-
Advances in Nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) Nov 2023There is no comprehensive review of the evidence to support omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) as a relatively safe and tolerable intervention. This study aimed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
There is no comprehensive review of the evidence to support omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) as a relatively safe and tolerable intervention. This study aimed to provide a meta-analytic and comprehensive review on the adverse effects of all kinds of ω-3 PUFA supplementation reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in human subjects. A systematic review of RCTs published between 1987 and 2023 was carried out based on searches of 8 electronic databases. All RCTs that compared the adverse effects of ω-3 PUFAs containing eicosapentaenoic acid, docosahexaenoic acid, or both compared with controls (a placebo or a standard treatment) were included. The primary outcome was the adverse effects related to ω-3 PUFA prescription. A total of 90 RCTs showed that the ω-3 PUFA group, when compared with the placebo, had significantly higher odds of occurrence of diarrhea (odds ratio [OR] = 1.257, P = 0.010), dysgeusia (OR = 3.478, P < 0.001), and bleeding tendency (OR = 1.260, P = 0.025) but lower rates of back pain (OR = 0.727, P < 0.001). The subgroup analysis showed that the prescription ω-3 PUFA products (RxOME3FAs) had higher ω-3 PUFA dosages than generic ω-3 PUFAs (OME3FAs) (3056.38 ± 1113.28 mg/d compared with 2315.92 ± 1725.61 mg/d), and studies on RxOME3FAs performed more standard assessments than OME3FAs on adverse effects (63% compared with 36%). There was no report of definite ω-3 PUFA-related serious adverse events. The subjects taking ω-3 PUFAs were at higher odds of experiencing adverse effects; hence, comprehensive assessments of the adverse effects may help to detect minor/subtle adverse effects associated with ω-3 PUFAs. This study was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42023401169.
Topics: Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Fatty Acids, Omega-3; Eicosapentaenoic Acid; Fatty Acids, Unsaturated; Dietary Supplements
PubMed: 37567449
DOI: 10.1016/j.advnut.2023.08.003 -
Cancers Apr 2023Complex anatomy surrounding the oropharynx makes proton therapy (PT), especially intensity-modulated PT (IMPT), a potentially attractive option due to its ability to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Complex anatomy surrounding the oropharynx makes proton therapy (PT), especially intensity-modulated PT (IMPT), a potentially attractive option due to its ability to reduce the volume of irradiated healthy tissues. Dosimetric improvement may not translate to clinically relevant benefits. As outcome data are emerging, we aimed to evaluate the evidence of the quality of life (QOL) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following PT for oropharyngeal carcinoma (OC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched PubMed and Scopus electronic databases (date: 15 February 2023) to identify original studies on QOL and PROs following PT for OC. We employed a fluid strategy in the search strategy by tracking citations of the initially selected studies. Reports were extracted for information on demographics, main results, and clinical and dose factor correlates. Quality assessment was performed using the NIH's Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. The PRISMA guidelines were followed in the preparation of this report.
RESULTS
Seven reports were selected, including one from a recently published paper captured from citation tracking. Five compared PT and photon-based therapy, although none were randomized controlled trials. Most endpoints with significant differences favored PT, including xerostomia, cough, need for nutritional supplements, dysgeusia, food taste, appetite, and general symptoms. However, some endpoints favored photon-based therapy (sexual symptoms) or showed no significant difference (e.g., fatigue, pain, sleep, mouth sores). The PROs and QOL improve following PT but do not appear to return to baseline.
CONCLUSION
Evidence suggests that PT causes less QOL and PRO deterioration than photon-based therapy. Biases due to the non-randomized study design remain obstacles to a firm conclusion. Whether or not PT is cost-effective should be the subject of further investigation.
PubMed: 37190180
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15082252 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022This review aimed to comprehensively analyze the safety and efficacy of erdafitinib in treating advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma and other solid tumors.
OBJECTIVE
This review aimed to comprehensively analyze the safety and efficacy of erdafitinib in treating advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma and other solid tumors.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched until 10 February 2022. The safety outcome as adverse events and efficacy outcomes, including objective response rate, stable disease rates, and progressive disease rates, were selected and analyzed by comprehensive meta-analysis version 3.0 and STATA 15.0.
RESULTS
The most common all-grade adverse events were hyperphosphatemia, dry mouth, stomatitis, diarrhea, and dysgeusia. The occurrence of ≥3 adverse events was relatively low, and stomatitis and hyponatremia were the most common. Moreover, eye disorders could not be ignored. Efficacy in urothelial carcinoma patients was obviously better than in other solid tumor patients, with a higher objective response rate (0.38 versus 0.10) and lower progressive disease rate (0.26 versus 0.68). All responses occurred in patients with fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) alteration. In those patients, a specific FGFR alteration () was observed to have a maximum response.
CONCLUSION
Erdafitinib has satisfactory clinical activity for metastatic urothelial carcinoma and other solid tumors, while the toxicity is acceptable. With more RCTs and combination therapy trials published, erdafitinib will be applied widely.
PubMed: 36776367
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.907377 -
International Journal of Molecular... Jan 2023Taste and smell disorders (TSDs) are common side effects in patients undergoing cancer treatments. Knowing which treatments specifically cause them is crucial to improve... (Review)
Review
Taste and smell disorders (TSDs) are common side effects in patients undergoing cancer treatments. Knowing which treatments specifically cause them is crucial to improve patients' quality of life. This review looked at the oncological treatments that cause taste and smell alterations and their time of onset. We performed an integrative rapid review. The PubMed, PROSPERO, and Web of Science databases were searched in November 2022. The article screening and study selection were conducted independently by two reviewers. Data were analyzed narratively. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. A high heterogeneity was detected. Taste disorders ranged between 17 and 86%, while dysosmia ranged between 8 and 45%. Docetaxel, paclitaxel, nab-paclitaxel, capecitabine, cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, anthracyclines, and oral 5-FU analogues were found to be the drugs most frequently associated with TSDs. This review identifies the cancer treatments that mainly lead to taste and smell changes and provides evidence for wider studies, including those focusing on prevention. Further studies are warranted to make conclusive indication possible.
Topics: Humans; Neoplasms; Olfaction Disorders; Quality of Life; Smell; Taste; Taste Disorders
PubMed: 36768861
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24032538 -
International Journal of... 2022With the global epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), vaccination rates are increasing globally. This study evaluated the relevant clinical manifestations of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
With the global epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), vaccination rates are increasing globally. This study evaluated the relevant clinical manifestations of vaccinated COVID-19 patients.
METHODS
We searched carefully in 11 databases such as PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Ovid, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Wan Fang Data, Sinomed, VIP Database, and Reading Showing Database up to 26 March 2022. To search for articles that have described the characteristics of vaccinated patients including epidemiological and clinical symptoms. Statistical analysis of the extracted data using STATA 14.0.
RESULTS
A total of 58 articles and 263,708 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients were included. Most of the patients in the vaccinated group had more asymptomatic infection and fewer severe illnesses. There were significant differences in ethnicity, and strain infected with COVID-19, and comorbidities (hyperlipidemia, diabetes, obesity, kidney disease, immunocompromised, cardiovascular disease, and tumor) and symptoms (fever, cough, gastrointestinal symptoms, neurological symptoms, and dysgeusia/anosmia) between vaccinated group and unvaccinated group. Oxygen support, use of steroid, days in hospital, hospital treatment, ICU treatment, death, and poor prognosis were also significantly different.
CONCLUSION
Compared with the vaccinated group, patients in the unvaccinated group had a more severe clinical manifestations. Vaccines are also protective for infected people.
Topics: Humans; Cardiovascular Diseases; China; COVID-19; Neoplasms; Research Design
PubMed: 36412572
DOI: 10.1177/03946320221141802 -
Revista Espanola de Enfermedades... Jun 2023vonoprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocking agent, has better clinical outcomes in the treatment of acid-related diseases. However, some adverse events have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
vonoprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocking agent, has better clinical outcomes in the treatment of acid-related diseases. However, some adverse events have been associated with vonoprazan for the treatment of acid-associated diseases. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore the safety and tolerability of vonoprazan for acid-associated diseases.
METHODS
electronic databases were retrieved to determine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of vonoprazan for acid-associated diseases with any adverse effects and discontinuation.
RESULTS
this systematic review and meta-analysis conforming to the selection criteria included 18 RCTs with a total of 7,932 participants. Compared with proton pump inhibitors, oral vonoprazan treatment showed no significant increase in the incidence of adverse effects (95 % CI = 0.987-1.095, p = 0.141). Diarrhea or loose stools analysis showed that there was a statistically significant difference between vonoprazan and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) treatment (95 % CI = 0.661-0.966, p = 0.021). However, there was no significant difference in constipation, rash or eruption, nausea or vomiting, bloating or abdominal pain, dysgeusia, nasopharyngitis, neurological disorders, upper respiratory tract infection and abnormal investigations between vonoprazan and PPIs treatment.
CONCLUSION
vonoprazan, which has better tolerability and safety, may significantly decrease diarrhea and loose stools in acid-related patients compared with PPIs. Our meta-analysis led to safer strategies for treating acid-related diseases. More high-quality studies with larger sample sizes are needed to further elucidate its efficacy and safety.
Topics: Humans; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Constipation; Sulfonamides; Pyrroles; Diarrhea
PubMed: 36353962
DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9228/2022 -
Cureus Sep 2022Few studies have thoroughly evaluated the neuro-invasive effect of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, which may contribute to a... (Review)
Review
Few studies have thoroughly evaluated the neuro-invasive effect of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, which may contribute to a wide range of sequelae from mild long-term effects like headaches and fatigue to severe events like stroke and arrhythmias. Our study aimed to evaluate the long-term neurological effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among patients discharged from the hospital. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the long-term neurocognitive effects of COVID-19. Post-COVID-19 neurological sequelae were defined as persistent symptoms of headache, fatigue, myalgia, anosmia, dysgeusia, sleep disturbance, issues with concentration, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), suicidality, and depression long after the acute phase of COVID-19. Data from observational studies describing post-COVID-19 neurocognitive sequelae and severity of COVID-19 from September 1, 2019, to the present were extracted following the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol with a consensus of three independent reviewers. A systematic review was performed for qualitative evaluation and a meta-analysis was performed for quantitative analysis by calculating log odds of COVID-19 neurocognitive sequelae. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were obtained and forest plots were created using random effects models. We found seven studies, out of which three were used for quantitative synthesis of evidence. Of the 3,304 post-COVID-19 patients identified, 50.27% were male with a mean age of 56 years; 20.20% had post-COVID-19 symptoms more than two weeks after the acute phase of infection. Among persistence symptoms, neurocognitive symptoms like headache (27.8%), fatigue (26.7%), myalgia (23.14%), anosmia (22.8%), dysgeusia (12.1%), sleep disturbance (63.1%), confusion (32.6%), difficulty to concentrate (22%), and psychiatric symptoms like PTSD (31%), feeling depressed (20%), and suicidality (2%) had a higher prevalence. In meta-analysis, COVID-19 patients with severe symptoms had higher odds of headache (pooled OR: 4.53; 95% CI: 2.37-8.65; p<0.00001; I: 0%) and myalgia (pooled OR: 3.36; 95% CI: 2.71-4.17; p<0.00001; I: 0%). Anosmia, fatigue, and dysgeusia had higher but non-significant odds following COVID-19. Although we had sufficient data for headache and fatigue to identify higher rates and associations following COVID-19, we could not establish relationships with other post-COVID-19 neurocognitive séqueles. Long-term follow-up may mitigate the neurocognitive effects among COVID-19 patients as these symptoms are also associated with a poor quality of life.
PubMed: 36321004
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.29694 -
International Journal of Environmental... Oct 2022Individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) experience physiological changes that likely impair salt taste function and perception. Sodium restriction is a cornerstone... (Review)
Review
Individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) experience physiological changes that likely impair salt taste function and perception. Sodium restriction is a cornerstone of CKD management but dietary sodium plays an important role in food enjoyment and may interfere with compliance to this intervention. Therefore, confirming that taste deficits are present in CKD will improve our understanding of how taste deficits can affect intake, and inform dietary counselling in the future. A systematic review was conducted. Studies that included adults with CKD and healthy controls, and assessed salt taste sensitivity, perceived intensity, and/or hedonic ratings were included. Study quality was assessed using the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Evidence Analysis Library Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research. Of the 16 studies, the majority reported decreased salt taste sensitivity, but no consistent differences in intensity or hedonic ratings were observed. Higher recognition thresholds in CKD patients were associated with higher sodium intake, but results should be interpreted with caution as the measures used were subject to error in this population. In conclusion, salt taste sensitivity is decreased in CKD, but intensity and hedonic evaluations appear to be more robust. Given that hedonic assessments are better predictors of intake, and that salt taste preferences can be changed over time, dietary counselling for low-sodium intake is likely to be effective for this population.
Topics: Adult; Dysgeusia; Food Preferences; Humans; Perception; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Sodium; Sodium, Dietary; Taste
PubMed: 36231932
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191912632 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. Due to its novelty, there are currently few published study results. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) plus standard of care compared to standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 and for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 11 July 2022. This is a LSR. We conduct monthly update searches that are being made publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from LICs and LMICs, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds.
MAIN RESULTS
As of 11 July 2022, we included one RCT with 2246 participants in outpatient settings with mild symptomatic COVID-19 comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care plus placebo. Trial participants were unvaccinated, without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, had a symptom onset of no more than five days before randomization, and were at high risk for progression to severe disease. Prohibited prior or concomitant therapies included medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 for clearance and CYP3A4 inducers. We identified eight ongoing studies. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease For the specific population of unvaccinated, high-risk patients nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; estimated absolute effect: 11 deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to 0 deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low-certainty evidence, and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; estimated absolute effect: 61 admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to eight admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No study results were identified for improvement of clinical status, quality of life, and viral clearance. Subgroup analyses for equity Most study participants were younger than 65 years (87.1% of the : modified intention to treat (mITT1) population with 2085 participants), of white ethnicity (71.5%), and were from UMICs or HICs (92.1% of study centres). Data on comorbidities were insufficient. The outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity: age (< 65 years versus ≥ 65 years) and ethnicity (Asian versus Black versus White versus others). There was no difference between subgroups of age. The effects favoured treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the White ethnic group. Estimated effects in the other ethnic groups included the line of no effect (RR = 1). No subgroups were reported for comorbidity status and World Bank country classification by income level. No subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate to severe disease No studies available. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is low-certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death based on one trial investigating unvaccinated COVID-19 participants without previous infection that were at high risk and with symptom onset of no more than five days. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is safe in people without prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4. Regarding equity aspects, except for ethnicity, no differences in effect size and direction were identified. No evidence is available on nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to treat hospitalized people with COVID-19 and to prevent a SARS-CoV-2 infection. We will continually update our search and make search results available on OSF.
Topics: Aged; Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A; Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A Inducers; Humans; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 36126225
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015395.pub2 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022This article is based on recommendations from the 12 WALT Congress, Nice, October 3-6, 2018, and a follow-up review of the existing data and the clinical observations of...
DISCLAIMER
This article is based on recommendations from the 12 WALT Congress, Nice, October 3-6, 2018, and a follow-up review of the existing data and the clinical observations of an international multidisciplinary panel of clinicians and researchers with expertise in the area of supportive care in cancer and/or PBM clinical application and dosimetry. This article is informational in nature. As with all clinical materials, this paper should be used with a clear understanding that continued research and practice could result in new insights and recommendations. The review reflects the collective opinion and, as such, does not necessarily represent the opinion of any individual author. In no event shall the authors be liable for any decision made or action taken in reliance on the proposed protocols.
OBJECTIVE
This position paper reviews the potential prophylactic and therapeutic effects of photobiomodulation (PBM) on side effects of cancer therapy, including chemotherapy (CT), radiation therapy (RT), and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).
BACKGROUND
There is a considerable body of evidence supporting the efficacy of PBM for preventing oral mucositis (OM) in patients undergoing RT for head and neck cancer (HNC), CT, or HSCT. This could enhance patients' quality of life, adherence to the prescribed cancer therapy, and treatment outcomes while reducing the cost of cancer care.
METHODS
A literature review on PBM effectiveness and dosimetry considerations for managing certain complications of cancer therapy were conducted. A systematic review was conducted when numerous randomized controlled trials were available. Results were presented and discussed at an international consensus meeting at the World Association of photobiomoduLation Therapy (WALT) meeting in 2018 that included world expert oncologists, radiation oncologists, oral oncologists, and oral medicine professionals, physicists, engineers, and oncology researchers. The potential mechanism of action of PBM and evidence of PBM efficacy through reported outcomes for individual indications were assessed.
RESULTS
There is a large body of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of PBM for preventing OM in certain cancer patient populations, as recently outlined by the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). Building on these, the WALT group outlines evidence and prescribed PBM treatment parameters for prophylactic and therapeutic use in supportive care for radiodermatitis, dysphagia, xerostomia, dysgeusia, trismus, mucosal and bone necrosis, lymphedema, hand-foot syndrome, alopecia, oral and dermatologic chronic graft-versus-host disease, voice/speech alterations, peripheral neuropathy, and late fibrosis amongst cancer survivors.
CONCLUSIONS
There is robust evidence for using PBM to prevent and treat a broad range of complications in cancer care. Specific clinical practice guidelines or evidence-based expert consensus recommendations are provided. These recommendations are aimed at improving the clinical utilization of PBM therapy in supportive cancer care and promoting research in this field. It is anticipated these guidelines will be revised periodically.
PubMed: 36110957
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.927685