-
Alternative Therapies in Health and... Apr 2024To evaluate the effect of metformin on the survival of patients with diabetes mellitus complicated with renal cell carcinoma by Meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effect of metformin on the survival of patients with diabetes mellitus complicated with renal cell carcinoma by Meta-analysis.
METHODS
To collect the required data, we looked through the databases of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE, as well as the network for querying registration data from clinical trials (https://clinicaltrials.gov). Retrieve relevant ongoing or closed clinical trials. To avoid publication bias, the search process is limited to randomized controlled trials, and the search results are not limited to language, publication time, or other restrictions. All included studies need to be evaluated according to the quality evaluation standard of the Cochran system evaluation manual. The relevant data were statistically analyzed by Revman 5.3 software. In the evaluation of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), the index of hazard risk (HR) was selected in this paper.
RESULTS
Eight cohort studies were included in the analysis. Partial and metastatic subgroup analysis of renal cell carcinoma demonstrated no significant effect of metformin on PFS, CSS, or OS. There was no evidence of publication bias, according to the findings.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis found that metformin did not improve survival rates for diabetic patients with renal cell carcinoma.
Topics: Humans; Metformin; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Kidney Neoplasms; Hypoglycemic Agents; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Diabetes Mellitus
PubMed: 37883777
DOI: No ID Found -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023Cancer is a major global health concern, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) offer a promising treatment option for cancer patients. However, the efficacy of ICIs...
INTRODUCTION
Cancer is a major global health concern, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) offer a promising treatment option for cancer patients. However, the efficacy of ICIs can be influenced by various factors, including the use of concomitant medications.
METHODS
We searched databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the impact of concomitant medications on ICIs efficacy, published from inception to January 1, 2023. We evaluated the methodological quality of the included meta-analyses, and re-synthesized data using a random-effects model and evidence stratification.
RESULTS
We included 23 publications, comprising 11 concomitant medications and 112 associations. Class II-IV evidence suggested that antibiotics have a negative impact on ICIs efficacy. However, ICIs efficacy against melanoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma was not affected, this effect was related to the exposure window (class IV). Class III evidence suggested that proton pump inhibitors have a negative impact on ICIs efficacy; nevertheless, the efficacy against melanoma and renal cell carcinoma was not affected, and the effect was related to exposure before the initiation of ICIs therapy (class II). Although class II/III evidence suggested that steroids have a negative impact, this effect was not observed when used for non-cancer indications and immune-related adverse events (class IV). Class IV evidence suggested that opioids reduce ICIs efficacy, whereas statins and probiotics may improve ICIs efficacy. ICIs efficacy was not affected by histamine 2 receptor antagonists, aspirin, metformin, β-blockers, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents.
CONCLUSION
Current evidence suggests that the use of antibiotics, PPIs, steroids, and opioids has a negative impact on the efficacy of ICIs. However, this effect may vary depending on the type of tumor, the timing of exposure, and the intended application. Weak evidence suggests that statins and probiotics may enhance the efficacy of ICIs. Aspirin, metformin, β-blockers, and NSAIDs do not appear to affect the efficacy of ICIs. However, caution is advised in interpreting these results due to methodological limitations.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO,identifier, CRD42022328681.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Aspirin; Esophageal Neoplasms; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Kidney Neoplasms; Liver Neoplasms; Melanoma; Metformin; Steroids; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Meta-Analysis as Topic
PubMed: 37841249
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1218386 -
Medicine Oct 2023The optimal drug for treatment with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) was in debate. We did this network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of different... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The optimal drug for treatment with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) was in debate. We did this network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of different drugs for reducing testosterone levels in women with PCOS.
METHODS
We searched studies from inception until January 10, 2023, through PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library database. All studies comparing different drugs for reducing testosterone levels in women with polycystic ovary syndrome were included in this network meta-analysis. Outcomes were total testosterone levels, free testosterone levels, and withdraw due to adverse events. We calculated the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for each treatment.
RESULTS
Finally, a total of 13 studies were finally included in this network meta-analysis. In head-to-head comparison, atorvastatin (WMD -3.1, 95% CrI: -3.7 to -2.5), metformin (WMD -2.6, 95% CrI: -3.5 to -1.6), metformin + simvastatin (WMD -2.8, 95% CrI: -4.1 to -1.5), simvastatin (WMD -2.7, 95% CrI: -4.2 to -1.3), spironolactone (WMD -3.1, 95% CrI: -4.3 to -1.9), spironolactone + metformin (WMD -3.2, 95% CrI: -4.5 to -2.0) were all more effective than the placebo, and the difference was statistically significant (P < .05). The SUCRA shows that spironolactone + metformin ranked first (SUCRA, 85.0%), Atorvastatin ranked second (SUCRA, 77.7%), Spironolactone ranked third (SUCRA, 77.2%), and metformin + simvastatin ranked the fourth. The SUCRA of different drugs for free testosterone levels shows that atorvastatin ranked first (SUCRA, 75.0%), spironolactone + metformin ranked second (SUCRA, 5.3%), metformin + simvastain ranked third (SUCRA, 62.6%), and spironolactone ranked the fourth (SUCRA, 56.4%). No statistically significant differences were found between the 2 treatment groups for withdrawn due to adverse events (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS
Considering the network meta-analysis and rankings, atorvastatin was recommended to be the optimal drug for treatment PCOS. However, the optimal dose of atorvastatin was unknown and should be verified by more randomized controlled trials.
Topics: Humans; Female; Spironolactone; Atorvastatin; Network Meta-Analysis; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Metformin; Simvastatin; Testosterone
PubMed: 37832133
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000035152 -
Medicine Oct 2023To evaluate the efficacy of nafamostat mesilate in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) by conduct a systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Nafamostat mesilate for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on prospective, randomized, and controlled trials.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of nafamostat mesilate in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) by conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHOD
We retrieved for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about compare nafamostat mesilate with placebo in preventing PEP published before August 23, 2022, in 5 major electronic databases. The primary outcome was PEP rate, and the secondary outcome was post-ERCP hyperamylasemia (PEHA) rate. Subgroup analyses were performed to reveal the factors that may affect the preventive effect of nafamostat. Assessment of the quality of evidence was conducted based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system.
RESULTS
According to the search strategy and criteria of inclusion and exclusion, 8 articles with a number of 3210 patients were included. The PEP incidence of the nafamostat group was inferior compared with the placebo group (4.6% vs 8.5%, RR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.38-0.66). Subgroup analyses revealed that nafamostat had a preventive effect on patients with different risk stratification (High-risk: RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.43-0.86, Low-risk: RR = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.17-0.47). Different doses (20 mg: RR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.36-0.69, 50 mg: RR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.27-0.74) and duration (<12 hour: RR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.37-0.81, ≥12 h: RR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.29-0.66) of administration of nafamostat are adequate for the prevention of PEP, but postoperative administration may not help (preoperative: RR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.39-0.69, postoperative: RR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.23-1.23). Nafamostat may not efficacious in preventing severe PEP (Mild: RR = 0.49, 95% CI, 0.35-0.68, Moderate: RR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.25-0.86, Severe: RR = 0.91, 95% CI, 0.25-3.29) or in low-quality studies (Low-quality: RR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.13-3.60, High-quality: RR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.37-0.65).
CONCLUSION
Preoperative use of nafamostat can effectively prevent PEP in patients with various risk stratification. Nafamostat can prevent mild and moderate PEP, but may not prevent severe PEP and PEHA. There should be more high-quality RCTs in future to strengthen the evidence of nafamostat in preventing PEP.
Topics: Humans; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Pancreatitis; Guanidines; Benzamidines; Hyperamylasemia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37832051
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000035174 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Oct 2023COVID-19 has been a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) for a lengthy period of time. The novel coronavirus is primarily spread via aerosols at a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 has been a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) for a lengthy period of time. The novel coronavirus is primarily spread via aerosols at a short distance, with infected individuals releasing large amounts of aerosols when speaking and coughing. However, there is an open question regarding whether mouthwash could effectively reduce virus transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic and support the prevention of infection among medical workers.
METHODS
Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were systematically searched from the inception of each database to January 12, 2023 for currently available randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the effect of mouthwash on novel coronavirus load in the oral cavity in COVID-19 patients. The treatment group received mouthwash for rinsing the mouth, while the control group received a placebo or distilled water for COVID-19 patients. The primary outcomes were CT value and viral load. Odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using a random-effects model. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to minimize the bias and the impact of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs were included. Seven studies reported the intervention effect of mouthwash on the CT value of novel coronavirus. The analysis results showed that the mouthwash group had a positive impact on the CT value of novel coronavirus [ SMD = 0.35, 95% CI (0.21, 0.50)] compared with the control group. In addition, subgroup analysis showed a significant positive effect of mouthwash on CT values in the treatment group compared with the control group, with chlorhexidine (CHX) [SMD = 0.33, 95% CI (0.10, 0.56)], povidone-iodine (PVP-I) [SMD = 0.61, 95% CI (0.23, 0.99)], or hydrogen peroxide (HP) [SMD = 1.04, 95% CI (0.30, 1.78)] as an ingredient of the mouthwash. Six studies reported the intervention effect of mouthwash on the viral load, 263 cases in the treatment group and 164 cases in the control group. The analysis results showed that there was no statistical difference between the mouthwash group and the control group in the viral load of novel coronavirus [SMD = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.18, 0.05)]. In the subgroup analysis by measurement time, there were statistically significant differences between the mouthwash and control groups for CT values [SMD = 0.52, 95% CI (0.31, 0.72)] and viral load [SMD = - 0.32, 95% CI (- 0.56, - 0.07)] within 30 min of gargling.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, mouthwash has some efficacy in reducing the viral load of novel coronavirus, especially within 30 min after rinsing the mouth. Mouthwash containing CHX, PVP-I and HP all had significant positive effects on CT values, and PVP-I-containing mouthwash may be a promising option to control novel coronavirus infections and relieve virus-related symptoms. However, studies on the dose and frequency of use of mouthwash for infection control are still lacking, which may limit the clinical application of mouthwash.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Protocol registration: The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023401961).
Topics: Humans; Mouthwashes; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Povidone-Iodine; Viral Load; Respiratory Aerosols and Droplets; Chlorhexidine; Hydrogen Peroxide
PubMed: 37821800
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08669-z -
European Journal of Medical Research Sep 2023It has been reported that metformin use may reduce the risk of thyroid cancer, but existing studies have generated inconsistent results. The purpose of this study was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
It has been reported that metformin use may reduce the risk of thyroid cancer, but existing studies have generated inconsistent results. The purpose of this study was to investigate such association between metformin use and the risk of thyroid cancer.
METHODS
Studies of metformin use for the risk of thyroid cancer were searched in Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biomedical Database, Wanfang Data, and Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP) from the establishment date to December 2022. Newcastle-Ottawa scale is adopted for assessing the methodological quality of included studies, and the inter-study heterogeneity was assessed by using the I-squared statistic. Combined odds ratios (ORs) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated through either fixed-effects or random-effects model according to the heterogeneity. Besides, subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses and test for publication bias were conducted.
RESULTS
Five studies involving 1,713,528 participants were enrolled in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis. The result of the meta-analyses showed that metformin use was associated with a statistically significant lower risk of thyroid cancer (pooled OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.50-0.91, P = 0.011). Moreover, in the subgroup analysis, we found that the use of metformin may also aid in the prevention of thyroid cancer in Eastern population (pooled OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.35-0.88, P = 0.012) rather than Western population (pooled OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.52-1.54, P = 0.685). Sensitivity analysis suggested the results of this meta-analyses were relatively stable. No publication bias was detected.
CONCLUSION
Metformin use is beneficial for reducing the risk of thyroid cancer. For further investigation, more well-designed studies are still needed to elucidate the association between metformin use and the risk of thyroid cancer.
Topics: Humans; Metformin; Risk; Thyroid Neoplasms; China
PubMed: 37773165
DOI: 10.1186/s40001-023-01287-0 -
Cureus Sep 2023Patients with diminished renal function necessitate special care. In patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), opioid analgesics should be prescribed based on the... (Review)
Review
Patients with diminished renal function necessitate special care. In patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), opioid analgesics should be prescribed based on the severity of renal insufficiency; this will determine treatment options at the beginning and throughout the management of pain in CKD patients. The dosage of hydrophilic drugs and drugs with active metabolites should be adjusted according to the severity of CKD, and the process of treatment should be monitored by modifying drug dosages as necessary for background and breakthrough pain. Patients with CKD may benefit from opioid analgesics that are lipophilic, such as methadone, fentanyl, and buprenorphine, as the first line; however, fentanyl is inappropriate for patients undergoing hemodialysis. Opioid prescription in CKD patients is the subject of this systematic review, which aims to compare their safety and efficacy. This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 recommendations. Using three databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar), we collected and reviewed articles, including literature reviews, randomized control trials (RCTs), and systematic reviews published between 1980 and 2022, to enable us to gather enough valuable data on this rare topic. After applying appropriate filters, a total of 109 results were obtained. They were further screened and subjected to quality assessment tools, which finally yielded 11 studies included in this systematic review. This consisted of two RCTs, two systematic reviews, and seven narrative reviews. This review focused on the safety and appropriate use of opioids in patients with CKD. The accumulation of morphine and codeine metabolites may result in neurotoxic side effects. Hydromorphone and oxycodone are considered safe to administer but require careful adjustments in dosage. Common comorbidities among patients with CKD may amplify opioid-related adverse effects.
PubMed: 37727840
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.45485 -
BMC Endocrine Disorders Sep 2023Concerning ascending trend in the prevalence of chronic type II diabetes, prevention and the development of an effective approach after the recognition of at-risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Concerning ascending trend in the prevalence of chronic type II diabetes, prevention and the development of an effective approach after the recognition of at-risk individuals is crucial. This study aims to investigate comparing the influence of lifestyle modification and metformin interventions in the prevention of type II diabetes developments.
METHOD
The search was conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science databases. The inclusion criteria include randomized controlled trials (RCT) which studied both lifestyle modification and metformin interventions in the population above 18 years old without a history of any type of diabetes. After excluding studies with intervention time of fewer than 6 months, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate relative risk (RR) with a confidence interval (CI) of 95% of type II diabetes development.
RESULTS
Data from 5 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The population also consists of individuals with a mean age of 50 years old with BMI and FBS of 35.5 and 104.7 mg/dl respectively. Participants range of prevention years was between 2-3 years with a mean of 2.8 years. Lifestyle modification decreases the probability of the incidence of type II diabetes by 25.3% (RR: 0.747, 95% CI, 0.6-0.92) compared to the metformin intervention (p-value = 0.007). Our results indicate that long-term lifestyle modifications can prevent diabetes type II and decrease diabetes mellitus incidence down to one-quarter in comparison to metformin.
CONCLUSION
Lifestyle modification can be more efficacious than metformin in diminishing the incidence of type II diabetes. Therefore, lifestyle modification can be a therapeutic strategy for controlling type II diabetes incidence, especially in high-risk individuals.
Topics: Humans; Middle Aged; Adolescent; Metformin; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Behavior Therapy; Life Style; Primary Prevention
PubMed: 37723440
DOI: 10.1186/s12902-023-01445-9 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023This study aimed to perform a network meta-analysis to objectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of 10 Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
This study aimed to perform a network meta-analysis to objectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of 10 Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) in combination with metformin that is approved for use worldwide in patients with type 2 diabetes and to provide evidence-based support and reference for the selection of clinical treatment.
METHODS
Three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were searched from their respective inception until September 30, 2022. Only randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of GLP-1RAs for treating type 2 diabetes (T2D) were included. The 10 GLP-1RAs are exenatide (including exenatide twice daily and once weekly), liraglutide, lixisenatide, dulaglutide, PEX168, semaglutide (subcutaneous and oral semaglutide), tirzepatide and albiglutide.
RESULTS
34 RCTs with 10 GLP-1RAs and 12993 patients were included in the Network Meta-Analysis (NMA). According to the NMA, tirzepatide 15 mg, semaglutide 1.0 mg, PEX168-200μg, oral semaglutide 14 and dulaglutide 1.5 mg reduced HbA1c by -2.23%, -1.57%, -1.12%, -1.10%, -1.09% and body weight by -11.33 kg, -5.99 kg, +0.40 kg, -3.95 kg, -1.87 kg, respectively. There was no significant difference in the rate of adverse events for tirzepatide 15 mg, oral-semaglutide 14 mg, and semaglutide 1.0 mg. PEX168-200μg, tirzepatide 15mg, and oral semaglutide 14mg had Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) values greater than placebo, and only tirzepatide 15mg and oral semaglutide 14mg were significantly different from placebo in the rate of serious adverse events. All GLP-1RA did not lead to increased incidence of hypoglycemia. Albiglutide 30mg and semaglutide 1.0mg significantly differed from placebo in Adverse Event (AE) withdrawal. Finally, the sensitivity analysis and publication bias analysis results indicate that the study results are reliable.
CONCLUSION
This study's results showed that GLP-1RAs were effective in lowering HbA1c and reducing body weight without increased incidence of hypoglycemic reactions. In addition, this study may provide reference and evidence-based medical evidence for clinicians to select GLP-1RAs in patients with T2D and high body mass index (BMI). Based on the NMA results, tirzepatide 15mg and semaglutide 1.0mg may be preferred.
Topics: Humans; Body Weight; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Exenatide; Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor; Glycated Hemoglobin; Metformin
PubMed: 37701904
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1244432 -
Molecular Metabolism Nov 2023The gut microbiota is increasingly recognized as a crucial factor in human health and disease. Metformin, a commonly prescribed medication for type 2 diabetes, has been... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The gut microbiota is increasingly recognized as a crucial factor in human health and disease. Metformin, a commonly prescribed medication for type 2 diabetes, has been studied for its potential impact on the gut microbiota in preclinical models. However, the effects of metformin on the gut microbiota in humans remain uncertain.
SCOPE OF REVIEW
We conducted a systematic review of clinical trials and observational studies to assess the existing knowledge on the impact of metformin on the gut microbiota in humans. The review focused on changes in bacterial composition and diversity following metformin treatment.
MAJOR CONCLUSIONS
Thirteen studies were included in the analysis. The results revealed alterations in the abundance of bacterial genera from various phyla, suggesting that metformin may selectively influence certain groups of bacteria in the gut microbiota. However, the effects on gut microbiota diversity were inconsistent across populations, with conflicting findings on changes in alpha and beta diversity measures. Overall, the use of metformin was associated with changes in the abundance of specific bacterial genera within the gut microbiota of human populations. However, the effects on gut microbiota diversity were not consistent, highlighting the need for further research to understand the underlying mechanisms and clinical significance of these changes.
Topics: Humans; Metformin; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Bacteria
PubMed: 37696355
DOI: 10.1016/j.molmet.2023.101805