-
Nutrients Dec 2022Most intervention studies investigating the effects of ergogenic aids (EAs) on sports performance have been carried out in the male population. Thus, the aim of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Most intervention studies investigating the effects of ergogenic aids (EAs) on sports performance have been carried out in the male population. Thus, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the effects in the existing literature of EAs used by female athletes on performance. A literature research was conducted, and a descriptive analysis of the articles included in the systematic review was carried out. Meta-analyses could be performed on 32 of the included articles, evaluating performance in strength, sprint, and cardiovascular capacity. A random-effects model and the standardized mean differences (SMD) ± 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. The results showed that caffeine helped to improve jumping performance, isometric strength values, and the number of repetitions until failure. Caffeine and sodium phosphate helped to improve sprint performance. Aerobic tests could be improved with the use of taurine, caffeine, and beta-alanine. No conclusive effects of beetroot juice, polyphenols, or creatine in improving aerobic performance were shown. In terms of anaerobic variables, both caffeine and sodium phosphate could help to improve repeated sprint ability. More studies are needed in female athletes that measure the effects of different EAs on sports performance, such as beetroot juice, beta-alanine or sodium phosphate, as the studies to date are scarce and there are many types of EA that need to be further considered in this population, such as creatine and taurine.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Caffeine; Creatine; Athletic Performance; Athletes; Antioxidants; Performance-Enhancing Substances; beta-Alanine; Physical Functional Performance; Dietary Supplements
PubMed: 36615738
DOI: 10.3390/nu15010081 -
Scientific Reports Jan 2023Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common complication of surgery, increasing healthcare costs and hospital stay. Chlorhexidine (CHX) and povidone-iodine (PVI)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common complication of surgery, increasing healthcare costs and hospital stay. Chlorhexidine (CHX) and povidone-iodine (PVI) are used for skin antisepsis, minimising SSIs. There is concern that resistance to topical biocides may be emergeing, although the potential clinical implications remain unclear. The objective of this systematic review was to determine whether the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of topical preparations of CHX or PVI have changed over time, in microbes relevant to SSI. We included studies reporting the MBC of laboratory and clinical isolates of common microbes to CHX and PVI. We excluded studies using non-human samples and antimicrobial solvents or mixtures with other active substances. MBC was pooled in random effects meta-analyses and the change in MBC over time was explored using meta-regression. Seventy-nine studies were included, analysing 6218 microbes over 45 years. Most studies investigated CHX (93%), with insufficient data for meta-analysis of PVI. There was no change in the MBC of CHX to Staphylococci or Streptococci over time. Overall, we find no evidence of reduced susceptibility of common SSI-causing microbes to CHX over time. This provides reassurance and confidence in the worldwide guidance that CHX should remain the first-choice agent for surgical skin antisepsis.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Povidone-Iodine; Chlorhexidine; Preoperative Care; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 36611032
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-26658-1 -
Experimental and Clinical... Apr 2023Given the personal and public health burden of addictive disorders, innovative approaches to treatment are sorely needed. This systematic review examined the use of the...
Given the personal and public health burden of addictive disorders, innovative approaches to treatment are sorely needed. This systematic review examined the use of the pharmacological agent isradipine in the context of potential applications for addiction treatment. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guided a comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO between the years 1985 to July 2022. Studies were included if isradipine was administered to adults with a current diagnosis of a substance use disorder and/or to healthy volunteers alone and in conjunction with a substance (i.e, cocaine, methamphetamine, alcohol). A total of 16 studies with 252 participants were included in this review. Substantial variability was identified with study designs, isradipine dosages/dosing, and addictive substance of interest. Outcomes clustered in four categories: (a) cerebral blood flow (CBF), (b) hemodynamic effects, (c) subjective effects, and (d) cognitive effects. Isradipine was found to improve CBF in individuals with cocaine-induced hypoperfusion and in several studies was found to reduce parameters of blood pressure elevation after stimulant use. There were no significant findings on isradipine's effect on subjective reporting (i.e., craving, mood, drug affect) or cognition/attention. Given the limited number of studies identified in this review, there is insufficient data to draw clear conclusions. The direct effects of isradipine as a pharmacologic agent for addictive disorder treatment appear minimal, however, future work may benefit from examining the impact of isradipine as an augmentative agent within existing cue exposure paradigms for preventing cue-induced drug relapse. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
Topics: Adult; Humans; Isradipine; Calcium Channel Blockers; Cocaine; Methamphetamine; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 36595455
DOI: 10.1037/pha0000633 -
Addiction (Abingdon, England) May 2023Substance use disorders (SUD) are associated with cognitive deficits that are not always addressed in current treatments, and this hampers recovery. Cognitive training...
AIMS
Substance use disorders (SUD) are associated with cognitive deficits that are not always addressed in current treatments, and this hampers recovery. Cognitive training and remediation interventions are well suited to fill the gap for managing cognitive deficits in SUD. We aimed to reach consensus on recommendations for developing and applying these interventions.
DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS
We used a Delphi approach with two sequential phases: survey development and iterative surveying of experts. This was an on-line study. During survey development, we engaged a group of 15 experts from a working group of the International Society of Addiction Medicine (Steering Committee). During the surveying process, we engaged a larger pool of experts (n = 54) identified via recommendations from the Steering Committee and a systematic review.
MEASUREMENTS
Survey with 67 items covering four key areas of intervention development: targets, intervention approaches, active ingredients and modes of delivery.
FINDINGS
Across two iterative rounds (98% retention rate), the experts reached a consensus on 50 items including: (i) implicit biases, positive affect, arousal, executive functions and social processing as key targets of interventions; (ii) cognitive bias modification, contingency management, emotion regulation training and cognitive remediation as preferred approaches; (iii) practice, feedback, difficulty-titration, bias modification, goal-setting, strategy learning and meta-awareness as active ingredients; and (iv) both addiction treatment work-force and specialized neuropsychologists facilitating delivery, together with novel digital-based delivery modalities.
CONCLUSIONS
Expert recommendations on cognitive training and remediation for substance use disorders highlight the relevance of targeting implicit biases, reward, emotion regulation and higher-order cognitive skills via well-validated intervention approaches qualified with mechanistic techniques and flexible delivery options.
Topics: Humans; Delphi Technique; Cognitive Training; Substance-Related Disorders; Behavior, Addictive; Consensus
PubMed: 36508168
DOI: 10.1111/add.16109 -
Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) Dec 2022In recent years, research has demonstrated the efficacy propolis as a potential raw material for pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals. There is limited report detailing... (Review)
Review
In recent years, research has demonstrated the efficacy propolis as a potential raw material for pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals. There is limited report detailing the mechanisms of action of propolis and its bioactive compounds in relation to their anti-inflammatory properties. Thus, the aim of the present review is to examine the latest experimental evidence (2017-2022) regarding the anti-inflammatory properties of propolis. A systematic scoping review methodology was implemented. After applying the exclusion criteria, a total of 166 research publications were identified and retrieved from Scopus, Web of Science, and Pubmed. Several key themes related to the anti-inflammatory properties of propolis were subsequently identified, namely in relation to cancers, oral health, metabolic syndrome, organ toxicity and inflammation, immune system, wound healing, and pathogenic infections. Based on the latest experimental evidence, propolis is demonstrated to possess various mechanisms of action in modulating inflammation towards the regulatory balance and anti-inflammatory environment. In general, we summarize that propolis acts as an anti-inflammatory substance by inhibiting and downregulating TLR4, MyD88, IRAK4, TRIF, NLRP inflammasomes, NF-κB, and their associated pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1β, IL-6, IFN-γ, and TNF-α. Propolis also reduces the migration of immune cells such as macrophages and neutrophils, possibly by downregulating the chemokines CXCL9 and CXCL10.
Topics: Humans; Propolis; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Cytokines; Inflammation; Macrophages
PubMed: 36500579
DOI: 10.3390/molecules27238473 -
The American Journal of Psychiatry Feb 2023Treatment efficacy for co-occurring posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance use disorders is well established, yet direct evidence for comparative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Project Harmony: A Meta-Analysis With Individual Patient Data on Behavioral and Pharmacologic Trials for Comorbid Posttraumatic Stress and Alcohol or Other Drug Use Disorders.
OBJECTIVE
Treatment efficacy for co-occurring posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance use disorders is well established, yet direct evidence for comparative effectiveness across treatments is lacking. The present study compared the effectiveness of several behavioral and pharmacological therapies for adults with co-occurring PTSD and alcohol or other drug use disorders.
METHODS
A systematic search of PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted through December 2020 for trials targeting PTSD, alcohol or other drug use disorders, or both disorders (36 studies, N=4,046). Primary outcomes were severity scores for PTSD, alcohol use, and drug use, estimated via moderated nonlinear factor analysis. Propensity score weight-adjusted multilevel models were used. Model-predicted effect sizes were estimated for each treatment, and comparative effect sizes for each active arm against treatment as usual, at end of treatment and at 12-month follow-up.
RESULTS
Compared with treatment as usual, combining trauma-focused therapy and pharmacotherapy for substance use disorders showed the largest comparative effect sizes for PTSD severity (d=-0.92, 95% CI=-1.57, -0.30) and alcohol use severity (d=-1.10, 95% CI=-1.54, -0.68) at end of treatment. Other treatments with large comparative effect sizes included pharmacotherapies for alcohol or other drug use disorders, trauma-focused integrated therapies, and trauma-focused nonintegrated therapies. Reductions in outcomes for PTSD symptoms and alcohol use were observed for nearly all treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings provide support for treating comorbid PTSD and substance use disorders using a variety of approaches, with alcohol-targeted pharmacotherapies and trauma-focused behavioral therapies as a combination of treatments that lead to early and sustained improvements in PTSD and alcohol use severity. Further treatment development is indicated for combining behavioral and pharmacological treatments for synergized impact and understanding the mechanisms of action and conditions under which each treatment type is optimized.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Comorbidity; Psychotherapy; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Substance-Related Disorders; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36475373
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.22010071 -
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Dec 2022While six U.S. states have already officially authorized cannabinoids to substitute opioids and treat opioid use disorder, the therapeutic benefits of cannabinoids... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
While six U.S. states have already officially authorized cannabinoids to substitute opioids and treat opioid use disorder, the therapeutic benefits of cannabinoids remain unclear, especially when weighted against their adverse effects.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of studies examining the association between opioid withdrawal and cannabis use or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) administration. We searched multiple databases from inception to July 30, 2022, and assessed study quality.
RESULTS
Eleven studies were identified, with a total of 5330 participants, of whom 64 % were male. Nine observational studies examined the association between cannabis use and opioid withdrawal. Two randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) investigated the withdrawal-alleviating effects of dronabinol, a synthetic form of THC. Four observational studies found an association between cannabis use and the alleviation of opioid withdrawal; one reported exacerbation of opioid withdrawal symptoms; and four reported no association. RCTs reported that THC alleviated opioid withdrawal, albeit with dose-dependent increases in measures of abuse liability, dysphoria, and tachycardia. There was high heterogeneity in measurements of opioid withdrawal and the type and dose of opioid at baseline.
CONCLUSIONS
Although there is preliminary evidence that cannabis and its main psychoactive constituent, THC, may alleviate opioid withdrawal, these effects are likely to have a narrow therapeutic window. Further, the potential of cannabinoids to alleviate opioid withdrawal is determined by complex interactions between patient characteristics and pharmacological factors. Collectively, these findings have clinical, methodological, and mechanistic implications for treating opioid withdrawal during cannabinoid use, and for efforts to alleviate opioid withdrawal using non-opioid therapeutics.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Cannabis; Dronabinol; Cannabinoids; Cannabinoid Receptor Agonists; Hallucinogens; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Narcotics; Analgesics, Opioid
PubMed: 36434879
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109702 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2022Pharmacological neuroenhancement (PN) describes the use of divergent psychoactive substances to enhance mental performance (cognition) without medical need. This kind of...
Pharmacological neuroenhancement (PN) describes the use of divergent psychoactive substances to enhance mental performance (cognition) without medical need. This kind of substance abuse takes place predominantly in stressful situations. Users implicitly-or even explicitly-describe this kind of drug abuse to be a coping strategy. Regarding the decision making process whether to use PN drugs or not, users indicate that legal aspects to be decisive. However, the legal situation has been neglected so far. To elucidate the German legal situation, PN substances have to be divided into over-the-counter drugs, prescription drugs and illegal drugs. Amphetamines have the highest cognition-enhancing potential, followed by modafinil and caffeine-containing substances. It is pointed out that the use of both freely available and prescription PN substances and narcotics without medical indication have so far been largely exempt from punishment under German law. However, individuals (physicians, bus and truck drivers, etc.) taking PN substances may expose others at risk due to wrong decisions (driving or treatment), errors based on side effects of the used substances. Therefore, the protection of life and health of others could legitimize criminal regulation.
Topics: Humans; Criminals; Substance-Related Disorders; Illicit Drugs; Amphetamines; Adaptation, Psychological
PubMed: 36388290
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1028654 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Among people with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) who are engaged in clinical care, prescription rates of psychotropic medications are high, despite... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Among people with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) who are engaged in clinical care, prescription rates of psychotropic medications are high, despite the fact that medication use is off-label as a treatment for BPD. Nevertheless, people with BPD often receive several psychotropic drugs at a time for sustained periods.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of pharmacological treatment for people with BPD.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases and four trials registers up to February 2022. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for additional data from published and unpublished trials, and handsearched relevant journals. We did not restrict the search by year of publication, language or type of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological treatment to placebo, other pharmacologic treatments or a combination of pharmacologic treatments in people of all ages with a formal diagnosis of BPD. The primary outcomes were BPD symptom severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes, and psychosocial functioning. Secondary outcomes were individual BPD symptoms, depression, attrition and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We performed data analysis using Review Manager 5 and quantified the statistical reliability of the data using Trial Sequential Analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 46 randomised controlled trials (2769 participants) in this review, 45 of which were eligible for quantitative analysis and comprised 2752 participants with BPD in total. This is 18 more trials than the 2010 review on this topic. Participants were predominantly female except for one trial that included men only. The mean age ranged from 16.2 to 39.7 years across the included trials. Twenty-nine different types of medications compared to placebo or other medications were included in the analyses. Seventeen trials were funded or partially funded by the pharmaceutical industry, 10 were funded by universities or research foundations, eight received no funding, and 11 had unclear funding. For all reported effect sizes, negative effect estimates indicate beneficial effects by active medication. Compared with placebo, no difference in effects were observed on any of the primary outcomes at the end of treatment for any medication. Compared with placebo, medication may have little to no effect on BPD symptom severity, although the evidence is of very low certainty (antipsychotics: SMD -0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to 0.08; 8 trials, 951 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.65 to 1.18; 2 trials, 87 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.57; 4 trials, 265 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on self-harm, indicating little to no effect (antipsychotics: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.84; 2 trials, 76 participants; antidepressants: MD 0.45 points on the Overt Aggression Scale-Modified-Self-Injury item (0-5 points), 95% CI -10.55 to 11.45; 1 trial, 20 participants; mood stabilisers: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.48; 1 trial, 276 participants). The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of medication compared with placebo on suicide-related outcomes, with little to no effect (antipsychotics: SMD 0.05, 95 % CI -0.18 to 0.29; 7 trials, 854 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.26, 95% CI -1.62 to 1.09; 2 trials, 45 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.36, 95% CI -1.96 to 1.25; 2 trials, 44 participants). Very low-certainty evidence shows little to no difference between medication and placebo on psychosocial functioning (antipsychotics: SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.00; 7 trials, 904 participants; antidepressants: SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.06; 4 trials, 161 participants; mood stabilisers: SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.26; 2 trials, 214 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests that antipsychotics may slightly reduce interpersonal problems (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.08; 8 trials, 907 participants), and that mood stabilisers may result in a reduction in this outcome (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.02; 4 trials, 300 participants). Antidepressants may have little to no effect on interpersonal problems, but the corresponding evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.55; 2 trials, 119 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about dropout rates compared with placebo by antipsychotics (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.38; 13 trials, 1216 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference in dropout rates between antidepressants (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.76; 6 trials, 289 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.15; 9 trials, 530 participants), compared to placebo. Reporting on adverse events was poor and mostly non-standardised. The available evidence on non-serious adverse events was of very low certainty for antipsychotics (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.29; 5 trials, 814 participants) and mood stabilisers (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; 1 trial, 276 participants). For antidepressants, no data on adverse events were identified.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review included 18 more trials than the 2010 version, so larger meta-analyses with more statistical power were feasible. We found mostly very low-certainty evidence that medication may result in no difference in any primary outcome. The rest of the secondary outcomes were inconclusive. Very limited data were available for serious adverse events. The review supports the continued understanding that no pharmacological therapy seems effective in specifically treating BPD pathology. More research is needed to understand the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of BPD better. Also, more trials including comorbidities such as trauma-related disorders, major depression, substance use disorders, or eating disorders are needed. Additionally, more focus should be put on male and adolescent samples.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Male; Female; Young Adult; Adult; Borderline Personality Disorder; Reproducibility of Results; Antidepressive Agents; Depressive Disorder, Major; Antipsychotic Agents
PubMed: 36375174
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012956.pub2 -
Nutrients Oct 2022Several studies have explored the effects of capsaicin and capsiate on endurance performance, with conflicting findings. This systematic review aimed to perform a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Several studies have explored the effects of capsaicin and capsiate on endurance performance, with conflicting findings. This systematic review aimed to perform a meta-analysis examining the effects of capsaicin and capsiate vs. placebo on endurance performance in humans. Seven databases were searched to find eligible studies. The effects of capsaicin and capsiate on aerobic endurance (e.g., time-trials or time-to-exhaustion tests), muscular endurance (e.g., repetitions performed to muscular failure), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were examined in a random-effects meta-analysis. Fourteen studies ( = 183) were included in the review. Most studies provided capsaicin or capsiate in the dose of 12 mg, 45 min before exercise. In the meta-analysis for aerobic endurance, there was no significant difference between the placebo and capsaicin/capsiate conditions (Cohen's : 0.04; 95% confidence interval: -0.16, 0.25; = 0.69). In subgroup meta-analyses, there were no significant differences between the placebo and capsaicin/capsiate conditions when analyzing only studies that used time-trials ( = 0.20) or time-to-exhaustion tests ( = 0.80). In the meta-analysis for muscular endurance, a significant ergogenic effect of capsaicin/capsiate was found (Cohen's : 0.27; 95% confidence interval: 0.10, 0.43; = 0.002). When analyzing set-specific effects, an ergogenic effect of capsaicin/capsiate was found in set 1, set 2, and set 3 (Cohen's : 0.21-29). Capsaicin/capsiate ingestion reduced RPE following muscular endurance ( = 0.03) but not aerobic endurance tests ( = 0.58). In summary, capsaicin/capsiate supplementation acutely enhances muscular endurance, while the effects on aerobic endurance are less clear.
Topics: Humans; Capsaicin; Performance-Enhancing Substances; Exercise; Physical Endurance
PubMed: 36364793
DOI: 10.3390/nu14214531