OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and safety of growth hormone therapy in people with thalassaemia.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles, reviews and clinical trial registries. Our database and trial registry searches are current to 10 August 2017 and 08 August 2017, respectively.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing the use of growth hormone therapy to placebo or standard care in people with thalassaemia of any type or severity.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion. Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were also conducted independently by two authors. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS: One parallel trial conducted in Turkey was included. The trial recruited 20 children with homozygous beta thalassaemia who had short stature; 10 children received growth hormone therapy administered subcutaneously on a daily basis at a dose of 0.7 IU/kg per week and 10 children received standard care. The overall risk of bias in this trial was low except for the selection criteria and attrition bias which were unclear. The quality of the evidence for all major outcomes was moderate, the main concern was imprecision of the estimates due to the small sample size leading to wide confidence intervals. Final height (cm) (the review's pre-specified primary outcome) and change in height were not assessed in the included trial. The trial reported no clear difference between groups in height standard deviation (SD) score after one year, mean difference (MD) -0.09 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.33 to 0.15 (moderate quality evidence). However, modest improvements appeared to be observed in the following key outcomes in children receiving growth hormone therapy compared to control (moderate quality evidence): change between baseline and final visit in height SD score, MD 0.26 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.39); height velocity, MD 2.28 cm/year (95% CI 1.76 to 2.80); height velocity SD score, MD 3.31 (95% CI 2.43 to 4.19); and change in height velocity SD score between baseline and final visit, MD 3.41 (95% CI 2.45 to 4.37). No adverse effects of treatment were reported in either group; however, while there was no clear difference between groups in the oral glucose tolerance test at one year, fasting blood glucose was significantly higher in the growth hormone therapy group compared to control, although both results were still within the normal range, MD 6.67 mg/dL (95% CI 2.66 to 10.68). There were no data beyond the one-year trial period.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A small single trial contributed evidence of moderate quality that the use of growth hormone for a year may improve height velocity of children with thalassaemia although height SD score in the treatment group was similar to the control group. There are no randomised controlled trials in adults or trials that address the use of growth hormone therapy over a longer period and assess its effect on final height and quality of life. The optimal dosage of growth hormone and the ideal time to start this therapy remain uncertain. Large well-designed randomised controlled trials over a longer period with sufficient duration of follow up are needed.
METHODS: 93 patients and 78 spousal/sibling controls underwent comprehensive assessment of diet, clinical status, muscle strength/performance, frailty, body composition (using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry), and serum levels of neurogastrointestinal hormones and inflammatory markers.
RESULTS: PD patients were older than controls (66.0 ± 8.5 vs. 62.4 ± 8.4years, P = 0.003). Mean body mass index (24.0 ± 0.4 vs. 25.6 ± 0.5kg/m2, Padjusted = 0.016), fat mass index (7.4 ± 0.3 vs. 9.0 ± 0.3kg/m2, Padjusted<0.001), and whole-body fat percentage (30.7 ± 0.8 vs. 35.7 ± 0.9%, Padjusted<0.001) were lower in patients, even after controlling for age and gender. There were no between-group differences in skeletal muscle mass index and whole-body bone mineral density. Body composition parameters did not correlate with disease duration or motor severity. Reduced whole-body fat percentage was associated with higher risk of motor response complications as well as higher levels of insulin-growth factor-1 and inflammatory markers. PD patients had a higher prevalence of sarcopenia (17.2% vs. 10.3%, Padjusted = 0.340) and frailty (69.4% vs. 24.2%, Padjusted = 0.010). Older age and worse PD motor severity were predictors of frailty in PD.
CONCLUSIONS: We found reduced body fat with relatively preserved skeletal muscle mass, and a high prevalence of frailty, in PD. Further studies are needed to understand the patho-mechanisms underlying these alterations.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of animal-assisted therapy for people with dementia.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS: the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register on 5 September 2019. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of major healthcare databases, trial registries, and grey literature sources. We also searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), ISI Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO's trial registry portal.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised trials, and randomised cross-over trials that compared AAT versus no AAT, AAT using live animals versus alternatives such as robots or toys, or AAT versus any other active intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of Cochrane Dementia. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our results using mean difference (MD), standardised mean difference (SMD), and risk ratio (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) where appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs from 10 reports. All nine studies were conducted in Europe and the US. Six studies were parallel-group, individually randomised RCTs; one was a randomised cross-over trial; and two were cluster-RCTs that were possibly related where randomisation took place at the level of the day care and nursing home. We identified two ongoing trials from trial registries. There were three comparisons: AAT versus no AAT (standard care or various non-animal-related activities), AAT using live animals versus robotic animals, and AAT using live animals versus the use of a soft animal toy. The studies evaluated 305 participants with dementia. One study used horses and the remainder used dogs as the therapy animal. The duration of the intervention ranged from six weeks to six months, and the therapy sessions lasted between 10 and 90 minutes each, with a frequency ranging from one session every two weeks to two sessions per week. There was a wide variety of instruments used to measure the outcomes. All studies were at high risk of performance bias and unclear risk of selection bias. Our certainty about the results for all major outcomes was very low to moderate. Comparing AAT versus no AAT, participants who received AAT may be slightly less depressed after the intervention (MD -2.87, 95% CI -5.24 to -0.50; 2 studies, 83 participants; low-certainty evidence), but they did not appear to have improved quality of life (MD 0.45, 95% CI -1.28 to 2.18; 3 studies, 164 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no clear differences in all other major outcomes, including social functioning (MD -0.40, 95% CI -3.41 to 2.61; 1 study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence), problematic behaviour (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.30; 3 studies, 142 participants; very-low-certainty evidence), agitation (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.10; 3 studies, 143 participants; very-low-certainty evidence), activities of daily living (MD 4.65, 95% CI -16.05 to 25.35; 1 study, 37 participants; low-certainty evidence), and self-care ability (MD 2.20, 95% CI -1.23 to 5.63; 1 study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data on adverse events. Comparing AAT using live animals versus robotic animals, one study (68 participants) found mixed effects on social function, with longer duration of physical contact but shorter duration of talking in participants who received AAT using live animals versus robotic animals (median: 93 seconds with live versus 28 seconds with robotic for physical contact; 164 seconds with live versus 206 seconds with robotic for talk directed at a person; 263 seconds with live versus 307 seconds with robotic for talk in total). Another study showed no clear differences between groups in behaviour measured using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (MD -6.96, 95% CI -14.58 to 0.66; 78 participants; low-certainty evidence) or quality of life (MD -2.42, 95% CI -5.71 to 0.87; 78 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data on the other outcomes. Comparing AAT using live animals versus a soft toy cat, one study (64 participants) evaluated only social functioning, in the form of duration of contact and talking. The data were expressed as median and interquartile ranges. Duration of contact was slightly longer in participants in the AAT group and duration of talking slightly longer in those exposed to the toy cat. This was low-certainty evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-certainty evidence that AAT may slightly reduce depressive symptoms in people with dementia. We found no clear evidence that AAT affects other outcomes in this population, with our certainty in the evidence ranging from very-low to moderate depending on the outcome. We found no evidence on safety or effects on the animals. Therefore, clear conclusions cannot yet be drawn about the overall benefits and risks of AAT in people with dementia. Further well-conducted RCTs are needed to improve the certainty of the evidence. In view of the difficulty in achieving blinding of participants and personnel in such trials, future RCTs should work on blinding outcome assessors, document allocation methods clearly, and include major patient-important outcomes such as affect, emotional and social functioning, quality of life, adverse events, and outcomes for animals.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and safety of growth hormone therapy in people with thalassaemia.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of latest search: 14 November 2019. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles, reviews and clinical trial registries. Date of latest search: 06 January 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing the use of growth hormone therapy to placebo or standard care in people with thalassaemia of any type or severity.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion. Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were also conducted independently by two authors. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS: We included one parallel trial conducted in Turkey. The trial recruited 20 children with homozygous beta thalassaemia who had short stature; 10 children received growth hormone therapy administered subcutaneously on a daily basis at a dose of 0.7 IU/kg per week and 10 children received standard care. The overall risk of bias in this trial was low except for the selection criteria and attrition bias which were unclear. The certainty of the evidence for all major outcomes was moderate, the main concern was imprecision of the estimates due to the small sample size leading to wide confidence intervals. Final height (cm) (the review's pre-specified primary outcome) and change in height were not assessed in the included trial. The trial reported no clear difference between groups in height standard deviation (SD) score after one year, mean difference (MD) -0.09 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.33 to 0.15 (moderate-certainty evidence). However, modest improvements appeared to be observed in the following key outcomes in children receiving growth hormone therapy compared to control (moderate-certainty evidence): change between baseline and final visit in height SD score, MD 0.26 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.39); height velocity, MD 2.28 cm/year (95% CI 1.76 to 2.80); height velocity SD score, MD 3.31 (95% CI 2.43 to 4.19); and change in height velocity SD score between baseline and final visit, MD 3.41 (95% CI 2.45 to 4.37). No adverse effects of treatment were reported in either group; however, while there was no clear difference between groups in the oral glucose tolerance test at one year, fasting blood glucose was significantly higher in the growth hormone therapy group compared to control, although both results were still within the normal range, MD 6.67 mg/dL (95% CI 2.66 to 10.68). There were no data beyond the one-year trial period.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A small single trial contributed evidence of moderate certainty that the use of growth hormone for a year may improve height velocity of children with thalassaemia although height SD score in the treatment group was similar to the control group. There are no randomised controlled trials in adults or trials that address the use of growth hormone therapy over a longer period and assess its effect on final height and quality of life. The optimal dosage of growth hormone and the ideal time to start this therapy remain uncertain. Large well-designed randomised controlled trials over a longer period with sufficient duration of follow up are needed.
Methods: The questionnaire contained items on the socio-demographic characteristics, medical condition, quality of life (QOL), nutritional status, functional capacity, and depression status. The forward and backward translation processes of the original English language version of the questionnaire were undertaken by three independent linguistic translators, while its content was validated by an expert team consisting of seven geriatricians, physicians, dietitian, and lecturers. The Malay version of the questionnaire was tested for face validity in 10 older adult patients over 65 years of age. The internal consistency reliability and construct validity were evaluated among 166 older adult patients (mean age, 71.0 years; 73.5% male). The questionnaire was administered through face-to-face interviews with the patients. Minor amendments were made after the content and face validity tests.
Results: The internal consistency reliability was good, as the Cronbach's alpha for most of the scales surpassed 0.70, ranging from 0.70 to 0.98, with only one exception (Mini Nutritional Assessment Short-Form, Cronbach's alpha=0.62). The factor loadings for all scales were satisfactory (>0.40), ranging from 0.45 to 0.90.
Conclusion: The Malay-version CGA showed evidence of satisfactory internal consistency reliability and construct validity in Malaysian geriatric patients.