The Efficacy and Safety of Coenzyme Q10 in Preventing the Progression of Early Parkinson’s Disease: A Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ranhel C. De Roxas ◽  
Roland Dominic G. Jamora
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Coenzyme Q10 ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
P Value ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Early Parkinson’S Disease

Introduction. Coenzyme Q10, also known as Ubiquinone, is a substance now being used as a dietary supplement in many countries including the Philippines. It has also been the focus of several researches as treatment for several diseases including Parkinson’s Disease. Several studies have shown that Coenzyme Q10 inhibits mitochondrial dysfunction in Parkinson’s Disease, hence delaying its progression. Objectives. The objective of this study is to assess and summarize the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of Coenzyme Q10 administration in the prevention of the progression of early Parkinson’s Disease. Methods. This is meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the use of Coenzyme Q10 in Parkinson’s Disease. A literature search in several databases was conducted for relevant studies. Three randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. The efficacy of Coenzyme Q10 were measured using the total and the component scores of the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale on follow-up. On the other hand, safety were measured using the withdrawal rate and the associated adverse reactions during the therapy of CoQ10. The Review Manager Software was utilized for the meta-analysis. Results. Compared to Placebo, treatment of CoQ10 did not show any significant difference in the mean scores of the UPDRS mental and ADL scores. Interestingly, the UPDRS motor score showed a significant difference between Coenzyme Q10 and placebo, but no significant difference when a subgroup analysis between high-dose (-4.03 [-15.07-7.01], p-value 0.47, I2 67%, P for heterogeneity 0.08) and low-dose Coenzyme Q10 (0.53 [-0.891.94], p-value 0.47, I2 34%, P for heterogeneity 0.22) was done. Overall, there was no significant difference in the total UPDRS score (0.68 [-0.61-1.97], p-value 0.30, I2 0%, P for heterogeneity 0.70). The most common side effects of the use of Coenzyme Q10 are anxiety, back pain, headache, sore throat, nausea, dizziness and constipation. Conclusion. Contrary to some animal and human studies, this meta-analysis showed that the use of CoQ10 results to nonsignificant improvement in all components of the UPDRS scores as opposed to placebo. However, the use of CoQ10 is tolerated and seems to be safe but further studies are needed to validate this finding.

scholarly journals A systematic review and meta-analysis of safety and efficacy of safinamide for motor fluctuations in patients with Parkinson's disease

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 2078
Author(s):  
Mohamed Abdelalem Aziz Ahmed
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Motor Fluctuations ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Motor Complications ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background: Safinamide, a recently developed drug with several mechanisms of action has been investigated as an add-on therapy for Parkinson's disease patients suffering from motor complications due to the usage of anti-Parkinson's medications such as levodopa and dopaminergic drugs. The aim of the study is to investigate the efficacy and safety of Safinamide as add-on therapy for Parkinson's disease patients.   Methods: A computerized literature search was conducted of PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrial.gov and Cochrane Library until August 2019. We selected relevant randomized controlled trials comparing safinamide groups to placebo groups. Relevant outcomes were pooled as mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) using Review Manager 5.3. Results: We found that the overall MD of changes in “off-time” and “on time without troublesome dyskinesia” favored the safinamide group over the placebo group (MD -0.72 h, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.56 and MD 0.71 h, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.90, respectively). Additionally, the overall MD of change in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part three (UPDRS III) favored the safinamide group (MD -1.83, 95% CI -2.43 to -1.23). In case of adverse events, the pooled meta-analysis did not favor the safinamide group over the placebo group. Conclusions: In this study, we provide class I evidence about the potential role of safinamide as an add-on therapy for Parkinson's disease patients suffering from motor fluctuations. However, a few included studies did not mention the data of important outcomes. Also, we report high risk of bias in individual studies. Future randomized controlled trials with different doses are recommended to provide more evidence for the efficacy and safety of safinamide as a treatment for motor complications of anti-Parkinson's medications.

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

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Shan-Shan Lin ◽  
Chun-Xiang Liu ◽  
Jun-Hua Zhang ◽  
Hui Wang ◽  
Jing-Bo Zhai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Morning Stiffness ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

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).

scholarly journals Additional Physical Interventions to Conventional Physical Therapy in Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 1038 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruben D. Hidalgo-Agudo ◽  
David Lucena-Anton ◽  
Carlos Luque-Moreno ◽  
Alberto Marcos Heredia-Rizo ◽  
Jose A. Moral-Munoz
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Balance Confidence ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Parkinson’s disease (PD) represents the second most common neurodegenerative disease. Currently, conventional physical therapy is complemented by additional physical interventions with recreational components, improving different motor conditions in people with PD. This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of additional physical interventions to conventional physical therapy in Parkinson’s disease. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials were performed. The literature search was conducted in PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Scopus, SciELO and Web of Science. The PEDro scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies. A total of 11 randomized controlled trials were included in this review. Five of them contributed information to the meta-analysis. The statistical analysis showed favorable results for dance-based therapy in motor balance: (Timed Up and Go: standardized mean difference (SMD) = −1.16; 95% Confidence Interval (CI):(−2.30 to −0.03); Berg Balance Scale: SMD = 4.05; 95%CI:(1.34 to 6.75)). Aquatic interventions showed favorable results in balance confidence (Activities-Specific Balance Confidence: SMD=10.10; 95%CI:(2.27 to 17.93)). The results obtained in this review highlight the potential benefit of dance-based therapy in functional balance for people with Parkinson’s disease, recommending its incorporation in clinical practice. Nonetheless, many aspects require clarification through further research and high-quality studies on this subject.

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

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document