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: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.

Project description:Delirium, an acute disorder with high morbidity and mortality, is often preventable through multicomponent nonpharmacological strategies. The efficacy of these strategies for preventing subsequent adverse outcomes has been limited to small studies to date.To evaluate available evidence on multicomponent nonpharmacological delirium interventions in reducing incident delirium and preventing poor outcomes associated with delirium.PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2013.Studies examining the following outcomes were included: delirium incidence, falls, length of stay, rate of discharge to a long-term care institution (institutionalization), and change in functional or cognitive status.Two experienced physician reviewers independently and blindly abstracted data on outcome measures using a standardized approach. The reviewers conducted quality ratings based on the Cochrane risk-of-bias criteria for each study.We identified 14 interventional studies. The results for outcomes of delirium incidence, falls, length of stay, and institutionalization were pooled for the meta-analysis, but heterogeneity limited our meta-analysis of the results for change in functional or cognitive status. Overall, 11 studies demonstrated significant reductions in delirium incidence (odds ratio [OR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.38-0.58). Four randomized or matched trials reduced delirium incidence by 44% (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42-0.76). The rate of falls decreased significantly among intervention patients in 4 studies (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25-0.60); in 2 randomized or matched trials, the rate of falls was reduced by 64% (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.22-0.61). Length of stay and institutionalization also trended toward decreases in the intervention groups, with a mean difference of -0.16 (95% CI, -0.97 to 0.64) day shorter and the odds of institutionalization 5% lower (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.71-1.26). Among higher-quality randomized or matched trials, length of stay trended -0.33 (95% CI, -1.38 to 0.72) day shorter, and the odds of institutionalization trended 6% lower (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69-1.30).Multicomponent nonpharmacological delirium prevention interventions are effective in reducing delirium incidence and preventing falls, with a trend toward decreasing length of stay and avoiding institutionalization. Given the current focus on prevention of hospital-based complications and improved cost-effectiveness of care, this meta-analysis supports the use of these interventions to advance acute care for older persons.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious meta-analyses comparing the efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions for depression were clouded by a limited number of within-study treatment comparisons. This study used network meta-analysis, a novel methodological approach that integrates direct and indirect evidence from randomised controlled studies, to re-examine the comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for adult depression.Methods and findingsWe conducted systematic literature searches in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase up to November 2012, and identified additional studies through earlier meta-analyses and the references of included studies. We identified 198 studies, including 15,118 adult patients with depression, and coded moderator variables. Each of the seven psychotherapeutic interventions was superior to a waitlist control condition with moderate to large effects (range d?=?-0.62 to d?=?-0.92). Relative effects of different psychotherapeutic interventions on depressive symptoms were absent to small (range d?=?0.01 to d?=?-0.30). Interpersonal therapy was significantly more effective than supportive therapy (d?=?-0.30, 95% credibility interval [CrI] [-0.54 to -0.05]). Moderator analysis showed that patient characteristics had no influence on treatment effects, but identified aspects of study quality and sample size as effect modifiers. Smaller effects were found in studies of at least moderate (?d?=?0.29 [-0.01 to 0.58]; p?=?0.063) and large size (?d?=?0.33 [0.08 to 0.61]; p?=?0.012) and those that had adequate outcome assessment (?d?=?0.38 [-0.06 to 0.87]; p?=?0.100). Stepwise restriction of analyses by sample size showed robust effects for cognitive-behavioural therapy, interpersonal therapy, and problem-solving therapy (all d>0.46) compared to waitlist. Empirical evidence from large studies was unavailable or limited for other psychotherapeutic interventions.ConclusionsOverall our results are consistent with the notion that different psychotherapeutic interventions for depression have comparable benefits. However, the robustness of the evidence varies considerably between different psychotherapeutic treatments.

Project description:BackgroundTopical pharmacological agents typically used to treat postoperative sore throat (POST) after tracheal intubation include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids, lidocaine, Glycyrrhiza (licorice), and N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists (including ketamine and magnesium). However, the optimal prophylactic drug remains elusive.MethodsThe literature published before September 8, 2019 was searched on the PubMed, the Embase, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) covering topical prophylactic medications for patients with POST were included. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to assess the quality of evidence. The primary outcome is the risk of POST. Combining both direct and indirect evidence, a network meta-analysis was performed to assess odds ratios (ORs) between the topical pharmacological agents and surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve for the treatment-based outcomes. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42020158985.ResultsSixty-two RCTs (at least 73% of which were double blinded) that included a total of 6708 subjects and compared 6 categories of drugs and/or placebos were ultimately enrolled. All preventive interventions except lidocaine were more effective than placebo at the 4 time intervals. Lidocaine (OR: 0.35, 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.16-0.79) has a greater POST preventative intervention effect than the placebo at a time interval of only 2 to 3 hours after surgery. Relative to lidocaine, the risk of POST except 2 to 3 hours was lower for the following treatments: corticosteroids, ketamine, magnesium, NSAIDs, and Glycyrrhiza. The NMDA receptor antagonists studied here included ketamine and magnesium. Magnesium generally demonstrated greater benefit than ketamine at 24 hours postsurgery/extubation (OR: 0.41, 95% CrI, 0.18-0.92). Compared with ketamine, corticosteroids were associated with a reduced risk of POST during the 4 to 6 hours (OR: 0.40, 95% CrI, 0.19-0.83) and 24 hours (OR: 0.34, 95% CrI, 0.16-0.72) time intervals. During the 2 to 3 hours time interval, Glycyrrhiza (OR: 0.38, 95% CrI, 0.15-0.97) was more efficacious than magnesium.ConclusionsOur analysis shows that, among the 6 topical medications studied, lidocaine is not optimal for topical use to prevent POST. Glycyrrhizin, corticosteroids, NSAIDs, and NMDA receptor antagonists (ketamine and magnesium) are associated with a reduced postoperative pharyngeal pain across the 4 postsurgical time intervals studied, all of which can be chosen according to the clinical experience of the anesthesiologists and the patient preferences and are recommended for the reduction of postoperative throat pain.

Project description:Outpatient treatment studies of anorexia nervosa (AN) are notoriously hard to conduct given the ambivalence of the patient group and high drop-out rates. It is therefore not surprising that previous meta-analyses of pharmacological and psychological treatments for outpatient treatment of adult AN have proved to be inconclusive. Network meta-analysis (NMA) has the potential to overcome the limitations of pairwise meta-analysis, as this approach can compare multiple treatments using both direct comparisons of interventions within randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and indirect comparisons across trials based on a common comparator. To date there is no published example of this approach with eating disorders and the current study provides a protocol which will use NMA to advance knowledge about what outpatient therapy works best for which patients with AN by conducting both direct and indirect comparisons of different treatments and the moderating variables.Searches of electronic data bases will be supplemented with manual searches for published, unpublished and ongoing RCTs in international registries, and clinical trials registries of regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies. Two reviewers will independently extract the data and where possible we will access individual data in order to examine moderators of treatment. Two primary outcomes will be selected: changes to body mass index and changes to global eating disorder psychopathology. The secondary outcome is the total number of patients who, at 12-month post-randomization, attained over the previous 28 day period: (i) BMI > 18.5, and (ii) global eating disorder psychopathology to within 1 SD of community norms. We will also provide a statistical evaluation of consistency, the agreement between direct and indirect evidence.Descriptive statistics across all eligible trials will be provided along with a network diagram, where the size of the nodes will reflect the amount of evidence accumulated for each treatment. We will use a contribution matrix that describes the percentage contribution of each direct meta-analysis to the entire body of evidence.Findings will make a major contribution to the literature by summarising individual data across rapidly accumulating outpatient trials of AN using state of the art NMA methodology.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017064429.

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