Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Background: No therapies have been approved to alter bronchiectasis progression. Dipeptidyl peptidase-1 (DPP-1) inhibitors, which target neutrophil serine protease activation, are under investigation as potential disease-modifying agents.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DPP-1 inhibitors versus placebo in patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP were searched from inception until April 26, 2025. Primary outcomes included time to first exacerbation and proportion of patients remaining exacerbation-free. Secondary outcomes included post-bronchodilator % Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 s (FEV1), Quality of Life-Bronchiectasis (QoL-B) questionnaire scores, and rate of adverse events. Time-to-event outcome was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier (KM)-estimated individual patient data (IPD), whereas random-effects meta-analyses were performed for remaining outcomes.

Results: 2523 patients from four RCTs were included, of whom 1689 (66.9 %) received DPP-1 inhibitors. Compared with placebo, DPP-1 inhibitors prolonged the time to first exacerbation (HR 0.79; 95 % CI: 0.71 to 0.88) and increased the proportion of patients remaining exacerbation-free (RR 1.33; 95 % CI 1.12 to 1.58). A slower decline in post-bronchodilator % FEV1 was observed (MD 1.1 %; 95 % CI 0.05 to 2.15), but no difference in QoL-B scores (MD 1.35; 95 % CI -0.72 to 3.42). The safety profile of DPP-1 inhibitors was acceptable and comparable to placebo. Moderate certainty was found across endpoints.

Conclusions: DPP-1 inhibitors prolong time to first exacerbation and reduce exacerbation rates in patients with bronchiectasis, with an acceptable safety profile. These findings support their potential as a disease-modifying strategy.

Registration: PROSPERO (CRD420251042542).

Keywords: Bronchiectasis; DPP-1 inhibitor; Dipeptidyl-peptidases and tripeptidyl-peptidases; Meta-analysis; Randomized controlled trials; Systematic review.

Author/s:

Giulia Carvalhal, Júlia Moreira Diniz, Larissa Calixto Hespanhol, David Curi Barbosa Izoton Cabral, Jafar Aljazeeri

Colchicine for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events

Megan George — Tue, 02 Dec 2025 16:21:13 +0000

Date Added:

December 2, 2025

Journal/Publication:

Cochrane Library

Publication Date:

November 13, 2025

URL:

Colchicine for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

DOI (1):

10.1002/14651858.CD014808.pub2

Keywords

Coronary Intervention

coronary artery disease

secondary prevention

PMID (1):

41224205

MeSH

Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Coronary Artery Bypass

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

coronary artery disease

cardiovascular diseases

acute coronary syndrome

secondary prevention

Confidence Intervals

Angioplasty

Low dose colchicine taken after an MI or stroke for at least 6 months reduces the risk of subsequent MI or stroke with minimal adverse effects (mostly GI). James W. Mold, MD, MPH

View

Rationale
People with cardiovascular disease are at risk of recurrent major adverse cardiovascular events, and chronic low‐grade inflammation may be a major underlying factor. Treatment with low‐dose colchicine has been proposed for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in individuals at high cardiovascular risk. A previous Cochrane review showed considerable uncertainty regarding the benefits and harms of this approach.

Objectives
To evaluate the benefits and harms of low‐dose colchicine in the prevention of cardiovascular events in adults with a history of stable CVD or following myocardial infarction or stroke.

Search methods
We conducted a comprehensive search of the literature until February 2025 using Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the drugs@FDA database, references of key papers, and references of included studies.

Eligibility criteria
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of low‐dose colchicine for a minimum of six months versus any control intervention in patients of any age with cardiovascular disease (i.e. history of stable cardiovascular disease, previous myocardial infarction or stroke).

Outcomes
Our critical outcomes were all‐cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and serious adverse events.

Our important outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, stroke, all‐cause hospitalisations, coronary revascularisation (percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)/angioplasty or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)), quality of life, and gastrointestinal adverse events (i.e. diarrhoea, nausea, abdominal pain, or vomiting).

Risk of bias
Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB2 tool.

Synthesis methods
We conducted meta‐analyses using the random‐effects model. We generated forest plots to facilitate visualisation of the data. We did not perform any subgroup analysis.

We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all critical outcomes and for cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and coronary revascularisation. This was carried out by two review authors working independently.

Included studies
We included 12 studies involving 22,983 randomised participants. The follow‐up in the studies ranged from 6 to 80 months. Overall, 11,524 participants were assigned to low‐dose colchicine treatment and 11,459 were assigned to a control intervention, which constituted either usual care plus placebo or usual care only. The doses of colchicine used were 0.5 mg once or twice daily. At baseline, the mean age of participants ranged from 57 to 74 years. Most participants (79.4%) were male.

Synthesis of results
There is high‐certainty evidence that low‐dose colchicine treatment reduces the risk of myocardial infarction, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.96; 22,153 participants, 8 studies; I2 = 51%), yielding an absolute risk reduction of 9 fewer events (95% CI 16 fewer to 2 fewer) per 1000 patients, when the myocardial infarction rate is about 4% (36 events per 1000 patients) in the control group.

There is also high‐certainty evidence that low‐dose colchicine reduces the risk of stroke with a RR of 0.67 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.95; 22,483 participants, 10 studies; I2 = 40%), yielding an absolute risk reduction of 8 fewer events (95% CI 12 fewer to 1 fewer) per 1000 patients, when the stroke rate is about 2% (22 events per 1000 patients) in the control group.

There is high‐certainty evidence that the use of low‐dose colchicine does not increase the rate of serious adverse events (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.02; 15,677 participants, 4 studies; I2 = 0%). However, gastrointestinal adverse events were more common under treatment with colchicine (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.57; 22,185 participants, 10 studies; I2 = 91%).

For all other outcomes assessed, the evidence is of moderate certainty. Colchicine probably results in little to no difference in all‐cause mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.21; 22,747 participants, 10 studies; I2 = 1%; moderate‐certainty evidence), in cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.22; 22,271 participants; 8 studies; I2 = 13%; moderate‐certainty evidence), and coronary revascularisation (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.08; 13,705 participants, 5 studies; I2 = 40%; moderate‐certainty evidence).

There is no evidence about the benefits or harms of colchicine on quality‐of‐life or on the risk of all‐cause hospitalisation.

Authors' conclusions
People with cardiovascular disease using low‐dose colchicine as secondary prevention for at least six months benefit from reduced rates of myocardial infarction and stroke, without an increase in serious adverse events. Moderate‐certainty evidence did not show a benefit from low‐dose colchicine for the risk of mortality (i.e. all‐cause and cardiovascular mortality) or coronary revascularisation rates. Colchicine use was associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal adverse events, which were typically described as mild and transient in nature. Additional studies are warranted to investigate the benefits and harms of low‐dose colchicine in relevant subgroups and in specific indications, such as long‐term use in individuals with stable coronary artery disease versus limited‐time use following acute coronary syndrome.

Funding
Review author FE was supported by the Margot und Erich Goldschmidt & Peter René Jacobson Foundation. Review author CMS was supported by the Janggen Pöhn Foundation and the Swiss National Science Foundation (MD‐PhD grant Number: 323530_221860).

Registration
This review is based on its protocol, which is available via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD014808, and a previous review, which is available via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD011047.pub2.

Author/s:

Fahim Ebrahimi, Ramin Ebrahimi, Maximilian Beer, Christof Manuel Schönenberger, Hannah Ewald, Matthias Briel, Perrine Janiaud, Julian Hirt

Comparative efficacy and safety of exercise modalities in knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Megan George — Tue, 28 Oct 2025 15:03:10 +0000

Date Added:

October 28, 2025

Journal/Publication:

BMJ

Publication Date:

October 15, 2025

URL:

Comparative efficacy and safety of exercise modalities in knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1136/bmj-2025-085242

Keywords

exercise

exercise therapy

Knee osteoarthritis

PMID (1):

41093618

MeSH

Exercise Therapy* / adverse effects

Exercise Therapy* / methods

Network Meta-Analysis as Topic

osteoarthritis

Knee* / physiopathology

Knee* / rehabilitation

Knee* / therapy

Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

quality of life

Humans

A summary and comparison of various modes of exercise on pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis of the knees. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

View

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of various exercise modalities as therapeutic interventions for managing knee osteoarthritis.

Design: Systematic review with network meta-analysis.

Data sources: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, PEDro, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP, and ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu from database inception to August 2024.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Randomised controlled trials comparing different exercise modalities, including aerobic exercise, flexibility exercise, mind-body exercise, neuromotor exercise, strengthening exercise, mixed exercise, and control group for patients with knee osteoarthritis.

Main outcome measures: Primary outcomes included pain, function, gait performance, and quality of life, assessed at short term (four weeks), mid-term (12 weeks), and long term (24 weeks) follow-up. When exact time points were unavailable, data from adjacent time windows were used.

Results: 217 randomised controlled trials involving 15 684 participants were included. Moderate certainty evidence showed that, compared with the control group, aerobic exercise probably results in large improvements in pain at short term (standardised mean difference -1.10, 95% confidence interval -1.68 to -0.52) and mid-term follow-up (-1.19, -1.59 to -0.79), function at mid-term (1.78, 1.05 to 2.51), gait performance at mid-term (0.85, 0.55 to 1.14), and quality of life at short term (1.53, 0.47 to 2.59). Mind-body exercise probably results in a large increase in function at short term follow-up (0.88, 0.03 to 1.73; moderate certainty), while neuromotor exercise probably results in a large increase in gait performance at short term follow-up (1.04, 0.51 to 1.57; moderate certainty). Strengthening (0.86, 0.53 to 1.18) and mixed exercise (1.07, 0.68 to 1.46) probably result in a large increase in function at mid-term follow-up, all with moderate certainty evidence. Regarding long term follow-up, flexibility exercise may result in a large reduction in pain (-0.99, -1.63 to -0.36; low certainty); aerobic exercise may result in a large increase in function (0.87, 0.02 to 1.72, low certainty); and mixed exercise may increase function (0.56, 0.26 to 0.86; low certainty) and probably increases gait performance (0.57, 0.21 to 0.92, moderate certainty). Overall, aerobic exercise consistently showed the highest probability of being the best treatment, as reflected by surface under the cumulative ranking curve values (mean 0.72) across outcomes. The safety outcome was reported in a small proportion of studies (40 studies, 18%), and no clear differences were observed between exercise interventions and control.

Conclusions: In patients with knee osteoarthritis, aerobic exercise is likely the most beneficial exercise modality for improving pain, function, gait performance, and quality of life, with moderate certainty.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42023469762.

Author/s:

Lei Yan, Dijun Li, Dan Xing, Zijuan Fan, Guangyuan Du, Jingwei Jiu, Xiaoke Li, Janne Estill, Qi Wang, Ahmed Atef Belal, Chen Tian, Jiao Jiao Li, Songyan Li, Haifeng Liu, Xuanbo Liu, Yijia Ren, Yiqi Yang, Jinxiu Chen, Yihe Hu, Long Ge, Bin Wang

Efficacy and safety of respiratory syncytial virus vaccines

Megan George — Tue, 21 Oct 2025 13:29:57 +0000

Date Added:

October 21, 2025

Journal/Publication:

Cochrane Database Syst Rev

Publication Date:

September 29, 2025

URL:

Efficacy and safety of respiratory syncytial virus vaccines

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1002/14651858.CD016131

Keywords

vaccine efficacy

respiratory synytial virus vaccines

PMID (1):

41016728

MeSH

Vaccine Efficacy* / statistics & numerical data

Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines* / therapeutic use

Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines* / immunology

Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines* / adverse effects

Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines* / administration & dosage

Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections* / epidemiology

Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections* / mortality

Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

A meta-analysis of results of trials of the RSV vaccine. (It works and is safe.) James W. Mold, MD, MPH

View

Rationale: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a highly transmissible pathogen that causes varying degrees of respiratory illness across all age groups. The safety and efficacy profiles of available RSV vaccines, a critical consideration for their integration into public health strategies and clinical practice, remain uncertain.

Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of RSV vaccines compared to placebo, no intervention, vaccines for other respiratory infections, other RSV vaccines, or monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) across all human populations.

Search methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP following standard systematic review methodology from 2000 to April 2024.

Eligibility criteria: We included both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) involving all human populations comparing RSV vaccines with placebo, no intervention, vaccines for other respiratory infections, other RSV vaccines, or mAbs. We excluded studies focused on dose-finding schedules and immunogenicity assessment.

Outcomes: Benefits included frequency of RSV illness (both lower and upper respiratory illness) confirmed by laboratory tests (RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness and RSV-associated acute respiratory illness); hospitalisation due to RSV disease (both lower and upper respiratory illness) confirmed by laboratory tests; mortality from illness caused by RSV (confirmed by laboratory test); all-cause mortality; and admission to an intensive care unit. Harms included serious adverse events (SAEs) related to vaccination, including neurological disorders such as Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Risk of bias: We assessed risk of bias in RCTs using Cochrane's RoB 2 tool.

Synthesis methods: We used standard Cochrane methods.

Included studies: We identified 14 RCTs: five trials (101,825 participants) on older adults; three trials (12,010 participants) on maternal vaccination and effects on infants; one trial (300 participants) on women of childbearing age; and five trials (192 participants) on infants and children. We identified no NRSIs.

Synthesis of results: RSV prefusion vaccine versus placebo in older adults These vaccines reduced RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness with vaccine efficacy (VE) of 77% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 0.83; risk ratio (RR) 0.23, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.30; 4 RCTs, 99,931 participants; high-certainty evidence) and RSV-associated acute respiratory illness with VE of 67% (95% CI 0.60 to 0.73; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.40; 3 RCTs, 94,339 participants; high-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in mortality from illness caused by RSV, all-cause mortality, and SAEs related to vaccination (low-certainty evidence). RSV postfusion F protein-based vaccine versus placebo in older adults There is probably little to no difference in RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness with VE of -0.37% (95% CI -1.96 to 0.37; RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.96; 1 RCT, 1894 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and RSV-associated acute respiratory illness with VE of -0.07% (95% CI -1.15 to 0.47; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.15; 1 RCT, 1894 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in mortality from illness caused by RSV, all-cause mortality, and SAEs related to vaccination (low-certainty evidence). Maternal RSV F protein-based vaccine versus placebo in infants These vaccines reduced medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness with VE of 54% (95% CI 0.28 to 0.71; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.72; 3 RCTs, 12,010 participants; high-certainty evidence), medically attended RSV-associated severe lower respiratory tract illness with VE of 74% (95% CI 0.44 to 0.88; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.56; 3 RCTs, 12,010 participants; high-certainty evidence), and hospitalisation due to RSV disease with VE of 54% (95% CI 0.27 to 0.71; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.73; 2 RCTs, 11,502 participants; high-certainty evidence) in infants. There may be little to no difference in mortality from illness caused by RSV, all-cause mortality, and SAEs related to vaccination in mothers and infants (low-certainty evidence). Live-attenuated RSV vaccines versus placebo in infants and children The evidence is very uncertain regarding all-cause medically attended acute respiratory illness (MAARI) with VE of 26% (95% CI -0.01 to 0.46; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.01; 5 RCTs, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and RSV-associated MAARI with VE of 38% (95% CI -0.24 to 0.69; RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.24; 5 RCTs, 192 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in SAEs related to vaccination (low-certainty evidence). RSV recombinant F nanoparticle vaccine versus placebo in women of childbearing age The evidence is very uncertain regarding new RSV infections with VE of 50% (95% CI 0.08 to 0.73; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.92; 1 RCT, 300 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in mortality from illness caused by RSV, all-cause mortality, and SAEs related to vaccination (low-certainty evidence). Phase III trials consistently demonstrated low risk of bias. Whilst phase I and II trials occasionally raised concerns about selection bias in the randomisation process, the overall evidence was deemed robust.

Authors' conclusions: RSV prefusion vaccines reduced RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness and acute respiratory illness in older adults. There may be little to no difference in SAEs related to vaccination in older adults. Maternal vaccination with RSV F protein-based vaccines reduced medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness and severe cases in infants. There may be little to no difference in SAEs related to vaccination in mothers and infants. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effects of RSV vaccine on women of childbearing age, and the effects of live-attenuated RSV vaccines on infants and children; there may be little to no difference in SAEs related to vaccination.

Funding: This review was funded by the EU4Health Programme under a service contract with the European Health and Digital Executive Agency (HaDEA).

Registration: The review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023439128).

Author/s:

K M Saif-Ur-Rahman, Catherine King, Seán Olann Whelan, Matthew Blair, Seán Donohue, Caoimhe Madden, Kavita Kothari, Isolde Sommer, Thomas Harder, Nicolas Dauby, Ida Rask Moustsen-Helms, Simona Ruta, Julie Frère, Viktoria Schönfeld, Eero Poukka, Irja Lutsar, Kate Olsson, Angeliki Melidou, Karam Adel Ali, Kerry Dwan, Declan Devane

Drug Efficacy in the Treatment of Antipsychotic-Induced Akathisia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Alex Haga — Tue, 16 Apr 2024 18:20:46 +0000

Date Added:

April 16, 2024

Journal/Publication:

JAMA Netw Open

Publisher:

JAMA

Publication Date:

March 4, 2024

Issue:

Volume:

URL:

Drug Efficacy in the Treatment of Antipsychotic-Induced Akathisia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.1527

Keywords

PMID (1):

38451521

MeSH

Akathisia

Drug-Induced* / drug therapy

Antipsychotic Agents* / adverse effects

Network Meta-Analysis

Propranolol

Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Trazodone

Vitamin B 6

Vitamin B6 and mirtazapine are the most effective treatments for akathisia due to antipsychotic medications (a common side effect of these medications. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Importance: Antipsychotic-induced akathisia (AIA) occurs in 14% to 35% of patients treated with antipsychotics and is associated with increased suicide and decreased adherence in patients with schizophrenia. However, no comprehensive review and network meta-analysis has been conducted to compare the efficacy of treatments for AIA.

Objective: To compare the efficacy associated with AIA treatments.

Data sources: Three databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were systematically searched by multiple researchers for double-blind randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing active drugs for the treatment of AIA with placebo or another treatment between May 30 and June 18, 2023.

Study selection: Selected studies were RCTs that compared adjunctive drugs for AIA vs placebo or adjunctive treatment in patients treated with antipsychotics fulfilling the criteria for akathisia, RCTs with sample size of 10 patients or more, only trials in which no additional drugs were administered during the study, and RCTs that used a validated akathisia score. Trials with missing data for the main outcome (akathisia score at the end points) were excluded.

Data extraction and synthesis: Data extraction and synthesis were performed, estimating standardized mean differences (SMDs) through pairwise and network meta-analysis with a random-effects model. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was the severity of akathisia measured by a validated scale at the last available end point.

Results: Fifteen trials involving 492 participants compared 10 treatments with placebo. Mirtazapine (15 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -1.20; 95% CI, -1.83 to -0.58), biperiden (6 mg/d for ≥14 days; SMD, -1.01; 95% CI, -1.69 to -0.34), vitamin B6 (600-1200 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -0.92; 95% CI, -1.57 to -0.26), trazodone (50 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -0.84; 95% CI, -1.54 to -0.14), mianserin (15 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -0.81; 95% CI, -1.44 to -0.19), and propranolol (20 mg/d for ≥6 days; SMD, -0.78; 95% CI, -1.35 to -0.22) were associated with greater efficacy than placebo, with low to moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 34.6%; 95% CI, 0.0%-71.1%). Cyproheptadine, clonazepam, zolmitriptan, and valproate did not yield significant effects. Eight trials were rated as having low risk of bias; 2, moderate risk; and 5, high risk. Sensitivity analyses generally confirmed the results for all drugs except for cyproheptadine and propranolol. No association between effect sizes and psychotic severity was found.

Conclusions and relevance: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, mirtazapine, biperiden, and vitamin B6 were associated with the greatest efficacy for AIA, with vitamin B6 having the best efficacy and tolerance profile. Trazodone, mianserin, and propranolol appeared as effective alternatives with slightly less favorable efficacy and tolerance profiles. These findings should assist prescribers in selecting an appropriate medication for treating AIA.

Author/s:

Gerolymos, C, Barazer, R, Yon, D.K., Loundou, A, Boyer, L, Fond, G

Outpatient randomized controlled trials to reduce COVID-19 hospitalization: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Linda Fowler — Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:39:33 +0000

Date Added:

January 18, 2024

Journal/Publication:

Journal of Medical Virology

Publisher:

Wiley Online Library

Publication Date:

December 17, 2023

Issue:

Volume:

URL:

Outpatient randomized controlled trials to reduce COVID-19 hospitalization: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1002/jmv.29310

Keywords

randomized controlled trial

small molecule antivirals

PMID (1):

38105461

MeSH

Antibodies, Monoclonal / therapeutic use

Antiviral Agents / therapeutic use

COVID-19 Serotherapy

COVID-19* / therapy

outpatients

Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

hospitalization

Humans

A comparison of the impact of various treatments for COVID-19 on rates of hospitalizations. Figure 5 provides the best summary. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

This COVID-19 outpatient randomized controlled trials (RCTs) systematic review compares hospitalization outcomes amongst four treatment classes over pandemic period, geography, variants, and vaccine status. Outpatient RCTs with hospitalization endpoint were identified in Pubmed searches through May 2023, excluding RCTs <30 participants (PROSPERO-CRD42022369181). Risk of bias was extracted from COVID-19-NMA, with odds ratio utilized for pooled comparison. Searches identified 281 studies with 61 published RCTs for 33 diverse interventions analyzed. RCTs were largely unvaccinated cohorts with at least one COVID-19 hospitalization risk factor. Grouping by class, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (OR = 0.31 [95% CI = 0.24-0.40]) had highest hospital reduction efficacy, followed by COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) (OR = 0.69 [95% CI = 0.53-0.90]), small molecule antivirals (OR = 0.78 [95% CI = 0.48-1.33]), and repurposed drugs (OR = 0.82 [95% CI: 0.72-0.93]). Earlier in disease onset interventions performed better than later. This meta-analysis allows approximate head-to-head comparisons of diverse outpatient interventions. Omicron sublineages (XBB and BQ.1.1) are resistant to mAbs Despite trial heterogeneity, this pooled comparison by intervention class indicated oral antivirals are the preferred outpatient treatment where available, but intravenous interventions from convalescent plasma to remdesivir are also effective and necessary in constrained medical resource settings or for acute and chronic COVID-19 in the immunocompromised.

Author/s:

Daniele Focosi, David J. Sullivan, Daniel F. Hanley, Mario Cruciani, Massimo Franchini, Jiangda Ou, Arturo Casadevall, Nigel Paneth

Is acupuncture an effective treatment for temporomandibular disorder?: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Rowan Hutchins — Wed, 04 Oct 2023 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

October 4, 2023

Journal/Publication:

Medicine

Publication Date:

September 22, 2023

Issue:

Volume:

102

URL:

Is acupuncture an effective treatment for temporomandibular disorder?: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1097/MD.0000000000034950

Keywords

Acupuncture

PMID (1):

37746950

MeSH

Acupuncture Therapy*

Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Temporomandibular Joint Disorders* / therapy

treatment outcome

Acupuncture appears to be pretty effective for reducing the discomfort associated with conditions involving the TM joint and its associated muscles. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Background:
Acupuncture is used for treating various disorders, but its effects on temporomandibular disorder (TMD) remain unclear. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for TMD via a systematic review of randomized clinical trials.

Methods:
A total of 11 Korean and worldwide databases were searched to identify acupuncture studies in adults with TMD. A Cochrane risk of bias assessment was performed on all articles; a meta-analysis, which involved the categorization according to the type of control used (inactive control, active control, or add-on), was subsequently performed. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology.

Results:
The qualitative analysis of randomized clinical trials with acupuncture as the intervention included 32 articles, 22 of which were included in the quantitative analysis (471 participants). Acupuncture significantly improved outcomes (effect rate, relative risk [RR]: 7.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.91, 25, 62; visual analog scale, standardized mean difference: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.73) versus active controls (effect rate, RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.12, 1.27). In the analysis of add-ons, acupuncture significantly improved the effect rate and pain intensity (effect rate, RR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.77; visual analog scale, mean difference: −1.23; 95% CI −1.79, −0.67). However, the quality of evidence was determined to range from low to very low.

Conclusion:
Acupuncture in TMD significantly improved outcomes versus active controls and when add-on treatments were applied. However, as the quality of evidence was determined to be low, well-designed clinical trials should be conducted in the future.

Author/s:

Park, Eun Young, Cho, Jae-Heung, Lee, Sook-Hyun, Kim, Koh-Woon, Ha, In-Hyuk, Lee, Yoon Jae

Effects of salt substitutes on clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aubrey Delammermore — Thu, 08 Sep 2022 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

September 8, 2022

Journal/Publication:

Heart

Publisher:

BMJ Publishing Group

Publication Date:

August 9, 2022

Pages:

1-8

URL:

Effects of salt substitutes on clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1136/heartjnl-2022-321332

Keywords

PMID (1):

35945000

MeSH

Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Odds Ratio

body mass index

Salt substitutes, when compared to use of regular salt, reduce BP, CV mortality, and all-cause mortality.

Free full text

View

Objectives The Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS) recently reported blood pressure-mediated benefits of a potassium-enriched salt substitute on cardiovascular outcomes and death. This study assessed the effects of salt substitutes on a breadth of outcomes to quantify the consistency of the findings and understand the likely generalisability of the SSaSS results.

Methods We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library up to 31 August 2021. Parallel group, step-wedge or cluster randomised controlled trials reporting the effect of salt substitute on blood pressure or clinical outcomes were included. Meta-analyses and metaregressions were used to define the consistency of findings across trials, geographies and patient groups.

Results There were 21 trials and 31 949 participants included, with 19 reporting effects on blood pressure and 5 reporting effects on clinical outcomes. Overall reduction of systolic blood pressure (SBP) was −4.61 mm Hg (95% CI −6.07 to −3.14) and of diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was −1.61 mm Hg (95% CI −2.42 to −0.79). Reductions in blood pressure appeared to be consistent across geographical regions and population subgroups defined by age, sex, history of hypertension, body mass index, baseline blood pressure, baseline 24-hour urinary sodium and baseline 24-hour urinary potassium (all p homogeneity >0.05). Metaregression showed that each 10% lower proportion of sodium choloride in the salt substitute was associated with a −1.53 mm Hg (95% CI −3.02 to −0.03, p=0.045) greater reduction in SBP and a −0.95 mm Hg (95% CI −1.78 to −0.12, p=0.025) greater reduction in DBP. There were clear protective effects of salt substitute on total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0. 81 to 0.94) and cardiovascular events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94).

Conclusions The beneficial effects of salt substitutes on blood pressure across geographies and populations were consistent. Blood pressure-mediated protective effects on clinical outcomes are likely to be generalisable across population subgroups and to countries worldwide.

Author/s:

Yin, X., Rodgers, A., Perkovic, A., Huang, L., Li, K., Yu, J., Wu, Y., Wu, J. H. Y., Marklund, M., Huffman, M. D., Miranda, J. J., Di Tanna, G. L., Labarthe, D., Elliott, P., Tian, M., Neal, B.

Evidence-Based Guideline: Treatment of Convulsive Status Epilepticus in Children and Adults: Report of the Guideline Committee of the American Epilepsy Society

Bethie Seay — Tue, 30 Nov 2021 06:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

November 30, 2021

Journal/Publication:

Epilepsy Currents

Publication Date:

January 1, 2016

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

48-61

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

DOI (1):

10.5698/1535-7597-16.1.48

PMID (1):

26900382

MeSH

Respiratory Insufficiency

Algorithms

Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

I thought I would place this guideline for treatment of status epilepticus in the RPR library as a reference. It might also be worth posting the recommended doses and routes of administration of the recommended benzos and assuring that one of them is available if needed.

View

CONTEXT: The optimal pharmacologic treatment for early convulsive status epilepticus is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To analyze efficacy, tolerability and safety data for anticonvulsant treatment of children and adults with convulsive status epilepticus and use this analysis to develop an evidence-based treatment algorithm. DATA SOURCES: Structured literature review using MEDLINE, Embase, Current Contents, and Cochrane library supplemented with article reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials of anticonvulsant treatment for seizures lasting longer than 5 minutes. DATA EXTRACTION: Individual studies were rated using predefined criteria and these results were used to form recommendations, conclusions, and an evidence-based treatment algorithm. RESULTS: A total of 38 randomized controlled trials were identified, rated and contributed to the assessment. Only four trials were considered to have class I evidence of efficacy. Two studies were rated as class II and the remaining 32 were judged to have class III evidence. In adults with convulsive status epilepticus, intramuscular midazolam, intravenous lorazepam, intravenous diazepam and intravenous phenobarbital are established as efficacious as initial therapy (Level A). Intramuscular midazolam has superior effectiveness compared to intravenous lorazepam in adults with convulsive status epilepticus without established intravenous access (Level A). In children, intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam are established as efficacious at stopping seizures lasting at least 5 minutes (Level A) while rectal diazepam, intramuscular midazolam, intranasal midazolam, and buccal midazolam are probably effective (Level B). No significant difference in effectiveness has been demonstrated between intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam in adults or children with convulsive status epilepticus (Level A). Respiratory and cardiac symptoms are the most commonly encountered treatment-emergent adverse events associated with intravenous anticonvulsant drug administration in adults with convulsive status epilepticus (Level A). The rate of respiratory depression in patients with convulsive status epilepticus treated with benzodiazepines is lower than in patients with convulsive status epilepticus treated with placebo indicating that respiratory problems are an important consequence of untreated convulsive status epilepticus (Level A). When both are available, fosphenytoin is preferred over phenytoin based on tolerability but phenytoin is an acceptable alternative (Level A). In adults, compared to the first therapy, the second therapy is less effective while the third therapy is substantially less effective (Level A). In children, the second therapy appears less effective and there are no data about third therapy efficacy (Level C). The evidence was synthesized into a treatment algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the paucity of well-designed randomized controlled trials, practical conclusions and an integrated treatment algorithm for the treatment of convulsive status epilepticus across the age spectrum (infants through adults) can be constructed. Multicenter, multinational efforts are needed to design, conduct and analyze additional randomized controlled trials that can answer the many outstanding clinically relevant questions identified in this guideline.

Author/s:

Glauser, T., Shinnar, S., Gloss, D., Alldredge, B., Arya, R., Bainbridge, J., Bare, M., Bleck, T., Dodson, W. E., Garrity, L., Jagoda, A., Lowenstein, D., Pellock, J., Riviello, J., Sloan, E., Treiman, D. M.

Living Systematic Review on Cannabis and Other Plant-Based Treatments for Chronic Pain

Bethie Seay — Tue, 02 Nov 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

November 2, 2021

Journal/Publication:

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Publication Date:

October 27, 2021

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

EHC036

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

DOI (1):

10.23970/AHRQEPCCER250

This is a summary of the evidence available to date on cannabis and other plant-based treatments for chronic pain.

View

Objectives. To evaluate the evidence on benefits and harms of cannabinoids and similar plant-based compounds to treat chronic pain.

Data sources. Ovid® MEDLINE®, PsycINFO®, Embase®, the Cochrane Library, and SCOPUS® databases, reference lists of included studies, submissions received after Federal Register request were searched to July 2021.

Review methods. Using dual review, we screened search results for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of patients with chronic pain evaluating cannabis, kratom, and similar compounds with any comparison group and at least 1 month of treatment or followup. Dual review was used to abstract study data, assess study-level risk of bias, and rate the strength of evidence. Prioritized outcomes included pain, overall function, and adverse events. We grouped studies that assessed tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and/or cannabidiol (CBD) based on their THC to CBD ratio and categorized them as high-THC to CBD ratio, comparable THC to CBD ratio, and low-THC to CBD ratio. We also grouped studies by whether the product was a whole-plant product (cannabis), cannabinoids extracted or purified from a whole plant, or synthetic. We conducted meta-analyses using the profile likelihood random effects model and assessed between-study heterogeneity using Cochran’s Q statistic chi square and the I2 test for inconsistency. Magnitude of benefit was categorized into no effect or small, moderate, and large effects.

Results. From 2,850 abstracts, 20 RCTs (N=1,776) and 7 observational studies (N=13,095) assessing different cannabinoids were included; none of kratom. Studies were primarily short term, and 75 percent enrolled patients with a variety of neuropathic pain. Comparators were primarily placebo or usual care. The strength of evidence (SOE) was low, unless otherwise noted. Compared with placebo, comparable THC to CBD ratio oral spray was associated with a small benefit in change in pain severity (7 RCTs, N=632, 0 to10 scale, mean difference [MD] −0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.95 to −0.19, I2=28%; SOE: moderate) and overall function (6 RCTs, N=616, 0 to 10 scale, MD −0.42, 95% CI −0.73 to −0.16, I2=24%). There was no effect on study withdrawals due to adverse events. There was a large increased risk of dizziness and sedation and a moderate increased risk of nausea (dizziness: 6 RCTs, N=866, 30% vs. 8%, relative risk [RR] 3.57, 95% CI 2.42 to 5.60, I2=0%; sedation: 6 RCTs, N=866, 22% vs. 16%, RR 5.04, 95% CI 2.10 to 11.89, I2=0%; and nausea: 6 RCTs, N=866, 13% vs. 7.5%, RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.78, I2=0%). Synthetic products with high-THC to CBD ratios were associated with a moderate improvement in pain severity, a moderate increase in sedation, and a large increase in nausea (pain: 6 RCTs, N=390 to 10 scale, MD −1.15, 95% CI −1.99 to −0.54, I2=39%; sedation: 3 RCTs, N=335, 19% vs. 10%, RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.63, I2=0%; nausea: 2 RCTs, N=302, 12% vs. 6%, RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.77 to 5.39; I²=0%). We found moderate SOE for a large increased risk of dizziness (2 RCTs, 32% vs. 11%, RR 2.74, 95% CI 1.47 to 6.86, I2=0%). Extracted whole-plant products with high-THC to CBD ratios (oral) were associated with a large increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events (1 RCT, 13.9% vs. 5.7%, RR 3.12, 95% CI 1.54 to 6.33) and dizziness (1 RCT, 62.2% vs. 7.5%, RR 8.34, 95% CI 4.53 to 15.34). We observed a moderate improvement in pain severity when combining all studies of high-THC to CBD ratio (8 RCTs, N=684, MD −1.25, 95% CI −2.09 to −0.71, I2=50%; SOE: moderate). Evidence on whole-plant cannabis, topical CBD, low-THC to CBD, other cannabinoids, comparisons with active products, and impact on use of opioids was insufficient to draw conclusions. Other important harms (psychosis, cannabis use disorder, and cognitive effects) were not reported.

Conclusions. Low to moderate strength evidence suggests small to moderate improvements in pain (mostly neuropathic), and moderate to large increases in common adverse events (dizziness, sedation, nausea) and study withdrawal due to adverse events with high- and comparable THC to CBD ratio extracted cannabinoids and synthetic products in short-term treatment (1 to 6 months). Evidence for whole-plant cannabis, and other comparisons, outcomes, and PBCs were unavailable or insufficient to draw conclusions. Small sample sizes, lack of evidence for moderate and long-term use and other key outcomes, such as other adverse events and impact on use of opioids during treatment, indicate that more research is needed.

Author/s:

McDonagh, M. S., Wagner, J., Ahmed, A. Y., Morasco, B., Kansagara, D., Chou, R.

Malnutrition in hospitalized adults: A systematic review

Bethie Seay — Thu, 14 Oct 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

October 14, 2021

Journal/Publication:

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Publication Date:

October 13, 2021

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

EHC035

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

DOI (1):

10.23970/AHRQEPCCER249

A summary of what we know about the impact and management of malnutrition in hospitalized patients.

View

Objectives. To review the association between malnutrition and clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients, evaluate effectiveness of measurement tools for malnutrition on clinical outcomes, and assess effectiveness of hospital-initiated interventions for patients diagnosed with malnutrition.

Data sources. We searched electronic databases (Embase®, MEDLINE®, PubMed®, and the Cochrane Library) from January 1, 2000, to June 3, 2021. We hand-searched reference lists of relevant studies and searched for unpublished studies in ClinicalTrials.gov.

Review methods. Using predefined criteria and dual review, we selected (1) existing systematic reviews (SRs) to assess the association between malnutrition and clinical outcomes, (2) randomized and non-randomized studies to evaluate the effectiveness of malnutrition tools on clinical outcomes, and (3) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess effectiveness of hospital-initiated treatments for malnutrition. Clinical outcomes of interest included mortality, length of stay, 30-day readmission, quality of life, functional status, activities of daily living, hospital acquired conditions, wound healing, and discharge disposition. When appropriate, we conducted meta-analysis to quantitatively summarize study findings; otherwise, data were narratively synthesized. When available, we used pooled estimates from existing SRs to determine the association between malnutrition and clinical outcomes, and assessed the strength of evidence.

Results. Six existing SRs (including 43 unique studies) provided evidence on the association between malnutrition and clinical outcomes. Low to moderate strength of evidence (SOE) showed an association between malnutrition and increased hospital mortality and prolonged hospital length of stay. This association was observed across patients hospitalized for an acute medical event requiring intensive care unit care, heart failure, and cirrhosis. Literature searches found no studies that met inclusion criteria and assessed effectiveness of measurement tools. The primary reason studies did not meet inclusion criteria is because they lacked an appropriate control group. Moderate SOE from 11 RCTs found that hospital-initiated malnutrition interventions likely reduce mortality compared with usual care among hospitalized patients diagnosed with malnutrition. Low SOE indicated that hospital-initiated malnutrition interventions may also improve quality of life compared to usual care.

Conclusions. Evidence shows an association between malnutrition and increased mortality and prolonged length of hospital stay among hospitalized patients identified as malnourished. However, the strength of this association varied depending on patient population and tool used to identify malnutrition. Evidence indicates malnutrition-focused hospital-initiated interventions likely reduce mortality and may improve quality of life compared to usual care among patients diagnosed with malnutrition. Research is needed to assess the clinical utility of measurement tools for malnutrition.

Author/s:

Uhl, S., Siddique, S. M., McKeever, L., Bloschichak, A., D'Anci, K., Leas, B., Mull, N. K, Tsou, A. Y.

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data

John Bayhi — Thu, 14 May 2020 14:42:26 +0000

Date Added:

May 14, 2020

Journal/Publication:

BMJ

Publisher:

BMJ Publishing Group Limited

Publication Date:

February 15, 2017

Issue:

i6583

Volume:

356

URL:

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1136/bmj.i6583

Keywords

vitamin D

respiratory tract infections

dietary supplements

PMID (1):

28202713

MeSH

Dietary Supplements/adverse effects

Humans

Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Respiratory Tract Infections/diet therapy

Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control

Vitamin D/administration & dosage

This meta-analysis found that Vitamin D supplementation reduces the incidence of acute viral infections. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Objectives To assess the overall effect of vitamin D supplementation on risk of acute respiratory tract infection, and to identify factors modifying this effect.

Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) from randomised controlled trials.

Data sources Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry from inception to December 2015.

Eligibility criteria for study selection Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trials of supplementation with vitamin D3 or vitamin D2 of any duration were eligible for inclusion if they had been approved by a research ethics committee and if data on incidence of acute respiratory tract infection were collected prospectively and prespecified as an efficacy outcome.

Results 25 eligible randomised controlled trials (total 11 321 participants, aged 0 to 95 years) were identified. IPD were obtained for 10 933 (96.6%) participants. Vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of acute respiratory tract infection among all participants (adjusted odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 0.96; P for heterogeneity <0.001). In subgroup analysis, protective effects were seen in those receiving daily or weekly vitamin D without additional bolus doses (adjusted odds ratio 0.81, 0.72 to 0.91) but not in those receiving one or more bolus doses (adjusted odds ratio 0.97, 0.86 to 1.10; P for interaction=0.05). Among those receiving daily or weekly vitamin D, protective effects were stronger in those with baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels <25 nmol/L (adjusted odds ratio 0.30, 0.17 to 0.53) than in those with baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels ≥25 nmol/L (adjusted odds ratio 0.75, 0.60 to 0.95; P for interaction=0.006). Vitamin D did not influence the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (adjusted odds ratio 0.98, 0.80 to 1.20, P=0.83). The body of evidence contributing to these analyses was assessed as being of high quality.

Conclusions Vitamin D supplementation was safe and it protected against acute respiratory tract infection overall. Patients who were very vitamin D deficient and those not receiving bolus doses experienced the most benefit.

Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42014013953.

Author/s:

Martineau, AR, Jolliffe, DA, Hooper, RL, Greenberg, L, Aloia, JF, Bergman, P, Dubnov-Raz, G, Esposito, S, Ganmaa, D, Ginde, AA, Goodall, EC, Grant, CC, Griffiths, CJ, Janssens, W, Laaksi, I, Manaseki-Holland S, Mauger D, Murdoch DR, Neale R, Rees JR, Simpson S Jr, Stelmach, I, Kumar, GT, Urashima, M", CA Jr

Exercise for dysmenorrhoea

John Bayhi — Fri, 01 Nov 2019 17:23:19 +0000

Date Added:

November 1, 2019

Journal/Publication:

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Publisher:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Publication Date:

September 20, 2019

URL:

Exercise for dysmenorrhoea

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1002/14651858.CD004142.pub4

Keywords

alternative therapies

pelvic pain

PMID (1):

31538328

MeSH

Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Regular aerobic exercise is associated with reduced menstrual pain. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

BACKGROUND:

Exercise has a number of health benefits and has been recommended as a treatment for primary dysmenorrhoea (period pain), but the evidence for its effectiveness on primary dysmenorrhoea is unclear. This review examined the available evidence supporting the use of exercise to treat primary dysmenorrhoea.

OBJECTIVES:

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of exercise for women with primary dysmenorrhoea.

SEARCH METHODS:

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED and CINAHL (from inception to July 2019). We searched two clinical trial databases (inception to March 2019) and handsearched reference lists and previous systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

We included studies if they randomised women with moderate-to-severe primary dysmenorrhoea to receive exercise versus no treatment, attention control, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or the oral contraceptive pill. Cross-over studies and cluster-randomised trials were not eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two review authors independently selected the studies, assessed eligible studies for risk of bias, and extracted data from each study. We contacted study authors for missing information. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were menstrual pain intensity and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included overall menstrual symptoms, usage of rescue analgesic medication, restriction of daily life activities, absence from work or school and quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS:

We included a total of 12 trials with 854 women in the review, with 10 trials and 754 women in the meta-analysis. Nine of the 10 studies compared exercise with no treatment, and one study compared exercise with NSAIDs. No studies compared exercise with attention control or with the oral contraceptive pill. Studies used low-intensity exercise (stretching, core strengthening or yoga) or high-intensity exercise (Zumba or aerobic training); none of the included studies used resistance training.Exercise versus no treatmentExercise may have a large effect on reducing menstrual pain intensity compared to no exercise (standard mean difference (SMD) -1.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.06 to -1.66; 9 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), n = 632; I2= 91%; low-quality evidence). This SMD corresponds to a 25 mm reduction on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) and is likely to be clinically significant. We are uncertain if there is any difference in adverse event rates between exercise and no treatment.We are uncertain if exercise reduces overall menstrual symptoms (as measured by the Moos Menstrual Distress Questionnaire (MMDQ)), such as back pain or fatigue compared to no treatment (mean difference (MD) -33.16, 95% CI -40.45 to -25.87; 1 RCT, n = 120; very low-quality evidence), or improves mental quality of life (MD 4.40, 95% CI 1.59 to 7.21; 1 RCT, n = 55; very low-quality evidence) or physical quality of life (as measured by the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12)) compared to no exercise (MD 3.40, 95% CI -1.68 to 8.48; 1 RCT, n = 55; very low-quality evidence) when compared to no treatment. No studies reported on any changes in restriction of daily life activities or on absence from work or school.Exercise versus NSAIDsWe are uncertain if exercise, when compared with mefenamic acid, reduced menstrual pain intensity (MD -7.40, 95% CI -8.36 to -6.44; 1 RCT, n = 122; very low-quality evidence), use of rescue analgesic medication (risk ratio (RR) 1.77, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.60; 1 RCT, n = 122; very low-quality evidence) or absence from work or school (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.03; 1 RCT, n = 122; very low-quality evidence). None of the included studies reported on adverse events, overall menstrual symptoms, restriction of daily life activities or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

The current low-quality evidence suggests that exercise, performed for about 45 to 60 minutes each time, three times per week or more, regardless of intensity, may provide a clinically significant reduction in menstrual pain intensity of around 25 mm on a 100 mm VAS. All studies used exercise regularly throughout the month, with some studies asking women not to exercise during menstruation. Given the overall health benefits of exercise, and the relatively low risk of side effects reported in the general population, women may consider using exercise, either alone or in conjunction with other modalities, such as NSAIDs, to manage menstrual pain. It is unclear if the benefits of exercise persist after regular exercise has stopped or if they are similar in women over the age of 25. Further research is required, using validated outcome measures, adequate blinding and suitable comparator groups reflecting current best practice or accounting for the extra attention given during exercise.

Author/s:

Armour, M, Ee, CC, Naidoo, D, Ayati, Z, Chalmers, KJ, Steel, KA, de Manincor, MJ, Delshad, E

Glucocorticoids for croup in children

John Bayhi — Tue, 24 Sep 2019 22:49:32 +0000

Date Added:

September 24, 2019

Journal/Publication:

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Publisher:

The Cochrane Collaboration / John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Publication Date:

August 22, 2018

URL:

Glucocorticoids for croup in children

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1002/14651858.CD001955.pub4

Keywords

croup

children

randomized control trial

adolescent

PMID (1):

30133690

MeSH

Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Corticosteroids reduce symptoms of croup in children for at least 24 hours. The optimal dose and route have not been established. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

BACKGROUND:

Glucocorticoids are commonly used for croup in children. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 1999 and previously updated in 2004 and 2011.

OBJECTIVES:

To examine the effects of glucocorticoids for the treatment of croup in children aged 0 to 18 years.

SEARCH METHODS:

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2018), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, Ovid MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 3 April 2018), and Embase (Ovid) (1996 to 3 April 2018, week 14), and the trials registers ClinicalTrials.gov (3 April 2018) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 3 April 2018). We scanned the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and of the included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated children aged 0 to 18 years with croup and measured the effects of glucocorticoids, alone or in combination, compared to placebo or another pharmacologic treatment. The studies needed to report at least one of our primary or secondary outcomes: change in croup score; return visits, (re)admissions or both; length of stay; patient improvement; use of additional treatments; and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

One author extracted data from each study and another verified the extraction. We entered the data into Review Manager 5 for meta-analysis. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for each study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and the certainty of the body of evidence for the primary outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS:

We added five new RCTs with 330 children. This review now includes 43 RCTs with a total of 4565 children. We assessed most (98%) studies as at high or unclear risk of bias. Compared to placebo, glucocorticoids improved symptoms of croup at two hours (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.13 to -0.18; 7 RCTs; 426 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and the effect lasted for at least 24 hours (SMD -0.86, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.31; 8 RCTs; 351 children; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, glucocorticoids reduced the rate of return visits or (re)admissions or both (risk ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.75; 10 RCTs; 1679 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Glucocorticoid treatment reduced the length of stay in hospital by about 15 hours (mean difference -14.90, 95% CI -23.58 to -6.22; 8 RCTs; 476 children). Serious adverse events were infrequent. Publication bias was not evident. Uncertainty remains with regard to the optimal type, dose, and mode of administration of glucocorticoids for reducing croup symptoms in children.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

Glucocorticoids reduced symptoms of croup at two hours, shortened hospital stays, and reduced the rate of return visits to care. Our conclusions have changed, as the previous version of this review reported that glucocorticoids reduced symptoms of croup within six hours.

Author/s:

Gates, A, Gates, M, Vandermeer, B, Johnson, C, Hartling, L, Johnson, DW, Klassen, TP