Effects of antithyroid drugs on radioiodine treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To determine the effect of adjunctive antithyroid drugs on the risk of treatment failure, hypothyroidism, and adverse events after radioiodine treatment.Design
Meta-analysis.Data sources
Electronic databases (Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Medline, Embase) searched to August 2006 and contact with experts. Review methods Three reviewers independently assessed trial eligibility and quality. Pooled relative risks for treatment failure and hypothyroidism after radioiodine treatment with and without adjunctive antithyroid drugs were calculated with a random effects model.Results
We identified 14 relevant randomised controlled trials with a total of 1306 participants. Adjunctive antithyroid medication was associated with an increased risk of treatment failure (relative risk 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.52; P=0.006) and a reduced risk for hypothyroidism (0.68, 0.53 to 0.87; P=0.006) after radioiodine treatment. We found no difference in summary estimates for the different antithyroid drugs or for whether antithyroid drugs were given before or after radioiodine treatment.Conclusions
Antithyroid drugs potentially increase rates of failure and reduce rates of hypothyroidism if they are given in the week before or after radioiodine treatment, respectively.
SUBMITTER: Walter MA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC1819480 | biostudies-literature | 2007 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Effects of antithyroid drugs on radioiodine treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Walter Martin A MA Briel Matthias M Christ-Crain Mirjam M Bonnema Steen J SJ Connell John J Cooper David S DS Bucher Heiner C HC Müller-Brand Jan J Müller Beat B
BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20070219 7592
<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the effect of adjunctive antithyroid drugs on the risk of treatment failure, hypothyroidism, and adverse events after radioiodine treatment.<h4>Design</h4>Meta-analysis.<h4>Data sources</h4>Electronic databases (Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Medline, Embase) searched to August 2006 and contact with experts. Review methods Three reviewers independently assessed trial eligibility and quality. Pooled relative risks for treatment failure and hypothyro ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS:In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019094438.
| S-EPMC6797441 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesTo determine and quantify differences in efficacy between treatment regimens for brucellosis.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials assessing different antibiotic regimens and durations of treatment for human brucellosis.Data sourcesPubMed, CENTRAL, Lilacs, conference proceedings, and bibliographies with no restrictions on language, study year, or publication status. Review methods Search, application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality independently performed in duplicate. Primary outcomes were relapse and overall failure resulting from primary failure or relapse. Relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and pooled with a fixed effect model.Results30 trials and 77 treatment arms were included. Overall failure was significantly higher with doxycycline-rifampicin compared to doxycycline-streptomycin, mainly due to a higher rate of relapse (relative risk 2.80, 95% confidence interval 1.81 to 4.36; 13 trials, without heterogeneity). Results were consistent among patients with bacteraemia and complicated brucellosis. Doxycycline-streptomycin resulted in a significantly higher rate of failure than doxycycline-rifampicin-aminoglycoside (triple drug regimen) (2.50, 1.26 to 5.00; two trials). Gentamicin was not inferior to streptomycin (1.45, 0.52 to 4.00 for failure; two trials). Quinolones combined with rifampicin were significantly less effective than doxycycline combined with rifampicin or streptomycin (1.83, 1.11 to 3.02, for failure; five trials). Monotherapy was associated with a higher risk of failure than combined treatment when administered for a similar duration (2.56, 1.55 to 4.23; five trials). Treatment for six weeks or more offered an advantage over shorter treatment durations.ConclusionsThere are significant differences in effectiveness between currently recommended treatment regimens for brucellosis. The preferred treatment should be with dual or triple regimens including an aminoglycoside.
| S-EPMC2276295 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA rigorous and focused systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individualised homeopathic treatment has not previously been undertaken. We tested the hypothesis that the outcome of an individualised homeopathic treatment approach using homeopathic medicines is distinguishable from that of placebos.MethodsThe review's methods, including literature search strategy, data extraction, assessment of risk of bias and statistical analysis, were strictly protocol-based. Judgment in seven assessment domains enabled a trial's risk of bias to be designated as low, unclear or high. A trial was judged to comprise 'reliable evidence' if its risk of bias was low or was unclear in one specified domain. 'Effect size' was reported as odds ratio (OR), with arithmetic transformation for continuous data carried out as required; OR > 1 signified an effect favouring homeopathy.ResultsThirty-two eligible RCTs studied 24 different medical conditions in total. Twelve trials were classed 'uncertain risk of bias', three of which displayed relatively minor uncertainty and were designated reliable evidence; 20 trials were classed 'high risk of bias'. Twenty-two trials had extractable data and were subjected to meta-analysis; OR = 1.53 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.91). For the three trials with reliable evidence, sensitivity analysis revealed OR = 1.98 (95% CI 1.16 to 3.38).ConclusionsMedicines prescribed in individualised homeopathy may have small, specific treatment effects. Findings are consistent with sub-group data available in a previous 'global' systematic review. The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings. New high-quality RCT research is necessary to enable more decisive interpretation.
| S-EPMC4326322 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has transformed healthcare significantly and telepsychiatry is now the primary means of treatment in some countries.AimsTo compare the efficacy of telepsychiatry and face-to-face treatment.MethodA comprehensive meta-analysis comparing telepsychiatry with face-to-face treatment for psychiatric disorders. The primary outcome was the mean change in the standard symptom scale scores used for each psychiatric disorder. Secondary outcomes included all meta-analysable outcomes, such as all-cause discontinuation and safety/tolerability.ResultsWe identified 32 studies (n = 3592 participants) across 11 mental illnesses. Disease-specific analyses showed that telepsychiatry was superior to face-to-face treatment regarding symptom improvement for depressive disorders (k = 6 studies, n = 561; standardised mean difference s.m.d. = -0.325, 95% CI -0.640 to -0.011, P = 0.043), whereas face-to-face treatment was superior to telepsychiatry for eating disorder (k = 1, n = 128; s.m.d. = 0.368, 95% CI 0.018-0.717, P = 0.039). No significant difference was seen between telepsychiatry and face-to-face treatment when all the studies/diagnoses were combined (k = 26, n = 2290; P = 0.248). Telepsychiatry had significantly fewer all-cause discontinuations than face-to-face treatment for mild cognitive impairment (k = 1, n = 61; risk ratio RR = 0.552, 95% CI 0.312-0.975, P = 0.040), whereas the opposite was seen for substance misuse (k = 1, n = 85; RR = 37.41, 95% CI 2.356-594.1, P = 0.010). No significant difference regarding all-cause discontinuation was seen between telepsychiatry and face-to-face treatment when all the studies/diagnoses were combined (k = 27, n = 3341; P = 0.564).ConclusionsTelepsychiatry achieved a symptom improvement effect for various psychiatric disorders similar to that of face-to-face treatment. However, some superiorities/inferiorities were seen across a few specific psychiatric disorders, suggesting that its efficacy may vary according to disease type.
| S-EPMC10895502 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IssuesCessation of methamphetamine use may result in a characteristic withdrawal syndrome, no medication has been approved for this indication. This systematic review aims to assess the efficacy of pharmacotherapy for methamphetamine withdrawal, the first comprehensive meta-analysis since 2008.ApproachMEDLINE (1966-2020), CINAHL (1982-2020), PsychINFO (1806-2020) and EMBASE (1947-2020) were systematically searched. Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCT) investigating pharmacological treatments for methamphetamine withdrawal, reviewing outcomes of treatment discontinuation, mental health outcomes, withdrawal symptoms (including craving) and patient safety. The relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference (MD) were used to meta-analyse dichotomous and continuous data respectively, with 95% confidence intervals. Risk of bias and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessments were conducted.Key findingsNine RCTs of six medications (n = 242 participants) met inclusion criteria, however, only six trials of four medications (n = 186) could be meta-analysed. Mean sample size across studies was 27 participants, and 88% of participants were male. The quality of evidence in this review varies from low to very low on GRADE assessments. Amineptine may reduce discontinuation rates (RR 0.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07, 0.72, p = 0.01), and improve global state (MD -0.49, 95% CI -0.80, -0.17), compared with placebo, however, this medication is no longer approved. No other medications improved any domain when compared with placebo. Due to lack of reporting safety profiles could not be established.ConclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to indicate any medication is effective for the treatment of methamphetamine withdrawal. The poor quality of the evidence indicates a need for better powered, high-quality trials.
| S-EPMC10083934 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-individualised homeopathic treatment has not previously been reported. We tested the null hypothesis that the main outcome of treatment using a non-individualised (standardised) homeopathic medicine is indistinguishable from that of placebo. An additional aim was to quantify any condition-specific effects of non-individualised homeopathic treatment.MethodsLiterature search strategy, data extraction and statistical analysis all followed the methods described in a pre-published protocol. A trial comprised 'reliable evidence' if its risk of bias was low or it was unclear in one specified domain of assessment. 'Effect size' was reported as standardised mean difference (SMD), with arithmetic transformation for dichotomous data carried out as required; a negative SMD indicated an effect favouring homeopathy.ResultsForty-eight different clinical conditions were represented in 75 eligible RCTs. Forty-nine trials were classed as 'high risk of bias' and 23 as 'uncertain risk of bias'; the remaining three, clinically heterogeneous, trials displayed sufficiently low risk of bias to be designated reliable evidence. Fifty-four trials had extractable data: pooled SMD was -0.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44, -0.21), which was attenuated to -0.16 (95% CI -0.31, -0.02) after adjustment for publication bias. The three trials with reliable evidence yielded a non-significant pooled SMD: -0.18 (95% CI -0.46, 0.09). There was no single clinical condition for which meta-analysis included reliable evidence.ConclusionsThe quality of the body of evidence is low. A meta-analysis of all extractable data leads to rejection of our null hypothesis, but analysis of a small sub-group of reliable evidence does not support that rejection. Reliable evidence is lacking in condition-specific meta-analyses, precluding relevant conclusions. Better designed and more rigorous RCTs are needed in order to develop an evidence base that can decisively provide reliable effect estimates of non-individualised homeopathic treatment.
| S-EPMC5366148 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness and safety of surgery compared with non-surgical treatment for sciatica.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to June 2022.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials comparing any surgical treatment with non-surgical treatment, epidural steroid injections, or placebo or sham surgery, in people with sciatica of any duration due to lumbar disc herniation (diagnosed by radiological imaging).Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data. Leg pain and disability were the primary outcomes. Adverse events, back pain, quality of life, and satisfaction with treatment were the secondary outcomes. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst pain or disability). Data were pooled using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and certainty of evidence with the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) framework. Follow-up times were into immediate term (≤six weeks), short term (>six weeks and ≤three months), medium term (>three and <12 months), and long term (at 12 months).Results24 trials were included, half of these investigated the effectiveness of discectomy compared with non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections (1711 participants). Very low to low certainty evidence showed that discectomy, compared with non-surgical treatment, reduced leg pain: the effect size was moderate at immediate term (mean difference -12.1 (95% confidence interval -23.6 to -0.5)) and short term (-11.7 (-18.6 to -4.7)), and small at medium term (-6.5 (-11.0 to -2.1)). Negligible effects were noted at long term (-2.3 (-4.5 to -0.2)). For disability, small, negligible, or no effects were found. A similar effect on leg pain was found when comparing discectomy with epidural steroid injections. For disability, a moderate effect was found at short term, but no effect was observed at medium and long term. The risk of any adverse events was similar between discectomy and non-surgical treatment (risk ratio 1.34 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.98)).ConclusionVery low to low certainty evidence suggests that discectomy was superior to non-surgical treatment or epidural steroid injections in reducing leg pain and disability in people with sciatica with a surgical indication, but the benefits declined over time. Discectomy might be an option for people with sciatica who feel that the rapid relief offered by discectomy outweighs the risks and costs associated with surgery.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021269997.
| S-EPMC10498296 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The objective of this study is to examine the proportion of the total treatment effect that is attributable to contextual effects in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments for fibromyalgia. A systematic literature search was undertaken in Medline, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Allied and Complementary Medicine in September 2015. The proportion of contextual effect (PCE) was calculated by dividing the improvement in the placebo arm by the improvement in the treatment arm. The measure was log-transformed for each trial and the random effects model was used to pool data. The primary outcome was pain. Secondary outcomes were fibromyalgia impact questionnaire (FIQ) total and fatigue. Heterogeneity was quantified using I 2. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and Egger's test. Subgroup analysis was undertaken to explore heterogeneity and potential determinants of the PCE. Fifty-one eligible trials (9599 participants) were identified. The PCE was 0.60 (95% CI 0·56 to 0·64) for pain, 0·57 (95% CI 0·53 to 0·61) for FIQ total, and 0·63 (95% CI 0·59 to 0·68) for fatigue. The I 2 was 99.4% for pain, 99.2% for FIQ total, and 97.6% for fatigue. More than half of the treatment effect in fibromyalgia RCTs results from non-specific contextual factors. This suggests that optimising contextual care may enhance treatment effects and improve outcomes. Reporting the total treatment effect and the proportion of contextual effect in trials may help to better translate research evidence into practice.
| S-EPMC5913391 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRegarding the analysis of RCT data there is a debate going on whether an adjustment for the baseline value of the outcome variable should be made. When an adjustment is made, there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding the way this should be done. Therefore, the aims of this educational paper are: 1) to explain different methods used to estimate treatment effects in RCTs, 2) to illustrate the different methods with a real life example and 3) to give an advise on how to analyse RCT data.MethodsLongitudinal analysis of covariance, repeated measures analysis in which also the baseline value is used as outcome and the analysis of changes were theoretically explained and applied to an example dataset investigating a systolic blood pressure lowering treatment.ResultsIt was shown that differences at baseline should be taken into account and that regular repeated measures analysis and regular analysis of changes did not adjust for the baseline differences between the groups and therefore lead to biased estimates of the treatment effect. In the real life example, due to the differences at baseline between the treatment and control group, the different methods lead to different estimates of the treatment effect.ConclusionRegarding the analysis of RCT data, it is advised to use longitudinal analysis of covariance or a repeated measures analysis without the treatment variable, but with the interaction between treatment and time in the model.
| S-EPMC5898524 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe optimal antiviral drug for treatment of severe influenza remains unclear. To support updated WHO influenza clinical guidelines, this systematic review and network meta-analysis evaluated antivirals for treatment of patients with severe influenza.MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, Epistemonikos, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomised controlled trials published up to Sept 20, 2023, that enrolled hospitalised patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed influenza and compared direct-acting influenza antivirals against placebo, standard care, or another antiviral. Pairs of coauthors independently extracted data on study characteristics, patient characteristics, antiviral characteristics, and outcomes, with discrepancies resolved by discussion or by a third coauthor. Key outcomes of interest were time to alleviation of symptoms, duration of hospitalisation, admission to intensive care unit, progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, duration of mechanical ventilation, mortality, hospital discharge destination, emergence of antiviral resistance, adverse events, adverse events related to treatments, and serious adverse events. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023456650.FindingsOf 11 878 records identified by our search, eight trials with 1424 participants (mean age 36-60 years for trials that reported mean or median age; 43-78% male patients) were included in this systematic review, of which six were included in the network meta-analysis. The effects of oseltamivir, peramivir, or zanamivir on mortality compared with placebo or standard care without placebo for seasonal and zoonotic influenza were of very low certainty. Compared with placebo or standard care, we found low certainty evidence that duration of hospitalisation for seasonal influenza was reduced with oseltamivir (mean difference -1·63 days, 95% CI -2·81 to -0·45) and peramivir (-1·73 days, -3·33 to -0·13). Compared with standard care, there was little or no difference in time to alleviation of symptoms with oseltamivir (0·34 days, -0·86 to 1·54; low certainty evidence) or peramivir (-0·05 days, -0·69 to 0·59; low certainty evidence). There were no differences in adverse events or serious adverse events with oseltamivir, peramivir, and zanamivir (very low certainty evidence). Uncertainty remains about the effects of antivirals on other outcomes for patients with severe influenza. Due to the small number of eligible trials, we could not test for publication bias.InterpretationIn hospitalised patients with severe influenza, oseltamivir and peramivir might reduce duration of hospitalisation compared with standard care or placebo, although the certainty of evidence is low. The effects of all antivirals on mortality and other important patient outcomes are very uncertain due to scarce data from randomised controlled trials.FundingWorld Health Organization.
| S-EPMC11369965 | biostudies-literature