scholarly journals Smoking cessation in individuals who use vaping as compared with traditional nicotine replacement therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e044222
Author(s):  
Catherine M Pound ◽  
Jennifer Zhe Zhang ◽  
Ama Tweneboa Kodua ◽  
Margaret Sampson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Cigarette Smoking ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Smoking Reduction ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesDespite the aggressive marketing of electronic nicotine device systems (ENDS) as smoking cessation tools, the evidence of their effectiveness is mixed. We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials to determine the effect of ENDS on cigarette smoking cessation, as compared with other types of nicotine replacement therapies (NRT).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, the CENTRAL Trials Registry of the Cochrane Collaboration using the Ovid interface, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform trials registries were searched through 17 June 2020.Eligibility criteria for studiesRandomised controlled trials in which any type of ENDS was compared with any type of NRT, in traditional cigarette users.Data extraction and synthesisThe primary outcome was smoking cessation, defined as abstinence from traditional cigarette smoking for any time period, as reported in each included study, regardless of whether abstinence is self-reported or biochemically validated. Secondary outcomes included smoking reduction, harms, withdrawal and acceptance of therapy. A random-effect model was used, and data were pooled in meta-analyses where appropriate.ResultsSix studies were retained from 270. Most outcomes were judged to be at high risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was graded as ‘low’ or ‘very low’. Pooled results showed no difference in smoking cessation (rate ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.09), proportion of participants reducing smoking consumption (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.98), mean reduction in cigarettes smoked per day (mean difference 1.11, 95% CI −0.41 to 2.63), or harms (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.20), between groups.ConclusionWe found no difference in smoking cessation, harms and smoking reduction between e-cigarette and NRT users. However, the quality of the evidence was low. Further research is needed before widespread recommendations are made with regard to the use of ENDS.PROSPERO registration numberSystematic review registration number: protocol registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on February 27th, 2020; CRD42020169416.

scholarly journals Pharmacological and behavioural interventions to promote smoking cessation in adults with schizophrenia and bipolar disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e027389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Pearsall ◽  
Daniel J Smith ◽  
John R Geddes
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Serious Mental Illness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Public Health Problem ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Major Public Health Problem ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveSmoking in people with serious mental illness is a major public health problem and contributes to significant levels of morbidity and mortality. The aim of the review was to systematically examine the efficacy of methods used to aid smoking cessation in people with serious mental illness.MethodA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to compare the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and behavioural programmes for smoking cessation in people with serious mental illness. Electronic databases were searched for trials to July 2018. We used the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias.ResultsTwenty-eight randomised controlled trials were identified. Varenicline increased the likelihood of smoking cessation at both 3 months (risk ratio (RR) 3.56, 95% CI 1.82 to 6.96, p=0.0002) and at 6 months (RR 3.69, 95% CI 1.08 to 12.60, p=0.04). Bupropion was effective at 3 months (RR 3.96, 95% CI 1.86 to 8.40, p=0.0003), especially at a dose of 300 mg/day, but there was no evidence of effect at 6 months (RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.52 to 9.47, p=0.28). In one small study, nicotine therapy proved effective at increasing smoking cessation up to a period of 3 months. Bupropion used in conjunction with nicotine replacement therapy showed more effect than single use. Behavioural and bespoke interventions showed little overall benefit. Side effects were found to be low.ConclusionThe new information of this review was the effectiveness of varenicline for smoking cessation at both 3 and 6 months and the lack of evidence to support the use of both bupropion and nicotine products for sustained abstinence longer than 3 months. Overall, the review found relatively few studies in this population.

scholarly journals Do mobile device apps designed to support medication adherence demonstrate efficacy? A systematic review of randomised controlled trials, with meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e032045 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Catherine Armitage ◽  
Aikaterini Kassavou ◽  
Stephen Sutton
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Medication Adherence ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Behaviour Change Techniques ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesTo estimate the efficacy of app-based interventions designed to support medication adherence and investigate which behaviour change techniques (BCTs) used by the apps are associated with efficacy.DesignSystematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with meta-analysis.SettingMedline/PubMed, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase and Web of Science were searched from 1990 to November 2018 for RCTs conducted in any healthcare setting.ParticipantsStudies of participants of any age taking prescribed medication for any health condition and for any duration.InterventionAn app-based intervention delivered through a smartphone, tablet computer or personal digital assistant to help, support or advise about medication adherence.ComparatorOne of (1) usual care, (2) a control app which did not use any BCTs to improve medication adherence or (3) a non-app-based comparator.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the pooled effect size of changes in medication adherence. The secondary outcome was the association between BCTs used by the apps and the effect size.ResultsThe initial search identified 13 259 citations. After title and abstract screening, full-text articles of 83 studies were screened for eligibility. Nine RCTs with 1159 recruited participants were included. The mean age of participants was >50 years in all but one study. Health conditions of target populations included cardiovascular disease, depression, Parkinson’s disease, psoriasis and multimorbidity. The meta-analysis indicated that patients who use mobile apps to support them in taking medications are more likely to self-report adherence to medications (OR 2.120, 95% CI 1.635 to 2.747, n=988) than those in the comparator groups. Meta-regression of the BCTs did not reveal any significant associations with effect size.ConclusionsApp-based medication adherence interventions may have a positive effect on patient adherence. Larger scale studies are required to further evaluate this effect, including long-term sustainability, and intervention and participant characteristics that are associated with efficacy and app usage.Prospero registration numberPROSPERO Protocol Registration Number: CRD42017080150.

scholarly journals Comparative effectiveness of exercise training program in patients with heart failure: protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e043160
Author(s):  
Min Gao ◽  
Yangxi Huang ◽  
Qianyi Wang ◽  
Zejuan Gu ◽  
Guozhen Sun
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Exercise Interventions ◽  
Exercise Rehabilitation ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionHeart failure (HF) is an end-stage of numerous heart diseases including hypertension, coronary heart disease and arrhythmia, in which the heart is unable to perform its circulatory function with sufficient efficiency due to structural or functional dysfunction (systolic or diastolic alterations). Strategies such as exercise rehabilitation may improve cardiac function, exercise capacity and health-related quality of life and reduce anxiety and depression in patients with HF. However, the relative effectiveness as well as the hierarchy of exercise interventions have not been well established, although various exercise options are available. Therefore, this protocol proposes to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) aiming to compare the effectiveness of different types of exercise training in patients with HF.Methods and analysisPubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library will be searched from inception to March 2021 for relevant randomised controlled trials. Other resources, such as Google Scholar and Clinical Trials.gov will also be considered. Studies assessing exercise rehabilitation in patients with HF will be selected. Two independent reviewers will identify eligible trials. The PEDro risk of bias assessment tool will be used to assess the quality of the included studies. Bayesian NMA will be used when possible to determine the comparative effectiveness of the different exercise interventions. The mean ranks and surface will estimate the ranking probabilities for the optimal intervention of various treatments under the cumulative ranking curve. Subgroup, sensitivity and meta-regression will be conducted to explain the included studies’ heterogeneity if possible. We will also use the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to assess the strength of evidence.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review and NMA will synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of the different exercises in patients with HF. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. No ethical approval will be required because the data used for the review will be exclusively extracted from published studies.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020165870.

scholarly journals Antibiotic therapy for pelvic inflammatory disease: an abridged version of a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo F Savaris ◽  
Daniele G Fuhrich ◽  
Rui V Duarte ◽  
Sebastian Franik ◽  
Jonathan D C Ross
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pelvic Inflammatory Disease ◽  
Inflammatory Disease ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic regimens used to treat pelvic inflammatory disease (PID).DesignThis is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Risk of bias was assessed using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane guidelines. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.Data sourcesEight electronic databases were searched from date of inception up to July 2016. Database searches were complemented by screening of reference lists of relevant studies, trial registers, conference proceeding abstracts and grey literature.Eligibility criteriaRCTs comparing the use of antibiotics with placebo or other antibiotics for the treatment of PID in women of reproductive age, either as inpatient or outpatient treatment.ResultsWe included 37 RCTs (6348 women). The quality of evidence ranged from very low to high, the main limitations being serious risk of bias (due to poor reporting of study methods and lack of blinding), serious inconsistency and serious imprecision. There was no clear evidence of a difference in the rates of cure for mild-moderate or for severe PID for the comparisons of azithromycin versus doxycycline, quinolone versus cephalosporin, nitroimidazole versus no use of nitroimidazole, clindamycin plus aminoglycoside versus quinolone, or clindamycin plus aminoglycoside versus cephalosporin. No clear evidence of a difference between regimens in antibiotic-related adverse events leading to discontinuation of therapy was observed.ConclusionsWe found no conclusive evidence that one regimen of antibiotics was safer or more effective than any other for the treatment of PID, and there was no clear evidence for the use of nitroimidazoles (metronidazole) compared with the use of other drugs with activity against anaerobes. More evidence is needed to assess treatments for women with PID, particularly comparing regimens with or without the addition of nitroimidazoles and the efficacy of azithromycin compared with doxycycline.

scholarly journals Comparing the efficacy and safety of faecal microbiota transplantation with bezlotoxumab in reducing the risk of recurrent Clostridium difficile infections: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e031145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdullah A Alhifany ◽  
Abdulaali R Almutairi ◽  
Thamer A Almangour ◽  
Alaa N Shahbar ◽  
Ivo Abraham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clostridium Difficile ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Faecal Microbiota ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesThe risk of recurrent Clostridium difficile infections (RCDIs) is high when treated with standard antibiotics therapy (SAT) alone. It is suggested that the addition of faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) or bezlotoxumab after SAT reduces the risk of RCDI. In the absence of head-to-head randomised controlled trials (RCTs), this review attempts to compare the efficacy and safety of bezlotoxumab with FMT in reducing the risk of RCDI in hospitalised patients.DesignA systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.Data sourceA comprehensive search from inception to 30 February 2019 was conducted in four databases (Medline/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov).Eligibility criteriaRCTs reporting the resolution of diarrhoea associated with RCDI without relapse for at least 60 days after the end of treatments as the primary outcome.Data extraction and synthesisWe extracted author, year of publication, study design and binomial data that represented the resolution of diarrhoea or adverse events of monoclonal antibodies and FMT infusion. Random-effects models were used for resolution rate of RCDI and adverse events. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess the quality of included RCTs.ResultsOut of 1003 articles identified, seven RCTs involving 3043 patients contributed to the review. No difference was reported between single or multiple infusions of FMT and bezlotoxumab in resolving RCDI, (OR 1.53, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.39 to 5.16) and (OR 2.86, 95% CrI 1.29 to 6.57), respectively. Patients treated with SAT alone or bezlotoxumab with SAT showed significantly lower rates of diarrhoea than FMT (OR 0, 95% CrI 0 to 0.09) and (OR 0, 95% CrI 0 to 0.19), respectively. There was no difference in terms of other adverse events.ConclusionsThis is the first network meta-analysis that has compared the recently Food and Drug Administration-approved monoclonal antibody bezlotoxumab with FMT for resolving RCDI. The quality of the included RCTs was variable. The findings of this study suggested no difference between single or multiple infusions of FMT and bezlotoxumab. However, FMT was associated with a higher rate of non-serious diarrhoea as opposed to SAT used alone or in combination with bezlotoxumab.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document