scholarly journals The effectiveness of lifestyle interventions to reduce side effects of androgen deprivation therapy for men with prostate cancer: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 843-865 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maud J. M. Geerkens ◽  
Nieck S. A. Pouwels ◽  
Harry P. Beerlage
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Androgen Deprivation Therapy ◽  
Behavioral Interventions ◽  
Androgen Deprivation ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Lifestyle Interventions ◽  
Exercise Interventions ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Purpose The aim of this review is to systematically review randomized controlled trials on lifestyle interventions on PCa patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy. Methods A literature search was conducted using the electronic databases Medline and PubMed. To be eligible, studies had to be randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that focused on side effects of ADT and lifestyle interventions to reduce side effects for men undergoing ADT with PCa. Lifestyle interventions were defined as interventions that included any dietary or behavioral components. Results Twenty-nine trials were included. Most of them focused on exercise interventions, while some investigated the effect of dietary or behavioral interventions. The effect of different lifestyle influencing modalities aimed to improve on the adverse effects of ADT varied greatly. Conclusions It is not possible to draw one conclusion on the effect of exercise-based interventions, but noted on several adverse effects of ADT improvement. Further studies are necessary to develop personalized lifestyle interventions in order to mitigate the adverse effects.

scholarly journals Cardiovascular Effects of Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Prostate Cancer: Contemporary Meta-Analyses

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiun-Ruey Hu ◽  
Meredith S. Duncan ◽  
Alicia K. Morgans ◽  
Jonathan D. Brown ◽  
Wouter C. Meijers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Androgen Deprivation Therapy ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Cardiovascular Effects ◽  
Androgen Deprivation ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cardiac Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

Androgen deprivation therapy is a cornerstone of prostate cancer treatment. Pharmacological androgen deprivation includes gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonism and antagonism, androgen receptor inhibition, and CYP17 (cytochrome P450 17A1) inhibition. Studies in the past decade have raised concerns about the potential for androgen deprivation therapy to increase the risk of adverse cardiovascular events such as myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality, possibly by exacerbating cardiovascular risk factors. In this review, we summarize existing data on the cardiovascular effects of androgen deprivation therapy. Among the therapies, abiraterone stands out for increasing risk of cardiac events in meta-analyses of both randomized controlled trials and observational studies. We find a divergence between observational studies, which show consistent positive associations between androgen deprivation therapy use and cardiovascular disease, and randomized controlled trials, which do not show these associations reproducibly.

Risk of infectious, hematological, and gastrointestinal side effects in patients treatedwith ibrutinib: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18265-e18265
Author(s):  
Myo Zaw ◽  
Kyaw Zin Thein ◽  
Aung Tun ◽  
Lukman Tijani ◽  
Elizabeth Guevara
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Chemokine Receptors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Gastrointestinal Side Effects

e18265 Background: Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) is essential for signaling of B-cell and chemokine receptors. Ibrutinib targets BTK and has become frontier in many hematologic malignancies. We undertook systematic review and pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine infectious, hematological and gastrointestinal risks associated with ibrutinib. Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE databases and meeting abstracts through December 31, 2016. The RCTs that mention infectious, hematological and gastrointestinal side effects as adverse effects were incorporated in the analysis. Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate the estimated pooled risk ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Four RCTs with a total of 1505 patients were eligible for the analysis. Studies compared Ibrutinib (I) vs ofatumumab, I vs chlorambucil, I+ bendamustine (B)+ rituximab (R) vs placebo + B+ R and I vs temsirolimus were included in the analysis. The relative risks (RR) of all-grade side effects were as follows: infection, 1.34 (95% CI: 1.04 – 1.74; p = 0.02); pneumonia, 1.16 (95% CI: 0.82–1.66; p = 0.38); anemia, 0.77 (95% CI: 0.64 – 0.93; p = 0.007); neutropenia, 0.99 (95% CI: 0.87 – 1.14; p = 0.98); thrombocytopenia, 0.86 (95% CI: 0.71 – 1.04; p = 0.12); diarrhea, 1.74 (95% CI: 1.48 – 2.05; p < 0.0001); nausea, 0.94 (95% CI: 0.80 – 1.10; p = 0.45); and vomiting, 0.98 (95% CI 0.74 – 1.30; p = 0.93). The RR of high-grade adverse effects were as follows: febrile neutropenia, 1.32 (95% CI: 0.84 – 2.08; p = 0.21); infection, 1.20 (95% CI: 0.73 – 1.98; p = 0.45); pneumonia, 1.22 (95% CI: 0.76–1.95; p = 0.39); anemia, 0.48 (95% CI: 0.33 – 0.71; p < 0.0001); neutropenia, 0.99 (95% CI: 0.86 – 1.15; p = 0.94); thrombocytopenia, 0.61 (95% CI: 0.47 – 0.81; p = 0.001); diarrhea, 1.72 (95% CI: 0.88 – 3.34;p = 0.10); nausea, 2.56 (95% CI: 0.59 – 10.99; p = 0.20); and vomiting, 0.42 (95% CI 0.11 – 1.63; p = 0.21). Conclusions: Ibrutinib increased the risk of all-grade diarrhea and infection whereas the risks of all-grade anemia, high-grade anemia and thrombocytopenia were significantly lower in the study arm, favoring ibrutinib.

scholarly journals Analgesic Efficacy and Adverse Effects of Meperidine in Managing Postoperative or Labor Pain: A Narrative Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 2;23 (4;2) ◽  
pp. 175-201
Author(s):  
Chi Wai Cheung
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Safety Profile ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Analgesic Efficacy ◽  
Labor Pain ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background: Meperidine, a synthetic opioid, has a rapid onset and short duration of action. Mounting evidence has challenged meperidine’s analgesic benefits, and concerns have been raised about its safety profile. Despite recommendations to restrict the prescription of meperidine, the drug remains frequently used. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of meperidine for acute postoperative and labor pain. Study Design: This was a narrative review of the analgesic efficacy and side effects of meperidine compared to other analgesic drugs for acute postoperative and labor pain in adults. Setting: Randomized controlled trials that compared the analgesic efficacy and side effect profile of meperidine versus another analgesic drug in adult patients were evaluated. Methods: A systemized search of randomized controlled trials studying meperidine for acute postoperative or labor pain in the adult patient population from PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE was performed. Included studies reported on different routes of meperidine administration including intramuscular, intravenous, and patient-controlled analgesia in various surgical procedures such as abdominal surgery, Cesarean section, gynecological surgery, orthopedic surgery, cardiothoracic surgery, as well as for labor analgesia. Meperidine’s analgesic efficacy and safety profile were compared to other opioids (morphine, tramadol, fentanyl, buprenorphine, nalbuphine, and pentazocine), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ketorolac, diclofenac, and indomethacin), dipyrone, ketamine, and bupivacaine. Results: A total of 62 randomized controlled trials published between 1972 and 2018 were reviewed. Meperidine had a similar or inferior analgesic efficacy compared to other analgesics for acute postoperative or labor pain. Meperidine was associated with more sedation and respiratory depression. Limitations: The sample sizes of many clinical studies were small, and therefore probably insufficiently powered to detect differences in uncommon side effects, such as central nervous system toxicity. In addition, some of the included clinical studies were old. Conclusion: Considering the availability of other effective analgesics with potentially fewer side effects, the use of meperidine for acute postoperative or labor pain should not be recommended. Key words: Acute postoperative pain, adverse effects, labor analgesia, meperidine, pethidine

scholarly journals Opioid-Free Anesthesia Benefit–Risk Balance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 2069
Author(s):  
Arthur Salomé ◽  
Hakim Harkouk ◽  
Dominique Fletcher ◽  
Valeria Martinez
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Lower Pain ◽  
Clinically Significant

Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) is used in surgery to avoid opioid-related side effects. However, uncertainty exists in the balance between OFA benefits and risks. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OFA to opioid-based anesthesia (OBA) in five international databases. The co-primary outcomes were postoperative acute pain and morphine consumption at 2, 24, and 48 h. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of postoperative chronic pain, hemodynamic tolerance, severe adverse effects, opioid-related adverse effects, and specific adverse effects related to substitution drugs. Overall, 33 RCTs including 2209 participants were assessed. At 2 h, the OFA groups had lower pain scores at rest MD (0.75 (−1.18; −0.32)), which did not definitively reach MCID. Less morphine was required in the OFA groups at 2 and 24 h, but with very small reductions: 1.61 mg (−2.69; −0.53) and −1.73 mg (p < 0.05), respectively, both not reaching MCID. The reduction in PONV in the OFA group in the PACU presented an RR of 0.46 (0.38, 0.56) and an RR of 0.34 (0.21; 0.56), respectively. Less sedation and shivering were observed in the OFA groups with an SMD of −0.81 (−1.05; −0.58) and an RR of 0.48 (0.33; 0.70), respectively. Quantitative analysis did not reveal differences between the hemodynamic outcomes, although severe side effects have been identified in the literature. No clinically significant benefits were observed with OFA in terms of pain and opioid use after surgery. A clear benefit of OFA use was observed with respect to a reduction in PONV. However, more data on the safe use of OFAs should be collected and caution should be taken in the development of OFA.

scholarly journals Effects of Exercise Interventions on Weight, Body Mass Index, Lean Body Mass and Accumulated Visceral Fat in Overweight and Obese Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 2635
Author(s):  
Hyun Suk Lee ◽  
Junga Lee
Keyword(s):  
Body Mass Index ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Lean Body Mass ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Visceral Fat ◽  
Exercise Intervention ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Exercise Interventions ◽  
Randomized Controlled

(1) Background: Exercise interventions for overweight and obese individuals help reduce accumulated visceral fat, which is an indicator of cardiometabolic risk, but the effectiveness of these interventions is controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effectiveness of exercise interventions in overweight and obese individuals in order to reduce weight, body mass index (BMI), and accumulated visceral fat, and increase lean body mass. (2) Methods: Databases were used to select eligible studies for this meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials with control and experimental groups were included. The degrees of effectiveness of the exercise interventions were computed to assess the benefits on reducing weight, BMI, and accumulated visceral fat, and increasing lean body mass. (3) Results: Sixteen studies were included in this meta-analysis. Participation in exercise interventions reduced weight (d = −0.58 (95% confidence interval (CI), −0.84–−0.31; p < 0.001; k = 9)), BMI (d = −0.50 (95% CI, −0.78–−0.21; p < 0.001; k = 7)), and accumulated visceral fat (d = −1.08 (95% CI, −1.60–−0.57; p < 0.001; k = 5)), but did not significantly increase lean body mass (d = 0.26 (95% CI, −0.11–0.63; p = 0.17; k = 6)). The average exercise intervention for overweight and obese individuals was of moderate to vigorous intensity, 4 times per week, 50 min per session, and 22 weeks duration. (4) Conclusions: Participating in exercise interventions has favorable effects on weight, BMI, and accumulated visceral fat. Further studies considering different modalities, intensities, durations, and measurements of fatness need to be conducted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document