scholarly journals Virtual reality biofeedback interventions for treating anxiety

Author(s):  
Oswald D. Kothgassner ◽  
Andreas Goreis ◽  
Ines Bauda ◽  
Amelie Ziegenaus ◽  
Lisa M. Glenk ◽  
...  

Summary Background Virtual reality (VR)-based biofeedback is a relatively new intervention and is increasingly being used for the treatment of anxiety disorders. This is the first research synthesis regarding effects and efficacy of this novel mode of treatment. Method We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the VR biofeedback literature on treating anxiety symptoms. The MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched for eligible pre-post comparisons and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We used self-reported anxiety, heart rate (HR), and heart rate variability (HRV) as primary outcome measures. Results A total of 7 studies with 191 participants reported VR biofeedback interventions. Of these studies 5 were RCTs, with 103 participants receiving VR biofeedback and 99 control participants (either 2D biofeedback or waiting list controls). We found that VR biofeedback significantly lowers self-reported anxiety (g = −0.28) and HR (g = −0.45), but not HRV. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in outcomes between VR biofeedback and 2D biofeedback but a significant reduction in HR in the VR biofeedback group compared with the waiting list (g = −0.52). Conclusion While the first findings are optimistic, more controlled studies with a wider variety of samples are needed to bring this field forward. Particularly, children and adolescents may profit from the combination of gamification elements, VR, and biofeedback.

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yong Gao ◽  
Lu Ma ◽  
Changsheng Lin ◽  
Shizhe Zhu ◽  
Lingling Yao ◽  
...  

Background: The efficacy of virtual reality (VR)-based intervention for improving cognition in patients with the chronic stage of stroke is controversial. The aims of this meta-analysis were to evaluate the effect of VR-based training combined with traditional rehabilitation on cognition, motor function, mood, and activities of daily living (ADL) after chronic stroke.Methods: The search was performed in the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), EBSCO, EMBASE, Medline (OVID), Web of Science databases, PubMed, CINAHL Ovid, and Scopus from inception to May 31, 2021. All included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining VR-based intervention combined with traditional rehabilitation for chronic stroke. The main outcomes of this study were cognition, including overall cognition (combined with all cognitive measurement results), global cognition (measured by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA, and/or Mini-Mental State Examination, MMSE), and attention/execution. The additional outcomes were motor function, mood, and ADL. Subgroup analyses were conducted to verify the potential factors for heterogeneity.Results: Six RCTs including 209 participants were included for systematic review, and five studies of 177 participants were included in meta-analyses. Main outcome analyses showed large and significant effect size (ES) of VR-based training on overall cognition (g = 0.642; 95% CI = 0.134–1.149; and P = 0.013) and attention/execution (g = 0.695; 95% CI = 0.052–1.339; and P = 0.034). Non-significant result was found for VR-based intervention on global cognition (g = 0.553; 95% CI = −0.273–1.379; and P = 0.189). Additional outcome analyses showed no superiority of VR-based intervention over traditional rehabilitation on motor function and ADL. The ES of VR-based intervention on mood (g = 1.421; 95% CI = 0.448–2.393; and P = 0.004) was large and significant. In the subgroup analysis, large effects for higher daily intensity, higher weekly frequency, or greater dose of VR intervention were found.Conclusion: Our findings indicate that VR-based intervention combined with traditional rehabilitation showed better outcomes for overall cognition, attention/execution, and depressive mood in individuals with chronic stroke. However, VR-based training combined with traditional rehabilitation showed a non-significant effect for global cognition, motor function, and ADL in individuals with chronic stroke.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chu-Lin Chou ◽  
Jin-Shuen Chen ◽  
Yi-No Kang ◽  
Yuan-Jen Chen ◽  
Te-Chao Fang

Objective: Apart from dietary restriction and medical therapy, the benefits of cardiovascular protection offered by polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) supplements in patients with ESRD receiving maintenance dialysis remain unclear.


2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (11) ◽  
pp. 609-623 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hua-Wei Huang ◽  
Xiu-Mei Sun ◽  
Zhong-Hua Shi ◽  
Guang-Qiang Chen ◽  
Lu Chen ◽  
...  

Purpose: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) on reintubation in adult patients. Procedures: Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched up to November 1, 2016, for RCTs comparing HFNC versus conventional oxygen therapy (COT) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in adult patients after extubation. The primary outcome was reintubation rate, and the secondary outcomes included complications, tolerance and comfort, time to reintubation, length of stay, and mortality. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and continuous outcomes as weighted mean difference and 95% CIs. The random effects model was used for data pooling. Findings: Seven RCTs involving 2781 patients were included in the analysis. The HFNC had a similar reintubation rate compared to either COT (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.21-1.60; P = .29; 5 RCTs, n = 1347) or NIV (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.88-1.40; P = .37; 2 RCTs, n = 1434). In subgroup of critically ill patients, the HFNC group had a significantly lower reintubation rate compared to the COT group (RR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.19-0.64; P = .0007; 2 RCTs, n = 632; interaction P = .07 compared to postoperative subgroup). Qualitative analysis suggested that HFNC might be associated with less complications and improved patient’s tolerance and comfort. The HFNC might not delay reintubation. Trial sequential analysis on the primary outcome showed that required information size was not reached. Conclusion: The evidence suggests that COT may still be the first-line therapy in postoperative patients without acute respiratory failure. However, in critically ill patients, HFNC may be a potential alternative respiratory support to COT and NIV, with the latter often associating with patient intolerance and requiring a monitored setting. Because required information size was not reached, further high-quality studies are required to confirm these results.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1841-1841 ◽  
Author(s):  
Somedeb Ball ◽  
Tapas Ranjan Behera ◽  
Sariya Wongsaengsak ◽  
Nuvneet Khandelwal ◽  
Rajshekhar Chakraborty

Introduction: Infections are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in multiple myeloma [MM]. Infections can be a result of the underlying disease or toxicity of anti-myeloma therapy or both. Proteasome inhibitors [PI] are associated with a risk of infection due to several mechanisms including decreased cytotoxic T-cell and natural killer cell proliferation, inhibition of dendritic cell function, and suppression of polyclonal immunoglobulins. Carfilzomib is an irreversible PI, with a higher potency compared to bortezomib in preclinical studies. Although infections are frequently reported as adverse events with carfilzomib-based combination regimens, definitive data on increased infection risk with carfilzomib is lacking. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to estimate the relative risk of serious infections associated with the use of carfilzomib-based regimens in MM. Methods: A systematic electronic search was performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov with appropriate search terms through March 20, 2019. We included RCTs comparing carfilzomib-based regimens with non-carfilzomib based regimens in MM. Primary outcome of our analysis was to estimate the relative risk of serious infections with carfilzomib. Data on primary outcome was obtained from ClinicalTrials.gov records of the included studies. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method of the random-effects model by Der Simonian and Laird. Heterogeneity of effect size was quantified using I2 statistic. Publication bias was assessed by the Egger's regression test. All statistical analyses were performed with Review Manager (RevMan Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration). Results: A total of 3,683 unique records were screened, among which, four RCTs including a total of 2954 patients (1486 in carfilzomib arm and 1468 in control arm) were included in the final analysis. Characteristics of studies included in the analysis are summarized in table 1. All but one study (CLARION) were conducted in relapsed/refractory MM. Carfilzomib was administered twice weekly in all trials, with dose ranging from 20/27 to 20/56 mg/m2. The median duration of treatment ranged from 16 to 88 weeks. Other than FOCUS trial which had single-agent carfilzomib, all had carfilzomib-based combination regimens in the intervention arm, namely, carfilzomib-dexamethasone, carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone, and carfilzomib-melphalan-prednisone. The risk of total serious infections was significantly elevated with carfilzomib-based regimens compared to other agents [pooled RR 1.40, 95% CI: 1.17 - 1.69, p = 0.0003, I2 = 57%, figure 1]. In the carfilzomib arm, 65% of all serious infections involved the respiratory tract, and 38% were serious pneumonia. Patients on carfilzomib-based regimens were at a significantly higher risk of serious respiratory tract infections (RTI) in comparison with those on other treatments [pooled RR 1.30, 95% CI: 1.12 - 1.50, p = 0.0004, I2 = 0%, figure 2]. However, there was no significant difference in the incidence of serious pneumonia between carfilzomib and control groups [pooled RR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.92 - 1.41, p = 0.23, I2 = 15%, figure 3]. None to substantial levels of heterogeneity were noted across trials, depending on the type of analysis. Subgroup analysis based on carfilzomib dose (≤ 27 vs. >27 mg/m2) and treatment setting (relapsed/refractory vs. newly diagnosed) did not reveal any statistically significant subgroup effect. There was no publication bias among studies. Conclusion: In our meta-analysis, carfilzomib is associated with a 40% increased relative risk of serious infections in patients with MM. The most common site of infection is the respiratory tract. Although carfilzomib leads to a higher risk of serious RTIs, the risk of serious pneumonia was not significantly different compared to controls. These findings will assist clinicians with risk-benefit assessment prior to initiation of carfilzomib-based regimens. Future studies should investigate patient-related and disease-related risk factors for serious infections and the utility of prophylactic antibiotic or intravenous immunoglobulin in high-risk patients. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21139-e21139
Author(s):  
Yi Hu ◽  
Xiaochen Zhao ◽  
Yuezong Bai ◽  
Longgang Cui ◽  
Fan Zhang

e21139 Background: Several therapies based on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been approved as the 1L standard of care for PD-L1≥ 50% advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, little is known about the difference in efficacy between different strategies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to help clinicians choose more reasonable treatment options. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase and major conference proceedings from January 2010 to December 2020 for randomized controlled trials that had available subgroup hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival according to PD-L1≥ 50%. Only drugs met primary outcome or approved by FDA were included for analysis. The primary outcome was the difference in overall survival (OS). HRs and 95% CI were calculated for the pooled OS using a random-effects model. p<0.05 was considered as statistical difference. Results: A total of 10 randomized controlled trials were included for this meta-analysis. The pooled HR and 95% CI for monotherapy, ICI plus chemotherapy and ICI plus ICI were 0.64 (0.55, 0.74), 0.64 (0.51, 0.79) and 0.70 (0.55, 0.90), respectively. There was no statistical differences between ICI monotherapy and ICI plus chemotherapy (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.77- 1.30), between ICI monotherapy and ICI plus ICI (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69- 1.22) or between ICI plus chemotherapy and ICI plus ICI (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66- 1.27). Conclusions: For PD-L1≥ 50% NSCLC patients, active ICI monotherapies showed no different efficacy when compared with ICI combination therapies.


EP Europace ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
B Enache ◽  
H Del Castillo-Carnevali ◽  
O Lairez ◽  
M Postula

Abstract Introduction More and more patients undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation are anticoagulated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). In order to balance the peri-procedural risk of bleeding with the risk of stroke, an important clinical question is whether to continue an interrupted DOAC administration or minimal interrupt by skipping the last one or two doses before the procedure. Dealing with rare events, the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) looking at this question have not been sufficiently powered to give a definitive answer.  Purpose To do a systematic review of the literature comparing an uninterrupted DOAC strategy to minimally interrupted (1-2 doses) strategy in the setting of AF ablation in terms of peri-procedural stroke and bleeding. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for RCTs comparing a strategy of uninterrupted versus minimally interrupted DOAC administration for atrial fibrillation ablation. The primary endpoint was a composite of clinically significant adverse events: ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), systemic embolism, and major or minor bleeding events. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed on the resulting trials. The systematic review protocol was pre-registered in the PROSPERO database. The study selection process followed the PRISMA statement. Results After checking and removing duplicates, 188 articles were screened by reading the title and abstract. 8 of them were selected for a full text screening.  Because 3 were not randomized, finally, 5 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1 769 patients were included in the meta-analysis, and the sample size of the individual RCTs ranged from 97 to 846 patients. The overall prevalence of paroxysmal AF varied from 54% to 100%. The mean age of patients ranged from 63,5 to 70 years, and 21,6% to 32,8% of the trial populations were women. Comorbidities, such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes, were common. Most patients had CHA2DS2-VASc &lt; 3; range from 1,7 to 2,7We found consistently low rates of strokes, TIAs, systemic embolisms and bleedings across all trials and both arms (RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.69 – 1.38, I-squared = 0%, p = 0.874).  Conclusion We found no evidence in favor of a difference between uninterrupted and interrupted administration of NOACs regarding the primary outcome of clinical thromboembolic and bleeding. Abstract Figure. Meta-analysis of the primary outcome


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 4150
Author(s):  
Carla Vanti ◽  
Matteo Golfari ◽  
Giacomo Pellegrini ◽  
Alice Panizzolo ◽  
Luca Turone ◽  
...  

Background: Osteopathic manual procedures called pump techniques include thoracic, abdominal, and pedal pumps. Similar techniques, called pompages, are also addressed to joints and muscles. Despite their widespread use, no systematic review has been published on their effectiveness. (2) Methods: CINAHL, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, ISI Web of Science, PEDro, PubMed, and Scopus databases were searched until July 2020. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) on adults were included. Subjective (e.g., pain, physical function) and objective (e.g., pulmonary function, blood collection) outcomes were considered. The Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2) and the GRADE instrument were used to evaluate the quality of evidence. (3) Results: 25 RCTs were included: 20 concerning the pump techniques and five concerning pompages. Due to the extensive heterogeneity of such studies, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis. The risk of bias resulted from moderate to high and the quality of the evidence was from very low to high. Singular studies suggested some effectiveness of pump techniques on pain and length of hospitalization. Pompage seems also to help improve walking distance and balance. (4) Conclusions: Although several studies have been published on manual pump techniques, the differences for population, modalities, dosage, and outcome measures do not allow definite conclusions of their effectiveness.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document