-
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024The European League of Rheumatology(EULAR)guidelines recommend Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who are... (Review)
Review
Comparative efficacy of five approved Janus kinase inhibitors as monotherapy and combination therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
The European League of Rheumatology(EULAR)guidelines recommend Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who are insensitive or under-responsive to conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). But there was no recommendation for which one was preferred in five currently approved JAK inhibitors. The objective of this network meta-analysis study was to evaluate the efficacy of five JAK inhibitors as monotherapy and combination therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis.
METHODS
The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy or combined with csDMARD in the treatment of active RA were searched in database of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library, up to December 2023. The control group included placebo or csDMARD. Outcome indicators included American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20), ACR50, ACR70 and the percentage of patients achieving 28-joint disease activity score using C-reactive protein (DAS28(CRP))<2.6 at 12 weeks and 24 weeks. The statistical analysis was performed by Stata14 and RevMan5.4. Data processing, network evidence plots, surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) ranking, league plots and funnel plots were generated. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) as effect sizes to analyze the statistics.
RESULTS
This study included thirty-six RCTs with 16,713 patients. All JAK inhibitors were more effective than placebo in ACR20 (RRs ranging between 1.74 and 3.08), ACR50 (RRs ranging between 2.02 and 7.47), ACR70 (RRs ranging between 2.68 and 18.13), DAS28(CRP) < 2.6 (RRs ranging between 2.70 and 7.09) at 12 weeks. Upadacitinib 30 mg and upadacitinib 15 mg showed relatively good efficacy according to their relative SUCRA ranking. All JAK inhibitors were more effective than csDMARD or placebo in ACR20 (RRs ranging between 1.16 and 1.86), ACR50 (RRs ranging between 1.69 and 2.84), ACR70 (RRs ranging between 1.50 and 4.47), DAS28(CRP) < 2.6 (RRs ranging between 2.28 and 7.56) at 24 weeks. Upadacitinib 15 mg + csDMARD and baricitinib 4 mg + csDMARD showed relatively good efficacy according to their relative SUCRA ranking. The safety analysis results such as serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), and venous thromboembolic events (VTE) showed no statistical difference.
CONCLUSION
This NMA study indicated that all JAK inhibitors performed better than placebo. Based on the results of this study, upadacitinib 30 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg + csDMARD and baricitinib 4 mg + csDMARD were recommended treatment options with relatively good efficacy and safety. However, attention should be paid to monitoring the occurrence of adverse events in high-risk RA patients with medication. Combination therapy with csDMARD might be more suitable for the maintenance of long-term efficacy. However, in clinical practice, it is still necessary to select the appropriate therapeutic regimen based on the actual clinical situation.
PubMed: 38725657
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1387585 -
PloS One 2024Hand osteoarthritis poses a significant health challenge globally due to its increasing prevalence and the substantial burden on individuals and the society. In current... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Hand osteoarthritis poses a significant health challenge globally due to its increasing prevalence and the substantial burden on individuals and the society. In current clinical practice, treatment options for hand osteoarthritis encompass a range of approaches, including biological agents, antimetabolic drugs, neuromuscular blockers, anti-inflammatory drugs, hormone medications, pain relievers, new synergistic drugs, and other medications. Despite the diverse array of treatments, determining the optimal regimen remains elusive. This study seeks to conduct a network meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness and safety of various drug intervention measures in the treatment of hand osteoarthritis. The findings aim to provide evidence-based support for the clinical management of hand osteoarthritis.
METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted until September 15th, 2022, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. After meticulous screening and data extraction, the Cochrane Handbook's risk of bias assessment tool was applied to evaluate study quality. Data synthesis was carried out using Stata 15.1 software.
RESULTS
21 studies with data for 3965 patients were meta-analyzed, involving 20 distinct Western medicine agents. GCSB-5, a specific herbal complex that mainly regulate pain in hand osteoarthritis, showed the greatest reduction in pain [WMD = -13.00, 95% CI (-26.69, 0.69)]. CRx-102, s specific medication characterized by its significant effect for relieving joint stiffness symptoms, remarkably mitigated stiffness [WMD = -7.50, 95% CI (-8.90, -6.10)]. Chondroitin sulfate displayed the highest incidence of adverse events [RR = 0.26, 95% CI (0.06, 1.22)]. No substantial variation in functional index for hand osteoarthritis score improvement was identified between distinct agents and placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, GCSB-5 and CRx-102 exhibit efficacy in alleviating pain and stiffness in HOA, respectively. However, cautious interpretation of the results is advised. Tailored treatment decisions based on individual contexts are imperative.
Topics: Humans; Osteoarthritis; Network Meta-Analysis; Treatment Outcome; Hand; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38722915
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298774 -
International Journal of Cardiology.... Jun 2024Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors (VEGFRi), namely axitinib, are commonly used chemotherapeutic agents in patients with cancer; however, this...
Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors (VEGFRi), namely axitinib, are commonly used chemotherapeutic agents in patients with cancer; however, this medication has a significant cardiovascular side effect profile, such as high-grade hypertension. We performed this updated meta-analysis of RCTs to compile cardiovascular adverse events, such as all-grade and high-grade (>3) hypertension, the risk for thrombosis (DVT and PE), and peripheral edema. A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase from inception until October 2023 for studies using axitinib to treat various cancers. Trials with patients randomly allocated for VEGFRi drug therapy with axitinib and reported all-grade hypertension as an outcome were included. Statistical analysis was performed using Cochrane Review Manager to calculate pooled proportions of odds ratios (OR) with a 95 % confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model, Mantel-Haenszel method. A total of 8 RCTs and 2502 patients were included in the review. Compared with the placebo group, the VEGFRi (Axitinib) therapy group was associated with a higher risk of all-grade and high-grade hypertension, hand-foot syndrome, and fatigue. Furthermore, there was no increased risk of thromboembolism (DVT/PE) or hypothyroidism. However, a lower risk of peripheral edema was noted between the two groups. Screening for patients with preexisting hypertension, identifying risk factors for cardiovascular diseases before the initiation of VEGFRi therapy, and careful monitoring of high-risk patients during VEGFRi therapy, as well as prompt treatment with antihypertensive drugs, will help mitigate the adverse effects. Further evaluation using prospective designs is required to study the clinical significance and develop mitigation strategies.
PubMed: 38715853
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2024.101415 -
Investigative and Clinical Urology May 2024To evaluate efficacy and safety of beta-3 adrenergic agonists in adults with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate efficacy and safety of beta-3 adrenergic agonists in adults with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
According to a protocol (CRD42022350079), we searched multiple data sources for published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to 2nd August 2022. Two review authors independently screened studies and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses by using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of evidence (CoE).
RESULTS
We found data to inform two comparisons: beta-3 adrenergic agonists versus placebo (4 RCTs) and anticholinergics (2 RCTs). Only mirabegron was used for intervention in all included studies. Compared to placebo, beta-3 adrenergic agonists may have a clinically unimportant effect on urinary symptoms score (mean difference [MD] -2.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.78 to -0.22; ²=92%; 2 RCTs; 192 participants; low CoE) based on minimal clinically important difference of 3. We are very uncertain of the effects of beta-3 adrenergic agonists on quality of life (MD 10.86, 95% CI 1.21 to 20.50; ²=41%; 2 RCTs; 98 participants; very low CoE). Beta-3 adrenergic agonists may result in little to no difference in major adverse events (cardiovascular adverse events) (risk ratio 0.57, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.37; ²=0%; 4 RCTs; 310 participants; low CoE). Compared to anticholinergics, no study reported urinary symptom scores and quality of life. There were no major adverse events (cardiovascular adverse events) in either study group (1 study; 60 participants; very low CoE).
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to placebo, beta-3 adrenergic agonists may have similar effects on urinary symptom scores and major adverse events. There were uncertainties about their effects on quality of life. Compared to anticholinergics, we are either very uncertain or have no evidence about urinary symptom scores, quality of life, and major adverse events.
Topics: Humans; Adrenergic beta-3 Receptor Agonists; Urinary Bladder, Neurogenic; Treatment Outcome; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38714512
DOI: 10.4111/icu.20230271 -
Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and... Dec 2024To assess the impact of low-dose aspirin (LDA) on obstetrical outcomes through a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the impact of low-dose aspirin (LDA) on obstetrical outcomes through a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
A systematic search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Embase databases from inception to January 2024 was conducted to identify studies exploring the role of aspirin on pregnancy, reporting obstetrical-related outcomes, including preterm birth (PTB, gestational age <37 weeks), small for gestational age (SGA), low birth weight (LBW, birthweight < 2500g), perinatal death (PND), admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), 5-min Apgar score < 7 and placental abruption. Relative risks (RRs) were estimated for the combined outcomes. Subgroup analyses were performed by risk for preeclampsia (PE), LDA dosage (<100 mg vs. ≥100 mg) and timing of onset (≤20 weeks vs. >20 weeks).
RESULTS
Forty-seven studies involving 59,124 participants were included. Compared with placebo, LDA had a more significant effect on low-risk events such as SGA, PTB and LBW. Specifically, LDA significantly reduced the risk of SGA (RR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.87-0.95), PTB (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.89-0.97) and LBW (RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89-0.99). For high-risk events, LDA significantly lowered the risk of NICU admission (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.87-0.99). On the other hand, LDA can significantly increase the risk of placental abruption (RR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.23-2.43). Subgroup analyses showed that LDA significantly reduced the risk of SGA (RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.77-0.97), PTB (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.88-0.98) and PND (RR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.48-0.88) in pregnant women at high risk of PE, whereas in healthy pregnant women LDA did not significantly improve obstetrical outcomes, but instead significantly increased the risk of placental abruption (RR = 5.56, 95% CI: 1.92-16.11). In pregnant women at high risk of PE, LDA administered at doses ≥100 mg significantly reduced the risk of SGA (RR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.66-0.91) and PTB (RR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.32-0.97), but did not have a statistically significant effect on reducing the risk of NICU, PND and LBW. LDA started at ≤20 weeks significantly reduced the risk of SGA (RR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.65-0.89) and PTB (RR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.32-0.97).
CONCLUSIONS
To sum up, LDA significantly improved neonatal outcomes in pregnant women at high risk of PE without elevating the risk of placental abruption. These findings support LDA's clinical application in pregnant women, although further research is needed to refine dosage and timing recommendations.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Abruptio Placentae; Aspirin; Infant, Low Birth Weight; Infant, Small for Gestational Age; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38712869
DOI: 10.1080/0167482X.2024.2344079 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders May 2024Rotator cuff tendinopathy (RCT) is a widespread musculoskeletal disorder and a primary cause of shoulder pain and limited function. The resulting pain and limited... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Rotator cuff tendinopathy (RCT) is a widespread musculoskeletal disorder and a primary cause of shoulder pain and limited function. The resulting pain and limited functionality have a detrimental impact on the overall quality of life. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of the effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) for RCT.
METHODS
The literature search was conducted on the following databases from inception to February 20, 2024: PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were checked to identify the potential studies exploring the effect of ESWT for the treatment of Rotator cuff tendinopathy (Calcification or non-calcification), control group for sham, other treatments (including placebo), without restriction of date, language. Two researchers independently screened literature, extracted data, evaluated the risk of bias in the included studies, and performed meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS
A total of 16 RCTs with 1093 patients were included. The results showed that compared with the control group, ESWT for pain score Visual Analogue Scale/Score (VAS) (SMD = -1.95, 95% CI -2.47, -1.41, P < 0.00001), function score Constant-Murley score (CMS) (SMD = 1.30, 95% CI 0.67, 1.92, P < 0.00001), University of California Los Angeles score (UCLA) (SMD = 2.69, 95% CI 1.64, 3.74, P < 0.00001), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons form (ASES) (SMD = 1.29, 95% CI 0.93, 1.65, P < 0.00001), Range of motion (ROM) External rotation (SMD = 1.00, 95% CI 0.29, 1.72, P = 0.02), Total effective rate (TER) (OR = 3.64, 95% CI 1.85, 7.14, P = 0.0002), the differences in the above results were statistically significant. But ROM-Abduction (SMD = 0.72, 95% CI -0.22, 1.66, P = 0.13), the difference was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION
Currently limited evidence suggests that, compared with the control group, ESWT can provide better pain relief, functional recovery, and maintenance of function in patients with RCT.
Topics: Humans; Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy; Tendinopathy; Treatment Outcome; Rotator Cuff; Shoulder Pain; Rotator Cuff Injuries; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Range of Motion, Articular; Quality of Life
PubMed: 38704572
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07445-7 -
Frontiers in Psychology 2024Observational learning (OL) refers to learning through observing other people's behavior. OL has been suggested as an effective and simple tool to evoke treatment...
INTRODUCTION
Observational learning (OL) refers to learning through observing other people's behavior. OL has been suggested as an effective and simple tool to evoke treatment expectations and corresponding placebo and nocebo effects. However, the exact mechanisms by which OL shapes treatment outcomes, its moderating factors and possible areas of application remain unclear. We thus reviewed the existing literature with two different literature searches to answer the following questions: Which influencing factors contribute to OL-induced placebo and nocebo effects (in healthy volunteers and patients) and how large are these effects (search 1)? In which medical fields has OL been used so far to modulate treatment expectancy and treatment outcomes in patients, their caregivers, and at-risk groups (search 2)? We also aimed to explore whether and how the assessment of treatment expectations has been incorporated.
METHODS
We conducted two independent and comprehensive systematic literature searches, both carried out on September 20, 2022.
RESULTS
We identified 21 studies that investigated OL-mediated placebo and nocebo effects for pain and itch, the (placebo) efficacy of sham treatment on anxiety, and the (nocebo) induction of medication side effects (search 1). Studies showed that OL can efficiently induce placebo and nocebo effects across different presentation modes, with medium effect sizes on average: placebo effects, = 0.79 (range: = -0.36-1.58), nocebo effects, = 0.61 (range: = 0.04-1.5). Although several moderating factors have been investigated, their contribution to OL-induced effects remains unclear because of inconsistent results. Treatment expectation was assessed in only four studies. Regarding medical applications of OL (search 2), we found 12 studies. They showed that OL was effectively applied in preventive, therapeutic and rehabilitative interventions and that it was mainly used in the field of psychosomatics.
DISCUSSION
OL effects on treatment outcomes can be both positive and negative. Future research should investigate which individuals would benefit most from OL and how OL can be implemented most effectively to induce placebo and avoid nocebo effects in clinical settings.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
This work was preregistered at the Center for Open Science as open-ended registration (doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/FVHKE). The protocol can be found here: https://archive.org/details/osf-registrations-fvhke-v1.
PubMed: 38699574
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1293975 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024Bismuth subsalicylate (BSS), probiotics, rifaximin, and vaccines have been proposed as preventive modalities for patients with travelers' diarrhea (TD), but their...
Bismuth subsalicylate (BSS), probiotics, rifaximin, and vaccines have been proposed as preventive modalities for patients with travelers' diarrhea (TD), but their comparative effectiveness for prevention has rarely been studied. We aimed to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to test whether one of these modalities is more effective than the others in reducing the incidence of TD. We searched Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and clinical registries from inception of the databases through 18 November 2023, without language restriction, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of BSS, probiotics, rifaximin, and vaccines in preventing TD. The primary outcome was the incidence of TD and the safety outcome was the incidence of adverse events. The relative ratio (RR) was used to assess the effect of the modalities, and RR estimates between any two of the modalities were calculated and pooled using a frequentist network meta-analysis model. Thirty-one studies (recruiting 10,879 participants) were included in the analysis. Sixteen were judged to have a low risk of bias. In the aggregate analysis, BSS and rifaximin were more effective than placebo and other treatment modalities, which was further confirmed in the individual analysis. The comparison between rifaximin and placebo achieved high confidence, while the comparisons between BSS and placebo, ETEC and probiotics, and rifaximin and vaccines achieved moderate confidence. BSS had a higher rate of adverse events compared with other treatments. Rifaximin had a relative lower TD incidence and lower adverse event rate, and the evidence was with moderate confidence. https://osf.io/dxab6, identifier.
PubMed: 38698820
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1361501 -
BMC Geriatrics May 2024The association between vitamin D supplementation and the risk of falls in older adults has been controversial. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The association between vitamin D supplementation and the risk of falls in older adults has been controversial. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy of vitamin D, calcium, and combined supplementation in the prevention of falls.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy of vitamin D in fall prevention were systematically searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to May 9, 2023. The network meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model in R4.1.3 and Stata15.0. Heterogeneity was evaluated by the I statistic, and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots, Begg's test, and Egger's tests. Data were pooled and expressed as relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
A total of 35 RCTs involving 58,937 participants were included in this study, among which 11 RCTs (31.4%) applied calcium combined with vitamin D. There was low heterogeneity (I = 11%) among the included studies. Vitamin D supplementation at 800-1000 International Unit (IU)/d resulted in a lower risk of falls than placebo or no treatment (RR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.74-0.95). In addition, 800-1000 IU/d of vitamin D with or without calcium were more effective in preventing falls than calcium alone. High-dose vitamin D (> 1000 IU/day) increased the risk of falls compared with 800-1000 IU/d of vitamin D. According to the subgroup analysis, daily administration of 800-1000 IU/d vitamin D was associated with a 22% reduction in the risk of falls (RR = 0.78, 95%CI:0.64-0.92), whereas intermittent vitamin D administration had no preventive effect. Furthermore, 800-1000 IU/d of vitamin D also significantly decreased the risk of falls in old adults with ≤ 50 nmol/L 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] (RR = 0.69, 95%CI:0.52-0.86) but not in individuals with > 50 nmol/L 25(OH)D.
CONCLUSION
Vitamin D supplementation at 800-1000 IU/d is associated with a lower risk of falls among older adults. 800-1000IU/d of vitamin D has a benefit on prevention of falls in population received daily dose regimens and in population with vitamin D deficiency.
Topics: Accidental Falls; Humans; Vitamin D; Dietary Supplements; Network Meta-Analysis; Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Calcium; Vitamins
PubMed: 38698349
DOI: 10.1186/s12877-024-05009-x -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2024Despite the developments of fertilization (IVF) protocols, implantation failure remains a challenging problem, owing to the unbalance between the embryo, endometrium,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Despite the developments of fertilization (IVF) protocols, implantation failure remains a challenging problem, owing to the unbalance between the embryo, endometrium, and immune system interactions. Effective treatments are urgently required to improve successful implantation. Recently, many researchers have focused on granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to regulate immune response and embryo-endometrium cross-talk. However, previous studies have reported inconsistent findings on the efficacy of G-CSF therapy on implantation failure. The objective of this review was to further explore the effects of G-CSF according to administration dosage and timing among women who experienced at least one implantation failure.
METHODS
We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials of G-CSF on implantation failure up to July 21, 2023. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and the heterogeneity of the studies with the I index was analyzed.
RESULTS
We identified a total of 2031 studies and finally included 10 studies in the systematic review and meta-analysis. G-CSF administration improved the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), implantation rate (IR), biochemical pregnancy rate (BPR), and live birth rate (LBR) in women with at least one implantation failure. Subgroup analyses showed that G-CSF treatment could exert good advantages in improving CPR [OR=2.49, 95%CI (1.56, 3.98), I = 0%], IR [OR=2.82, 95%CI (1.29, 6.15)], BPR [OR=3.30, 95%CI (1.42, 7.67)] and LBR [OR=3.16, 95%CI (1.61, 6.22), I = 0%] compared with the blank control group. However, compared with placebo controls, G-CSF showed beneficial effects on CPR [OR=1.71, 95%CI (1.04, 2.84), I = 38%] and IR [OR=2.01, 95%CI (1.29, 3.15), I = 24%], but not on LBR. In addition, >150μg of G-CSF treatment increased CPR [OR=2.22, 95%CI (1.47, 3.35), I = 0%], IR [OR=2.67, 95%CI (1.47, 4.82), I = 0%] and BPR [OR=2.02, 95%CI (1.17, 3.47), I = 22%], while ≤150μg of G-CSF treatment improved miscarriage rate (MR) [OR=0.14, 95%CI (0.05, 0.38), I = 0%] and LBR [OR=2.65, 95%CI (1.56, 4.51), I = 0%]. Moreover, G-CSF administration on the day of embryo transfer (ET) could increase CPR [OR=2.81, 95%CI (1.37, 5.75), I = 0%], but not on the day of ovum pick-up (OPU) or human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) injection.
CONCLUSION
G-CSF has a beneficial effect on pregnancy outcomes to some extent among women who experienced at least one implantation failure, and the administration dosage and timing influence the effect size. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023447046.
Topics: Humans; Female; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Embryo Implantation; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Fertilization in Vitro; Embryo Transfer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 38694938
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1370114