinib doses. Furthermore, large-scale, multi-center, rigorous clinical trials remain necessary to validate the findings from the present study.
PubMed: 38628626
DOI: 10.3892/br.2024.1772 -
Biology Methods & Protocols 2024Pyrimethamine (PYR), a STAT3 inhibitor, has been shown to reduce tumour burden in mouse cancer models. It is unclear how much of a reduction occurred or whether the PYR... (Review)
Review
Pyrimethamine (PYR), a STAT3 inhibitor, has been shown to reduce tumour burden in mouse cancer models. It is unclear how much of a reduction occurred or whether the PYR dosages and route of administration used in mice were consistent with the FDA's recommendations for drug repurposing. Search engines such as ScienceDirect, PubMed/MEDLINE, and other databases, including Google Scholar, were thoroughly searched, as was the reference list. The systematic review includes fourteen (14) articles. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using SYRCLE's guidelines. Due to the heterogeneity of the data, no meta-analysis was performed. According to the RoB assessment, 13/14 studies fall into the moderate RoB category, with one study classified as high RoB. None adhered to the ARRIVE guideline for transparent research reporting. Oral (FDA-recommended) and non-oral routes of PYR administration were used in mice, with several studies reporting very high PYR dosages that could lead to myelosuppression, while oral PYR dosages of 30 mg/kg or less are considered safe. Direct human equivalent dose translation is probably not the best strategy for comparing whether the used PYR dosages in mice are in line with FDA-approved strength because pharmacokinetic profiles, particularly PYR's half-life (t), between humans (t = 96 h) and mice (t = 6 h), must also be considered. Based on the presence of appropriate control and treatment groups, as well as the presence of appropriate clinically proven chemotherapy drug(s) for comparison purposes, only one study (1/14) involving liver cancer can be directed into a clinical trial. Furthermore, oesophageal cancer too can be directed into clinical trials, where the indirect effect of PYR on the NRF2 gene may suppress oesophageal cancer in patients, but this must be done with caution because PYR is an investigational drug for oesophageal cancer, and combining it with proven chemotherapy drug(s) is recommended.
PubMed: 38618181
DOI: 10.1093/biomethods/bpae021 -
Biomolecules & Biomedicine Apr 2024Vitamin D is commonly used to prevent and treat osteoporosis, with studies indicating its potential to reduce fractures, falls, and mortality. However, meta-analyses... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effects of intermittent overload doses of oral vitamin D3 on serum 25(OH)D concentrations and the incidence rates of fractures, falls, and mortality in elderly individuals: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Vitamin D is commonly used to prevent and treat osteoporosis, with studies indicating its potential to reduce fractures, falls, and mortality. However, meta-analyses present inconsistent findings regarding its efficacy, particularly reflecting significant variability in data and outcomes related to various dosing regimens. In this meta-analysis, we assessed the impact of high-dose intermittent oral administration of vitamin D3 on serum 25(OH)D levels, fractures, falls, and mortality among elderly individuals. We included 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and employed Review Manager 5.4 for statistical analysis. Our findings indicate that intermittent monthly administration of vitamin D3 (over 800 IU per day) significantly raised serum 25(OH)D levels at all timepoints after six months, maintaining levels above 75 nmol/L throughout the year. This regimen showed no increase in all-cause mortality, with a risk ratio (95% CI) of 0.95 (0.87-1.04). Likewise, it did not significantly reduce the risks of falls and fractures, with risk ratios of 1.02 (0.98-1.05) and 0.95 (0.87-1.04) respectively. Although one-year intermittent administration significantly increased the concentration of 25(OH)D in serum, further research is needed to determine if this method would increase the incidence of falls. Therefore, it is not recommended at this stage due to the lack of demonstrated safety in additional relevant RCTs. This study had been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022363229).
PubMed: 38615341
DOI: 10.17305/bb.2024.10449 -
Gynecological Endocrinology : the... Dec 2024This study aims to examine the short-term effects of oral metformin (MET) on serum anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) levels and to verify its impact on AMH concentrations in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to examine the short-term effects of oral metformin (MET) on serum anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) levels and to verify its impact on AMH concentrations in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).
METHODS
The literature search, extending from January 2000 to April 2023, was conducted using databases such as PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central, resulting in the inclusion of 20 studies. These selected studies, evaluated for quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, investigated changes in AMH levels before and after treatment, with durations ranging from less than three months to over six months. The reported outcomes were quantified as standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the registration number CRD42023420705. The statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4.1.
RESULTS
① The study incorporated 20 articles, consisting of 12 prospective studies, 7 randomized controlled trials (RCT), and 1 cross-sectional study. ② Serum AMH levels in patients with PCOS diminish subsequent to the oral administration of MET. ③ Across the spectrum of studies analyzed, a pronounced degree of heterogeneity is evident, potentially ascribed to differential parameters including body mass index (BMI), daily pharmacological dosages, the temporal extent of treatment regimens, criteria of PCOS, and detection Methods. ④ The impact of MET on AMH levels exhibits a dose-responsive trend, with escalating doses of MET being associated with progressively greater declines in AMH concentrations in the patient population. ⑤ For women with PCOS receiving MET therapy, a minimum treatment duration of three months may be necessary to observe a reduction in serum AMH levels.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this meta-analysis indicate that MET treatment exerts a suppressive effect on serum AMH levels in women with PCOS. It appears that a treatment duration of at least three months is required to achieve a significant decrease in AMH concentrations. Furthermore, the influence of MET on AMH is dose-dependent, with higher doses correlating with more pronounced reductions in AMH levels among the patients studied.
Topics: Female; Humans; Anti-Mullerian Hormone; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Administration, Oral; Body Mass Index; Metformin; Peptide Hormones
PubMed: 38613449
DOI: 10.1080/09513590.2024.2330655