-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis and is caused by degeneration of the joint cartilage and growth of new bone, cartilage and connective tissue. It... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis and is caused by degeneration of the joint cartilage and growth of new bone, cartilage and connective tissue. It is often associated with major disability and impaired quality of life. There is currently no consensus on the best treatment to improve OA symptoms. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical benefits (pain, function, quality of life) and safety (withdrawals due to adverse effects, serious adverse effects, overall discontinuation rates) of celecoxib in osteoarthritis (OA).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers up to April 11, 2017, as well as reference and citation lists of included studies. Pharmaceutical companies and authors of published articles were contacted.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included published studies (full reports in a peer reviewed journal) of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral celecoxib versus no intervention, placebo or another traditional NSAID (tNSAID) in participants with clinically- or radiologically-confirmed primary OA of the knee or hip, or both knee and hip.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently performed data extraction, quality assessment, and compared results. Main analyses for patient-reported outcomes of pain and physical function were conducted on studies with low risk of bias for sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding of participants and personnel.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 36 trials that provided data for 17,206 adults: 9402 participants received celecoxib 200 mg/day, and 7804 were assigned to receive either tNSAIDs (N = 1869) or placebo (N = 5935). Celecoxib was compared with placebo (32 trials), naproxen (6 trials) and diclofenac (3 trials). Studies were published between 1999 and 2014. Studies included participants with knee, hip or both knee and hip OA; mean OA duration was 7.9 years. Most studies included predominantly white participants whose mean age was 62 (± 10) years; most participants were women. There were no concerns about risk of bias for performance and detection bias, but selection bias was poorly reported in most trials. Most trials had high attrition bias, and there was evidence of selective reporting in a third of the studies. Celecoxib versus placeboCompared with placebo celecoxib slightly reduced pain on a 500-point Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scale, accounting for 3% absolute improvement (95% CI 2% to 5% improvement) or 12% relative improvement (95% CI 7% to 18% improvement) (4 studies, 1622 participants). This improvement may not be clinically significant (high quality evidence).Compared with placebo celecoxib slightly improved physical function on a 1700-point WOMAC scale, accounting for 4% absolute improvement (95% CI 2% to 6% improvement), 12% relative improvement (95% CI 5% to 19% improvement) (4 studies, 1622 participants). This improvement may not be clinically significant (high quality evidence).There was no evidence of an important difference for withdrawals due to adverse events (Peto OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.15) (moderate quality evidence due to study limitations).Results were inconclusive for numbers of participants experiencing any serious AEs (SAEs) (Peto OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.36), gastro-intestinal events (Peto OR 1.91, 95% CI 0.24 to 14.90) and cardiovascular events (Peto OR 3.40, 95% CI 0.73 to 15.88) (very low quality evidence due to serious imprecision and study limitations). However, regulatory agencies have warned of increased cardiovascular events for celecoxib. Celecoxib versus tNSAIDsThere were inconclusive results regarding the effect on pain between celecoxib and tNSAIDs on a 100-point visual analogue scale (VAS), showing 5% absolute improvement (95% CI 11% improvement to 2% worse), 11% relative improvement (95% CI 26% improvement to 4% worse) (2 studies, 1180 participants, moderate quality evidence due to publication bias).Compared to a tNSAID celecoxib slightly improved physical function on a 100-point WOMAC scale, showing 6% absolute improvement (95% CI 6% to 11% improvement) and 16% relative improvement (95% CI 2% to 30% improvement). This improvement may not be clinically significant (low quality evidence due to missing data and few participants) (1 study, 264 participants).Based on low or very low quality evidence (downgraded due to missing data, high risk of bias, few events and wide confidence intervals) results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to AEs (Peto OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.27), number of participants experiencing SAEs (Peto OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.28), gastro-intestinal events (Peto OR 0.61, 0.15 to 2.43) and cardiovascular events (Peto OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.25).In comparisons of celecoxib and placebo there were no differences in pooled analyses between our main analysis with low risk of bias and all eligible studies. In comparisons of celecoxib and tNSAIDs, only one outcome showed a difference between studies at low risk of bias and all eligible studies: physical function (6% absolute improvement in low risk of bias, no difference in all eligible studies).No studies included in the main comparisons measured quality of life. Of 36 studies, 34 reported funding by drug manufacturers and in 34 studies one or more study authors were employees of the sponsor.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are highly reserved about results due to pharmaceutical industry involvement and limited data. We were unable to obtain data from three studies, which included 15,539 participants, and classified as awaiting assessment. Current evidence indicates that celecoxib is slightly better than placebo and some tNSAIDs in reducing pain and improving physical function. We are uncertain if harms differ among celecoxib and placebo or tNSAIDs due to risk of bias, low quality evidence for many outcomes, and that some study authors and Pfizer declined to provide data from completed studies with large numbers of participants. To fill the evidence gap, we need to access existing data and new, independent clinical trials to investigate benefits and harms of celecoxib versus tNSAIDs for people with osteoarthritis, with longer follow-up and more direct head-to-head comparisons with other tNSAIDs.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Celecoxib; Diclofenac; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Naproxen; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain Measurement; Placebos; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28530031
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009865.pub2 -
Revista Paulista de Pediatria : Orgao... 2023The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of the pharmacological treatment on the sleep patterns of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of the pharmacological treatment on the sleep patterns of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
DATA SOURCE
A high-sensitivity electronic search was performed in the following databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via PubMed, LILACS via the Regional Health Portal (BVS), Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and Web of Science, as recommended by the Cochrane Handbook, and which has undergone peer review according to the PRESS Guide.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The studies contemplated the use of the drugs atomoxetine, guanfacine, methylphenidate, dasotraline, L-theanine, and lisdexamfetamine. They showed efficiency in reducing the symptoms of ADHD, although all, except atomoxetine, affected sleep quality, such as by reducing total rapid eye movement (REM), non-REM phase, slow-wave sleep time, and longer sleep-onset latency.
CONCLUSIONS
The drugs used in the treatment of ADHD seem to have negative repercussions on the sleep quality of children, with the drug atomoxetine showing lesser effects on this variable.
Topics: Child; Humans; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Methylphenidate; Sleep
PubMed: 37255110
DOI: 10.1590/1984-0462/2023/41/2022065 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Nov 2021Although instrumental learning deficits are, among other deficits, assumed to contribute to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), no comprehensive systematic...
OBJECTIVE
Although instrumental learning deficits are, among other deficits, assumed to contribute to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), no comprehensive systematic review of instrumental learning deficits in ADHD exists. This review examines differences between ADHD and typically developing (TD) children in basic instrumental learning and the effects of reinforcement form, magnitude, schedule, and complexity, as well as effects of medication, on instrumental learning in children with ADHD.
METHOD
A systematic search of PubMed, PsyINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE+EMBASE CLASSIC, ERIC, and Web of Science was conducted for articles up to March 16, 2020. Experimental studies comparing instrumental learning between groups (ADHD versus TD) or a manipulation of reinforcement/medication within an ADHD sample were included. Quality of studies was assessed with an adapted version of the Hombrados and Waddington criteria to assess risk of bias in (quasi-) experimental studies.
RESULTS
A total of 19 studies from among 3,384 non-duplicate screened articles were included. No difference in basic instrumental learning was found between children with ADHD and TD children, nor effects of form or magnitude of reinforcement. Results regarding reinforcement schedule and reversal learning were mixed, but children with ADHD seemed to show deficits in conditional discrimination learning compared to TD children. Methylphenidate improved instrumental learning in children with ADHD. Quality assessment showed poor quality of studies with respect to sample sizes and outcome and missing data reporting.
CONCLUSION
The review identified very few and highly heterogenous studies, with inconsistent findings. No clear deficit was found in instrumental learning under laboratory conditions. Children with ADHD do show deficits in complex forms of learning, that is, conditional discrimination learning. Clearly more research is needed, using more similar task designs and manipulations.
Topics: Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Child; Conditioning, Operant; Humans; Learning; Methylphenidate
PubMed: 33862167
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2021.03.009 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2022Cataract surgery is the most common ambulatory incisional surgery performed in the USA. Cystoid macular edema (CME), the accumulation of fluid in the central retina due... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cataract surgery is the most common ambulatory incisional surgery performed in the USA. Cystoid macular edema (CME), the accumulation of fluid in the central retina due to leakage from dilated capillaries, is the most common cause of vision impairment following cataract surgery. Acute CME, defined as CME of less than four months' duration, often resolves spontaneously. CME that persists for four months or longer is termed chronic CME. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been used to treat CME. This update adds new evidence and analyses to the previously published review.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness of NSAIDs in the treatment of CME following cataract surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the CENTRAL (2022, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase; PubMed; LILACS; mRCT (discontinued in 2014, last searched August 2011), ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP databases. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 20 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of NSAIDs for CME following cataract surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts, reviewed full-text publications against eligibility criteria, independently extracted data from newly included trials and assessed risk of bias for each included trial. We contacted trial authors for clarification or to request missing information. We provided a narrative synthesis of all included trials and their results. For continuous and dichotomous outcomes, we separately performed pooled analysis and reported mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) as well as the associated 95% confidence interval (CI) whenever feasible. Two review authors independently graded the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine trials with a total of 390 participants (393 eyes). Study participants' mean age was 72.2 years (interquartile range [IQR] 68.8 to 73.6) and 72% were women (IQR 69% to 74%). Three trials included participants with acute CME, and four included participants with chronic CME; the remaining two trials enrolled both participants with acute and chronic CME or participants with unknown CME duration. We assessed trials as having unclear (33%) or high risk of bias (67%). Visual improvement of two or more lines at the end of treatment Data from one trial in participants with acute CME show no treatment effect of topical ketorolac compared to placebo (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.46 to 8.76; 22 participants). Data from a three-arm trial in participants with acute CME demonstrate that, when compared with topical prednisolone, topical ketorolac (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.07; 17 participants) or topical ketorolac and prednisolone combination therapy (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.69; 17 participants) may have little or no effect on visual improvement. Results of subgroup analysis from two studies in participants with chronic CME suggest that, after treatment for 90 days or longer, NSAIDs may increase participants' likelihood of visual improvement by 1.87 fold (RR 2.87, 95% CI 1.58 to 5.22; I = 33%; 2 trials, 121 participants) relative to placebo. However, there was no evidence of treatment effects in the subgroup with two months of treatment or less (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.73; P = 0.19, I = 41%; 2 trials, 34 participants). Overall, this evidence is very low certainty. A single-study estimate in patients with mixed CME indicates that topical diclofenac may increase the likelihood of visual improvement by 40% when compared to topical ketorolac (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.94; 68 participants). However, the same trial reported no difference between the groups in mean final visual acuity in Snellen lines (MD 0.40, 95% CI -0.93 to 1.73). A three-arm trial in patients with mixed CME reporting visual changes in ETDRS letters in comparisons between ketorolac and diclofenac (34 participants) or bromfenac (34 participants) suggests no evidence of effects. Overall, NSAIDs may slightly improve visual acuity in participants with mixed CME but the evidence is very uncertain. Persistence of improvement of vision one month after discontinuation of treatment One trial of participants with chronic CME tested oral indomethacin (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.60; 20 participants) and the other compared topical ketorolac to placebo (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 31.1; 26 participants). While there is no evidence of treatment effects, evidence suggests substantial between-group heterogeneity (P = 0.07, I = 69.9%; very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials in patients with acute or mixed CME reported this outcome. Proportion of participants with improvement in leakage on fundus fluorescein angiography One three-arm trial in participants with acute CME shows that, when compared with topical prednisolone, there is no treatment benefit of topical ketorolac (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.75; 17 participants) or topical ketorolac and topical prednisolone combination therapy (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.72 to 3.38; 17 participants). This evidence is very low certainty. The combined estimate from two trials in participants with chronic CME indicates NSAIDs have little to no effect over placebo on improving leakage (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.02; 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neither of the trials in patients with mixed CME reported this outcome. Proportion of participants with improved contrast sensitivity Very low-certainty evidence from one trial in participants with acute CME shows no treatment benefit of ketorolac (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.75; 17 participants) or ketorolac and prednisolone combination therapy (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.69; 17 participants) compared with topical prednisolone. None of the trials in patients with chronic or mixed CME reported this outcome. Proportion of participants with improved central macular thickness on optical coherence tomography; measures of quality of life No included trial reported these outcomes. Adverse effects Most trials observed no differences in ocular adverse events, such as corneal toxicity or elevated intraocular pressure, between comparison groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence on effects of NSAIDs in patients with CME is very uncertain and further investigation is warranted. Our findings are limited by small sample sizes, and heterogeneity in interventions, assessments, and reporting of clinically important outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Female; Aged; Male; Macular Edema; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Ketorolac; Diclofenac; Quality of Life; Cataract; Prednisolone
PubMed: 36520144
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004239.pub4 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Jun 2021Studies have demonstrated an increased risk of accidents and injuries in children, adolescents and adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However,... (Review)
Review
Studies have demonstrated an increased risk of accidents and injuries in children, adolescents and adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, little is known about how accident risk may alter over the lifespan. Additionally, it would be important to know if the most common types of accidents and injuries differ in ADHD patients over different age groups. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence of an ameliorating effect of ADHD medication on accident risk. Lastly, the underlying risk factors and causal mechanisms behind increased accident risk remain unclear. We therefore conducted a systematic review focusing on the above described research questions. Our results suggested that accident/injury type and overall risk changes in ADHD patients over the lifespan. ADHD medication appeared to be similarly effective at reducing accident risk in all age groups. However, studies with direct comparisons of accident/injuries and effects of medication at different age groups or in old age are still missing. Finally, comorbidities associated with ADHD such as substance abuse appear to further increase the accident/injury risk.
Topics: Accidents; Adolescent; Adult; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Comorbidity; Humans; Longevity; Methylphenidate
PubMed: 33582234
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Cognitive deficits are common in people who have received cranial irradiation and have a serious impact on daily functioning and quality of life. The benefit of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cognitive deficits are common in people who have received cranial irradiation and have a serious impact on daily functioning and quality of life. The benefit of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of cognitive deficits in this population is unclear. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 12, 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing or ameliorating cognitive deficits in adults treated with cranial irradiation.
SEARCH METHODS
For this review update we searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, and PsycInfo via Ovid to 12 September 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled (RCTs) trials that evaluated pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions in cranial irradiated adults, with objective cognitive functioning as a primary or secondary outcome measure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (MK, JD) independently extracted data from selected studies and carried out a risk of bias assessment. Cognitive function, fatigue and mood outcomes were reported. No data were pooled.
MAIN RESULTS
Eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this updated review. Six were from the original version of the review, and two more were added when the search was updated. Nineteen further studies were assessed as part of this update but did not fulfil the inclusion criteria. Of the eight included studies, four studies investigated "prevention" of cognitive problems (during radiotherapy and follow-up) and four studies investigated "amelioration" (interventions to treat cognitive impairment as a late complication of radiotherapy). There were five pharmacological studies (two studies on prevention and three in amelioration) and three non-pharmacological studies (two on prevention and one in amelioration). Due to differences between studies in the interventions being evaluated, a meta-analysis was not possible. Studies in early radiotherapy treatment phase (five studies) Pharmacological studies in the "early radiotherapy treatment phase" were designed to prevent or ameliorate cognitive deficits and included drugs used in dementia (memantine) and fatigue (d-threo-methylphenidate hydrochloride). Non-pharmacological studies in the "early radiotherapy treatment phase" included a ketogenic diet and a two-week cognitive rehabilitation and problem-solving programme. In the memantine study, the primary cognitive outcome of memory at six months did not reach significance, but there was significant improvement in overall cognitive function compared to placebo, with similar adverse events across groups. The d-threo-methylphenidate hydrochloride study found no statistically significant difference between arms, with few adverse events. The study of a calorie-restricted ketogenic diet found no effect, although a lower than expected calorie intake in the control group complicates interpretation of the results. The study investigating the utility of a rehabilitation program did not carry out a statistical comparison of cognitive performance between groups. Studies in delayed radiation or late effect phase (four studies) The "amelioration" pharmacological studies to treat cognitive complications of radiotherapy included drugs used in dementia (donepezil) or psychostimulants (methylphenidate and modafinil). Non-pharmacological measures included cognitive rehabilitation and problem solving (Goal Management Training). These studies included patients with cognitive problems at entry who had "stable" brain cancer. The donepezil study did not find an improvement in the primary cognitive outcome of overall cognitive performance, but did find improvement in an individual test of memory, compared to placebo; adverse events were not reported. A study comparing methylphenidate with modafinil found improvements in cognitive function in both the methylphenidate and modafinil arms; few adverse events were reported. Another study comparing two different doses of modafinil combined treatment arms and found improvements across all cognitive tests, however, a number of adverse events were reported. Both studies were limited by a small sample size. The Goal Management Training study suggested a benefit of the intervention, a behavioural intervention that combined mindfulness and strategy training, on executive function and processing speed. There were a number of limitations across studies and few were without high risks of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this update, limited additional evidence was found for the treatment or amelioration of cognitive deficits in adults treated with cranial irradiation. As concluded in the original review, there is supportive evidence that memantine may help prevent cognitive deficits for adults with brain metastases receiving cranial irradiation. There is supportive evidence that donepezil, methylphenidate and modafinil may have a role in treating cognitive deficits in adults with brain tumours who have been treated with cranial irradiation; patient withdrawal affected the statistical power of these studies. Further research that tries to minimise the withdrawal of consent, and subsequently reduce the requirement for imputation procedures, may offer a higher certainty of evidence. There is evidence from only a single small study to support non-pharmacological interventions in the amelioration of cognitive deficits. Further research is required.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Modafinil; Donepezil; Memantine; Quality of Life; Cognitive Dysfunction; Cranial Irradiation; Cognition; Methylphenidate; Brain Neoplasms; Fatigue; Dementia
PubMed: 36427235
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011335.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2022Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a psychiatric diagnosis increasingly used in adults. The recommended first-line pharmacological treatment is central... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a psychiatric diagnosis increasingly used in adults. The recommended first-line pharmacological treatment is central nervous system (CNS) stimulants, such as methylphenidate, but uncertainty remains about its benefits and harms.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of extended-release formulations of methylphenidate in adults diagnosed with ADHD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases and four clinical trial registries up to February 2021. We searched 12 drug regulatory databases for clinical trial data up to 13 May 2020. In addition, we cross-referenced all available trial identifiers, handsearched reference lists, searched pharmaceutical company databases, and contacted trial authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trials comparing extended-release methylphenidate formulations at any dose versus placebo and other ADHD medications in adults diagnosed with ADHD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data. We assessed dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs), and rating scales and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs). We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess risks of bias, and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We meta-analysed the data using a random-effects model. We assessed three design characteristics that may impair the trial results' 'generalisability'; exclusion of participants with psychiatric comorbidity; responder selection based on previous experience with CNS stimulants; and risk of withdrawal effects. Our prespecified primary outcomes were functional outcomes, self-rated ADHD symptoms, and serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes included quality of life, ADHD symptoms rated by investigators and by peers such as family members, cardiovascular variables, severe psychiatric adverse events, and other adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 24 trials (5066 participants), of which 21 reported outcome data for this review. We also identified one ongoing study. We included documents from six drug regulatory agencies covering eight trials. Twenty-one trials had an outpatient setting and three were conducted in prisons. They were primarily conducted in North America and Europe. The median participant age was 36 years. Twelve trials (76% of participants) were industry-sponsored, four (14% of participants) were publicly funded with industry involvement, seven (10% of participants) were publicly funded, and one had unclear funding. The median trial duration was eight weeks. One trial was rated at overall unclear risk of bias and 20 trials were rated at overall high risk of bias, primarily due to unclear blinding of participants and investigators, attrition bias, and selective outcome reporting. All trials were impaired in at least one of the three design characteristics related to 'generalisability'; for example, they excluded participants with psychiatric comorbidity such as depression or anxiety, or included participants only with a previous positive response to methylphenidate, or similar drugs. This may limit the trials' usefulness for clinical practice, as they may overestimate the benefits and underestimate the harms. Extended-release methylphenidate versus placebo (up to 26 weeks) For the primary outcomes, we found very low-certainty evidence that methylphenidate had no effect on 'days missed at work' at 13-week follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.15 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.11 to 1.81; 1 trial, 409 participants) or serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.43, CI 95% CI 0.85 to 2.43; 14 trials, 4078 participants), whereas methylphenidate improved self-rated ADHD symptoms (small-to-moderate effect; SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.30; 16 trials, 3799 participants). For secondary outcomes, we found very low-certainty evidence that methylphenidate improved self-rated quality of life (small effect; SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.05; 6 trials, 1888 participants), investigator-rated ADHD symptoms (small-to-moderate effect; SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.36; 18 trials, 4183 participants), ADHD symptoms rated by peers such as family members (small-to-moderate effect; SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.14; 3 trials, 1005 participants), and increased the risk of experiencing any adverse event (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.37; 14 trials, 4214 participants). We rated the certainty of the evidence as 'very low' for all outcomes, primarily due to high risk of bias and 'indirectness of the evidence'. One trial (419 participants) had follow-up at 52 weeks and two trials (314 participants) included active comparators, hence long-term and comparative evidence is limited.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found very low-certainty evidence that extended-release methylphenidate compared to placebo improved ADHD symptoms (small-to-moderate effects) measured on rating scales reported by participants, investigators, and peers such as family members. Methylphenidate had no effect on 'days missed at work' or serious adverse events, the effect on quality of life was small, and it increased the risk of several adverse effects. We rated the certainty of the evidence as 'very low' for all outcomes, due to high risk of bias, short trial durations, and limitations to the generalisability of the results. The benefits and harms of extended-release methylphenidate therefore remain uncertain.
Topics: Adult; Anxiety Disorders; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Humans; Methylphenidate; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35201607
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012857.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is characterized by symptoms of inattention or impulsivity or both, and hyperactivity, which affect children,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is characterized by symptoms of inattention or impulsivity or both, and hyperactivity, which affect children, adolescents, and adults. In some countries, methylphenidate is the first option to treat adults with moderate or severe ADHD. However, evidence on the efficacy and adverse events of immediate-release (IR) methylphenidate in the treatment of ADHD in adults is limited and controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and harms (adverse events) of IR methylphenidate for treating ADHD in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
In January 2020, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight additional databases and three trial registers. We also searched internal reports on the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration websites. We checked citations of included trials to identify additional trials not captured by the electronic searches.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IR methylphenidate, at any dose, with placebo or other pharmacological interventions (including extended-release formulations of methylphenidate) for ADHD in adults. Primary outcomes comprised changes in the symptoms of ADHD (efficacy) and harms. Secondary outcomes included changes in the clinical impression of severity and improvement, level of functioning, depression, anxiety and quality of life. Outcomes could have been rated by investigators or participants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted data independently on the characteristics of the trials, participants, interventions; outcomes and financial conflict of interests. We resolved disagreements by discussion or consulting a third review author. We obtained additional, unpublished information from the authors of one included trial that had reported efficacy data in a graph. We calculated mean differences (MDs) or standardized MDs (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data reported on the same or different scales, respectively. We summarized dichotomous variables as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 trials published between 2001 and 2016 involving 497 adults with ADHD. Three trials were conducted in Europe and one in Argentina; the remaining trials did not report their location. The RCTs compared IR methylphenidate with placebo, an osmotic-release oral system (OROS) of methylphenidate (an extended-release formulation), an extended-release formulation of bupropion, lithium, and Pycnogenol® (maritime pine bark extract). Participants comprised outpatients, inpatients in addiction treatment, and adults willing to attend an intensive outpatient program for cocaine dependence. The duration of the follow-up ranged from 6 to 18 weeks. IR methylphenidate versus placebo We found very low-certainty evidence that, compared with placebo, IR methylphenidate may reduce symptoms of ADHD when measured with investigator-rated scales (MD -20.70, 95% CI -23.97 to -17.43; 1 trial, 146 participants; end scores; Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Report Scale (AISRS), scored from 0 to 54), but the evidence is uncertain. The effect of IR methylphenidate on ADHD symptoms when measured with participant-rated scales was moderate, but the certainty of the evidence is very low (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -1.25 to 0.06; I = 69%; 2 trials, 138 participants; end scores). There is very low-certainty evidence that, compared with placebo, IR methylphenidate may reduce the clinical impression of the severity of ADHD symptoms (MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.28; 2 trials, 139 participants; I = 0%; change and end scores; Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity scale (scored from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse))). There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with placebo, IR methylphenidate may slightly impact the clinical impression of an improvement in symptoms of ADHD (MD -0.94, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.51; 1 trial, 49 participants; end scores; CGI-Improvement scale (scored from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse))). There is no clear evidence of an effect on anxiety (MD -0.20, 95% CI -4.84 to 4.44; 1 trial, 19 participants; change scores; Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A; scored from 0 to 56); very low-certainty evidence) or depression (MD 2.80, 95% CI -0.09 to 5.69; 1 trial, 19 participants; change scores; Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D; scored from 0 to 52); very low-certainty evidence) in analyses comparing IR methylphenidate with placebo. IR methylphenidate versus lithium Compared with lithium, it is uncertain whether IR methylphenidate increases or decreases symptoms of ADHD (MD 0.60, 95% CI -3.11 to 4.31; 1 trial, 46 participants; end scores; Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale (scored from 0 to 198); very low-certainty evidence); anxiety (MD -0.80, 95% CI -4.49 to 2.89; 1 trial, 46 participants; end scores; HAM-A; very low-certainty evidence); or depression (MD -1.20, 95% CI -3.81 to 1.41, 1 trial, 46 participants; end scores; HAM-D scale; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included trials assessed participant-rated changes in symptoms of ADHD, or clinical impression of severity or improvement in participants treated with IR methylphenidate compared with lithium. Adverse events were poorly assessed and reported. We rated all trials at high risk of bias due to selective outcome reporting of harms and masking of outcome assessors (failure to blind outcome assessor to measure adverse events). Overall, four trials with 203 participants who received IR methylphenidate and 141 participants who received placebo described the occurrence of harms. The use of IR methylphenidate in these trials increased the risk of gastrointestinal complications (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.95) and loss of appetite (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.96). Cardiovascular adverse events were reported inconsistently, preventing a comprehensive analysis. One trial comparing IR methylphenidate to lithium reported five and nine adverse events, respectively. We considered four trials to have notable concerns of vested interests influencing the evidence, and authors from two trials omitted information related to the sources of funding and conflicts of interest.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no certain evidence that IR methylphenidate compared with placebo or lithium can reduce symptoms of ADHD in adults (low- and very low-certainty evidence). Adults treated with IR methylphenidate are at increased risk of gastrointestinal and metabolic-related harms compared with placebo. Clinicians should consider whether it is appropriate to prescribe IR methylphenidate, given its limited efficacy and increased risk of harms. Future RCTs should explore the long-term efficacy and risks of IR methylphenidate, and the influence of conflicts of interest on reported effects.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Anxiety; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Bias; Bupropion; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Depression; Drug Delivery Systems; Female; Flavonoids; Humans; Lithium Compounds; Male; Methylphenidate; Middle Aged; Placebos; Plant Extracts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 33460048
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013011.pub2 -
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology Dec 2023Cesarean section is associated with moderate to severe pain and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly employed. The optimal NSAID, however, has not... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cesarean section is associated with moderate to severe pain and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly employed. The optimal NSAID, however, has not been elucidated. In this network meta-analysis and systematic review, we compared the influence of control and individual NSAIDs on the indices of analgesia, side effects, and quality of recovery.
METHODS
CDSR, CINAHL, CRCT, Embase, LILACS, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing a specific NSAID to either control or another NSAID in elective or emergency cesarean section under general or neuraxial anesthesia. Network plots and league tables were constructed, and the quality of evidence was evaluated with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) analysis.
RESULTS
We included 47 trials. Cumulative intravenous morphine equivalent consumption at 24 h, the primary outcome, was examined in 1,228 patients and 18 trials, and control was found to be inferior to diclofenac, indomethacin, ketorolac, and tenoxicam (very low quality evidence owing to serious limitations, imprecision, and publication bias). Indomethacin was superior to celecoxib for pain score at rest at 8-12 h and celecoxib + parecoxib, diclofenac, and ketorolac for pain score on movement at 48 h. In regard to the need for and time to rescue analgesia COX-2 inhibitors such as celecoxib were inferior to other NSAIDs.
CONCLUSIONS
Our review suggests the presence of minimal differences among the NSAIDs studied. Nonselective NSAIDs may be more effective than selective NSAIDs, and some NSAIDs such as indomethacin might be preferable to other NSAIDs.
Topics: Humans; Pregnancy; Female; Diclofenac; Ketorolac; Celecoxib; Cesarean Section; Network Meta-Analysis; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Indomethacin; Pain
PubMed: 37066603
DOI: 10.4097/kja.23014 -
Chronic Respiratory Disease May 2017Fatigue is a common manifestation of sarcoidosis, often persisting without evidence of disease activity. First-line therapies for sarcoidosis have limited effect on... (Review)
Review
Fatigue is a common manifestation of sarcoidosis, often persisting without evidence of disease activity. First-line therapies for sarcoidosis have limited effect on fatigue. This review aimed to assess the treatment options targeting sarcoidosis-associated fatigue. Medline and Web of Science were searched in November 2015; the bibliographies of these papers, and relevant review papers, were also searched. Studies were included if they reported on the efficacy of interventions (both pharmacological and non-pharmacological) on fatigue scores in sarcoidosis patients. Eight studies were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These studies evaluated six different interventions (infliximab, adalimumab, ARA 290, methylphenidate, armodafinil and exercise programmes). There is evidence to support a treatment effect of anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-αtherapies (adalimumab and infliximab) and neurostimulants (methylphenidate and armodafinil), but within five of the studies, the risk of bias was high within most domains and the remaining three studies included only small numbers of participants and were short in duration. Trial evidence for treating fatigue as a manifestation of sarcoidosis is limited and requires further investigation. Anti-TNF-α therapies may be beneficial in patients with organ-threatening disease. Neurostimulants have some trial evidence supporting improvements in fatigue but further investigation is needed before they can be recommended.
Topics: Adalimumab; Antirheumatic Agents; Benzhydryl Compounds; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Exercise Therapy; Fatigue; Humans; Infliximab; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Oligopeptides; Sarcoidosis; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 27507833
DOI: 10.1177/1479972316661926