Pharmacological Approaches to Diabetic Gastroparesis: A systematic review of randomised clinical trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Asha MZ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6930032 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Pharmacological Approaches to Diabetic Gastroparesis: A systematic review of randomised clinical trials.
Asha Mohammad Z MZ Khalil Sundos F H SFH
Sultan Qaboos University medical journal 20191101 4
Pharmacological interventions of diabetic gastroparesis (DG) constitute an essential element of a patient's management. This article aimed to systematically review the available pharmacological approaches of DG, including their efficacy and safety. A total of 24 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy and/or safety of medications targeting DG symptoms were identified using several online databases. Their results revealed that metoclopramide was the only approved drug for ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundDuloxetine hydrochloride is a reuptake inhibitor of 5-hydroxytryptamine and norepinephrine used to treat depression, generalized anxiety disorder, neuropathic pain, and stress incontinence in women. We investigated the efficacy of duloxetine in painful diabetic neuropathy and fibromyalgia to allow comparison with other antidepressants.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE (via Ovid), and Cochrane CENTRAL up to June 2008 for randomised controlled trials using duloxetine to treat neuropathic pain.ResultsWe identified six trials with 1,696 patients: 1,510 were treated with duloxetine and 706 with placebo. All patients had established baseline pain of at least moderate severity. Trial duration was 12 to 13 weeks. Three trials enrolled patients with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) and three enrolled patients with fibromyalgia. The number needed to treat (NNT) for at least 50% pain relief at 12 to 13 weeks with duloxetine 60 mg versus placebo (1,211 patients in the total comparison) was 5.8 (95% CI 4.5 to 8.4), and for duloxetine 120 mg (1,410 patients) was 5.7 (4.5 to 5.7). There was no difference in NNTs between PDN and fibromyalgia. With all doses of duloxetine combined (20/60/120 mg) there were fewer withdrawals for lack of efficacy than with placebo (number needed to treat to prevent one withdrawal 20 (13 to 42)), but more withdrawals due to adverse events (number needed to harm (NNH) 15 (11 to 25)). Nausea, somnolence, constipation, and reduced appetite were all more common with duloxetine than placebo (NNH values 6.3, 11, 11, and 18 respectively). The results for duloxetine are compared with published data for other antidepressants in neuropathic pain.ConclusionDuloxetine is equally effective for the treatment of PDN and fibromyalgia, judged by the outcome of at least 50% pain relief over 12 weeks, and is well tolerated. The NNT of 6 for 50% pain relief suggests that this is likely to be a useful drug in these difficult-to-treat conditions, where typically only a minority of patients respond. Comparing duloxetine with antidepressants for pain relief in DPN shows inadequacies in the evidence for efficacy of antidepressants, which are currently recommended in PDN care pathways.
| S-EPMC2529342 | 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:ObjectiveEvaluate the quality of exercise randomised controlled trial (RCT) reporting and conduct in clinical populations (ie, adults with or at risk of chronic conditions) and compare with matched pharmacological RCTs.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesEmbase (Elsevier), PubMed (NLM) and CINAHL (EBSCO).Study selectionRCTs of exercise in clinical populations with matching pharmacological RCTs published in leading clinical, medical and specialist journals with impact factors ≥15.Review methodsOverall RCT quality was evaluated by two independent reviewers using three research reporting guidelines (ie, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT; pharmacological RCTs)/CONSORT for non-pharmacological treatments; exercise RCTs), CONSORT-Harms, Template for Intervention Description and Replication) and two risk of bias assessment (research conduct) tools (ie, Cochrane Risk of Bias, Jadad Scale). We compared research reporting and conduct quality within exercise RCTs with matched pharmacological RCTs, and examined factors associated with quality in exercise and pharmacological RCTs, separately.FindingsForty-eight exercise RCTs (11 658 patients; median sample n=138) and 48 matched pharmacological RCTs were evaluated (18 501 patients; median sample n=160). RCTs were conducted primarily in cardiovascular medicine (43%) or oncology (31%). Overall quality score (composite of all research reporting and conduct quality scores; primary endpoint) for exercise RCTs was 58% (median score 46 of 80; IQR: 39-51) compared with 77% (53 of 68; IQR: 47-58) in the matched pharmacological RCTs (p≤0.001). Individual quality scores for trial reporting and conduct were lower in exercise RCTs compared with matched pharmacological RCTs (p≤0.03). Factors associated with higher overall quality scores for exercise RCTs were journal impact factor (≥25), sample size (≥152) and publication year (≥2013).Conclusions and relevanceResearch reporting and conduct quality within exercise RCTs is inferior to matched pharmacological RCTs. Suboptimal RCT reporting and conduct impact the fidelity, interpretation, and reproducibility of exercise trials and, ultimately, implementation of exercise in clinical populations.Prospero registration numberCRD42018095033.
| S-EPMC8359527 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCachexia is a multisystem syndrome characterized by weight loss, anorexia, loss of muscle mass, systemic inflammation, insulin resistance, and functional decline. Management of cachexia involves addressing multiple underlying biological mechanisms. Previous review on pharmacological management of cancer cachexia identified progestins and corticosteroids as effective agents for treatment of cachexia. However, to date no consensus exists on a single effective or standard treatment for management of cachexia. The aim of this systematic review is to determine the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments used to manage cachexia among adult cancer patients.MethodsWe performed literature searches of PubMed (NLM), Embase (Ovid), and Medline(Ovid) to identify clinical trials focused on pharmacological management of cancer cachexia among adult cancer patients from 2004 to 2018. Three reviewers screened a random selection of abstracts to measure for interrater reliability. After this step, each screener screened two-thirds of all abstracts and 177 studies were identified for full text review. The primary outcome was impact of pharmacological management on change in either weight or lean body mass in cancer patients.ResultsWe identified 19 articles (representing 20 RCTs) that focused on pharmacological management of cancer cachexia. Agents showing promising results included Anamorelin and Enobosarm. Anamorelin at 50 or 100?mg per day for 12?weeks showed a consistent benefit across all studies and resulted in significant improvement in weight as compared to baseline among cancer patients. Enobosarm at 1 and 3?mg per day was also effective in improving lean body mass and QOL symptoms among advancer stage cancer patients. Finally, use of combination agents provide evidence for targeting multiple pathways underlying cachexia mechanism to achieve maximum benefit. No agents showed functional improvement in cancer patients.ConclusionAnamorelin as a single agent shows promising results in improving cachexia related weight loss among cancer patients. Further research on combination therapies may be helpful to address critical gaps in cachexia management.
| S-EPMC6260745 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Standard of Care (SoC) has been used with different significance across Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) on the treatment of Covid-19. In the context of a living systematic review on pharmacological interventions for COVID-19, we assessed the characteristics of the SoC adopted in the published RCTs. Methods: We performed a systematic review searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to April 10, 2021. We included all RCTs comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo, or SoC. All trials selected have been classified as studies with SoC including treatments under investigation for COVID-19 (SoC+); studies with SoC without specifications regarding the potential therapies allowed (SoC-); studies including as control groups Placebo (P) or active controls (A+). Results: We included in our analysis 144 RCTs, comprising 78,319 patients. Most of these trials included SoC (108; 75.0%); some in all arms of the study (69.7%) or just as independent comparators (30.3%). Treatments under investigation for COVID-19 in other trials were included in the SoC (SoC+) in 67 cases (62.0%), Thirty-one different therapeutic agents (alone or in combination) were counted within the studies with SoC+: mostly hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine (28), lopinavir/ritonavir (20) or azithromycin (16). No specification was given regarding treatment allowed in the control groups (SoC-) in 41 studies (38.0%). Conclusion: Our analysis shows that the findings emerging from several clinical trials regarding the efficacy and safety of pharmacological intervention for COVID-19 might be jeopardized by the quality of control arms.
| S-EPMC8558371 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) which is observed in 55-94% of the newborns from opioids-taking mothers produces deleterious neurological symptoms. Various pharmacological therapies have been investigated in neonates with NAS. This article reviews all studies on NAS treatment to analyze the duration of treatment, length of hospitalization and possible drug adverse effects. The search was limited to the randomized clinical trials which examined the treatments of neonates with NAS. Scientific databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, Embase and Scopus were systematically searched. Retrieved articles were reviewed by two researchers and evaluated using the JADAD scoring system. Finally, the treatment duration, hospitalization length and drug side-effects were extracted. Methadone, buprenorphine and clonidine were found more effective than morphine. Diluted tincture of opium (DTO) in combination with phenobarbital or clonidine was significantly more effective than DTO alone. Clonidine was a significantly better adjunctive therapy than phenobarbital in reducing morphine treatment days. No significant difference was observed between morphine and DTO effectiveness. Deciding the optimal regimen to manage symptomatic NAS, as a single or an adjunct therapy is not possible based on the literature, due to the low quality, small size and short-term treatment considered in the published studies. Graphical abstract Process of selecting trials included in the present systematic review.
| S-EPMC6593026 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo identify studies that applied behavioural approaches to issues of recruitment and/or retention to trials; to describe these approaches; and to identify gaps for future research.DesignSystematic mapping review of research undertaken in clinical trials within peer-reviewed sources. Review participants were individuals involved in clinical trials, including trial staff, participants, potential participants and former participants.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, Web of Science and ASSIA from inception to 15 January 2020 with no date or language restrictions.Eligibility criteriaStudies within the context of clinical trials reporting the barriers/facilitators to recruitment and retention, or developing/evaluating solutions to said barriers/facilitators, using a behavioural approach.Results31 articles were included. Recruitment-focused studies (n=22, 71%) represented the majority. Studies tended to focus on participant behaviours (n=22, 71%). Underserved populations (n=11, 35%) were a notable subset of studies. Most studies (n=23, 74%) were exploratory but those that evaluated interventions (n=8, 26%) often did so within underserved populations (n=6). A majority of studies (n=30, 97%) did not specify their behaviours consistent with guidelines from behavioural scientists. The most used approaches were social cognitive theory (n=8, 26%), the theory of planned behaviour (n=6, 19%) and the theoretical domains framework (n=5, 16%).ConclusionsA range of behavioural approaches have been applied to recruitment and retention to trials. The multitude of recruitment research here is consistent with trials research generally and emphasises the need for research into retention. Authors report target behaviours minimally, which is not conducive to replication. Further research should build on lessons here, such as clearly specifying behaviours. Increased methodological rigour and transparency will lead to robust evidence bases and less research waste in poor recruitment and retention. Overall, trials informed by behavioural approaches promises to be efficient and more participant focused.
| S-EPMC8915327 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Trauma-focused psychotherapy (tf-PT) is the first-line treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Tf-PT focuses on processing and modulating trauma memories. Not all patients benefit, however, and there is room for improvement of efficacy. Pharmacologically augmenting trauma memory modulation in the context of tf-PT may help optimise treatment outcome. To systematically review effects of pharmacologically augmented memory modulation in the context of tf-PT for PTSD (PROSPERO preregistration ID: CRD42021230623). We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials of psychotherapy treatment for PTSD. We included placebo-controlled studies that augmented at least one treatment session pharmacologically targeting memory extinction or reconsolidation. We calculated post-treatment between group (pharmacological augmentation vs placebo control) effect sizes of PTSD symptom severity. We included 13 RCTs. There was large heterogeneity in augmentation procedure and methodological quality. Four studies showed significantly greater PTSD symptom reduction in the pharmacological augmentation group (propranolol, hydrocortisone, dexamethasone, D-cycloserine) compared to placebo. Seven studies showed no significant effect of pharmacological augmentation compared to placebo (D-cycloserine, rapamycin, mifepristone, propranolol, mifepristone combined with D-cycloserine, methylene blue). Two studies showed significantly smaller PTSD symptom reduction in the pharmacological augmentation group (D-cycloserine, dexamethasone) compared to placebo. Results of pharmacological augmentation were mixed overall and heterogenous for the pharmacological agents tested in more than one study. Additional studies and replications are needed to identify which pharmacological agents work, in which combination and to identify patient groups that benefit most to tailor PTSD treatment.
| S-EPMC10272208 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSystematic reviews collate trial data to provide evidence to support clinical decision-making. For effective synthesis, there must be consistency in outcome reporting. There is no agreed set of outcomes for reporting the effect of burn care interventions. Issues with outcome reporting have been identified, although not systematically investigated. This study gathers empirical evidence on any variation in outcome reporting and assesses the need for a core outcome set for burn care research.MethodsElectronic searches of four search engines were undertaken from January 2012 to December 2016 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), using medical subject headings and free text terms including 'burn', 'scald' 'thermal injury' and 'RCT'. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted outcomes verbatim and recorded the timing of outcome measurement. Duplicate outcomes (exact wording ± different?spelling), similar outcomes (albumin in blood, serum albumin) and identical outcomes measured at different times were removed. Variation in outcome reporting was determined by assessing the number of unique outcomes reported across all included trials. Outcomes were classified into domains. Bias was reduced using five researchers and a patient working independently and together.Results147 trials were included, of which 127 (86.4%) were RCTs, 13 (8.8%) pilot studies and 7 (4.8%) RCT protocols. 1494 verbatim clinical outcomes were reported; 955 were unique. 76.8% of outcomes were measured within 6?months of injury. Commonly reported outcomes were defined differently. Numbers of unique outcomes per trial varied from one to 37 (median 9; IQR 5,13). No single outcome was reported across all studies demonstrating inconsistency of reporting. Outcomes were classified into 54 domains. Numbers of outcomes per domain ranged from 1 to 166 (median 11; IQR 3,24).ConclusionsThis review has demonstrated heterogeneity in outcome reporting in burn care research which will hinder amalgamation of study data. We recommend the development of a Core Outcome Set.Prospero registration numberCRD42017060908.
| S-EPMC6398699 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSubgroup analyses are frequently used to assess heterogeneity of treatment effects in randomised clinical trials. Inconsistent, improper and incomplete implementation, reporting and interpretation have been identified as ongoing challenges. Further, subgroup analyses were frequently criticised because of unreliable or potentially misleading results. More recently, recommendations and guidelines have been provided to improve the reporting of data in this regard.MethodsThis systematic review was based on a literature search within the digital archives of three selected medical journals, The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and Circulation. We reviewed articles of randomised clinical trials in the domain of cardiovascular disease which were published in 2015 and 2016. We screened and evaluated the selected articles for the mode of implementation and reporting of subgroup analyses.ResultsWe were able to identify a total of 130 eligible publications of randomised clinical trials. In 89/130 (68%) articles, results of at least one subgroup analysis were presented. This was dependent on the considered journal (p < 0.001), the number of included patients (p < 0.001) and the lack of statistical significance of a trial's primary analysis (p < 0.001). The number of reported subgroup analyses ranged from 1 to 101 (median = 13). We were able to comprehend the specification time of reported subgroup analyses for 71/89 (80%) articles, with 55/89 (62%) articles presenting exclusively pre-specified analyses. This information was not always traceable on the basis of provided trial protocols and often did not include the pre-definition of cut-off values for the categorization of subgroups. The use of interaction tests was reported in 84/89 (94%) articles, with 36/89 (40%) articles reporting heterogeneity of the treatment effect for at least one primary or secondary trial outcome. Subgroup analyses were reported more frequently for larger randomised clinical trials, and if primary analyses did not reach statistical significance. Information about the implementation of subgroup analyses was reported most consistently for articles from The New England Journal of Medicine, since it was also traceable on the basis of provided trial protocols. We were able to comprehend whether subgroup analyses were pre-specified in a majority of the reviewed publications. Even though results of multiple subgroup analyses were reported for most published trials, a corresponding adjustment for multiple testing was rarely considered.ConclusionCompared to previous reviews in this context, we observed improvements in the reporting of subgroup analyses of cardiovascular randomised clinical trials. Nonetheless, critical shortcomings, such as inconsistent reporting of the implementation and insufficient pre-specification, persist.
| S-EPMC8174013 | biostudies-literature