-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2014Medicinal plant products are used orally for treating osteoarthritis. Although their mechanisms of action have not yet been elucidated in full detail, interactions with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Medicinal plant products are used orally for treating osteoarthritis. Although their mechanisms of action have not yet been elucidated in full detail, interactions with common inflammatory mediators provide a rationale for using them to treat osteoarthritic complaints.
OBJECTIVES
To update a previous Cochrane review to assess the benefits and harms of oral medicinal plant products in treating osteoarthritis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science, World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry Platform) to 29 August 2013, unrestricted by language, and the reference lists from retrieved trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of orally consumed herbal interventions compared with placebo or active controls in people with osteoarthritis were included. Herbal interventions included any plant preparation but excluded homeopathy or aromatherapy products, or any preparation of synthetic origin.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors used standard methods for trial selection and data extraction, and assessed the quality of the body of evidence using the GRADE approach for major outcomes (pain, function, radiographic joint changes, quality of life, withdrawals due to adverse events, total adverse events, and serious adverse events).
MAIN RESULTS
Forty-nine randomised controlled studies (33 interventions, 5980 participants) were included. Seventeen studies of confirmatory design (sample and effect sizes pre-specified) were mostly at moderate risk of bias. The remaining 32 studies of exploratory design were at higher risk of bias. Due to differing interventions, meta-analyses were restricted to Boswellia serrata (monoherbal) and avocado-soyabean unsaponifiables (ASU) (two herb combination) products.Five studies of three different extracts from Boswellia serrata were included. High-quality evidence from two studies (85 participants) indicated that 90 days treatment with 100 mg of enriched Boswellia serrata extract improved symptoms compared to placebo. Mean pain was 40 points on a 0 to 100 point VAS scale (0 is no pain) with placebo, enriched Boswellia serrata reduced pain by a mean of 17 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 8 to 26); number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 2; the 95% CIs did not exclude a clinically significant reduction of 15 points in pain. Physical function was 33 points on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) 0 to 100 point subscale (0 is no loss of function) with placebo, enriched Boswellia serrata improved function by 8 points (95% CI 2 to 14); NNTB 4. Assuming a minimal clinically important difference of 10 points, we cannot exclude a clinically important benefit in some people. Moderate-quality evidence (one study, 96 participants) indicated that adverse events were probably reduced with enriched Boswellia serrata (18/48 events versus 30/48 events with placebo; relative risk (RR) 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.92). Possible benefits of other Boswellia serrata extracts over placebo were confirmed in moderate-quality evidence from two studies (97 participants) of Boswellia serrata (enriched) 100 mg plus non-volatile oil, and low-quality evidence from small single studies of a 999 mg daily dose of Boswellia serrata extract and 250 mg daily dose of enrichedBoswellia serrata. It was uncertain if a 99 mg daily dose of Boswellia serrata offered benefits over valdecoxib due to the very low-quality evidence from a small single study. It was uncertain if there was an increased risk of adverse events or withdrawals with Boswellia serrata extract due to variable reporting of results across studies. The studies reported no serious adverse events. Quality of life and radiographic joint changes were not measured.Six studies examined the ASU product Piasclidine®. Moderate-quality evidence from four studies (651 participants) indicated that ASU 300 mg produced a small and clinically questionable improvement in symptoms, and probably no increased adverse events compared to placebo after three to 12 months treatment. Mean pain with placebo was 40.5 points on a VAS 0 to 100 scale (0 is no pain), ASU 300 mg reduced pain by a mean of 8.5 points (95% CI 1 to 16 points); NNTB 8. ASU 300 mg improved function (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.42, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.11). Function was estimated as 47 mm (0 to 100 mm scale, where 0 is no loss of function) with placebo, ASU 300 mg improved function by a mean of 7 mm (95% CI 2 to 12 mm); NNTB 5 (3 to 19). There were no differences in adverse events (5 studies, 1050 participants) between ASU (53%) and placebo (51%) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.12); withdrawals due to adverse events (1 study, 398 participants) between ASU (17%) and placebo (15%) (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.80); or serious adverse events (1 study, 398 participants) between ASU (40%) and placebo (33%) (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.59). Radiographic joint changes, measured as change in joint space width (JSW) in two studies (453 participants) did not differ between ASU 300 mg treatment (-0.53 mm) and placebo (-0.65 mm); mean difference of -0.12 (95% CI -0.43 to 0.19). Moderate-quality evidence from a single study (156 participants) confirmed possible benefits of ASU 600 mg over placebo, with no increased adverse events. Low-quality evidence (1 study, 357 participants) indicated there may be no differences in symptoms or adverse events between ASU 300 mg and chondroitin sulphate. Quality of life was not measured.All other herbal interventions were investigated in single studies, limiting conclusions. No serious side effects related to any plant product were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence for the proprietary ASU product Piasclidine® in the treatment of osteoarthritis symptoms seems moderate to high for short term use, but studies over a longer term and against an apparently active control are less convincing. Several other medicinal plant products, including extracts of Boswellia serrata, show trends of benefits that warrant further investigation in light of the fact that the risk of adverse events appear low.There is no evidence that Piasclidine® significantly improves joint structure, and limited evidence that it prevents joint space narrowing. Structural changes were not tested for with any other herbal intervention.Further investigations are required to determine optimum daily doses producing clinical benefits without adverse events.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Boswellia; Chronic Disease; Drug Combinations; Humans; Osteoarthritis; Phytosterols; Phytotherapy; Plant Extracts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vitamin E
PubMed: 24848732
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002947.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2013Patients undergoing vascular surgery are a high-risk population with widespread atherosclerosis, an adverse cardiovascular risk profile and often multiple... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Patients undergoing vascular surgery are a high-risk population with widespread atherosclerosis, an adverse cardiovascular risk profile and often multiple co-morbidities. Postoperative cardiovascular complications, including myocardial infarct (MI), are common. Statins are the medical treatment of choice to reduce high cholesterol levels. Evidence is accumulating that patients taking statins at the time of surgery are protected against a range of perioperative complications, but the specific benefits for patients undergoing noncardiac vascular surgery are not clear.
OBJECTIVES
We examined whether short-term statin therapy, commenced before or on the day of noncardiac vascular surgery and continuing for at least 48 hours afterwards, improves patient outcomes including the risk of complications, pain, quality of life and length of hospital stay. We also examined whether the effect of statin therapy on these outcomes changes depending on the dose of statin received.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), MEDLINE via Ovid SP (1966 to August 2012), EMBASE via Ovid SP (1966 to August 2012), CINAHL via EBSCO host (1966 to August 2012) and ISI Web of Science (1946 to July 2012) without any language restriction. We used a combination of free text search and controlled vocabulary search. The results were limited to randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). We conducted forwards and backwards citation of key articles and searched two clinical trial Websites for ongoing trials (www.clinicaltrials.gov and http://www.controlled-trials.com).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that had compared short-term statin therapy, either commenced de novo or with existing users randomly assigned to different dosages, in adult participants undergoing elective and emergency noncardiac arterial surgery, including both open and endovascular procedures. We defined short-term as commencing before or on the day of surgery and continuing for at least 48 hours afterwards.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, including information on adverse events. We contacted study authors for additional information. We performed separate analyses for the comparisons of statin with placebo/no treatment and between different doses of statin. We presented results as pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) based on random-effects models (inverse variance method). We employed the Chi(2) test and calculated the I(2) statistic to investigate study heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified six eligible studies in total. The six Included studies were generally of high quality, but the largest eligible study was excluded because of concerns about its validity. Study populations were statin naive, which led to a considerable loss of eligible participants.Five RCTs compared statin use with placebo or standard care. We pooled results from three studies, with a total of 178 participants, for mortality and non-fatal event outcomes. In the statin group, 7/105 (6.7%) participants died within 30 days of surgery, as did 10/73 (13.7%) participants in the control group. Only one death in each group was from cardiovascular causes, with an incidence of 0.95% in statin participants and 1.4% in control participants, respectively. All deaths occurred in a single study population, and so effect estimates were derived from one study only. The risk ratio (RR) of all-cause mortality in statin users showed a non-significant decrease in risk (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.75). For cardiovascular death, the risk ratio was 1.05 (95% CI 0.07 to 16.20). Non-fatal MI within 30 days of surgery was reported in three studies and occurred in 4/105 (3.8%) participants in the statin group and 8/73 (11.0%) participants receiving placebo, for a non-significant decrease in risk (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.52). Several studies reported muscle enzyme levels as safety measures, but only three (with a total of 188 participants) reported explicitly on clinical muscle syndromes, with seven events reported and no significant difference found between statin users and controls (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.24 to 3.63). The only participant-reported outcome was nausea in one small study,with no significant difference in risk between groups.Two studies compared different doses of atorvastatin, with a total of 145 participants, but reported data were not sufficient to allow us to determine the effect of higher doses on any outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence was insufficient to allow review authors to conclude that statin use resulted in either a reduction or an increase in any of the outcomes examined. The existing body of evidence leaves questions about the benefits of perioperative use of statins for vascular surgery unanswered. Widespread use of statins in the target population means that it may now be difficult for researchers to undertake the large RCTs needed to demonstrate any effect on the incidence of postoperative cardiovascular events. However, participant-reported outcomes have been neglected and warrant further study.
Topics: Adult; Angioplasty; Atherosclerosis; Atorvastatin; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cause of Death; Cholestyramine Resin; Heptanoic Acids; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Lovastatin; Perioperative Care; Postoperative Complications; Pyrroles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sitosterols; Vascular Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 23824754
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009971.pub2 -
European Heart Journal Feb 2012The impact of increased serum concentrations of plant sterols on cardiovascular risk is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The impact of increased serum concentrations of plant sterols on cardiovascular risk is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate whether there is an association between serum concentrations of two common plant sterols (sitosterol, campesterol) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). We systematically searched the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE for studies published between January 1950 and April 2010 that reported either risk ratios (RR) of CVD in relation to serum sterol concentrations (either absolute or expressed as ratios relative to total cholesterol) or serum sterol concentrations in CVD cases and controls separately. We conducted two meta-analyses, one based on RR of CVD contrasting the upper vs. the lower third of the sterol distribution, and another based on standardized mean differences between CVD cases and controls. Summary estimates were derived by fixed and random effects meta-analysis techniques. We identified 17 studies using different designs (four case-control, five nested case-control, three cohort, five cross-sectional) involving 11 182 participants. Eight studies reported RR of CVD and 15 studies reported serum concentrations in CVD cases and controls. Funnel plots showed evidence for publication bias indicating small unpublished studies with non-significant findings. Neither of our meta-analyses suggested any relationship between serum concentrations of sitosterol and campesterol (both absolute concentrations and ratios to cholesterol) and risk of CVD. Our systematic review and meta-analysis did not reveal any evidence of an association between serum concentrations of plant sterols and risk of CVD.
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol; Diet; Epidemiologic Methods; Humans; Phytosterols; Publication Bias; Risk Factors; Sitosterols
PubMed: 22334625
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr441 -
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Jan 2011The aim of this first global systematic review on selected nutraceuticals was to synthesize and evaluate scientific relevant data available in the literature. Evidences... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this first global systematic review on selected nutraceuticals was to synthesize and evaluate scientific relevant data available in the literature. Evidences that can support health, physiological or functional benefit on osteoarthritis (OA) were gathered and the level of evidence relative to each of these ingredients was highlighted.
METHODOLOGY
Relevant scientific data (positive or not) regarding OA were searched for five groups of compounds (avocado/soybean unsaponifiables (ASU), n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, collagen hydrosylates (CHs), vitamin D, polyphenols) within preclinical (in vitro and in vivo), epidemiological, and clinical studies. The following criteria were evaluated to assess the methodology quality of each study: (1) study question; (2) study population; (3) primary endpoint; (4) study design (randomization, control, blinding, duration of follow up); (5) data analysis and interpretation. A scientific consensus was determined for all studied nutraceuticals to evaluate their efficacy in OA.
RESULTS
The studied compounds demonstrated different potencies in preclinical studies. Most of them have demonstrated anti-catabolic and anti-inflammatory effects by various inhibitory activities on different mediators. Vitamin D showed a pro-catabolic effect in vitro and the polyphenol, Genistein, had only anti-inflammatory potency. The evaluation of the clinical data showed that ASU was the only one of the studied ingredients to present a good evidence of efficacy, but the efficient formulation was considered as a drug in some countries. Pycnogenol showed moderate evidence of efficacy, and vitamin D and collagen hydrolysate demonstrated a suggestive evidence of efficacy, whereas curcumin, epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) and resveratrol had only preclinical evidence of efficacy due to the lack of clinical data. The literature gathered for n-3 PUFA, nobiletin and genistein was insufficient to conclude for their efficacy in OA.
CONCLUSION
Additional data are needed for most of the studied nutraceuticals. Studies of good quality are needed to draw solid conclusions regarding their efficacy but nutraceuticals could represent good alternates for OA management. Their use should be driven by any recommendations.
Topics: Collagen; Fatty Acids; Flavonoids; Food, Organic; Humans; Nutrition Therapy; Osteoarthritis; Phenols; Phytosterols; Polyphenols; Vitamin D
PubMed: 21035558
DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2010.10.017 -
The effects of phytosterols/stanols on blood lipid profiles: a systematic review with meta-analysis.Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical... 2009The objective of this work is to conduct a systematic review that investigates the efficacy of phytosterols/stanols in lowering lipid concentration in individuals with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The objective of this work is to conduct a systematic review that investigates the efficacy of phytosterols/stanols in lowering lipid concentration in individuals with non-familial hypercholesterolemia. Randomized controlled intervention trials were identified through selected international journal databases and reference lists of relevant publications. Two researchers extracted data from each identified trial and only trials of sufficient quality were included in the review. Main outcomes of interest were differences between treatment and control groups in terms of low density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, high density lipoprotein cholesterol and triacylglycerol. Of the studies reviewed, 20 out of 76 studies were of sufficient quality. The results of the systematic review indicated that phytosterols/stanols could significantly decrease low density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol and triacylglycerol in treatment groups compared with control groups and that the mean differences were [-0.35 mmol/L, 95%CI(-0.47, -0.22), p<0.00001], [-0.36 mmol/L, 95%CI(-0.46, -0.26), p<0.00001] and [-0.1 mmol/L, 95%CI(-0.16, -0.03), p=0.004] respectively. Foods enriched with 2.0 g of phytosterols/stanols per day had a significant cholesterol lowering effect.
Topics: Cholesterol; Cholesterol, HDL; Cholesterol, LDL; Diet; Humans; Hypercholesterolemia; Lipids; Phytosterols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sitosterols; Triglycerides
PubMed: 19713176
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2000This systematic review aimed to assess the effects of beta-sitosterols (B-sitosterol) on urinary symptoms and flow measures in men with of benign prostatic hyperplasia... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review aimed to assess the effects of beta-sitosterols (B-sitosterol) on urinary symptoms and flow measures in men with of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
SEARCH STRATEGY
Trials were searched in computerized general and specialized databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Phytodok), by checking bibliographies, and by contacting manufacturers and researchers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Trials were eligible for inclusion provided they (1) randomized men with BPH to receive B-sitosterol preparations in comparison to placebo or other BPH medications, and (2) included clinical outcomes such as urologic symptom scales, symptoms, or urodynamic measurements.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Information on patients, interventions, and outcomes was extracted by at least two independent reviewers using a standard form. Main outcome measure for comparing the effectiveness of B-sitosterols with placebo and standard BPH medications was the change in urologic symptom scale scores. Secondary outcomes included changes in nocturia as well as urodynamic measures (peak and mean urine flow, residual volume, prostate size). Main outcome measure for side effects was the number of men reporting side effects.
MAIN RESULTS
519 men from 4 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials, (lasting 4 to 26 weeks) were assessed. 3 trials used non-glucosidic B-sitosterols and one utilized a preparation that contained 100% B-sitosteryl-B-D-glucoside. B-Sitosterols improved urinary symptom scores and flow measures. The weighted mean difference (WMD) for the IPSS was -4.9 IPSS points (95%CI = -6.3 to -3.5, n = 2 studies). The WMD for peak urine flow was 3.91 ml/sec (95%CI = 0.91 to 6.90, n = 4 studies) and the WMD for residual volume was -28.62 ml (95%CI = -41. 42 to -15.83, n = 4 studies). The trial using 100% B-sitosteryl-B-D-glucoside (WA184) show improvement in urinary flow measures. B-sitosterols did not reduce prostate size. Withdrawal rates for men assigned to B-sitosterol and placebo were 7.8% and 8. 0%, respectively.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
The evidence suggests non-glucosidic B-sitosterols improve urinary symptoms and flow measures. Their long term effectiveness, safety and ability to prevent BPH complications are not known.
Topics: Humans; Male; Phytotherapy; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Sitosterols; Urodynamics
PubMed: 10796740
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001043