scholarly journals Unravelling the Ameliorative Effects of Probiotics in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Meta-analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dongsong Liu ◽  
Qin Xu ◽  
Feng Zhang ◽  
Hong Cao ◽  
Xuesong Wang
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Joint Inflammation ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Tender Joint ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
Hs Crp

Abstract Background: Recent studies have shown that rational regulation of the gut microbiota, known as probiotic supplements, have beneficial consequences on rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, their efficacy as an adjunct therapy remains controversial. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of science and Cochrane Library was performed to retrieve the existing data from the published randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) comparing probiotics with placebo in RA through August 2021. Among eight RCTs were eligible for inclusion in this meta-analysis, and all data were analyzed by StataSE 12.1 software. Results: The probiotic has achieved significant improvement in visual analogue scales (VAS), high sensitive C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), tumor necrosis factor (TNF-α) and interleukin (IL-1β). Probiotic may have a beneficial role in disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28). However, probiotic does not have a significant effect on tender joint, swollen joint and lipid levels and not yet achieve obvious improvement in American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20). Conclusion: Probiotics have a beneficial effect on improving RA to some extent, especially on alleviating joint inflammation. However, the number of studies was too small to determine if a strain-, dose-, or duration-response effect was present. More multi-centered, large-sample RCTs are needed to explore the benefits of probiotic to RA patients in the future.

scholarly journals Adjuvant Transarterial Chemoembolization Following Curative-Intent Hepatectomy Versus Hepatectomy Alone for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. 2984
Author(s):  
Stepan M. Esagian ◽  
Christos D. Kakos ◽  
Emmanouil Giorgakis ◽  
Lyle Burdine ◽  
J. Camilo Barreto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Transarterial Chemoembolization ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Curative Intent ◽  
Randomized Controlled

The role of adjuvant transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing hepatectomy is currently unclear. We performed a systematic review of the literature using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Random-effects meta-analysis was carried out to compare the overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of patients with resectable HCC undergoing hepatectomy followed by adjuvant TACE vs. hepatectomy alone in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Meta-regression analyses were performed to explore the effect of hepatitis B viral status, microvascular invasion, type of resection (anatomic vs. parenchymal-sparing), and tumor size on the outcomes. Ten eligible RCTs, reporting on 1216 patients in total, were identified. The combination of hepatectomy and adjuvant TACE was associated with superior OS (hazard ratio (HR): 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52 to 0.85; p < 0.001) and RFS (HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.88; p < 0.001) compared to hepatectomy alone. There were significant concerns regarding the risk of bias in most of the included studies. Overall, adjuvant TACE may be associated with an oncologic benefit in select HCC patients. However, the applicability of these findings may be limited to Eastern Asian populations, due to the geographically restricted sample. High-quality multinational RCTs, as well as predictive tools to optimize patient selection, are necessary before adjuvant TACE can be routinely implemented into standard practice. PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42021245758.

Effect of Probiotic Consumption on Immune Response in Athletes: A Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rahele Tavakoly ◽  
Amir Hadi ◽  
Nahid Rafie ◽  
Behrouz Talaei ◽  
Wolfgang Marx ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Monocyte Count ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Immunological Markers ◽  
Online Databases ◽  
Immunological Effects

AbstractThe possible effect of probiotic interventions on immunological markers in athletes is inconclusive. Therefore, to synthesize and quantitatively analyze the existing evidence on this topic, systematic literature searches of online databases PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ISI Web of Sciences was carried out up to February 2021 to find all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning the immunological effects of probiotics in athletes. In the random-effects model, weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) explained the net effect. The authors assessed the likelihood of publication bias via Egger’s and Begg’s statistics. A total of 13 RCTs (836 participants) were retrieved. Probiotic consumption reduced lymphocyte T cytotoxic count significantly (WMD=−0.08 cells×109/L; 95% CI: −0.15 to −0.01; p=0.022) with evidence of moderate heterogeneity (I 2=59.1%, p=0.044) and monocyte count when intervention duration was ≤ 4 weeks (WMD=−0.08 cells×109/L; 95% CI: −0.16 to −0.001; I 2=0.0%). Furthermore, leukocyte count was significantly elevated (WMD=0.48 cells×109/L; 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.93; I 2=0.0%) when multi-strain probiotics were used. Probiotic supplements may improve immunological markers, including lymphocyte T cytotoxic, monocyte, and leukocyte in athletes. Further randomized controlled trials using diverse strains of probiotics and consistent outcome measures are necessary to allow for evidence-based recommendations.

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

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.

scholarly journals COVID-19 and Vitamin D (Co-VIVID Study): a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seshadri Reddy Varikasuvu ◽  
Balachandar Thangappazham ◽  
Hemanth Raj
Keyword(s):  
Vitamin D ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Individual Outcomes ◽  
Vitamin D Levels

Background: Vitamin D levels have been reported to be associated with COVID-19 susceptibility, severity and mortality events.. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the use of vitamin D intervention on COVID-19 outcomes. Methods: Literature search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases (latest search on August 5, 2021). We included RCTs reporting the use of vitamin D intervention to control/placebo group in COVID-19. Two independent researchers did literature search, abstracted data, and the risk of bias assessment. Results: A total of 6 RCTs with 551 COVID-19 patients were included. The overall collective evidence pooling all the outcomes across all RCTs indicated the beneficial use of vitamin D intervention in COVID-19 (relative risk, RR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.92, Z=2.33, p=0.02, I2 = 48%). However, no statistical significance was observed for individual outcomes of ICU care (RR = 0.11, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.30, Z=1.48, p=0.14, I2 = 66%) and mortality (RR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.40, Z=0.66, p=0.02, I2 = 33%), though decreased rates were noted. The rates of RT-CR positivity was significantly decreased in the intervention group as compared to the non-vitamin D groups (RR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.89, Z=2.31, p=0.02, I2 = 0%). Conclusion: COVID-19 patients supplemented with vitamin D are more likely to demonstrate fewer rates of ICU admission, mortality events and RT-PCR positivity. However, no statistical significance has been achieved for individual outcomes of ICU and deaths. More RCTs and completion of ongoing trials largely needed to precisely establish the association between vitamin D use and COVID-19.

scholarly journals Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors (PARPi) for Patients With Advanced Breast Cancer: a Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
YongCheng Su ◽  
XiaoGang Zheng
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Parp Inhibitors ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract BACKGROUND: Poly(ADP–ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are new class of drugs that are currently being studied in several malignancies. However, datas about the efficacy and safety of the PARP inhibitors are limited. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) in patients with breast cancer.METHODS: Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) were searched for articles published from 2000 to June 2018.Summary incidences and the RR, HR with 95% confidence intervals, were calculated by using a random-effects or fixed-effects model.RESULTS: The summary HR indicated PARPi was not associated with OS (HR=0.83, 95%CI 0.66–1.06, Z=1.49, P=0.14), while it could significantly improve PFS ande time to deterioration (TTD) of global health status/quality of life(GHS/QoL) as compared with traditional standard therapy, the HR was 0.60(95%CI 0.50-0.72; Z=5.52, P＜0.00001) and 0.4 (95%CI 0.29–0.54,z=5.80 ,p=0.000),respectively.The RR of grade 3 or more anemia ,fatigue and headache was 3.02 (95% CI, 0.69–13.17;p = 0.14,,I2=90%),0.77 (95%CI, 0.34–1.73;p=0.52,I2=7%) and 1.13 (95% CI,0.30–4.18;p=0.86,I2=0%),respectively.CONCLUSION: The findings of this meta-analysis showed that PARPi has no significant effect on OS, while it could significantly improve in PFS and TTD of GHS/QoL for patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer.Furthermore,our findings also demonstrated that the PARPi treatment is connected with an increased risk of grade 3 or more anemia adverse events.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document