Efficacy and safety of dapoxetine for premature ejaculation: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Sexual Health ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 301
Author(s):  
Guo-Jiang Zhao ◽  
Qiang Guo ◽  
Yu-Feng Li ◽  
Yan-Gang Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Premature Ejaculation ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
On Demand ◽  
Electronic Search ◽  
Dosing Regimens ◽  
Randomised Controlled

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomised controlled trials of dapoxetine for premature ejaculation. We systematically searched Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Knowledge, FDA.gov and Clinical Trials.gov for studies reporting dapoxetine in men with premature ejaculation. Efficacy endpoints included intravaginal ejaculatory latency times (IELT), personal distress related to ejaculation (PDRE) and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was used to evaluate safety. Data were analysed using a random-effects model. Electronic search identified 276 papers. The final analysis included eight papers (n = 8422 subjects). Analysis of the pooled results indicated efficacy in both IELT (weighted mean difference (WMD) = 1.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.45–1.89) and PDRE (relative risk = 1.26, 95% CI 1.18–1.35). Subgroup analysis indicated efficacy (i.e. increase in IELT) for 30- and 60-mg on-demand dapoxetine (WMD 1.38 (95% CI 1.01–1.75) and 1.62 (95% CI 1.40–1.84) respectively), as well as daily use of 60 mg dapoxetine (WMD 2.18, 95% CI 1.71–2.64). The safety profile was acceptable. Based on the different effects of magnitude of the three dosing regimens, we recommend a stepwise approach, starting with 30 mg on demand, then 60 mg on demand and finally 60 mg dapoxetine daily.

scholarly journals The effect of l-arginine supplementation on lipid profile: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 122 (9) ◽  
pp. 1021-1032
Author(s):  
Amir Hadi ◽  
Arman Arab ◽  
Sajjad Moradi ◽  
Ana Pantovic ◽  
Cain C. T. Clark ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lipid Profile ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Inconsistency Index ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Arginine Supplementation

AbstractA number of clinical trials have examined the effect of l-arginine on lipid profile in recent years; however, the results remain equivocal. Therefore, the present study aims to summarise and quantitatively examine the available evidence on the effectiveness l-arginine supplementation on lipid parameters using a systematic review and meta-analytic approach. Online databases including PubMed, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar were searched up to April 2019 for randomised controlled trials that examined the effect of l-arginine supplementation on lipid profile in adults. Treatment effects were expressed as weighted mean difference (WMD) and the corresponding standard error in concentrations of serum lipids. To estimate the overall effect of l-arginine supplementation, we used the random-effects model. In total, twelve studies were included in the systematic review. The meta-analysis revealed that l-arginine supplementation did not significantly change the concentrations of total cholesterol (WMD: –5·03 mg/dl; 95 % CI –10·78, 0·73; P = 0·08; inconsistency index (I2) = 39·0 %), LDL (WMD: –0·47 mg/dl; 95 % CI –3·61, 2·66; P = 0·76; I2 = 0·0 %), or HDL (WMD: 0·57 mg/dl; 95 % CI –1·28, 2·43; P = 0·54; I2 = 68·4 %). A significant reduction was observed only in serum TAG levels (WMD: –7·04 mg/dl; 95 % CI –11·42, –2·67; P < 0·001; I2 = 0·0 %). This meta-analysis concludes that l-arginine supplementation can significantly reduce blood TAG levels; however, there is insufficient evidence to support its hypocholesterolaemic effects. To draw straightforward conclusions regarding generalised recommendations for l-arginine supplementation for improving lipid profile, there is a need for more well-controlled trials targeting exclusively patients with dyslipidaemia.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials Testing the Effects of Proanthocyanidins Supplementation on Lipid Profile

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jingyi Ren ◽  
Yiting Sun ◽  
Jiaqi An ◽  
Fengge Chen ◽  
Bowen Yin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lipid Profile ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background: The studies that assessed proanthocyanidins (PCs) supplementation on lipid profile revealed contradictory results. The objective of this meta-analysis was to investigate the influence of PCs supplementation on lipid profile.Methods: Six databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, EMBASE, and Google Scholar) were searched to identify for published relevant studies up to June 9, 2021. The weighted mean difference (WMD) and the corresponding standard deviations (SD) of the total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and triglycerides (TG) were calculated to estimate the pooled effect. Results: A total of 1411 articles were identified through database searching, of which, seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis suggested that PCs supplementation effectively affected the level of HDL-C (WMD: 2.716, 95% CI: 0.269, 5.163, p = 0.030), but had no significant effect on TC (WMD: -0.201, 95% CI: -6.443, 6.041, p=0.950), LDL-C (WMD: -3.000, 95% CI: -8.254, 2.254, p = 0.263), and TG (WMD: -8.874, 95% CI: -21.009, 3.260, p =0.152). In the subgroup analyses, a significant enhance in HDL-C in people with a shorter intervention duration (duration < 12 weeks) or people with a higher BMI (BMI ≥ 24 kg/m2). Conclusion: The present systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that PCs supplementation had no effects on TC, LDL-C or TG, whereas it may contribute to a change on HDL-C. Additional high-quality studies are needed to confirm this result.

Antihistamines for treating rhinosinusitis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled studies

2017 ◽  
Vol 132 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
K Seresirikachorn ◽  
L Khattiyawittayakun ◽  
W Chitsuthipakorn ◽  
K Snidvongs
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Nasal Obstruction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Acute Rhinosinusitis ◽  
Electronic Search ◽  
Randomised Controlled

AbstractBackground:Without the release of histamines, patients with rhinosinusitis may not benefit from antihistamines. Additionally, anticholinergic effects may do more harm than good. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of antihistamines in treating rhinosinusitis.Methods:An electronic search was performed. Randomised controlled trials comparing antihistamines with either placebo or other treatments for patients with rhinosinusitis were selected.Results:Two studies (184 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Loratadine decreased nasal obstruction in allergic rhinitis patients with acute rhinosinusitis (mean difference = −0.58; confidence interval = −0.85 to −0.31,p< 0.01), but had no benefit on total symptom score (mean difference = −1.25; confidence interval = −2.77 to 0.27,p= 0.11), or rhinorrhoea symptoms (mean difference = −0.06; confidence interval = −0.37 to 0.25,p= 0.71).Conclusion:There is limited evidence to support the use of antihistamines in treating rhinosinusitis. The number of included studies in this systematic review is limited. Antihistamines may relieve nasal obstruction in allergic rhinitis patients with acute rhinosinusitis.

Metformin prescription and aortic aneurysm: systematic review and meta-analysis

Heart ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 105 (17) ◽  
pp. 1351-1357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xinyu Yu ◽  
Dingsheng Jiang ◽  
Jing Wang ◽  
Rui Wang ◽  
Taiqiang Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Aortic Aneurysm ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Newcastle Ottawa Scale ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

ObjectiveTo assess the association of metformin prescription with the risk of aortic aneurysm, aortic aneurysm events and the enlargement of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase and Scopus for epidemiological studies up to November 2018. We included observational studies which evaluated the association of metformin prescription with the risk of aortic aneurysm disease, and we also included studies involving progression and enlargement of AAA. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of included studies. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted in line with the between-study heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses were performed to identify the source of heterogeneity.ResultsEight studies enrolling 29 587 participants met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. We found that metformin prescription could significantly limit the enlargement of aortic aneurysm (weighted mean difference: −0.83 mm/year, 95% CI −1.38 to −0.28, I2=89.6%) among patients with AAA. Metformin prescription status may be associated with a decreased risk of aortic aneurysm and aortic aneurysm events.ConclusionsAccording to the available epidemiological evidence, metformin prescription could limit the expansion of AAA among patients with this disease, and may be involved with a lower incidence of aortic aneurysm and aortic aneurysm events. Randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm whether metformin could reduce the enlargement of AAA in patients with or without diabetes.

The association between dietary inflammatory index and risk of central obesity in adults: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 90 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 535-552 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahdieh Abbasalizad Farhangi ◽  
Mahdi Vajdi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Central Obesity ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Dietary Factors ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Inflammatory Status ◽  
Obesity Indices

Abstract. Backgrounds: Central obesity, as a pivotal component of metabolic syndrome is associated with numerous co-morbidities. Dietary factors influence central obesity by increased inflammatory status. However, recent studies didn’t evaluate the association between central obesity and dietary inflammation index (DII®) that give score to dietary factors according to their inflammatory potential. In the current systematic review and meta-analysis, we summarized the studies that investigated the association between DII® with central obesity indices in the general populations. Methods: In a systematic search from PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Sciences and Cochrane electronic databases, we collected relevant studies written in English and published until 30 October 2019. The population of included studies were apparently healthy subjects or individuals with obesity or obesity-related diseases. Observational studies that evaluated the association between DII® and indices of central obesity including WC or WHR were included. Results: Totally thirty-two studies were included; thirty studies were cross-sectional and two were cohort studies with 103071 participants. Meta-analysis of observational studies showed that higher DII® scores were associated with 1.81 cm increase in WC (Pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) = 1.813; CI: 0.785–2.841; p = 0.001). Also, a non-significant increase in the odds of having higher WC (OR = 1.162; CI: 0.95–1.43; p = 0.154) in the highest DII category was also observed. In subgroup analysis, the continent, dietary assessment tool and gender were the heterogeneity sources. Conclusion: The findings proposed that adherence to diets with high DII® scores was associated with increased WC. Further studies with interventional designs are necessary to elucidate the causality inference between DII® and central obesity indices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document