Efficacy and Safety of Sinomenine Preparation for Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Randomized Controlled Trials

Objectives. To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of sinomenine preparation (SP) for treating ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods. Clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SP for treating AS were systematically identified in six electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), and Wanfang Databases from the inception up to 31 October 2019. Cochrane’s risk of bias tool was used to assess the methodological quality and Review Manager 5.3 software was used to analyze data. Results. A total of 12 RCTs involving 835 patients were finally included. According to interventions, RCTs were divided into two types. The intervention in 10 RCTs was SP combined with conventional pharmacotherapy (CPT) versus CPT and that in 2 RCTs was SP alone versus CPT. The results of the meta-analysis showed that, compared with CPT alone, SP combined with oral CPT has better improvement in BASDAI (WMD = −1.84, 95% CI [−3.31, −0.37], P=0.01), morning stiffness time (WMD = −13.46, 95% CI [−16.12, −10.79], P<0.00001), the Schober test (WMD = 1.26, 95% CI [0.72, 1.80], P<0.00001), the occipital wall test (WMD = −0.55, 95% CI [−0.96, −0.14], P=0.009), the finger-to-ground distance (WMD = −3.28, 95% CI [−5.64, −0.93], P=0.006), 15 m walking time (WMD = −8.81, 95% CI [−13.42, −4.20], P=0.0002), the C-reactive protein (CRP) (WMD = −1.84, 95% CI [−3.24, −0.45], P=0.01), and the total effective rate (RR = 1.10, 95% CI [1.01, 1.20], P=0.03). Besides, it also showed that oral SP alone may be more effective in improving morning stiffness time (WMD = −31.89, 95% CI [−34.91, −28.87], P<0.00001) compared with CPT alone. However, this study cannot provide evidence that loading the injectable SP based on CPT can significantly increase the efficacy due to the insufficient number of studies included. In terms of adverse events, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental group and the control group. Conclusions. This study shows that oral SP may be effective and safe in the treatment of AS. Due to the low methodological quality of the included RCTs and the limitations of the meta-analysis, it is still necessary to carry out more multicenter, large-sample, and high-quality RCTs to further verify the conclusions. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018099170), and the review was constructed following the PRISMA guidelines (Annex 1).

Download Full-text

Activity and Safety of Tegafur, Gimeracil, and Oteracil Potassium for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal of Oncology ◽

10.1155/2021/6690275 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2021 ◽

pp. 1-15

Author(s):

Ximing Zhang ◽

Xiumei Tian ◽

Yuezi Wei ◽

Hao Deng ◽

Lichun Ma ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Adverse Reactions ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

In clinical practice, tegafur, gimeracil, and oteracil potassium (S-1) therapy is commonly administered to treat nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). However, its efficacy and safety remain controversial in both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of S-1 treatment for NPC. We searched PubMed, Ovid, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, and VIP databases for RCTs of chemotherapy with or without S-1 for NPC, from 2001 to 2020. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 and Stata15. Randomized controlled trials published in journals were included irrespective of blinding and language used. Patients were diagnosed with NPC through a clinicopathological examination; patients of all cancer stages and ages were included. Overall, 25 trials and 1858 patients were included. There were significant differences in the complete remission (OR = 2.42, 95% CI (1.88–3.10), P < 0.05 ) and overall response rate (OR = 2.68, 95% CI (2.08–3.45), P < 0.05 ) between the S-1 and non-S-1 groups. However, there was no significant difference in partial remission (OR = 1.10, 95% CI (0.87–1.39), P = 0.42 ) and seven adverse reactions (leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, dermatitis, oral mucositis, and anemia) between the S-1 and non-S-1 groups. Additionally, statistical analyses with six subgroups were performed. S-1 was found to be a satisfactory chemotherapeutic agent combined with radiotherapy, intravenous chemotherapy, or chemoradiotherapy for NPC. As an oral medicine, the adverse reactions of S-1, especially gastrointestinal reactions, can be tolerated by patients, thereby optimizing their quality of life. S-1 may be a better choice for the treatment of NPC. This trial is registered with CRD42019122041.

Download Full-text

The Efficacy and Safety of Simple-Needling Therapy for Treating Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine ◽

10.1155/2020/4276380 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 2020 ◽

pp. 1-10 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Yichen Xuan ◽

Hui Huang ◽

Yiyong Huang ◽

Duanyong Liu ◽

Xiuwu Hu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Chinese Literature ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Biomedical Literature ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomized Controlled

Background. Clinical investigators have found that the use of needling in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) has a good clinical application prospect in recent years. However, these studies were insufficient to provide evidence for the efficacy and safety of simple-needling for AS. So, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of simple-needling for treating AS. Methods. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Wangfang database (Wanfang), Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP), and any other gray literature sources for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that used simple-needling to treat AS before June 2019 with the language restriction of Chinese and English. Researchers evaluated the retrieved literature studies and extracted valid data according to relevant requirements and used RevMan5.3 software for meta-analysis. Results. A total of 10 studies were included, all of which were Chinese literature studies, involving 729 patients. Compared with the control groups, simple-needling groups had a better effect on the clinical effective rate (RR = 1.20, 95% CI (1.11, 1.29), P<0.00001), TCM syndrome score (MD = −5.26, 95% CI (−5.99, −4.53), P<0.00001), symptom score (MD = −8.08, 95% CI (−10.18, −5.97), P<0.00001), and Schober test outcome (MD = 0.39, 95% CI (0.15, 0.64), P=0.002). Sensibility analysis was based on the leave-one-out cross-validation procedure, and the results showed no significant changes. Most studies did not describe adverse reactions. The funnel plot suggested publication bias on clinical effectiveness. Conclusions. This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that simple-needling was effective as an intervention for AS. However, due to the low quality of the methodology of included studies, the designs of clinical trials were not rigorously standardized. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out multiquality RCTs for verification.

Download Full-text

Hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Scientific Reports ◽

10.1038/s41598-021-91089-3 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Bahman Amani ◽

Ahmad Khanijahani ◽

Behnam Amani

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

AbstractThe efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is disputed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ in addition to standard of care (SOC) in COVID-19. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of sciences, and medRxiv were searched up to March 15, 2021. Clinical studies registry databases were also searched for identifying potential clinical trials. The references list of the key studies was reviewed to identify additional relevant resources. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and Jadad checklist. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3). Eleven randomized controlled trials with a total number of 8161 patients were identified as eligible for meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in terms of negative rate of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Risk ratio [RR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90, 1.08; P = 0.76), PCR negative conversion time (Mean difference [MD]: − 1.06, 95% CI − 3.10, 0.97; P = 0.30), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 1.00, 1.20; P = 0.06), body temperature recovery time (MD: − 0.64, 95% CI − 1.37, 0.10; P = 0.09), length of hospital stay (MD: − 0.17, 95% CI − 0.80, 0.46; P = 0.59), use of mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.95, 1.32; P = 0.19), and disease progression (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.37, 1.85; P = 0.64). However, there was a significant difference between two groups regarding adverse events (RR: 1.81, 95% CI 1.36, 2.42; P < 0.05). The findings suggest that the addition of HCQ to SOC has no benefit in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Additionally, it is associated with more adverse events.

Download Full-text

Hydroxychloroquine plus standard care compared with the standard care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

10.1101/2020.06.05.20122705 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Bahman Amani ◽

Ahmad Khanijahani ◽

Behnam Amani

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Standard Care ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

AbstractBackground & ObjectiveThe efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease COVID-19 pandemic is disputed. This study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ plus the standard of care in COVID-19 patients.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, and web of sciences were searched up to June 1, 2020. The references list of the key studies was reviewed for additional relevant resources. Clinical studies registry databases were searched for identifying potential clinical trials. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3).ResultsThree randomized controlled trials with total number of 242 patients were identified eligible for meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between HCQ and standard care in terms of viral clearance (Risk ratio [RR] = 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91, 1.16; P = 0.68), disease progression (RR = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.10, 0.81; P = 0.94), Chest CT (RR = 1.40; 95% CI = 1.03, 1.91; P = 0.03). There is a significant difference between HCQ and standard care for adverse events (RR = 2.88; 95% CI = 1.50, 5.54; P = 0.002).ConclusionAlthough the current meta-analysis failed to confirm the efficacy and safety of HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, further rigorous randomized clinical trials are necessary to evaluate conclusively the efficacy and safety of HCQ against COVID-19.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Steroidal Anti-Androgens in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials ◽

10.2174/1574887114666191105152404 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 15 (1) ◽

pp. 34-47 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Muhammed Rashid ◽

Madhan Ramesh ◽

K. Shamshavali ◽

Amit Dang ◽

Himanshu Patel ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Quality Assessment ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Group ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the sixth primary cause of cancer death. However, conflicts are present about the efficacy and safety of Non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAA) for its treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of NSAAs versus any comparator for the treatment of advanced or metastatic PCa (mPCa). Methodology: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched. References of included studies and clinicaltrials.gov were also searched for relevant studies. Only English language studies after 1990 were considered for review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of NSAAs as compared with any other comparator including surgery or chemotherapy in mPCa patients were included. The outcomes include efficacy, safety and the tolerability of the treatment. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used for quality assessment. Two authors were independently involved in the selection, extraction and quality assessment of included studies and disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third reviewer. Results: Fifty-eight out of 1307 non-duplicate RCTs with 29154 patients were considered for the review. NSAA showed significantly better progression-free survival [PFS] (Hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.78; P=0.0001), time to distant metastasis or death [TTD] (HR, 0.80; 95% CI 0.73-0.91; p<0.0001), objective response (Odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI 1.06-2.54; P=0.03) and clinical benefits (OR, 1.33; 95% CI 1.08-1.63; P=0.006) as compared to the control group. There was no significant difference observed between the groups in terms of overall survival (HR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.87-1.03; P=0.18) and time to progression (HR, 0.93; 95% CI 0.77-1.11; P=0.43). Treatment-related adverse events were more with the NSAA group, but the discontinuation due to lack of efficacy reason was 43% significantly lesser than the control group in patients with mPCa. Rest of the outcomes were appeared to be non-significant. Conclusion: Treatment with NSAA was appeared to be better efficacious with respect to PFS, TTD, and response rate with considerable adverse events when compared to the control group in patients with metastatic PCa.

Download Full-text

Early Versus Routine Stoma Closure in Patients With Colorectal Resection: A Meta-Analysis of 7 Randomized Controlled Trials

Surgical Innovation ◽

10.1177/1553350620907812 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 27 (3) ◽

pp. 291-298

Author(s):

Yinyin Guo ◽

Yanxin Luo ◽

Hui Zhao ◽

Liangliang Bai ◽

Juan Li ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Surgery ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Bowel Obstruction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Wound Complications ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Stoma Closure ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

Background. A substantial proportion of patients undergoing colorectal surgery receive a temporary stoma, and the timing for stoma closure remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of early stoma closure (ESC) compared with routine stoma closure (RSC) after colorectal surgery. Methods. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials that compared ESC and RSC after colorectal surgery. Results. A total of 7 randomized controlled trials with 814 enrolled patients were identified for this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the ESC and RSC groups regarding the complications of stoma closure (26.8% and 16.6%, respectively; odds ratio [OR]: 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-1.90; P = .17). A subgroup analysis was conducted by Clavien-Dindo grade of complication, and no significant difference was observed in any subgroup ( P > .05). However, the ESC group had a significantly higher risk of wound complications than the RSC group (17.6% and 7.8%, respectively; OR: 2.61; 95% CI: 1.43-4.76; P = .002), and the RSC group had more cases of small bowel obstruction than the ESC group (3.1% and 8.4%, respectively; OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.15-0.87; P = .02). Conclusions. ESC is a safe and effective therapeutic approach in patients who have undergone colorectal surgery; it is associated with a reduced risk of bowel obstruction but a higher risk of wound complications.

Download Full-text

Nurse Participation in Colonoscopy Observation versus the Colonoscopist Alone for Polyp and Adenoma Detection: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials

Gastroenterology Research and Practice ◽

10.1155/2016/7631981 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 2016 ◽

pp. 1-7 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Lei Xu ◽

Yu Zhang ◽

Haojun Song ◽

Weihong Wang ◽

Sijie Zhang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Detection Rate ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Research Question ◽

Adenoma Detection Rate ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Adenoma Detection ◽

Significant Difference

The role of nurse participation (NP) in colonoscopy observation for polyp and adenoma detection is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether nurse participation can improve polyp and adenoma detection.Patients and Methods. The PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English. The outcome measurements included (1) the polyp and adenoma detection rate (PDR and ADR); (2) the advanced lesions detection rate; and (3) the mean polyp and adenoma detection rate per colonoscopy.Results. Three RCTs with a total of 1676 patients were included. The pooled data showed a significantly higher ADR in the NP group than colonoscopist alone (CA) (45.7% versus 39.3%; RR 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04–1.30). And it showed no significant difference in the PDR and advanced lesions detection rate between the two groups (RR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.95–1.37; RR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.91–2.00; resp.).Conclusions. Nurse participation during a colonoscopy can improve the ADR, whereas no benefit for the PDR and advanced lesions detection rate was observed. All RCTs included in the meta-analysis had high risk of bias. Thus, there is a need for new research that uses sound methodology to definitively address the research question under study.

Download Full-text

Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis: Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Biosimilars, Biologics and JAK1 Inhibitors for Active Crohn Disease

Frontiers in Pharmacology ◽

10.3389/fphar.2021.655865 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

Author(s):

Guozhi Wu ◽

Yuan Yang ◽

Min Liu ◽

Yuping Wang ◽

Qinghong Guo

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Crohn Disease ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Certolizumab Pegol ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Maintenance Of Remission

Background: Crohn disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects quality of life. There are several drugs available for the treatment of CD, but their relative efficacy is unknown due to a lack of high-quality head-to-head randomized controlled trials.Aim: To perform a mixed comparison of the efficacy and safety of biosimilars, biologics and JAK1 inhibitors for CD.Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, embase and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to Dec. 28, 2020. Only RCTs that compared the efficacy or safety of biosimilars, biologics and JAK1 inhibitors with placebo or another active agent for CD were included in the comparative analysis. Efficacy outcomes were the induction of remission, maintenance of remission and steroid-free remission, and safety outcomes were serious adverse events (AEs) and infections. The Bayesian method was utilized to compare the treatments. The registration number is CRD42020187807.Results: Twenty-eight studies and 29 RCTs were identified in our systematic review. The network meta-analysis demonstrated that infliximab and adalimumab were superior to certolizumab pegol (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.35–4.97; OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.57–5.40, respectively) and tofacitinib (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.27–5.97; OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.47–6.52, respectively) and revealed the superiority of CT-P13 compared with placebo (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.31–7.59) for the induction of remission. Infliximab (OR 7.49, 95% CI 1.85–34.77), adalimumab (OR 10.76, 95% CI 2.61–52.35), certolizumab pegol (OR 4.41, 95% CI 1.10–21.08), vedolizumab (OR 4.99, 95% CI 1.19–25.54) and CT-P13 (OR 10.93, 95% CI 2.10–64.37) were superior to filgotinib for the maintenance of remission. Moreover, infliximab (OR 3.80, 95% CI 1.49–10.23), adalimumab (OR 4.86, 95% CI 1.43–16.95), vedolizumab (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.21–6.52) and CT-P13 (OR 5.15, 95% CI 1.05–27.58) were superior to placebo for steroid-free remission. Among all treatments, adalimumab ranked highest for the induction of remission, and CT-P13 ranked highest for the maintenance of remission and steroid-free remission.Conclusion: CT-P13 was more efficacious than numerous biological agents and JAK1 inhibitors and should be recommended for the treatment of CD. Further head-to-head RCTs are warranted to compare these drugs.

Download Full-text

Randomized Controlled Trials for Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Conventional Open Catheter Placement in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: A Meta-Analysis

10.21203/rs.2.12772/v3 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Mei-Lan Sun ◽

Yong Zhang(Former Corresponding Author) ◽

Bo Wang ◽

Tean Ma ◽

Hong Jiang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Peritoneal Dialysis ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Catheter Placement ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Large Sample Size ◽

Advantages And Disadvantages ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Aim: The application of laparoscopic catheterization technology in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has recently increased. However, the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic versus conventional open PD catheter placement are still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the complications of catheterization in PD patients and to provide a reference for choosing a PD-catheter placement technique in the clinic.Methods: We searched numerous databases, including Embase, PubMed, CNKI and the Cochrane Library, for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Results: Eight relevant studies (n=646) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results showed a lower incidence of catheter migration (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.90, P: 0.03) and catheter removal (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.79, P: 0.008) but a higher incidence of bleeding (OR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.18 to 8.97, P: 0.02) with a laparoscopic approach than with a conventional approach. There was no significant difference in the incidence of omentum adhesion (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.05 to 2.10, P: 0.24), hernia (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.09 to 1.68, P: 0.20), leakage (OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.26, P: 0.23), intestinal obstruction (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.91, P: 0.90) or perforation (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.06 to 15.42, P: 0.97). The statistical analysis showed no significant difference in early (OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.33, P: 0.15) , late (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.90, P: 0.76) or total (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.12, P: 0.13) peritonitis infections between the 2 groups, and there are no no significant difference in early ( OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.06 to 2.36, P: 0.30), late ( OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.78 to 2.33, P: 0.16) or total ( OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.02, P: 0.17) tunnel or exit-site infections between the 2 groups.Conclusion: Laparoscopic catheterization and conventional open catheter placement in PD patients have unique advantages, but laparoscopic PD catheterization may be superior to conventional open catheter placement. However, this conclusion needs to be confirmed with further large-sample-size, multi-centre, high-quality RCTs.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Adjunctive Aripiprazole, Metformin, and Paeoniae–Glycyrrhiza Decoction for Antipsychotic-Induced Hyperprolactinemia: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Frontiers in Psychiatry ◽

10.3389/fpsyt.2021.728204 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

Author(s):

Ling Zhang ◽

Han Qi ◽

Yun-Yi Xie ◽

Wei Zheng ◽

Xiao-Hui Liu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Adverse Drug Events ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Posterior Odds ◽

Treatment Groups ◽

Beneficial Effects ◽

Randomized Controlled

Aripiprazole, metformin, and paeoniae–glycyrrhiza decoction (PGD) have been widely used as adjunctive treatments to reduce antipsychotic (AP)-induced hyperprolactinemia in patients with schizophrenia. However, the comparative efficacy and safety of these medications have not been previously studied. A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety between aripiprazole, metformin, and PGD as adjunctive medications in reducing AP-induced hyperprolactinemia in schizophrenia. Both international (PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases) and Chinese (WanFang, Chinese Biomedical, and Chinese National Knowledge infrastructure) databases were searched from their inception until January 3, 2019. Data were analyzed using the Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulations with the WinBUGS software. A total of 62 RCTs with 5,550 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Of the nine groups of treatments included, adjunctive aripiprazole (<5 mg/day) was associated with the most significant reduction in prolactin levels compared to placebo (posterior MD = −65.52, 95% CI = −104.91, −24.08) and the other eight treatment groups. Moreover, adjunctive PGD (>1:1) was associated with the lowest rate of all-cause discontinuation compared to placebo (posterior odds ratio = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.10, 3.13) and adjunctive aripiprazole (>10 mg/day) was associated with fewer total adverse drug events than placebo (posterior OR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.65, 1.77) and other eight treatment groups. In addition, when risperidone, amisulpride, and olanzapine were the primary AP medications, adjunctive paeoniae/glycyrrhiza = 1:1, aripiprazole <5 mg/day, and aripiprazole >10 mg/day were the most effective treatments in reducing the prolactin levels, respectively. Adjunctive aripiprazole, metformin, and PGD showed beneficial effects in reducing AP-induced hyperprolactinemia in schizophrenia, with aripiprazole (<5 mg/day) being the most effective one.

Download Full-text