Dataset Information

Curbing the Cough: Multimodal Treatments for Neurogenic Cough: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives/hypothesis

Neurogenic cough affects 11% of Americans and causes significant detriment to quality of life. With the advent of novel therapies, the objective of this review is to determine how procedural therapies (e.g., superior laryngeal nerve block) compare to other established pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments for neurogenic cough.

Methods

With the assistance of a medical librarian, a systematic review was performed using PICOS (patients, interventions, comparator, outcome, study design) format: adults with neurogenic cough receiving any pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic treatment for neurogenic cough compared to adults with neurogenic cough receiving any other relevant interventions, or treated as single cohorts, assessed with cough-specific quality of life outcomes, in all study designs and case series with ≥ 10 cases. Case reports, review articles, non-human studies, non-English language articles, and unavailable full-text articles were excluded.

Results

There were 2408 patients with neurogenic cough in this review, treated with medical therapy (77%), speech therapy (19%), both medical and speech therapy (1%), and procedural therapy (3%). The included studies ranged from low to intermediate quality. Overall, most interventions demonstrated successful improvement in cough. However, the heterogeneity of included study designs precluded direct comparisons between intervention types.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis compared various treatments for neurogenic cough. Procedural therapy should be considered in the armamentarium of neurogenic cough treatments, particularly in patients refractory to, or intolerant of, the side effects of medical therapy. Lastly, this review illuminates key areas for improving neurogenic cough diagnosis, such as strict adherence to diagnostic and treatment guidelines, sophisticated reflux testing, and standardized, consistent outcome reporting. Laryngoscope, 132:107-123, 2022.

SUBMITTER: Wamkpah NS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8058694 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, preoperative chemoradiotherapy, perioperative chemotherapy and preoperative chemotherapy are recommended by NCCN, ESMO and Japanese guidelines respectively for resectable esophageal and junctional cancer. However, these recommendations are mainly based on esophageal cancer research. Therefore, specific for esophagogastric junction cancer, we conducted the first systematic review and network meta-analysis to rank all potential treatments simultaneously and hierarchically.MethodsRecord retrieval was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, ASCO and ESMO Meeting Library from inception to September 2018. Regarding time-to-event survival data, randomized controlled trials featuring comparisons between different multimodal treatments against resectable esophagogastric junction cancer were eligible. Overall survival was the endpoint. Network calculation was based on a random-effects model and the relative ranking of each node was numerically indicated by P-score (CRD42018110369, registration identifier of the meta-analysis in PROSPERO.).ResultsEight studies were included in our systematic review, corresponding to 1218 patients. Regarding overall survival, 'PreCRT' (preoperative chemoradiotherapy) topped the hierarchy (HR 1.00, P-score = 0.823), better than 'PeriCT' (perioperative chemotherapy; HR 1.32, P-score = 0.591) and 'PreCT' (preoperative chemotherapy; HR 1.54, P-score = 0.428). In sensitivity analyses, irrespective of interchanging to fixed-effects model or removing potentially heterogeneous studies, relative rankings remained stable and 'PreCRT' was still the optimal node.ConclusionPreoperative chemoradiotherapy could potentially be the optimal multimodal treatment, which displayed more overall survival benefits than perioperative chemotherapy and preoperative chemotherapy among resectable esophagogastric junction cancer patients. To further verify our pooled results, more randomized trials will be needed to compare preoperative chemoradiotherapy with perioperative chemotherapy (especially FLOT-based regimens).

Project description:The goal of nonrestorative or non- and microinvasive caries treatment (fluoride- and nonfluoride-based interventions) is to manage the caries disease process at a lesion level and minimize the loss of sound tooth structure. The purpose of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to summarize the available evidence on nonrestorative treatments for the outcomes of 1) arrest or reversal of noncavitated and cavitated carious lesions on primary and permanent teeth and 2) adverse events. We included parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials where patients were followed for any length of time. Studies were identified with MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted the selection of studies, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessments, and assessment of the certainty in the evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Data were synthesized with a random effects model and a frequentist approach. Forty-four trials (48 reports) were eligible, which included 7,378 participants and assessed the effect of 22 interventions in arresting or reversing noncavitated or cavitated carious lesions. Four network meta-analyses suggested that sealants + 5% sodium fluoride (NaF) varnish, resin infiltration + 5% NaF varnish, and 5,000-ppm F (1.1% NaF) toothpaste or gel were the most effective for arresting or reversing noncavitated occlusal, approximal, and noncavitated and cavitated root carious lesions on primary and/or permanent teeth, respectively (low- to moderate-certainty evidence). Study-level data indicated that 5% NaF varnish was the most effective for arresting or reversing noncavitated facial/lingual carious lesions (low certainty) and that 38% silver diamine fluoride solution applied biannually was the most effective for arresting advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (moderate to high certainty). Preventing the onset of caries is the ultimate goal of a caries management plan. However, if the disease is present, there is a variety of effective interventions to treat carious lesions nonrestoratively.

Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review is to appraise the evidence for the use of anti-VEGF drugs and steroids in diabetic macular oedema (DMO) as assessed by change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness and adverse eventsData sourceMEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science with Conference Proceedings and the Cochrane Library (inception to July 2012). Certain conference abstracts and drug regulatory web sites were also searched.Study eligibility criteria, participants and interventionsRandomised controlled trials were used to assess clinical effectiveness and observational trials were used for safety. Trials which assessed triamcinolone, dexamethasone, fluocinolone, bevacizumab, ranibizumab, pegaptanib or aflibercept in patients with DMO were included.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsRisk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Study results are narratively described and, where appropriate, data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis.ResultsAnti-VEGF drugs are effective compared to both laser and placebo and seem to be more effective than steroids in improving BCVA. They have been shown to be safe in the short term but require frequent injections. Studies assessing steroids (triamcinolone, dexamethasone and fluocinolone) have reported mixed results when compared with laser or placebo. Steroids have been associated with increased incidence of cataracts and intraocular pressure rise but require fewer injections, especially when steroid implants are used.LimitationsThe quality of included studies varied considerably. Five of 14 meta-analyses had moderate or high statistical heterogeneity.Conclusions and implications of key findingsThe anti-VEGFs ranibizumab and bevacizumab have consistently shown good clinical effectiveness without major unwanted side effects. Steroid results have been mixed and are usually associated with cataract formation and intraocular pressure increase. Despite the current wider spectrum of treatments for DMO, only a small proportion of patients recover good vision (?20/40), and thus the search for new therapies needs to continue.

Project description:BackgroundPlacebos are widely used in clinical practice in spite of ethical restrictions. Whether such use is justified depends in part on the relative benefit of placebos compared to 'active' treatments. A direct test for differences between placebo and 'active' treatment effects has not been conducted.ObjectivesWe aimed to test for differences between treatment and placebo effects within similar trial populations.Data sourcesA Cochrane Review compared placebos with no treatment in three-armed trials (no treatment, placebo, and treatment). We added an analysis of treatment and placebo differences within the same trials. SYNTHESIS METHODS: For continuous outcomes we compared mean differences between placebo and no treatment with mean differences between treatment and placebo. For binary outcomes we compared the risk ratio for treatment benefit (versus placebo) with the risk ratio for placebo benefit (versus no treatment). We conducted several preplanned subgroup analyses: objective versus subjective outcomes, conditions tested in three or more trials, and trials with varying degrees of bias.ResultsIn trials with continuous outcomes (n?=?115) we found no difference between treatment and placebo effects (MD?=?-0.29, 95% CI -0.62 to 0.05, P?=?0.10). In trials with binary outcomes (n?=?37) treatments were significantly more effective than placebos (RRR?=?0.72, 95%CI?=?0.61 to 0.86, P?=?0.0003). Treatment and placebo effects were not different in 22 out of 28 predefined subgroup analyses. Of the six subgroups with differences treatments were more effective than placebos in five. However when all criteria for reducing bias were ruled out (continuous outcomes) placebos were more effective than treatments (MD?=?1.59, 95% CI?=?0.40 to 2.77, P?=?0.009).Conclusions and implicationsPlacebos and treatments often have similar effect sizes. Placebos with comparatively powerful effects can benefit patients either alone or as part of a therapeutic regime, and trials involving such placebos must be adequately blinded.

Project description:BackgroundBorderline personality disorder (BPD) is a debilitating psychiatric disorder that affects 0.4-3.9% of the population in Western countries. Currently, no medications have been approved by regulatory agencies for the treatment of BPD. Nevertheless, up to 96% of patients with BPD receive at least one psychotropic medication.ObjectivesThe objective of this systematic review was to assess the general efficacy and the comparative effectiveness of different pharmacological treatments for BPD patients.MethodsWe conducted systematic literature searches limited to English language in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO up to April 6, 2021, and searched reference lists of pertinent articles and reviews. Inclusion criteria were (i) patients 13 years or older with a diagnosis of BPD, (ii) treatment with anticonvulsive medications, antidepressants, antipsychotic medications, benzodiazepines, melatonin, opioid agonists or antagonists, or sedative or hypnotic medications for at least 8 weeks, (iii) comparison with placebo or an eligible medication, (iv) assessment of health-relevant outcomes, (v) randomized or non-randomized trials or controlled observational studies. Two investigators independently screened abstracts and full-text articles and graded the certainty of evidence based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. For meta-analyses, we used restricted maximum likelihood random effects models to estimate pooled effects.ResultsOf 12,062 unique records, we included 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with data on 1768 participants. Nineteen RCTs compared pharmacotherapies with placebo; two RCTs assessed active treatments head-to-head. Out of 87 medications in use in clinical practice, we found studies on just nine. Overall, the evidence indicates that the efficacy of pharmacotherapies for the treatment of BPD is limited. Second-generation antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, and antidepressants were not able to consistently reduce the severity of BPD. Low-certainty evidence indicates that anticonvulsants can improve specific symptoms associated with BPD such as anger, aggression, and affective lability but the evidence is mostly limited to single studies. Second-generation antipsychotics had little effect on the severity of specific BPD symptoms, but they improved general psychiatric symptoms in patients with BPD.ConclusionsDespite the common use of pharmacotherapies for patients with BPD, the available evidence does not support the efficacy of pharmacotherapies alone to reduce the severity of BPD.RegistrationPROSPERO registration number, CRD42020194098.