METHODS: Electronic databases were searched up to March 2024 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of any type or concentration of TCSs with placebo or no treatment in boys with any degree of physician diagnosed phimosis. A random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) using a consistency model within a frequentist approach was employed. The primary outcome was partial or complete resolution of phimosis reported as a pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Relative ranking was assessed with surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probabilities.
RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs, containing 2057 participants were identified. NMA suggested that, compared with control, the high (RR 3.19 (95% CI 1.42 to 7.16), moderate (RR 2.68 (95% CI 1.87 to 3.83) and low (RR 3.05 (95% CI 1.63 to 5.71) potency TCSs statistically significantly increased complete or partial clinical resolution of phimosis. The SUCRA plot revealed that high potency (SUCRA = 0.76) was ranked first followed by low and moderate TCSs. When we assessed comparative efficacy among TCSs based on potency, none of the classes were superior to others. The certainty of the evidence for an effect of moderate potent TCSs was that of moderate GRADE quality.
CONCLUSION: Moderate to low potency TCSs are of comparable therapeutic effect in the treatment of phimosis to that of highly potent formulations. More high-quality RCTs are warranted.
AIMS: To systematically review the current state of PGx in the primary care settings and determine the enablers and challenges of its implementation.
DESIGN: A scoping review was carried out by adhering to Arksey and O'Malley's 6-stage methodological framework and the 2020 Joanna Briggs Institute and Levac et al. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Global Health, MEDLINE and PubMed were searched up to 17 July 2023.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All peer-reviewed studies in English, reporting the enablers and the challenges of implementing PGx in the primary care settings were included.
DATE EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted the data. Information was synthesised based on the reported enablers and the challenges of implementing PGx testing in the primary care settings. Information was then presented to stakeholders for their inputs.
RESULTS: 78 studies discussing the implementation of PGx testing are included, of which 57% were published between 2019 and 2023. 68% of the studies discussed PGx testing in the primary care setting as a disease-specific themes. Healthcare professionals were the major stakeholders, with primary care physicians (55%) being the most represented. Enablers encompassed various advantages such as diagnostic and therapeutic benefits, cost reduction and the empowerment of healthcare professionals. Challenges included the absence of sufficient scientific evidence, insufficient training for healthcare professionals, ethical and legal aspects of PGx data, low patient awareness and acceptance and the high costs linked to PGx testing.
CONCLUSION: PGx testing integration in primary care requires increased consumer awareness, comprehensive healthcare provider training on legal and ethical aspects and global feasibility studies to better understand its implementation challenges. Managing high costs entails streamlining processes, advocating for reimbursement policies and investing in research on innovation and affordability research to improve life expectancy.