Dataset Information

Comparative effect of nutraceuticals on lipid profile: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:According to the common definition, nutraceuticals are components found in food that can act as therapeutic substances. Recently, the International Lipid Expert Panel published two position papers covering the topic of lipid-lowering nutraceuticals and their potential use as a complementary treatment in addition to statins or as an alternative treatment in statin-intolerant patients. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of different nutraceuticals on lipid profiles in a systematic review with pairwise and network meta-analyses. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Three databases, including PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, will be searched without time or publication language restrictions. The estimated end date for the searches will be 29 March 2020. Each stage of the review, including the study section, data extraction, and risk of bias and quality of evidence assessments, will be performed in duplicate. Randomised controlled trials meeting the following criteria will be eligible for inclusion: (1) participants aged ?18 years, (2) intervention with a selected nutraceutical (artichoke, berberine, bergamot, soluble fibres, green tea, garlic, lupin, plant sterols and stanols, red yeast rice, soybean, spirulina or a combination of the aforementioned nutraceuticals), (3) administration of the treatment in the form of capsules, pills, powders, solutions, tablets or enriched food items, (4) comparison with another nutraceutical or placebo, (5) intervention period ?3 weeks and (6) lipid profile (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides) as an outcome. Random-effect pairwise and network meta-analyses will be used to summarise the relative effect of each nutraceutical in comparison to the effect of every other nutraceutical. Subgroup analyses will be stratified by age, sex, ethnicity, sample size, length of trial follow-up, baseline cholesterol level and presence of other comorbidities. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This review will summarise findings from primary studies, and therefore no ethics approval is required. The results will be presented at conferences as well as published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019132877.

SUBMITTER: Morze J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7440701 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative effect of nutraceuticals on lipid profile: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Morze Jakub J Osadnik Tadeusz T Osadnik Kamila K Lejawa Mateusz M Jakubiak Grzegorz G Pawlas Natalia N Gasior Mariusz M Schwingshackl Lukas L Banach Maciej M

BMJ open 20200820 8

<h4>Introduction</h4>According to the common definition, nutraceuticals are components found in food that can act as therapeutic substances. Recently, the International Lipid Expert Panel published two position papers covering the topic of lipid-lowering nutraceuticals and their potential use as a complementary treatment in addition to statins or as an alternative treatment in statin-intolerant patients. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of different nutraceuticals on lipid profile ...[more]

PMID: 32819924

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe US Food and Drug Administration has withdrawn the bowel cleansing kit HalfLytely (PEG 3500) with 10 mg bisacodyl tablets due to an increased risk of ischaemic colitis compared with the same kit with only 5 mg bisacodyl. This is of interest in Canada given that the bowel cleansing kit Bi-Peglyte (PEG 3500) with 15 mg bisacodyl is currently approved for use. The objective is to assess the comparative safety of various bowel cleansers with or without bisacodyl, with a primary interest inpolyethylene glycol (PEG)-based and sodium-picosulfate-based products.Methods and analysisGiven the existing volume of the literature, the review will be conducted in two stages. Stage 1 will consist of a scoping exercise by searching MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library (up to 21 November 2017) to identify randomised controlled trials, quasirandomised studies and non-randomised studies in which any bowel cleanser regimens were compared among persons undergoing colonoscopy. The outcomes will be mapped to establish a listing of the studies and their comparisons and outcomes currently available in the literature. From this, a data synthesis plan will be determined. In stage 2, a systematic review with meta-analyses will be pursued, focused on the bowel cleanser comparisons and outcomes of interest identified in stage 1. Two reviewers will screen, extract and quality assess the articles. Outcomes of interest include ischaemic colitis, electrolyte imbalances and their consequences, seizures, bowel perforation and patient tolerability. If sufficient data exist and studies are of sufficient homogeneity, network meta-analyses (NMAs) will be performed.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was not necessary due to study design. Updating the safety profile of bowel cleansers among the generally healthy population undergoing colonoscopy is pertinent given recent approval changes. This will be the first NMA within this population. Policy considerations may be reconsidered to minimise risk during bowel cleanser use.Prospero registration numberCRD42018084720.

Project description:BackgroundSub-optimal response in schizophrenia is frequent, warranting augmentation strategies over treatment-as-usual (TAU).MethodsWe assessed nutraceuticals/phytoceutical augmentation strategies via network meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials in schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder were identified via the following databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Change (Standardized Mean Difference=SMD) in total symptomatology and acceptability (Risk Ratio=RR) were co-primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were positive, negative, cognitive, and depressive symptom changes, general psychopathology, tolerability, and response rates. We conducted subset analyses by disease phase and sensitivity analyses by risk of bias and assessed global/local inconsistency, publication bias, risk of bias, and confidence in the evidence.ResultsThe systematic review included 49 records documenting 50 studies (n=2,384) documenting 22 interventions. Citicoline (SMD=-1.05,95%CI=-1.85; -.24), L-lysine (SMD=-1.04,95%CI=-1.84;-.25), N-acetylcysteine (SMD=-.87,95%CI=-1.27;-.47) and sarcosine (SMD=-.5,95%CI=-.87-.13) outperformed placebo for total symptomatology. High heterogeneity (tau2=.10, I2=55.9%) and global inconsistency (Q=40.79, df=18, p=.002) emerged without publication bias (Egger's test, p=.42). Sarcosine improved negative symptoms (SMD=-.65, 95%CI=-1.10; -.19). N-acetylcysteine improved negative symptoms (SMD=-.90, 95%CI=-1.42; -.39)/general psychopathology (SMD=-.76, 95%CI=-1.39; -.13). No compound improved total symptomatology within acute phase studies (k=7, n=422). Sarcosine (SMD=-1.26,95%CI=-1.91; -.60), citicoline (SMD=-1.05,95%CI=-1.65;-.44), and N-acetylcysteine (SMD=-.55,95%CI=-.92,-.19) outperformed placebo augmentation in clinically stable participants. Sensitivity analyses removing high-risk-of-bias studies confirmed overall findings in all phases and clinically stable samples. In contrast, the acute phase analysis restricted to low risk-of-bias studies showed a superior effect vs. placebo for N-acetylcysteine (SMD=-1.10,95%CI=-1.75,-.45), L-lysine (SMD=-1.05,95%CI=-1.55,-.19), omega-3 fatty acids (SMD=-.83,95%CI=-1.31,-.34) and withania somnifera (SMD=-.71,95%CI=-1.21,-.22). Citicoline (SMD=-1.05,95%CI=-1.86,-.23), L-lysine (SMD=-1.04,95%CI=-1.84,-.24), N-acetylcysteine (SMD=-.89,95%CI=-1.35,-.43) and sarcosine (SMD=-.61,95%CI=-1.02,-.21) outperformed placebo augmentation of TAU ("any phase"). Drop-out due to any cause or adverse events did not differ between nutraceutical/phytoceutical vs. placebo+TAU.ConclusionsSarcosine, citicoline, and N-acetylcysteine are promising augmentation interventions in stable patients with schizophrenia, yet the quality of evidence is low to very low. Further high-quality trials in acute phases/specific outcomes/difficult-to-treat schizophrenia are warranted.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) on glycaemic control, body weight, and lipid profile in adults with type 2 diabetes.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Embase from database inception to 19 August 2023.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesEligible randomised controlled trials enrolled adults with type 2 diabetes who received GLP-1RA treatments and compared effects with placebo or any GLP-1RA drug, with a follow-up duration of at least 12 weeks. Trials with a crossover design, non-inferiority studies comparing GLP-1RA and other drug classes without a placebo group, using withdrawn drugs, and non-English studies were deemed ineligible.Results76 eligible trials involving 15 GLP-1RA drugs and 39 246 participants were included in this network meta-analysis; all subsequent estimates refer to the comparison with placebo. All 15 GLP-1RAs effectively lowered haemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose concentrations. Tirzepatide induced the largest reduction of haemoglobin A1c concentrations (mean difference -2.10% (95% confidence interval -2.47% to -1.74%), surface under the cumulative ranking curve 94.2%; high confidence of evidence), and fasting plasma glucose concentrations (-3.12 mmol/L (-3.59 to -2.66), 97.2%; high confidence), and proved the most effective GLP-1RA drug for glycaemic control. Furthermore, GLP-1RAs were shown to have strong benefits to weight management for patients with type 2 diabetes. CagriSema (semaglutide with cagrilintide) resulted in the highest weight loss (mean difference -14.03 kg (95% confidence interval -17.05 to -11.00); high confidence of evidence), followed by tirzepatide (-8.47 kg (-9.68 to -7.26); high confidence). Semaglutide was effective in lowering the concentration of low density lipoprotein (-0.16 mmol/L (-0.30 to -0.02)) and total cholesterol (-0.48 mmol/L (-0.84 to -0.11)). Moreover, this study also raises awareness of gastrointestinal adverse events induced by GLP-1RAs, and concerns about safety are especially warranted for high dose administration.ConclusionsGLP-1RAs are efficacious in treating adults with type 2 diabetes. Compared with the placebo, tirzepatide was the most effective GLP-1RA drug for glycaemic control by reducing haemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose concentrations. GLP-1RAs also significantly improved weight management for type 2 diabetes, with CagriSema performing the best for weight loss. The results prompt safety concerns for GLP-1RAs, especially with high dose administration, regarding gastrointestinal adverse events.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42022342845.

Project description:IntroductionChronic low back pain disorders (CLBDs) present a substantial societal burden; however, optimal treatment remains debated. To date, pairwise and network meta-analyses have evaluated individual treatment modes, yet a comparison of a wide range of common treatments is required to evaluate their relative effectiveness. Using network meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments (acupuncture, education or advice, electrophysical agents, exercise, manual therapies/manipulation, massage, the McKenzie method, pharmacotherapy, psychological therapies, surgery, epidural injections, percutaneous treatments, traction, physical therapy, multidisciplinary pain management, placebo, 'usual care' and/or no treatment) on pain intensity, disability and/or mental health in patients with CLBDs.Methods and analysisSix electronic databases and reference lists of 285 prior systematic reviews were searched. Eligible studies will be randomised controlled/clinical trials (including cross-over and cluster designs) that examine individual treatments or treatment combinations in adult patients with CLBDs. Studies must be published in English, German or Chinese as a full-journal publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data, and, where feasible, network meta-analyses will be performed. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidance, including the network meta-analysis extension (PRISMA-NMA). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for network meta-analysis will be implemented for assessing the quality of the findings.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this systematic review of the published data. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication.Prospero registration numberPROSPERO registration number CRD42020182039.

Dataset Information

Comparative effect of nutraceuticals on lipid profile: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Publications

Comparative effect of nutraceuticals on lipid profile: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets