-
Journal of Food Protection Nov 2011Pasteurization of milk ensures safety for human consumption by reducing the number of viable pathogenic bacteria. Although the public health benefits of pasteurization... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Pasteurization of milk ensures safety for human consumption by reducing the number of viable pathogenic bacteria. Although the public health benefits of pasteurization are well established, pro-raw milk advocate organizations continue to promote raw milk as "nature's perfect food." Advocacy groups' claims include statements that pasteurization destroys important vitamins and that raw milk consumption can prevent and treat allergies, cancer, and lactose intolerance. A systematic review and meta-analysis was completed to summarize available evidence for these selected claims. Forty studies assessing the effects of pasteurization on vitamin levels were found. Qualitatively, vitamins B12 and E decreased following pasteurization, and vitamin A increased. Random effects meta-analysis revealed no significant effect of pasteurization on vitamin B6 concentrations (standardized mean difference [SMD], -2.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], -5.40, 0.8; P = 0.06) but a decrease in concentrations of vitamins B1 (SMD, -1.77; 95% CI, -2.57, -0.96; P < 0.001), B2 (SMD, -0.41; 95% CI, -0.81, -0.01; P < 0.05), C (SMD, -2.13; 95% CI, -3.52, -0.74; P < 0.01), and folate (SMD, -11.99; 95% CI, -20.95, -3.03; P < 0.01). The effect of pasteurization on milk's nutritive value was minimal because many of these vitamins are naturally found in relatively low levels. However, milk is an important dietary source of vitamin B2, and the impact of heat treatment should be further considered. Raw milk consumption may have a protective association with allergy development (six studies), although this relationship may be potentially confounded by other farming-related factors. Raw milk consumption was not associated with cancer (two studies) or lactose intolerance (one study). Overall, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the poor quality of reported methodology in many of the included studies.
Topics: Animals; Consumer Product Safety; Humans; Milk; Nutritive Value; Pasteurization; Vitamin A; Vitamin B Complex; Vitamin E; Vitamins
PubMed: 22054181
DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-10-269 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Acne is an inflammatory disorder with a high global burden. It is common in adolescents and primarily affects sebaceous gland-rich areas. The clinical benefit of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acne is an inflammatory disorder with a high global burden. It is common in adolescents and primarily affects sebaceous gland-rich areas. The clinical benefit of the topical acne treatments azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, sulphur, zinc, and alpha-hydroxy acid is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of topical treatments (azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, zinc, alpha-hydroxy acid, and sulphur) for acne.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to May 2019: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Clinical randomised controlled trials of the six topical treatments compared with other topical treatments, placebo, or no treatment in people with acne.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Key outcomes included participants' global self-assessment of acne improvement (PGA), withdrawal for any reason, minor adverse events (assessed as total number of participants who experienced at least one minor adverse event), and quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 49 trials (3880 reported participants) set in clinics, hospitals, research centres, and university settings in Europe, Asia, and the USA. The vast majority of participants had mild to moderate acne, were aged between 12 to 30 years (range: 10 to 45 years), and were female. Treatment lasted over eight weeks in 59% of the studies. Study duration ranged from three months to three years. We assessed 26 studies as being at high risk of bias in at least one domain, but most domains were at low or unclear risk of bias. We grouped outcome assessment into short-term (less than or equal to 4 weeks), medium-term (from 5 to 8 weeks), and long-term treatment (more than 8 weeks). The following results were measured at the end of treatment, which was mainly long-term for the PGA outcome and mixed length (medium-term mainly) for minor adverse events. Azelaic acid In terms of treatment response (PGA), azelaic acid is probably less effective than benzoyl peroxide (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.95; 1 study, 351 participants), but there is probably little or no difference when comparing azelaic acid to tretinoin (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14; 1 study, 289 participants) (both moderate-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in PGA when comparing azelaic acid to clindamycin (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.38; 1 study, 229 participants; low-quality evidence), but we are uncertain whether there is a difference between azelaic acid and adapalene (1 study, 55 participants; very low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence indicates there may be no differences in rates of withdrawal for any reason when comparing azelaic acid with benzoyl peroxide (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.29; 1 study, 351 participants), clindamycin (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.56; 2 studies, 329 participants), or tretinoin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.47; 2 studies, 309 participants), but we are uncertain whether there is a difference between azelaic acid and adapalene (1 study, 55 participants; very low-quality evidence). In terms of total minor adverse events, we are uncertain if there is a difference between azelaic acid compared to adapalene (1 study; 55 participants) or benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 30 participants) (both very low-quality evidence). There may be no difference when comparing azelaic acid to clindamycin (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.35; 1 study, 100 participants; low-quality evidence). Total minor adverse events were not reported in the comparison of azelaic acid versus tretinoin, but individual application site reactions were reported, such as scaling. Salicylic acid For PGA, there may be little or no difference between salicylic acid and tretinoin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 1 study, 46 participants; low-quality evidence); we are not certain whether there is a difference between salicylic acid and pyruvic acid (1 study, 86 participants; very low-quality evidence); and PGA was not measured in the comparison of salicylic acid versus benzoyl peroxide. There may be no difference between groups in withdrawals when comparing salicylic acid and pyruvic acid (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.50; 1 study, 86 participants); when salicylic acid was compared to tretinoin, neither group had withdrawals (both based on low-quality evidence (2 studies, 74 participants)). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in withdrawals between salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 41 participants; very low-quality evidence). For total minor adverse events, we are uncertain if there is any difference between salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 41 participants) or tretinoin (2 studies, 74 participants) (both very low-quality evidence). This outcome was not reported for salicylic acid versus pyruvic acid, but individual application site reactions were reported, such as scaling and redness. Nicotinamide Four studies evaluated nicotinamide against clindamycin or erythromycin, but none measured PGA. Low-quality evidence showed there may be no difference in withdrawals between nicotinamide and clindamycin (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.60; 3 studies, 216 participants) or erythromycin (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.46 to 4.22; 1 study, 158 participants), or in total minor adverse events between nicotinamide and clindamycin (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.99; 3 studies, 216 participants; low-quality evidence). Total minor adverse events were not reported in the nicotinamide versus erythromycin comparison. Alpha-hydroxy (fruit) acid There may be no difference in PGA when comparing glycolic acid peel to salicylic-mandelic acid peel (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.26; 1 study, 40 participants; low-quality evidence), and we are uncertain if there is a difference in total minor adverse events due to very low-quality evidence (1 study, 44 participants). Neither group had withdrawals (2 studies, 84 participants; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to benzoyl peroxide, azelaic acid probably leads to a worse treatment response, measured using PGA. When compared to tretinoin, azelaic acid probably makes little or no difference to treatment response. For other comparisons and outcomes the quality of evidence was low or very low. Risk of bias and imprecision limit our confidence in the evidence. We encourage the comparison of more methodologically robust head-to-head trials against commonly used active drugs.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Adapalene; Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Benzoyl Peroxide; Bias; Child; Clindamycin; Dermatologic Agents; Dicarboxylic Acids; Erythromycin; Female; Glycolates; Humans; Keratolytic Agents; Male; Mandelic Acids; Niacinamide; Patient Dropouts; Pyruvic Acid; Quality of Life; Salicylic Acid; Sulfur; Tretinoin; Young Adult; Zinc
PubMed: 32356369
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011368.pub2 -
Ciencia & Saude Coletiva Mar 2019To evaluate the effect of vitamin A supplementation in postpartum infants and women on serum retinol levels and breast milk. The databases Medline, PubMed, Lilacs and...
To evaluate the effect of vitamin A supplementation in postpartum infants and women on serum retinol levels and breast milk. The databases Medline, PubMed, Lilacs and SciELO were consulted. The descriptors used were vitamin A, dietary supplement, child, postpartum period, infant and nutrition programs policies. Search found 7432 articles. After elimination of duplicity and application of eligibility criteria, 8 studies remained. All evaluated the effect of vitamin A supplementation on immediate postpartum, five studies used retinyl palmitate supplementation, one with retinyl palmitate and two did not specify the form of supplementation. Six studies evaluated colostrum and two included supplementation of children. It was found that supplementation in the puerperium increases the concentrations of serum retinol and breast milk, however, this result was in the short term and was relevant when the previous concentrations of the mother were low. When maternal serum concentrations are adequate, the retinol content in milk does not change, with little relevance for children. Further studies should be performed to evaluate the effect of megadoses supplementation on serum concentrations of children.
Topics: Colostrum; Dietary Supplements; Diterpenes; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Milk, Human; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy; Retinyl Esters; Time Factors; Vitamin A; Vitamin A Deficiency
PubMed: 30892504
DOI: 10.1590/1413-81232018243.07112017 -
Annals of Surgical Oncology Jul 2023Pancreatic cancer often presents as locally advanced (LAPC) or borderline resectable (BRPC). Neoadjuvant systemic therapy is recommended as initial treatment. It is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
FOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine-based Chemotherapy for Borderline Resectable and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Multi-institutional, Patient-Level, Meta-analysis and Systematic Review.
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer often presents as locally advanced (LAPC) or borderline resectable (BRPC). Neoadjuvant systemic therapy is recommended as initial treatment. It is currently unclear what chemotherapy should be preferred for patients with BRPC or LAPC.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and multi-institutional meta-analysis of patient-level data regarding the use of initial systemic therapy for BRPC and LAPC. Outcomes were reported separately for tumor entity and by chemotherapy regimen including FOLFIRINOX (FIO) or gemcitabine-based.
RESULTS
A total of 23 studies comprising 2930 patients were analyzed for overall survival (OS) calculated from the beginning of systemic treatment. OS for patients with BRPC was 22.0 months with FIO, 16.9 months with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (Gem/nab), 21.6 months with gemcitabine/cisplatin or oxaliplatin or docetaxel or capecitabine (GemX), and 10 months with gemcitabine monotherapy (Gem-mono) (p < 0.0001). In patients with LAPC, OS also was higher with FIO (17.1 months) compared with Gem/nab (12.5 months), GemX (12.3 months), and Gem-mono (9.4 months; p < 0.0001). This difference was driven by the patients who did not undergo surgery, where FIO was superior to other regimens. The resection rates for patients with BRPC were 0.55 for gemcitabine-based chemotherapy and 0.53 with FIO. In patients with LAPC, resection rates were 0.19 with Gemcitabine and 0.28 with FIO. In resected patients, OS for patients with BRPC was 32.9 months with FIO and not different compared to Gem/nab, (28.6 months, p = 0.285), GemX (38.8 months, p = 0.1), or Gem-mono (23.1 months, p = 0.083). A similar trend was observed in resected patients converted from LAPC.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with BRPC or LAPC, primary treatment with FOLFIRINOX compared with Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy appears to provide a survival benefit for patients that are ultimately unresectable. For patients that undergo surgical resection, outcomes are similar between GEM+ and FOLFIRINOX when delivered in the neoadjuvant setting.
Topics: Humans; Gemcitabine; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Oxaliplatin; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Fluorouracil; Leucovorin; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Paclitaxel; Multicenter Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37020094
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-023-13353-2 -
Pharmacological Research Feb 2023Medical nutrition treatment can manage diabetes and slow or prevent its complications. The comparative effects of micronutrient supplements, however, have not yet been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparative effects of vitamin and mineral supplements in the management of type 2 diabetes in primary care: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Medical nutrition treatment can manage diabetes and slow or prevent its complications. The comparative effects of micronutrient supplements, however, have not yet been well established. We aimed at evaluating the comparative effects of vitamin and mineral supplements on managing glycemic control and lipid metabolism for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) to inform clinical practice. Electronic and hand searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were performed until June 1, 2022. We selected RCTs enrolling patients with T2DM who were treated with vitamin supplements, mineral supplements, or placebo/no treatment. Data were pooled via frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses. A total of 170 eligible trials and 14223 participants were included. Low to very low certainty evidence established chromium supplements as the most effective in reducing fasting blood glucose levels and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (SUCRAs: 90.4% and 78.3%, respectively). Vitamin K supplements ranked best in reducing glycated hemoglobin A1c and fasting insulin levels (SUCRAs: 97.0% and 82.3%, respectively), with moderate to very low certainty evidence. Vanadium supplements ranked best in lowering total cholesterol levels with very low evidence certainty (SUCRAs:100%). Niacin supplements ranked best in triglyceride reductions and increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with low to very low evidence certainty (SUCRAs:93.7% and 94.6%, respectively). Vitamin E supplements ranked best in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with very low evidence certainty (SUCRAs:80.0%). Our analyses indicated that micronutrient supplements, especially chromium, vitamin E, vitamin K, vanadium, and niacin supplements, may be more efficacious in managing T2DM than other micronutrients. Considering the clinical importance of these findings, new research is needed to get better insight into this issue.
Topics: Humans; Vitamins; Network Meta-Analysis; Vanadium; Niacin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Dietary Supplements; Minerals; Vitamin E; Micronutrients; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Vitamin K; Chromium; Primary Health Care; Cholesterol
PubMed: 36638933
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2023.106647 -
Stroke Jan 2018The use of oral anticoagulant therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation has been transformed by the availability of the nonvitamin K antagonist oral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The use of oral anticoagulant therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation has been transformed by the availability of the nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants. Real-world studies on the use of nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants would help elucidate their effectiveness and safety in daily clinical practice. Apixaban was the third nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants introduced to clinical practice, and increasing real-world studies have been published. Our aim was to summarize current evidence about real-world studies on apixaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all observational real-world studies comparing apixaban with other available oral anticoagulant drugs.
RESULTS
From the original 9680 results retrieved, 16 studies have been included in the final meta-analysis. Compared with warfarin, apixaban regular dose was more effective in reducing any thromboembolic event (odds ratio: 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.64-0.93), but no significant difference was found for stroke risk. Apixaban was as effective as dabigatran and rivaroxaban in reducing thromboembolic events and stroke. The risk of major bleeding was significantly lower for apixaban compared with warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban (relative risk reduction, 38%, 35%, and 46%, respectively). Similarly, the risk for intracranial hemorrhage was significantly lower for apixaban than warfarin and rivaroxaban (46% and 54%, respectively) but not dabigatran. The risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was lower with apixaban when compared with all oral anticoagulant agents (<0.00001 for all comparisons).
CONCLUSIONS
Use of apixaban in real-life is associated with an overall similar effectiveness in reducing stroke and any thromboembolic events when compared with warfarin. A better safety profile was found with apixaban compared with warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Clinical Trials as Topic; Female; Humans; Intracranial Hemorrhages; Male; Polymers; Pyrazoles; Pyridones; Risk Factors; Rivaroxaban; Saliva, Artificial; Stroke; Vitamin K; Warfarin
PubMed: 29167388
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.018395 -
Journal of the American Heart... Jul 2017The original non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) trials in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) enrolled patients with native valve pathologies. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effects of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Valvular Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
The original non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) trials in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) enrolled patients with native valve pathologies. The object of this study was to quantify the benefit-risk profiles of NOACs versus warfarin in AF patients with native valvular heart disease (VHD).
METHODS AND RESULTS
Trials were identified by exhaustive literature search. Trial data were combined using inverse variance weighting to produce a meta-analytic summary hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of efficacy and safety of NOACs versus warfarin. Our final analysis included 4 randomized controlled trials that enrolled 71 526 participants, including 13 574 with VHD. Pooling results from included trials showed that NOACs versus warfarin reduced stroke or systemic embolism (HR: 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.82) and intracranial hemorrhage (HR: 0.47; 95% CI, 0.24-0.92) in AF patients with VHD. However, risk reduction of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage was driven by apixaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran (HR for major bleeding: 0.79 [95% CI, 0.69-0.91]; HR for intracranial hemorrhage: 0.33 [95% CI, 0.25-0.45]) but not rivaroxaban (HR for major bleeding: 1.56 [95% CI, 1.20-2.04]; HR for intracranial hemorrhage: 1.27 [95% CI, 0.77-2.10]).
CONCLUSIONS
Among patients with AF and native VHD, NOACs reduce stroke and systemic embolism compared with warfarin. Evidence shows that apixaban, dabigatran, and edoxaban also reduce bleeding in this patient subgroup, whereas major bleeding (but not intracranial hemorrhage or mortality rate) is significantly increased in VHD patients treated with rivaroxaban. NOACs are a reasonable alternative to warfarin in AF patients with VHD.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Blood Coagulation; Chi-Square Distribution; Female; Heart Valve Diseases; Hemorrhage; Humans; Intracranial Hemorrhages; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Risk Factors; Stroke; Treatment Outcome; Vitamin K; Warfarin
PubMed: 28720644
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.117.005835 -
Journal of Perinatology : Official... May 2016We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the burden of late vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB) and the effect of vitamin K prophylaxis on the incidence of VKDB. We... (Review)
Review
We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the burden of late vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB) and the effect of vitamin K prophylaxis on the incidence of VKDB. We searched MEDLINE and other electronic databases, and included all observational studies including population surveys as well as randomized controlled trials (RCT). The median (interquartile range) burden of late VKDB was 35 (10.5 to 80) per 100 000 live births in infants who had not received prophylaxis at birth; the burden was much higher in low- and middle-income countries as compared with high-income countries-80 (72 to 80) vs 8.8 (5.8 to 17.8) per 100 000 live births. Two randomized trials evaluated the effect of intramuscular (IM) prophylaxis on the risk of classical VKDB. Although one trial reported a significant reduction in the incidence of any bleeding (relative risk (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.96) and moderate to severe bleeding (RR 0.19, 0.08 to 0.46; number needed to treat (NNT) 74, 47 to 177), the other trial demonstrated a significant reduction in the risk of secondary bleeding after circumcision in male neonates (RR 0.18, CI 0.08 to 0.42; NNT 9, 6 to 15). No RCTs evaluated the effect of vitamin K prophylaxis on late VKDB. Data from four surveillance studies indicate that the use of IM/subcutaneous vitamin K prophylaxis could significantly reduce the risk of late VKDB when compared with no prophylaxis (pooled RR 0.02; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.10). When compared with IM prophylaxis, a single oral dose of vitamin K increased the risk of VKDB (RR 24.5; 95% CI 7.4 to 81.0) but multiple oral doses did not (RR 3.64; CI 0.82 to 16.3). There is low-quality evidence from observational studies that routine IM administration of 1 mg of vitamin K at birth reduces the incidence of late VKDB during infancy. Given the high risk of mortality and morbidity in infants with late VKDB, it seems appropriate to administer IM vitamin K prophylaxis to all neonates at birth. Future studies should compare the efficacy and safety of multiple oral doses with IM vitamin K and also evaluate the optimal dose of vitamin K in preterm neonates.
Topics: Antifibrinolytic Agents; Humans; Incidence; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Observational Studies as Topic; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Risk; Vitamin K; Vitamin K Deficiency Bleeding
PubMed: 27109090
DOI: 10.1038/jp.2016.30 -
BMC Cancer Aug 2023Patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) are generally younger and more likely to experience disease recurrence and have the shortest survival among all breast... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Neoadjuvant immunotherapy and chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of high-risk, early-stage triple-negative breast cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) are generally younger and more likely to experience disease recurrence and have the shortest survival among all breast cancer patients. Recently, neoadjuvant delivery of the programmed cell death protein-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab was approved for patients with high-risk, early-stage TNBC, but this treatment regimen has not been evaluated in head-to-head trials with other neoadjuvant treatment regimens. Therefore, the objective of this study was to estimate the relative efficacy of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab + chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab versus other neoadjuvant treatments for early-stage TNBC through a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).
METHODS
EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, conference abstracts, and clinical trial registries were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating neoadjuvant treatments for early-stage TNBC. NMA was performed to estimate relative treatment effects among evaluated interventions.
RESULTS
Five trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in the NMA. The relative efficacy of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab + chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab was favorable to paclitaxel followed by anthracycline + cyclophosphamide in terms of pathologic complete response (pCR), event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival; paclitaxel + carboplatin followed by anthracycline + cyclophosphamide in terms of pCR and EFS; paclitaxel + bevacizumab followed by anthracycline + cyclophosphamide + bevacizumab in terms of pCR; and paclitaxel + carboplatin + veliparib followed by anthracycline + cyclophosphamide in terms of EFS.
CONCLUSIONS
Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab + chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab confers benefits in response and survival outcomes versus alternative neoadjuvant treatments for early-stage TNBC.
Topics: Humans; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Bevacizumab; Carboplatin; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Immunotherapy; Adjuvants, Immunologic; Anthracyclines; Cyclophosphamide; Paclitaxel
PubMed: 37612624
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-11293-4 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2011Acne vulgaris affects over 80% of teenagers, and persists beyond the age of 25 years in 3% of men and 12% of women. Typical lesions of acne include comedones,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acne vulgaris affects over 80% of teenagers, and persists beyond the age of 25 years in 3% of men and 12% of women. Typical lesions of acne include comedones, inflammatory papules, and pustules. Nodules and cysts occur in more severe acne and can cause scarring and psychological distress.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of topical and oral treatments in people with acne vulgaris? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to February 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 69 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: topical treatments (adapalene, azelaic acid, benzoyl peroxide, clindamycin, erythromycin [alone or plus zinc]; isotretinoin, tetracycline, tretinoin); and oral treatments (doxycycline, isotretinoin, lymecycline, minocycline, oxytetracycline, tetracycline).
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Benzoyl Peroxide; Humans; Isotretinoin; Lymecycline; Minocycline; Tretinoin
PubMed: 21477388
DOI: No ID Found