Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Armolipid Plus^®: An Updated PRISMA Compliant Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials.

ABSTRACT: Armolipid Plus^® is a multi-constituent nutraceutical that claims to improve lipid profiles. The aim of this PRISMA compliant systematic review and meta-analysis was to globally evaluate the efficacy and safety of Armolipid Plus^® on the basis of the available randomized, blinded, controlled clinical trials (RCTs). A systematic literature search in several databases was conducted in order to identify RCTs assessing the efficacy and safety of dietary supplementation with Armolipid Plus^®. Two review authors independently identified 12 eligible studies (1050 included subjects overall) and extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. Meta-analysis of the data suggested that dietary supplementation with Armolipid Plus^® exerted a significant effect on body mass index (mean difference (MD) = -0.25 kg/m², p = 0.008) and serum levels of total cholesterol (MD = -25.07 mg/dL, p < 0.001), triglycerides (MD = -11.47 mg/dL, p < 0.001), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD = 1.84 mg/dL, p < 0.001), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD = -26.67 mg/dL, p < 0.001), high sensitivity C reactive protein (hs-CRP, MD = -0.61 mg/L, p = 0.022), and fasting glucose (MD = -3.52 mg/dL, p < 0.001). Armolipid Plus^® was well tolerated. This meta-analysis demonstrates that dietary supplementation with Armolipid Plus^® is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in serum lipids, glucose, and hs-CRP. These changes are consistent with improved cardiometabolic health.

SUBMITTER: Cicero AFG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7920267 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and Safety of Armolipid Plus®: An Updated PRISMA Compliant Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials.

Cicero Arrigo F G AFG Kennedy Cormac C Knežević Tamara T Bove Marilisa M Georges Coralie M G CMG Šatrauskienė Agnė A Toth Peter P PP Fogacci Federica F

Nutrients 20210216 2

Armolipid Plus® is a multi-constituent nutraceutical that claims to improve lipid profiles. The aim of this PRISMA compliant systematic review and meta-analysis was to globally evaluate the efficacy and safety of Armolipid Plus® on the basis of the available randomized, blinded, controlled clinical trials (RCTs). A systematic literature search in several databases was conducted in order to identify RCTs assessing the efficacy and safety of dietary supplementation with Armol ...[more]

PMID: 33669333

Similar Datasets

Project description:The safety and efficacy of different drugs in treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) patients who could not maintain normal glucose level only through diet and exercise remains to be debated. We performed this network meta-analysis (NAM) to compare and rank different antidiabetic drugs in glucose level control and pregnancy outcomes in GDM patients.We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase up to December 31, 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to different drugs in the treatment of GDM patients were enrolled. We extracted the relevant information and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We did pair-wise meta-analyses using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model and then adopted random-effects NAM combining both direct and indirect evidence within a Bayesian framework, to calculate the odds ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) and to draw a surface under the cumulative ranking curve of the neonatal and maternal outcomes of different treatments in GDM patients.Thirty-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this NAM, including 6 kinds of treatments (metformin, metformin plus insulin, insulin, glyburide, acarbose, and placebo). The results of the NAM showed that regarding the incidence of macrosomia and LGA, metformin had lower incidence than glyburide (OR, 0.5411 and 0.4177). In terms of the incidence of admission to the NICU, insulin had higher incidence compared with glyburide (OR, 1.844). As for the incidence of neonatal hypoglycemia, metformin had lower incidence than insulin and glyburide (OR, 0.6331 and 0.3898), and insulin was lower than glyburide (OR, 0.6236). For mean birth weight, metformin plus insulin was lower than insulin (SMD, -0.5806), glyburide (SMD, -0.7388), and placebo (SMD, -0.6649). Besides, metformin was observed to have lower birth weight than glyburide (SMD, 0.2591). As for weight gain, metformin and metformin plus insulin were lower than insulin (SMD, -0.9166, -1.53). Ranking results showed that glyburide might be the optimum treatment regarding average glucose control, and metformin is the fastest in glucose control for GDM patients; glyburide have the highest incidence of macrosomia, preeclampsia, hyperbilirubinemia, neonatal hypoglycemia, shortest gestational age at delivery, and lowest mean birth weight; metformin (plus insulin when required) have the lowest incidence of macrosomia, PIH, LGA, RDS, low gestational age at delivery, and low birth weight. Besides, insulin had the highest incidence of NICU admission, acarbose had the lowest risk of neonatal hypoglycemia.Our study concluded that metformin is fastest in glucose control, with a more favorable pregnancy outcomes-would be a better option, but its rate of glucose control is the lowest.However, glyburide is the optimumtreatment regarding the rate of glucose control, but withmore adverse outcomes. This NAMbased on 32 RCTs will strongly help to guide further development of management for GDM patients, clinicians should carefully balance the risk-benefit profile of different treatments according to various situations.

Project description:Background: Malignant melanoma is a highly aggressive cancer that spreads and metastasizes quickly. In recent years, the antiangiogenic drug bevacizumab has been trialed to treat malignant melanoma. We conducted the first meta-analysis to examine the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab combined with other drugs in malignant melanoma. Methods: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-comparative clinical studies of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy, targeted medicine, and interferon to treat malignant melanoma in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Meta-analysis of RCT was performed using Review Manager (version 5.4), and non-comparative meta-analysis was performed using R (version 4.0.3). The primary outcome was the objective response rate. Depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies, the pooled outcomes and 95% CI were calculated using either random-effects or fixed-effect models. Subgroup outcomes were calculated with possible relevant variables. Sensitivity analyses were carried out by excluding each study from the highly heterogeneous pooled results in turn. Funnel plot and Begg's test were used to test the included studies' potential publication bias. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: This meta-analysis included 20 trials: five RCTs and 15 non-comparative clinical studies with a total of 23 bevacizumab intervention arms. In 14 treatment arms, bevacizumab was combined with chemotherapy drugs such as fotemustine, dacarbazine, carboplatin/paclitaxel, and temozolomide. In six treatment arms, bevacizumab was combined with targeted medicines such as imatinib, everolimus, sorafenib, erlotinib, and temsirolimus. There were also six treatment arms that used bevacizumab in combination with interferon. The pooled objective response rate was 15.8% (95% CI, 11.4%-20.2%). Bevacizumab plus carboplatin/paclitaxel significantly increased the overall survival compared to carboplatin/paclitaxel (HR = 0.64, 95% CI, 0.49-0.85, p < 0.01). Fatigue, nausea, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia were the most common adverse events. The pooled incidence of hypertension of all bevacizumab arms in malignant melanoma was 32.4% (95% CI, 24.5%-40.3%). Conclusion: This study showed that bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy might be effective and well-tolerated in patients with stage III or IV unresectable malignant melanoma. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=304625], identifier [CRD42022304625].

Project description:BackgroundOsteoporosis, more likely to occur in postmenopausal women, is a chronic condition that usually requires a long-term treatment strategy, but the use of either antiresorptive or anabolic drugs should be limited to 18 to 24 months. Discontinuing antiosteoporosis drugs may result in rapidly declining bone mineral density (BMD). Therefore, many patients are treated with the sequential use of 2 or more drugs. However, whether switching treatment from anabolic to antiresorptive drugs or the reverse could maintain or further increase BMD; and whether the sequential therapy could outperform the monotherapy under the same treatment duration still remains unclear. Nowadays, no firm conclusions were drawn.MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library from January 1, 1974 until February 1, 2016 to identify all randomized controlled trials for evaluating the effectiveness of sequential therapy of antiresorptive and anabolic drugs in postmenopausal osteoporosis women with the BMD changes of lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip as the outcomes. We evaluated the methodological quality and abstracted relevant data according to the Cochrane Handbook.ResultsEight trials involving 1509 patients were included. The pooled data showed that after switching treatment, the alternative drugs maintained the BMD and significantly increased the percentage change in BMD at the lumbar spine (MD, 3.59; 95% CI, 2.26-4.93), femoral neck (MD, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.60-2.27), and total hip (MD, 1.24; 95% CI, -0.12 to 2.60), although change in BMD was not significantly increased at the total hip. The sequential therapy significantly increased BMD from baseline at the lumbar spine (SMD, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.26-0.91), femoral neck (SMD, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.06-0.37), and total hip (SMD, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.01-0.56).ConclusionsAfter switching treatment, sequential therapy further increased BMD. The sequential therapy showed a more significant improvement in BMD compared with any anti-resorptive drug given for the same treatment duration and was as effective as anabolic drugs. Thus, sequential therapy may be recommended as an effective treatment for osteoporotic women. However, more randomized controlled trials are still needed to determine the best sequence and the most appropriate drugs of sequential therapy.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Armolipid Plus^®: An Updated PRISMA Compliant Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials.

Publications

Efficacy and Safety of Armolipid Plus<sup>®</sup>: An Updated PRISMA Compliant Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets