-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause of patient dissatisfaction and may lead to prolonged hospital stay and higher costs of care along with more severe complications. Many antiemetic drugs are available for prophylaxis. They have various mechanisms of action and side effects, but there is still uncertainty about which drugs are most effective with the fewest side effects.
OBJECTIVES
• To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacologic interventions (antiemetic drugs) against no treatment, against placebo, or against each other (as monotherapy or combination prophylaxis) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia • To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (monotherapy and combination prophylaxis) based on efficacy and safety • To identify the best dose or dose range of antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. The first search was performed in November 2017 and was updated in April 2020. In the update of the search, 39 eligible studies were found that were not included in the analysis (listed as awaiting classification).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness or side effects of single antiemetic drugs in any dose or combination against each other or against an inactive control in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. All antiemetic drugs belonged to one of the following substance classes: 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics. No language restrictions were applied. Abstract publications were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
A review team of 11 authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and subsequently extracted data. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses for drugs of direct interest (amisulpride, aprepitant, casopitant, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, dolasetron, droperidol, fosaprepitant, granisetron, haloperidol, meclizine, methylprednisolone, metoclopramide, ondansetron, palonosetron, perphenazine, promethazine, ramosetron, rolapitant, scopolamine, and tropisetron) compared to placebo (inactive control). We performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate the relative effects and ranking (with placebo as reference) of all available single drugs and combinations. Primary outcomes were vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively, serious adverse events (SAEs), and any adverse event (AE). Secondary outcomes were drug class-specific side effects (e.g. headache), mortality, early and late vomiting, nausea, and complete response. We performed subgroup network meta-analysis with dose of drugs as a moderator variable using dose ranges based on previous consensus recommendations. We assessed certainty of evidence of NMA treatment effects for all primary outcomes and drug class-specific side effects according to GRADE (CINeMA, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We restricted GRADE assessment to single drugs of direct interest compared to placebo.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 585 studies (97,516 randomized participants). Most of these studies were small (median sample size of 100); they were published between 1965 and 2017 and were primarily conducted in Asia (51%), Europe (25%), and North America (16%). Mean age of the overall population was 42 years. Most participants were women (83%), had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II (70%), received perioperative opioids (88%), and underwent gynaecologic (32%) or gastrointestinal surgery (19%) under general anaesthesia using volatile anaesthetics (88%). In this review, 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were compared. Most studies investigated only single drugs (72%) and included an inactive control arm (66%). The three most investigated single drugs in this review were ondansetron (246 studies), dexamethasone (120 studies), and droperidol (97 studies). Almost all studies (89%) reported at least one efficacy outcome relevant for this review. However, only 56% reported at least one relevant safety outcome. Altogether, 157 studies (27%) were assessed as having overall low risk of bias, 101 studies (17%) overall high risk of bias, and 327 studies (56%) overall unclear risk of bias. Vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively Relative effects from NMA for vomiting within 24 hours (282 RCTs, 50,812 participants, 28 single drugs, and 36 drug combinations) suggest that 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs showed a clinically important benefit (defined as the upper end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below a risk ratio (RR) of 0.8) compared to placebo. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs in preventing vomiting. However, single NK₁ receptor antagonists showed treatment effects similar to most of the drug combinations. High-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs reduce vomiting (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.38, high certainty, rank 3/28 of single drugs); ramosetron (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, high certainty, rank 5/28); granisetron (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.54, high certainty, rank 6/28); dexamethasone (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.57, high certainty, rank 8/28); and ondansetron (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.60, high certainty, rank 13/28). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs probably reduce vomiting: fosaprepitant (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, moderate certainty, rank 1/28) and droperidol (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69, moderate certainty, rank 20/28). Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol showed clinically important benefit, but low doses showed no clinically important benefit. Aprepitant was used mainly at high doses, ramosetron at recommended doses, and fosaprepitant at doses of 150 mg (with no dose recommendation available). Frequency of SAEs Twenty-eight RCTs were included in the NMA for SAEs (10,766 participants, 13 single drugs, and eight drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for SAEs when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to low. Droperidol (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 9.71, low certainty, rank 6/13) may reduce SAEs. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.36, very low certainty, rank 11/13), ramosetron (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.74, very low certainty, rank 7/13), granisetron (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 13.15, very low certainty, rank 10/13), dexamethasone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.85, very low certainty, rank 9/13), and ondansetron (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.10, very low certainty, rank 12/13). No studies reporting SAEs were available for fosaprepitant. Frequency of any AE Sixty-one RCTs were included in the NMA for any AE (19,423 participants, 15 single drugs, and 11 drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for any AE when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to moderate. Granisetron (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, moderate certainty, rank 7/15) probably has no or little effect on any AE. Dexamethasone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08, low certainty, rank 2/15) and droperidol (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, low certainty, rank 6/15) may reduce any AE. Ondansetron (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, low certainty, rank 9/15) may have little or no effect on any AE. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, very low certainty, rank 3/15) and ramosetron (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54, very low certainty, rank 11/15) on any AE. No studies reporting any AE were available for fosaprepitant. Class-specific side effects For class-specific side effects (headache, constipation, wound infection, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, arrhythmia, and QT prolongation) of relevant substances, the certainty of evidence for the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs mostly ranged from very low to low. Exceptions were that ondansetron probably increases headache (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, moderate certainty, rank 18/23) and probably reduces sedation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, moderate certainty, rank 5/24) compared to placebo. The latter effect is limited to recommended and high doses of ondansetron. Droperidol probably reduces headache (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, moderate certainty, rank 5/23) compared to placebo. We have high-certainty evidence that dexamethasone (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, high certainty, rank 16/24) has no effect on sedation compared to placebo. No studies assessed substance class-specific side effects for fosaprepitant. Direction and magnitude of network effect estimates together with level of evidence certainty are graphically summarized for all pre-defined GRADE-relevant outcomes and all drugs of direct interest compared to placebo in http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4066353.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found high-certainty evidence that five single drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron) reduce vomiting, and moderate-certainty evidence that two other single drugs (fosaprepitant and droperidol) probably reduce vomiting, compared to placebo. Four of the six substance classes (5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids) were thus represented by at least one drug with important benefit for prevention of vomiting. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than the corresponding single drugs in preventing vomiting. NK₁ receptor antagonists were the most effective drug class and had comparable efficacy to most of the drug combinations. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists were the best studied substance class. For most of the single drugs of direct interest, we found only very low to low certainty evidence for safety outcomes such as occurrence of SAEs, any AE, and substance class-specific side effects. Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol were more effective than low doses for prevention of vomiting. Dose dependency of side effects was rarely found due to the limited number of studies, except for the less sedating effect of recommended and high doses of ondansetron. The results of the review are transferable mainly to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting (i.e. healthy women undergoing inhalational anaesthesia and receiving perioperative opioids). Overall study quality was limited, but certainty assessments of effect estimates consider this limitation. No further efficacy studies are needed as there is evidence of moderate to high certainty for seven single drugs with relevant benefit for prevention of vomiting. However, additional studies are needed to investigate potential side effects of these drugs and to examine higher-risk patient populations (e.g. individuals with diabetes and heart disease).
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia, General; Antiemetics; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Placebos; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33075160
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012859.pub2 -
Nutrients Dec 2022Caffeine (1,3,7-trimethylxanthine) is one of the most widely consumed performance-enhancing substances in sport due to its well-established ergogenic effects. The use of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Caffeine (1,3,7-trimethylxanthine) is one of the most widely consumed performance-enhancing substances in sport due to its well-established ergogenic effects. The use of caffeine is more common in aerobic-based sports due to the ample evidence endorsing the benefits of caffeine supplementation on endurance exercise. However, most of this evidence was established with cycling trials in the laboratory, while the effects of the acute intake of caffeine on endurance running performance have not been properly reviewed and meta-analyzed. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature on the effects of caffeine intake on endurance running performance. A systematic review of published studies was performed in four different scientific databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and SportDiscus) up until 5 October 2022 (with no year restriction applied to the search strategy). The selected studies were crossover experimental trials in which the ingestion of caffeine was compared to a placebo situation in a single- or double-blind randomized manner. The effect of caffeine on endurance running was measured by time to exhaustion or time trials. We assessed the methodological quality of each study using Cochrane’s risk-of-bias (RoB 2) tool. A subsequent meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) estimated by Hedges’ g and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: A total of 21 randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis, with caffeine doses ranging between 3 and 9 mg/kg. A total of 21 studies were included in the systematic review, with a total sample of 254 participants (220 men, 19 women and 15 participants with no information about gender; 167 were categorized as recreational and 87 were categorized as trained runners.). The overall methodological quality of studies was rated as unclear-to-low risk of bias. The meta-analysis revealed that the time to exhaustion in running tests was improved with caffeine (g = 0.392; 95% CI = 0.214 to 0.571; p < 0.001, magnitude = medium). Subgroup analysis revealed that caffeine was ergogenic for time to exhaustion trials in both recreational runners (g = 0.469; 95% CI = 0.185 to 0.754; p = 0.001, magnitude = medium) and trained runners (g = 0.344; 95% CI = 0.122 to 0.566; p = 0.002, magnitude = medium). The meta-analysis also showed that the time to complete endurance running time trials was reduced with caffeine in comparison to placebo (g = −0.101; 95% CI = −0.190 to −0.012, p = 0.026, magnitude = small). In summary, caffeine intake showed a meaningful ergogenic effect in increasing the time to exhaustion in running trials and improving performance in running time trials. Hence, caffeine may have utility as an ergogenic aid for endurance running events. More evidence is needed to establish the ergogenic effect of caffeine on endurance running in women or the best dose to maximize the ergogenic benefits of caffeine supplementation.
Topics: Male; Humans; Female; Caffeine; Physical Endurance; Performance-Enhancing Substances; Running; Bicycling; Athletic Performance; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36615805
DOI: 10.3390/nu15010148 -
Addiction (Abingdon, England) Jan 2023The ability to regulate emotions effectively has been associated with resilience to psychopathology. Individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) have been shown to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
The ability to regulate emotions effectively has been associated with resilience to psychopathology. Individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) have been shown to have higher levels of negative emotionality, with some evidence suggesting impairment in emotion regulation compared with individuals without SUDs. However, no previous attempt has been made to systematically review the literature to assess the magnitude of this difference. We aimed to assess the association between SUD diagnosis and emotion regulation as measured by the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) and Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) through a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing findings.
METHODS
The systematic review was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO and Embase. We examined cross-sectional studies that compared a SUD group with a control group and measured emotion regulation using the DERS or the ERQ. The primary analysis focused on papers using the DERS, as this was the predominant instrument in the literature.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies met our primary analysis criteria, representing 1936 individuals with a SUD and 1567 controls. Individuals with SUDs relative to controls had significantly greater DERS scores, with a mean difference of 21.44 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 16.49-26.40, P < 0.001] and Hedges' g = 1.05 (95% CI = 0.86-1.24, P < 0.001). The difference was robust, remaining significant after removing outliers and studies with high risk of bias. Individuals with SUDs demonstrated poorer emotion regulation on each subscale of the DERS, with the largest deficits in the Strategies and Impulse subscales. The ERQ analysis revealed greater use of expressive suppression in those with SUDs relative to controls (Hedges' g = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.25-1.28, P = 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS
People with substance use disorders appear to have greater difficulties in emotion regulation than people without substance use disorders.
Topics: Humans; Emotional Regulation; Cross-Sectional Studies; Substance-Related Disorders; Emotions; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 35851975
DOI: 10.1111/add.16001 -
Phytomedicine : International Journal... Oct 2017Green tea (Camellia sinensis) is a beverage consumed for thousands of years. Numerous claims about the benefits of its consumption were stated and investigated. As green... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Green tea (Camellia sinensis) is a beverage consumed for thousands of years. Numerous claims about the benefits of its consumption were stated and investigated. As green tea is experiencing a surge in popularity in Western culture and as millions of people all over the world drink it every day, it is relevant to understand its effects on the human brain.
PURPOSE
To assess the current state of knowledge in the literature regarding the effects of green tea or green tea extracts, l-theanine and epigallocatechin gallate both components of green tea-on general neuropsychology, on the sub-category cognition and on brain functions in humans.
METHODS
We systematically searched on PubMed database and selected studies by predefined eligibility criteria. We then assessed their quality and extracted data. We structured our effort according to the PRISMA statement.
OUTCOME
We reviewed and assessed 21 studies, 4 of which were randomised controlled trials, 12 cross-over studies (both assessed with an adapted version of the DELPHI-list), 4 were cross-sectional studies and one was a cohort study (both assessed with an adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa assessment scale). The average study quality as appraised by means of the DELPHI-list was good (8.06/9); the studies evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa-scale were also good (6.7/9).
CONCLUSIONS
The reviewed studies presented evidence that green tea influences psychopathological symptoms (e.g. reduction of anxiety), cognition (e.g. benefits in memory and attention) and brain function (e.g. activation of working memory seen in functional MRI). The effects of green tea cannot be attributed to a single constituent of the beverage. This is exemplified in the finding that beneficial green tea effects on cognition are observed under the combined influence of both caffeine and l-theanine, whereas separate administration of either substance was found to have a lesser impact.
Topics: Affect; Brain; Caffeine; Camellia sinensis; Catechin; Cognition; Glutamates; Humans; Plant Extracts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tea
PubMed: 28899506
DOI: 10.1016/j.phymed.2017.07.008 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat chronic neuropathic pain. Estimates of the population prevalence of chronic pain with neuropathic components range... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat chronic neuropathic pain. Estimates of the population prevalence of chronic pain with neuropathic components range between 6% and 10%. Current pharmacological treatment options for neuropathic pain afford substantial benefit for only a few people, often with adverse effects that outweigh the benefits. There is a need to explore other treatment options, with different mechanisms of action for treatment of conditions with chronic neuropathic pain. Cannabis has been used for millennia to reduce pain. Herbal cannabis is currently strongly promoted by some patients and their advocates to treat any type of chronic pain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of cannabis-based medicines (herbal, plant-derived, synthetic) compared to placebo or conventional drugs for conditions with chronic neuropathic pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
In November 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registries for published and ongoing trials, and examined the reference lists of reviewed articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised, double-blind controlled trials of medical cannabis, plant-derived and synthetic cannabis-based medicines against placebo or any other active treatment of conditions with chronic neuropathic pain in adults, with a treatment duration of at least two weeks and at least 10 participants per treatment arm.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently extracted data of study characteristics and outcomes of efficacy, tolerability and safety, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for pain relief of 30% and 50% or greater, patient's global impression to be much or very much improved, dropout rates due to lack of efficacy, and the standardised mean differences for pain intensity, sleep problems, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and psychological distress. For tolerability, we calculated number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) for withdrawal due to adverse events and specific adverse events, nervous system disorders and psychiatric disorders. For safety, we calculated NNTH for serious adverse events. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a random-effects model. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 studies with 1750 participants. The studies were 2 to 26 weeks long and compared an oromucosal spray with a plant-derived combination of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) (10 studies), a synthetic cannabinoid mimicking THC (nabilone) (two studies), inhaled herbal cannabis (two studies) and plant-derived THC (dronabinol) (two studies) against placebo (15 studies) and an analgesic (dihydrocodeine) (one study). We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess study quality. We defined studies with zero to two unclear or high risks of bias judgements to be high-quality studies, with three to five unclear or high risks of bias to be moderate-quality studies, and with six to eight unclear or high risks of bias to be low-quality studies. Study quality was low in two studies, moderate in 12 studies and high in two studies. Nine studies were at high risk of bias for study size. We rated the quality of the evidence according to GRADE as very low to moderate.Primary outcomesCannabis-based medicines may increase the number of people achieving 50% or greater pain relief compared with placebo (21% versus 17%; risk difference (RD) 0.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.09); NNTB 20 (95% CI 11 to 100); 1001 participants, eight studies, low-quality evidence). We rated the evidence for improvement in Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) with cannabis to be of very low quality (26% versus 21%;RD 0.09 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.17); NNTB 11 (95% CI 6 to 100); 1092 participants, six studies). More participants withdrew from the studies due to adverse events with cannabis-based medicines (10% of participants) than with placebo (5% of participants) (RD 0.04 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.07); NNTH 25 (95% CI 16 to 50); 1848 participants, 13 studies, moderate-quality evidence). We did not have enough evidence to determine if cannabis-based medicines increase the frequency of serious adverse events compared with placebo (RD 0.01 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.03); 1876 participants, 13 studies, low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesCannabis-based medicines probably increase the number of people achieving pain relief of 30% or greater compared with placebo (39% versus 33%; RD 0.09 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.15); NNTB 11 (95% CI 7 to 33); 1586 participants, 10 studies, moderate quality evidence). Cannabis-based medicines may increase nervous system adverse events compared with placebo (61% versus 29%; RD 0.38 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.58); NNTH 3 (95% CI 2 to 6); 1304 participants, nine studies, low-quality evidence). Psychiatric disorders occurred in 17% of participants using cannabis-based medicines and in 5% using placebo (RD 0.10 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.15); NNTH 10 (95% CI 7 to 16); 1314 participants, nine studies, low-quality evidence).We found no information about long-term risks in the studies analysed.Subgroup analysesWe are uncertain whether herbal cannabis reduces mean pain intensity (very low-quality evidence). Herbal cannabis and placebo did not differ in tolerability (very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The potential benefits of cannabis-based medicine (herbal cannabis, plant-derived or synthetic THC, THC/CBD oromucosal spray) in chronic neuropathic pain might be outweighed by their potential harms. The quality of evidence for pain relief outcomes reflects the exclusion of participants with a history of substance abuse and other significant comorbidities from the studies, together with their small sample sizes.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Analgesics, Opioid; Cannabidiol; Chronic Pain; Codeine; Dronabinol; Humans; Medical Marijuana; Neuralgia; Numbers Needed To Treat; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29513392
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012182.pub2 -
Journal of the International Society of... 2018Caffeine is commonly used as an ergogenic aid. Literature about the effects of caffeine ingestion on muscle strength and power is equivocal. The aim of this systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Caffeine is commonly used as an ergogenic aid. Literature about the effects of caffeine ingestion on muscle strength and power is equivocal. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize results from individual studies on the effects of caffeine intake on muscle strength and power.
METHODS
A search through eight databases was performed to find studies on the effects of caffeine on: (i) maximal muscle strength measured using 1 repetition maximum tests; and (ii) muscle power assessed by tests of vertical jump. Meta-analyses of standardized mean differences (SMD) between placebo and caffeine trials from individual studies were conducted using the random effects model.
RESULTS
Ten studies on the strength outcome and ten studies on the power outcome met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analyses. Caffeine ingestion improved both strength (SMD = 0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03, 0.36; = 0.023) and power (SMD = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.34; = 0.047). A subgroup analysis indicated that caffeine significantly improves upper (SMD = 0.21; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.39; = 0.026) but not lower body strength (SMD = 0.15; 95% CI: -0.05, 0.34; = 0.147).
CONCLUSION
The meta-analyses showed significant ergogenic effects of caffeine ingestion on maximal muscle strength of upper body and muscle power. Future studies should more rigorously control the effectiveness of blinding. Due to the paucity of evidence, additional findings are needed in the female population and using different forms of caffeine, such as gum and gel.
Topics: Athletes; Caffeine; Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Performance-Enhancing Substances; Sports Nutritional Physiological Phenomena
PubMed: 29527137
DOI: 10.1186/s12970-018-0216-0 -
JAMA Network Open Jun 2020Substance use disorders (SUDs) represent a pressing public health concern. Combined behavioral and pharmacological interventions are considered best practices for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Substance use disorders (SUDs) represent a pressing public health concern. Combined behavioral and pharmacological interventions are considered best practices for addiction. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a first-line intervention, yet the superiority of CBT compared with other behavioral treatments when combined with pharmacotherapy remains unclear. An understanding of the effects of combined CBT and pharmacotherapy will inform best-practice guidelines for treatment of SUD.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a meta-analysis of the published literature on combined CBT and pharmacotherapy for adult alcohol use disorder (AUD) or other SUDs.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Cochrane Register, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and Embase databases from January 1, 1990, through July 31, 2019, were searched. Keywords were specified in 3 categories: treatment type, outcome type, and study design. Collected data were analyzed through September 30, 2019.
STUDY SELECTION
Two independent raters reviewed abstracts and full-text articles. English language articles describing randomized clinical trials examining CBT in combination with pharmacotherapy for AUD and SUD were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Inverse-variance weighted, random-effects estimates of effect size were pooled into 3 clinically informative subgroups: (1) CBT plus pharmacotherapy compared with usual care plus pharmacotherapy, (2) CBT plus pharmacotherapy compared with another specific therapy plus pharmacotherapy, and (3) CBT added to usual care and pharmacotherapy compared with usual care and pharmacotherapy alone. Sensitivity analyses included assessment of study quality, pooled effect size heterogeneity, publication bias, and primary substance moderator effects.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Substance use frequency and quantity outcomes after treatment and during follow-up were examined.
RESULTS
The sample included 62 effect sizes from 30 unique randomized clinical trials that examined CBT in combination with some form of pharmacotherapy for AUD and SUD. The primary substances targeted in the clinical trial sample were alcohol (15 [50%]), followed by cocaine (7 [23%]) and opioids (6 [20%]). The mean (SD) age of the patient sample was 39 (6) years, with a mean (SD) of 28% (12%) female participants per study. The following pharmacotherapies were used: naltrexone hydrochloride and/or acamprosate calcium (26 of 62 effect sizes [42%]), methadone hydrochloride or combined buprenorphine hydrochloride and naltrexone (11 of 62 [18%]), disulfiram (5 of 62 [8%]), and another pharmacotherapy or mixture of pharmacotherapies (20 of 62 [32%]). Random-effects pooled estimates showed a benefit associated with combined CBT and pharmacotherapy over usual care (g range, 0.18-0.28; k = 9). However, CBT did not perform better than another specific therapy, and evidence for the addition of CBT as an add-on to combined usual care and pharmacotherapy was mixed. Moderator analysis showed variability in effect direction and magnitude by primary drug target.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The present study supports the efficacy of combined CBT and pharmacotherapy compared with usual care and pharmacotherapy. Cognitive behavioral therapy did not perform better than another evidence-based modality (eg, motivational enhancement therapy, contingency management) in this context or as an add-on to combined usual care and pharmacotherapy. These findings suggest that best practices in addiction treatment should include pharmacotherapy plus CBT or another evidence-based therapy, rather than usual clinical management or nonspecific counseling services.
Topics: Adult; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Substance-Related Disorders; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32558914
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.8279 -
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection... 2023Bacterial biofilms are complex microbial communities encased in extracellular polymeric substances. Their formation is a multi-step process. Biofilms are a significant... (Review)
Review
Bacterial biofilms are complex microbial communities encased in extracellular polymeric substances. Their formation is a multi-step process. Biofilms are a significant problem in treating bacterial infections and are one of the main reasons for the persistence of infections. They can exhibit increased resistance to classical antibiotics and cause disease through device-related and non-device (tissue) -associated infections, posing a severe threat to global health issues. Therefore, early detection and search for new and alternative treatments are essential for treating and suppressing biofilm-associated infections. In this paper, we systematically reviewed the formation of bacterial biofilms, associated infections, detection methods, and potential treatment strategies, aiming to provide researchers with the latest progress in the detection and treatment of bacterial biofilms.
Topics: Humans; Biofilms; Bacteria; Bacterial Infections; Extracellular Polymeric Substance Matrix; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 37091673
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1137947 -
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 -
International Journal of Molecular... Sep 2022This publication discusses two compounds belonging to the psychoactive substances group which are studied in the context of depression treatment-psilocybin and... (Review)
Review
This publication discusses two compounds belonging to the psychoactive substances group which are studied in the context of depression treatment-psilocybin and esketamine. The former is a naturally occurring psychedelic. The latter was invented in the laboratory exactly 60 years ago. Although the substances were controversial in the past, recent studies indicate the potential of those substances as novel antidepressant agents. The PubMed/MEDLINE database was used to identify articles for systematic review, using the following search terms: (depression) AND (psilocybin) OR (ketamine). From 617 items, only 12 articles were obtained in the final analyses. Three articles were devoted to psilocybin in depression treatment and nine to esketamine. In most studies, esketamine showed a significant reduction in both depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation shortly after intake and after a month of treatment compared to baseline and to standard-of-care antidepressant agents. Psilocybin's antidepressive effects occurred one day after intake and after 6-7 weeks of treatment and were maintained for up to 6 or 8 months of follow-up. One study indicated that psilocybin's effects are comparable with and may be superior to escitalopram treatment. Both esketamine and psilocybin demonstrated rapid and long-term effects in reducing depression symptoms and, after overcoming some limitations, may be considered as novel antidepressant agents in future.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant; Hallucinogens; Humans; Ketamine; Psilocybin
PubMed: 36232748
DOI: 10.3390/ijms231911450