Dataset Information

Comparative Efficacy of Pharmacological and Nonpharmacological Interventions for Acne Vulgaris: A Network Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Acne has several effects on physical symptoms, but the main impacts are on the quality of life, which can be improved by treatment. There are several acne treatments but less evidence comparing their relative efficacy. Thus, we assessed the comparative efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for acne. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 2019, to include randomized controlled trials for acne that compared topical antibiotics (TA), benzoyl peroxide (BPO), topical retinoids (TR), oral antibiotics (OA), lasers, light devices including LED device (LED), photodynamic therapy (PDT), and intense pulsed light, chemical peels (CP), miscellaneous therapies or complementary and alternative medicine (MTCAM), or their combinations. We performed Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects for all treatments compared with placebo and each other. Mean differences (MDs) of lesions count and risk ratios of adverse events with their 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated, and all interventions were ranked by the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) values. Additional frequentist additive network meta-analysis was performed to detect the robustness of results and potential interaction effects. Sensitivity analyses were carried out with different priors, and metaregression was to adjust for nine potential effect modifiers. In the result, seventy-three randomized controlled trials (27,745 patients with mild to moderate acne), comparing 30 grouped intervention categories, were included with low to moderate risk of bias. For adverse effects, OA had more risk in combination treatment with others. For noninflammatory lesions reduction, seventeen interventions had significant differences comparing with placebo and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = -21.89, 95%CrI [-28.97, -14.76]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: -22.48 [-34.13, -10.70]; TA+BPO+CP: -20.63 [-33.97, -7.13]) were superior to others with 94, 94, and 91% SUCRA values, respectively. For inflammatory lesions reduction, nineteen interventions were significantly better than placebo, and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = -12.13, 95%CrI [-18.41, -5.80]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: -13.21 [-.39, -3.04]; LED: -11.30 [-18.34, -4.42]) were superior to others (SUCRA: 81, 81, and 77%, respectively). In summary of noninflammatory and inflammatory lesions results, TR+BPO and TA+BPO were the best options compared to others. The frequentist model showed similar results as above. In summary, current evidence supports the suggestion that TR+BPO and TA+BPO are the best options for mild to moderate acne. LED is another option for inflammatory lesions when drug resistance occurs. All the combinations involved with OA showed more risk of adverse events than others. However, the evidence of this study should be cautiously used due to the limitations.

SUBMITTER: Shi Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7729523 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative Efficacy of Pharmacological and Nonpharmacological Interventions for Acne Vulgaris: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Shi Qingyang Q Tan Lizi L Chen Zhe Z Ge Long L Zhang Xiaoyan X Yang Fengwen F Liu Chunxiang C Zhang Junhua J

Frontiers in pharmacology 20201126

Acne has several effects on physical symptoms, but the main impacts are on the quality of life, which can be improved by treatment. There are several acne treatments but less evidence comparing their relative efficacy. Thus, we assessed the comparative efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for acne. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 2019, to include randomized controlled trials for acne that compa ...[more]

PMID: 33328999

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:To provide evidence for medical management of chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) in China based on comparisons of all clinical practical interventions using Bayesian network meta-analysis. METHODS:We conducted a systematic literature review by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Wanfang Database (inception to May 2019) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for CIC in Chinese people. Only RCTs that recruited participants aged over 18 and diagnosed with CIC by the Rome II, III or IV criteria were included. We used three outcomes to examine efficacy. The risk ratio (RR) of the responder rate, based on ≥3 spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) per week after treatment, was the primary outcome, and the SBM count per week and the Bristol score (BS) were secondary outcomes. In addition, adverse effects (AEs) were also considered a secondary outcome to evaluate safety. We conducted Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects, and the RR or mean difference with its 95% credible interval was calculated. In addition, we ranked all treatments via their cumulative curves (SUCRA) and assessed the quality of evidence according to the GRADE criteria. RESULTS:We included a total of 42 trials (6820 participants) of 20 grouped interventions that included pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments. For the primary outcome, fourteen interventions were significantly better than placebo, and Probiotics plus Mosapride (PB + MP) appeared superior to others (GRADE quality of evidence: Moderate to Low), followed by Prucalopride (PP) (High to Low) and Electroacupuncture (EA) (High to Low). For SBM, Compound sodium bicarbonate suppository (CSBS) appeared to be best, with an SUCRA value of 90% (High to Low). For BS, Lactulose plus Probiotics (LT + PB) was superior to others (Moderate to Low), followed by Polyethylene glycol (PEG) (High to Moderate). Although all interventions appeared non-significant when compared with placebo in terms of adverse effects, Lactulose plus Mosapride showed greater risk than others on ranking probability. CONCLUSIONS:Given the GRADE assessment, PB + MP, PP and EA may be the priory options with moderate certainty in the quality of evidence for the primary outcome. For SBM, a CSBS may be the best option with moderate certainty in the quality of evidence. For BS, PEG may be the priory option with high certainty in the quality of evidence. However, due to a lack of high certainty in the quality of evidence, caution is needed when recommending the interventions. Because of the limitations, an increased number of trials are required for more accurate results.

Project description:Introduction Although several non-pharmacological interventions have been tested in the management of Fibromyalgia (FM), there is little consensus regarding the best options for the treatment of this health condition. The purpose of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to investigate the comparative efficacy and acceptability of non-pharmacological interventions for FM, in order to assist clinical decision making through a ranking of interventions in relation to the most important clinical outcomes in these patients. Methods and analysis We will perform a systematic search to identify randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions endorsed in guidelines and systematic reviews. Information sources searched will include major bibliographic databases without language or date restrictions (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO and PEDro). Our primary outcomes will be pain intensity, patient-reported quality of life (QoL), and acceptability of treatment will be our secondary outcome. Risk of bias of the included trials will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). For each pairwise comparison between the different interventions, we will present mean differences (MDs) for pain intensity and QoL outcomes and Relative Risks (RRs) for acceptability, both with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Initially, standard pairwise meta-analyses will be performed using a DerSimonian-Laird random effects model for all comparisons with at least two trials and then we will perform a frequentist NMA using the methodology of multivariate meta-analysis assuming a common heterogeneity parameter, using the mvmeta command and network suite in STATA. In the NMA, two different types of control group, such as placebo/sham and no intervention/waiting list will be combined as one node called “Control”. The competing interventions will be ranked using the P-score, which is the frequentist analogue of surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for the outcomes of interest at immediate- (intervention duration of up to 2 weeks), short- (over 2 weeks up to 12 weeks) and long-terms (over 12 weeks). The confidence in the results from NMA will be assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta‐analysis (CINeMA) framework. Ethics and dissemination This work synthesises evidence from previously published studies and does not require ethics review or approval. A manuscript describing the findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Registration OSF (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7MS25) and registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020216374).

Project description:Background: Several pharmacological interventions are now under investigation for the treatment of Covid-19, and the evidence is evolving rapidly. Our aim is to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of these drugs. Methods and Findings: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We included 96 RCTs, comprising of 34,501 patients. The network meta-analysis showed in terms of all-cause mortality, when compared to SC or placebo, only corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate (RR 0.90, 95%CI 0.83, 0.97; moderate certainty of evidence). Corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate also when compared to hydroxychloroquine (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.74, 0.94; moderate certainty of evidence). Remdesivir proved to be better in terms of SAEs when compared to SC or placebo (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63, 0.89; high certainty of evidence) and plasma (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.34, 0.94; high certainty of evidence). The combination of lopinavir and ritonavir proved to reduce SAEs when compared to plasma (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25, 0.95; high certainty of evidence). Most of the RCTs were at unclear risk of bias (42 of 96), one third were at high risk of bias (34 of 96) and 20 were at low risk of bias. Certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low. Conclusion: At present, corticosteroids reduced all-cause mortality in patients with Covid-19, with a moderate certainty of evidence. Remdesivir appeared to be a safer option than SC or placebo, while plasma was associated with safety concerns. These preliminary evidence-based observations should guide clinical practice until more data are made public.

Dataset Information

Comparative Efficacy of Pharmacological and Nonpharmacological Interventions for Acne Vulgaris: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Comparative Efficacy of Pharmacological and Nonpharmacological Interventions for Acne Vulgaris: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets