METHODS: Online literature search databases including Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed/Medline, Embase and Google Scholar were searched to discover relevant articles available up to 17 March 2020. We used mean changes and SD of the outcomes to assess treatment response from baseline and mean difference, and 95 % CI were calculated to combined data and assessment effect sizes in astaxanthin and control groups.
RESULTS: 14 eligible articles were included in the final quantitative analysis. Current study revealed that astaxanthin consumption was not associated with FBS, HbA1c, TC, LDL-C, TG, BMI, BW, DBP, and SBP. We did observe an overall increase in HDL-C (WMD: 1.473 mg/dl, 95 % CI: 0.319-2.627, p = 0.012). As for the levels of CRP, only when astaxanthin was administered (i) for relatively long periods (≥ 12 weeks) (WMD: -0.528 mg/l, 95 % CI: -0.990 to -0.066), and (ii) at high dose (> 12 mg/day) (WMD: -0.389 mg/dl, 95 % CI: -0.596 to -0.183), the levels of CRP would decrease.
CONCLUSION: In summary, our systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that astaxanthin consumption was associated with increase in HDL-C and decrease in CRP. Significant associations were not observed for other outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two EGFR mutation tests, a tissue-based assay (cobas® v1) and a tissue- and blood-based assay (cobas® v2) were used to analyze matched biopsy and blood samples (897 paired samples) from three Asian studies of first-line erlotinib with similar intent-to-treat populations. ENSURE was a phase III comparison of erlotinib and gemcitabine/platinum, FASTACT-2 was a phase III study of gemcitabine/platinum plus erlotinib or placebo, and ASPIRATION was a single-arm phase II study of erlotinib. Agreement statistics were evaluated, based on sensitivity and specificity between the two assays in subgroups of patients with increasing tumor burden.
RESULTS: Patients with discordant EGFR (tissue+/plasma-) mutation status achieved longer progression-free and overall survival than those with concordant (tissue+/plasma+) mutation status. Tumor burden was significantly greater in patients with concordant versus discordant mutations. Pooled analyses of data from the three studies showed a sensitivity of 72.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 67.8-76.1) and a specificity of 97.9% (95% CI 96.0-99.0) for blood-based testing; sensitivity was greatest in patients with larger baseline tumors.
CONCLUSIONS: Blood-based EGFR mutation testing demonstrated high specificity and good sensitivity, and offers a convenient and easily accessible diagnostic method to complement tissue-based tests. Patients with a discordant mutation status in plasma and tissue, had improved survival outcomes compared with those with a concordant mutation status, which may be due to their lower tumor burden. These data help to inform the clinical utility of this blood-based assay for the detection of EGFR mutations.
METHODS: This study will use a multicentre, open-label non-inferiority trial design comparing cefiderocol and standard of care antibiotics. Eligible participants will be adult inpatients who are diagnosed with a bloodstream infection with a Gram-negative organism on the basis of a positive blood culture result where the acquisition meets the definition for healthcare-associated or hospital-acquired. It will compare cefiderocol with the current standard of care (SOC) antibiotic regimen according to the patient's treating clinician. Eligible participants will be randomised 1:1 to cefiderocol or SOC and receive 5-14 days of antibiotic therapy. Trial recruitment will occur in at least 20 sites in ten countries (Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Turkey and Greece). The sample size has been derived from an estimated 14 day, all-cause mortality rate of 10% in the control group, and a non-inferiority margin of 10% difference in the two groups. A minimum of 284 patients are required in total to achieve 80% power with a two-sided alpha level of 0.05. Data describing demographic information, risk factors, concomitant antibiotics, illness scores, microbiology, multidrug-resistant organism screening, discharge and mortality will be collected.
DISCUSSION: With increasing antimicrobial resistance, there is a need for the development of new antibiotics with broad activity against Gram-negative pathogens such as cefiderocol. By selecting a population at risk for multi-drug-resistant pathogens and commencing study treatment early in the clinical illness (within 48 h of index blood culture) the trial hopes to provide guidance to clinicians of the efficacy of this novel agent.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The GAME CHANGER trial is registered under the US National Institute of Health ClinicalTrials.gov register, reference number NCT03869437 . Registered on March 11, 2019.
METHODS: Patients with primary breast and colorectal cancer undergoing elective surgery are recruited from two tertiary hospitals. Eligible patients are assigned into one of the three intervention arms: (i) Group SS will receive ONS in addition to their normal diet up to 14 days preoperatively and postoperatively up to discharge; (ii) Group SS-E will receive ONS in addition to their normal diet up to 14 days preoperatively, postoperatively up to discharge and for an extended 90 days after discharge; and (iii) Group DS will receive ONS in addition to their normal diet postoperatively up to discharge from the hospital. The ONS is a standard formula fortified with lactium to aid in sleep for recovery. The primary endpoints include changes in weight, body mass index (BMI), serum albumin and prealbumin levels, while secondary endpoints are body composition (muscle and fat mass), muscle strength (handgrip strength), energy and protein intake, sleep quality, haemoglobin, inflammatory markers (transferrin, high sensitivity C-reactive protein, interleukin-6), stress marker (saliva cortisol), length of hospital stay and postoperative complication rate.
DISCUSSION: This trial is expected to provide evidence on whether perioperative supplementation in breast and colorectal cancer patients presenting with high BMI and not severely malnourished but undergoing the stress of surgery would be beneficial in terms of nutritional and clinical outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov NCT04400552. Registered on 22 May 2020, retrospectively registered.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central systematically for the randomised control trials (RCTs) of interventions for preventing OM. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from both direct and indirect evidence. The primary outcome was any grade of OM. Secondary outcomes were mild-moderate OM, severe OM and adverse events, such as taste disturbance and gastrointestinal adverse events. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016052489.
RESULTS: A total of 29 RCTs with 2348 patients (median age, 56.1 years; 57.5% male) were included. Cryotherapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of OM than control (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.68), and zinc sulphate (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.97), but not significantly lower than sucralfate and palifermin. No significant differences were observed between cryotherapy and control for taste disturbance and gastrointestinal adverse events. Palifermin was associated with the highest risk of taste disturbance.
CONCLUSIONS: This NMA suggests that cryotherapy was the most effective intervention for preventing chemotherapy-induced OM with a safety profile similar to control, but not significantly lower than sucralfate and palifermin. Large RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify study-level and individual-level modifiers of the effect of SQ-LNSs on child hemoglobin (Hb), anemia, and inflammation-adjusted micronutrient status outcomes.
METHODS: We conducted a 2-stage meta-analysis of individual participant data from 13 randomized controlled trials of SQ-LNSs provided to children 6-24 mo of age (n = 15,946). We generated study-specific and subgroup estimates of SQ-LNSs compared with control, and pooled the estimates using fixed-effects models. We used random-effects meta-regression to examine potential study-level effect modifiers.
RESULTS: SQ-LNS provision decreased the prevalence of anemia (Hb < 110 g/L) by 16% (relative reduction), iron deficiency (plasma ferritin < 12 µg/L) by 56%, and iron deficiency anemia (IDA; Hb < 110 g/L and plasma ferritin <12 µg/L) by 64%. We observed positive effects of SQ-LNSs on hematological and iron status outcomes within all subgroups of the study- and individual-level effect modifiers, but effects were larger in certain subgroups. For example, effects of SQ-LNSs on anemia and iron status were greater in trials that provided SQ-LNSs for >12 mo and provided 9 (as opposed to <9) mg Fe/d, and among later-born (than among first-born) children. There was no effect of SQ-LNSs on plasma zinc or retinol, but there was a 7% increase in plasma retinol-binding protein (RBP) and a 56% reduction in vitamin A deficiency (RBP
DESIGN: Network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science from database inception to January 2022.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing exercise therapy with oral NSAIDs and paracetamol directly or indirectly in knee or hip OA.
RESULTS: A total of n=152 RCTs (17 431 participants) were included. For pain relief, there was no difference between exercise and oral NSAIDs and paracetamol at or nearest to 4 (standardised mean difference (SMD)=-0.12, 95% credibility interval (CrI) -1.74 to 1.50; n=47 RCTs), 8 (SMD=0.22, 95% CrI -0.05 to 0.49; n=2 RCTs) and 24 weeks (SMD=0.17, 95% CrI -0.77 to 1.12; n=9 RCTs). Similarly, there was no difference between exercise and oral NSAIDs and paracetamol in functional improvement at or nearest to 4 (SMD=0.09, 95% CrI -1.69 to 1.85; n=40 RCTs), 8 (SMD=0.06, 95% CrI -0.20 to 0.33; n=2 RCTs) and 24 weeks (SMD=0.05, 95% CrI -1.15 to 1.24; n=9 RCTs).
CONCLUSIONS: Exercise has similar effects on pain and function to that of oral NSAIDs and paracetamol. Given its excellent safety profile, exercise should be given more prominence in clinical care, especially in older people with comorbidity or at higher risk of adverse events related to NSAIDs and paracetamol.CRD42019135166.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and the safety of progestogens in the treatment of threatened miscarriage.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (8 August 2017) and reference lists of retrieved trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, quasi-randomised or cluster-randomised controlled trials, that compared progestogen with placebo, no treatment or any other treatment for the treatment of threatened miscarriage in women carrying singleton pregnancy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors assessed the trials for inclusion in the review, assessed trial quality and extracted the data and graded the body of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials (involving 696 participants) in this update of the review. The included trials were conducted in different countries, covering the full spectrum of the World Bank's economic classification, which enhances the applicability of evidence drawn from this review. Two trials were conducted in Germany and Italy which are high-income countries, while four trials were conducted in upper-middle income countries; two in Iran, one in Malaysia and the fourth in Turkey, and the seventh trial was conducted in Jordan, which is a lower-middle income country. In six trials all the participants met the inclusion criteria and in the seventh study, we included in the meta-analysis only the subgroup of participants who met the inclusion criteria. We assessed the body of evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE tool and the quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Downgrading of evidence was based on the high risk of bias in six of the seven included trials and a small number of events and wide confidence intervals for some outcomes.Treatment of miscarriage with progestogens compared to placebo or no treatment probably reduces the risk of miscarriage; (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.87; 7 trials; 696 women; moderate-quality evidence). Treatment with oral progestogen compared to no treatment also probably reduces the miscarriage rate (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.85; 3 trials; 408 women; moderate-quality evidence). However treatment with vaginal progesterone compared to placebo, probably has little or no effect in reducing the miscarriage rate (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.21; 4 trials; 288 women; moderate-quality evidence). The subgroup interaction test indicated no difference according to route of administration between the oral and vaginal subgroups of progesterone.Treatment of preterm birth with the use of progestogens compared to placebo or no treatment may have little or no effect in reducing the rate of preterm birth (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.44; 5 trials; 588 women; low-quality evidence).We are uncertain if treatment of threatened miscarriage with progestogens compared to placebo or no treatment has any effect on the rate of congenital abnormalities because the quality of the evidence is very low (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.10 to 4.82; 2 trials; 337 infants; very-low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this Cochrane Review suggest that progestogens are probably effective in the treatment of threatened miscarriage but may have little or no effect in the rate of preterm birth. The evidence on congenital abnormalities is uncertain, because the quality of the evidence for this outcome was based on only two small trials with very few events and was found to be of very low quality.
METHODS: Solidarity enrolled consenting adults (aged ≥18 years) recently hospitalised with, in the view of their doctor, definite COVID-19 and no contraindication to any of the study drugs, regardless of any other patient characteristics. Participants were randomly allocated, in equal proportions between the locally available options, to receive whichever of the four study drugs (lopinavir, hydroxychloroquine, IFN-β1a, or remdesivir) were locally available at that time or no study drug (controls). All patients also received the local standard of care. No placebos were given. The protocol-specified primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality, subdivided by disease severity. Secondary endpoints were progression to ventilation if not already ventilated, and time-to-discharge from hospital. Final log-rank and Kaplan-Meier analyses are presented for remdesivir, and are appended for all four study drugs. Meta-analyses give weighted averages of the mortality findings in this and all other randomised trials of these drugs among hospital inpatients. Solidarity is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN83971151, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04315948.
FINDINGS: Between March 22, 2020, and Jan 29, 2021, 14 304 potentially eligible patients were recruited from 454 hospitals in 35 countries in all six WHO regions. After the exclusion of 83 (0·6%) patients with a refuted COVID-19 diagnosis or encrypted consent not entered into the database, Solidarity enrolled 14 221 patients, including 8275 randomly allocated (1:1) either to remdesivir (ten daily infusions, unless discharged earlier) or to its control (allocated no study drug although remdesivir was locally available). Compliance was high in both groups. Overall, 602 (14·5%) of 4146 patients assigned to remdesivir died versus 643 (15·6%) of 4129 assigned to control (mortality rate ratio [RR] 0·91 [95% CI 0·82-1·02], p=0·12). Of those already ventilated, 151 (42·1%) of 359 assigned to remdesivir died versus 134 (38·6%) of 347 assigned to control (RR 1·13 [0·89-1·42], p=0·32). Of those not ventilated but on oxygen, 14·6% assigned to remdesivir died versus 16·3% assigned to control (RR 0·87 [0·76-0·99], p=0·03). Of 1730 not on oxygen initially, 2·9% assigned to remdesivir died versus 3·8% assigned to control (RR 0·76 [0·46-1·28], p=0·30). Combining all those not ventilated initially, 11·9% assigned to remdesivir died versus 13·5% assigned to control (RR 0·86 [0·76-0·98], p=0·02) and 14·1% versus 15·7% progressed to ventilation (RR 0·88 [0·77-1·00], p=0·04). The non-prespecified composite outcome of death or progression to ventilation occurred in 19·6% assigned to remdesivir versus 22·5% assigned to control (RR 0·84 [0·75-0·93], p=0·001). Allocation to daily remdesivir infusions (vs open-label control) delayed discharge by about 1 day during the 10-day treatment period. A meta-analysis of mortality in all randomised trials of remdesivir versus no remdesivir yielded similar findings.
INTERPRETATION: Remdesivir has no significant effect on patients with COVID-19 who are already being ventilated. Among other hospitalised patients, it has a small effect against death or progression to ventilation (or both).
FUNDING: WHO.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes.
DATA SOURCES: Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts.
STUDY SELECTION: Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: In this prospective meta-analysis, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days.
RESULTS: A total of 10 930 patients (median age, 61 years [range of medians, 52-68 years]; 3560 [33%] were women) participating in 27 trials were included. By 28 days, there were 1407 deaths among 6449 patients randomized to IL-6 antagonists and 1158 deaths among 4481 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.95]; P = .003 based on a fixed-effects meta-analysis). This corresponds to an absolute mortality risk of 22% for IL-6 antagonists compared with an assumed mortality risk of 25% for usual care or placebo. The corresponding summary ORs were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92; P
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Major electronic databases were searched for randomized-controlled trials comparing carbetocin with oxytocin. Only trials involving cesarean deliveries were included. Non-randomized trials, non-cesarean deliveries, studies which did not directly compare carbetocin to oxytocin and studies which did not analyze the intended outcomes were excluded. Outcomes analysed were postpartum hemorrhage, additional use of uterotonic and transfusion requirement.
RESULTS: Seven studies involving 2012 patients were included in the meta-analysis. There was a significant reduction in the rates of postpartum hemorrhage (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94; p = 0.009), use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.65; p
METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the use of carbetocin to oxytocin in the context of cesarean deliveries. Cost effectiveness analysis was then performed using secondary data from the perspective of a maternity unit within the Malaysian Ministry of Health, over a 24 h time period.
RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials with over 2000 patients comparing carbetocin with oxytocin during cesarean section were identified. The use of carbetocin in our center, which has an average of 3000 cesarean deliveries annually, would have prevented 108 episodes of PPH, 104 episodes of transfusion and reduced the need for additional uterotonics in 455 patients. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio of carbetocin for averting an episode of PPH was US$278.70.
CONCLUSION: Reduction in retreatment, staffing requirements, transfusion and potential medication errors mitigates the higher index cost of carbetocin. From a pharmacoeconomic perspective, in the context of cesarean section, carbetocin was cost effective as prophylaxis against PPH. Ultimately, the relative value placed on the outcomes above and the individual unit's resources would influence the choice of uterotonic.
METHODS: The addressed focused question was "Is aPDT effective in the treatment of AgP?" MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, ISI Web of knowledge and Google-Scholar databases were searched from 1977 till May 2015 using combinations of the following keywords: antimicrobial; photochemotherapy; photodynamic therapy; photosensitizing agents; AgP; scaling and root-planing (SRP). Reviews, case reports, commentaries, and articles published in languages other than English were excluded.
RESULTS: Seven studies were included. In 5 studies, aPDT was performed as an adjunct to SRP. Laserwavelengths and duration of irradiation ranged between 660-690 nm and 60-120 s, respectively. Laser power output as reported in 2 studies was 75 mW. One study showed significant improvement in periodontal parameters for subjects receiving aPDT as an adjunct to SRP as compared to treatment with SRP alone at follow up. However, comparable periodontal parameters were reported when aPDT as an adjunct to SRP was compared to SRP alone in the treatment of AgP in one study. One study showed comparable outcomes when aPDT was compared to SRP in the treatment of AgP. In two studies, adjunctive antibiotic administration to SRP showed significantly better outcomes when compared to application of adjunctive use of aPDT to SRP.
CONCLUSION: aPDT is effective as an adjunct to SRP for the management of AgP, however, further randomized clinical trials with well defined control groups are needed in this regard.