scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Fire Needle Therapy for Flat Warts: Evidence from 29 Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Ying Zhang ◽  
Jing-Si Jiang ◽  
Le Kuai ◽  
Yue Luo ◽  
Jia-Le Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Lower Risk ◽  
Antiviral Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy Rate ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Recurrence Rates ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Fire Needle ◽  
Flat Warts

Flat warts are a common and recurrent skin disease that has no specific antiviral treatment. As an alternative or complementary therapy, fire needle therapy has been widely used in the treatment of flat warts. The objective of this study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of fire needle therapy for flat warts. Using the search terms “flat warts” and “fire needle,” we searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, Chinese biomedical (SinoMed) database, and the China Science and Technology Journal databases for studies until March 12, 2020. Randomized controlled trials comparing fire needle therapies with conventional therapies were also included. We calculated the risk ratios (RR) and mean differences with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We analyzed 29 trials involving 2,666 patients. Results showed that the use of fire needle therapy alone may have a higher efficacy rate compared with that of an immunomodulator (RR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.20, I2 = 0%, P  = 0.006; RR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.37, I2 = 70%, P  = 0.02, respectively) or tretinoin (RR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.25 to 1.55, I2 = 0%, P  < 0.00001), with a lower risk of blisters ( P  = 0.03) or erythema ( P  = 0.04), but with a higher risk of pigmentation ( P  = 0.02). We also determined the efficacy rate of fire needle therapy in combination with traditional Chinese medicine (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.23, I2 = 21%, P  < 0.00001), immunomodulators (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.28, I2 = 33%, P  = 0.0005), imiquimod (RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.42, P  = 0.02), or as multidrug therapies (RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.24, I2 = 0%, P  = 0.0001) and found that the combination treatments could reduce recurrence rates ( P  < 0.00001) and provided a lower risk of desquamation ( P  = 0.006). In conclusion, fire needle therapy seems to be effective for flat warts, with a reduced incidence of adverse events, such as blisters, erythema, and desquamation, but may increase incidence of pigmentation.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of alirocumab and evolocumab: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Guedeney ◽  
Gennaro Giustino ◽  
Sabato Sorrentino ◽  
Bimmer E Claessen ◽  
Anton Camaj ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Lower Risk ◽  
Coronary Revascularization ◽  
Cardiovascular Death ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Proprotein Convertase ◽  
Pcsk9 Inhibitors ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Aims The effect of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-lowering therapy with alirocumab or evolocumab on individual clinical efficacy and safety endpoints remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of alirocumab and evolocumab in patients with dyslipidaemia or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Methods and results We performed a review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatment with alirocumab or evolocumab vs. placebo or other lipid-lowering therapies up to March 2018. Primary efficacy endpoints were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. We estimated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random effect models. We included 39 RCTs comprising 66 478 patients of whom 35 896 were treated with proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors (14 639 with alirocumab and 21 257 with evolocumab) and 30 582 with controls. Mean weighted follow-up time across trials was 2.3 years with an exposure time of 150 617 patient-years. Overall, the effects of PCSK9 inhibition on all-cause death and cardiovascular death were not statistically significant (P = 0.15 and P = 0.34, respectively). Proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type 9 inhibitors were associated with lower risk of MI (1.49 vs. 1.93 per 100 patient-year; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74–0.86; I2 = 0%; P < 0.0001), ischaemic stroke (0.44 vs. 0.58 per 100 patient-year; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67–0.89; I2 = 0%; P = 0.0005), and coronary revascularization (2.16 vs. 2.64 per 100 patient-year; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.78–0.89; I2 = 0%; P < 0.0001), compared with the control group. Use of these PCSK9 inhibitors was not associated with increased risk of neurocognitive adverse events (P = 0.91), liver enzymes elevations (P = 0.34), rhabdomyolysis (P = 0.58), or new-onset diabetes mellitus (P = 0.97). Conclusion Proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type 9 inhibition with alirocumab or evolocumab was associated with lower risk of MI, stroke, and coronary revascularization, with favourable safety profile.

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

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-47 ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation for treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 030006052110066
Author(s):  
Hua Zhang ◽  
Bo Wang ◽  
Jie He ◽  
Zhongju Du
Keyword(s):  
Radiofrequency Ablation ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Methods A literature review was conducted using the PubMed, Cochrane Review, Embase, and Google Scholar databases. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of all retrieved studies. The research was reported based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to ensure the reliability and verity of the results. The statistical analysis was performed using STATA version 13.0. Results Nine randomized controlled trials were collected for the data extraction and meta-analysis. Significant differences in the pain score at 4, 12, and 24 weeks were found between patients treated with radiofrequency ablation and those treated with placebo. Furthermore, the use of radiofrequency ablation was associated with an improved outcome of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index at 4, 12, and 24 weeks. No serious adverse events were observed in any patients who underwent radiofrequency ablation. Conclusion Radiofrequency ablation is efficacious and safe for reducing pain and improving knee function in patients with knee osteoarthritis, without increasing the risk of adverse effects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document