Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of treatment options for subacromial shoulder conditions: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There are currently many treatment options for patients with subacromial shoulder conditions (SSCs). Clinical decision-making regarding the best treatment option is often difficult. This study aims to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of treatment options for relieving pain and improving function in patients with SSCs.

Methods

Eight databases [including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, PEDro, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry] were searched from inception until April 2020. Randomised clinical/controlled trials of adult patients investigating the effects of nonsurgical (e.g. corticosteroid injections, therapeutic exercise, shockwave therapy) and surgical treatment for SSCs, compared with each other, placebo, usual care or no treatment, were retrieved. Pairs of reviewers screened studies independently, quality appraised eligible studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, extracted and checked data for accuracy. Primary outcomes were pain and disability in the short term (⩽3 months) and long term (⩾6 months). Direct and indirect evidence of treatment effectiveness was synthesised using random-effects network meta-analysis.

Results

The review identified 177 eligible trials. Summary estimates (based on 99 trials providing suitable data, 6764 patients, 20 treatment options) showed small to moderate effects for several treatments, but no significant differences on pain or function between many active treatment comparisons. The primary analysis indicated that exercise and laser therapy may provide comparative benefit in terms of both pain and function at different follow-up time-points, with larger effects found for laser in the short term at 2-6 weeks, although direct evidence was provided by one trial only, and for exercise in the longer term [standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18, 0.59 at 3-6 months] compared with control. Sensitivity analyses excluding studies at increased risk of bias confirmed only the comparative effects of exercise as being robust for both pain and function up until 3-month follow-up.

Conclusion

Current evidence shows small to moderate effect sizes for most treatment options for SSCs. Six treatments had a high probability of being most effective, in the short term, for pain and function [acupuncture, manual therapy, exercise, exercise plus manual therapy, laser therapy and Microcurrent (MENS) (TENS)], but with low certainty for most treatment options. After accounting for risk of bias, there is evidence of moderate certainty for the comparative effects of exercise on function in patients with SSCs. Future large, high-quality pragmatic randomised trials or meta-analyses are needed to better understand whether specific subgroups of patients respond better to some treatments than others.

SUBMITTER: Babatunde OO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8435933 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Hemiplegic shoulder pain (HSP) hampers post-stroke functional recovery and is not well managed with conservative treatments. This systematic review aimed to examine the various injection therapies for HSP and investigate their effectiveness at different time points. The protocol of this meta-analysis was registered on INPLASY with a registration number of INPLASY202180010. PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched from their inception to 4 August 2021 for the clinical studies investigating comparative effectiveness of different injection regimens for treating hemiplegic shoulder pain in patients with stroke. The primary outcome was the weighted mean difference (WMD) on the visual analog scale (VAS) of pain reduction in the fourth-week and between the fourth and twenty-fourth weeks. Ranking probabilities of the WMD for each treatment were obtained using simulations. Seventeen studies with 595 participants were included. The network meta-analysis showed that at the fourth-week, intra-muscular botulinum toxin (BoNT) injections and suprascapular nerve blocks (SSNB) were superior to a placebo, with WMDs of 1.55 (95% CI, 0.09 to 3.01) and 1.44 (95% CI, 0.07 to 2.80), respectively. SSNB possessed the highest probability (53.3%) and appeared to be the best treatment in the fourth-week, followed by intra-muscular BoNT injections (42.6%). Intramuscular BoNT injections were better than the placebo, with a WMD of 1.57 (95% CI, 0.30 to 2.84) between the 4th and 24th weeks. Intramuscular BoNT injections had the highest probability (79.8%) as the best treatment between the 4th and 24th weeks. SSNB was likely to rank first in relieving HSP at the fourth post-treatment week, whereas intra-muscular BoNT injections had the highest probability to achieve the best treatment effectiveness in the post-injection period between the fourth and twenty-fourth weeks. However, as some of the included studies used a non-randomized controlled design, more randomized controlled trials are needed in the future to validate and better understand the short- and long-term efficacy of different injection therapies for management of HSP.

Project description:To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of novel biologic therapies in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and to establish the position of the non-anti-tumor necrosis factor ? (TNF-?) biologic drugs in the treatment regimen of the disease. A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) requirements. Two investigators identified the studies, abstracted data, and assessed the risk of bias independently. The NMA was conducted for efficacy [American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, ACR20 and ACR50; psoriasis area and severity index (PASI), PASI75] and safety outcomes [any adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs)]; treatments were ranked using the P score for each outcome. The PROSPERO registration number was 42017072200. MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from the inception of each database to July 10, 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for abatacept, apremilast, secukinumab or ustekinumab in adults with moderate and severe PsA were included. The overall PsA population and anti-TNF-?-naive, anti-TNF-?-failure, or anti-TNF-?-experienced subpopulations were considered. We identified eight eligible RCTs and included them in the systematic review and NMA. Significant differences in ACR20 response rate were revealed between secukinumab 150 mg and apremilast 20 mg [relative risk; RR?=?2.55 (CI-confidence interval; 1.24, 5.23)] and between secukinumab 300 mg and apremilast 20 or 30 mg [RR?=?3.57 CI (1.48, 8.64) and RR?=?2.84 CI (1.18, 6.86), respectively]. Any AEs occurred more often in apremilast 20 and 30 mg compared with placebo [RR?=?0.58 CI (0.45, 0.74) and RR?=?0.58 CI (0.45, 0.75), respectively] but also compared with secukinumab 150 mg [RR?=?0.54 CI (0.35, 0.81) and RR?=?0.45 CI (0.35, 0.82), respectively]. No significant differences were revealed for SAEs among biologics and between biologics and placebo. In the overall population, as well as in the anti-TNF-?-naive subpopulation, secukinumab at a dose of 300 and 150 mg was ranked the highest for the ACR20 endpoint, while in the anti-TNF-?-experienced subpopulation, secukinumab 300 mg and apremilast 30 mg revealed the highest rank. Secukinumab 75 mg was the safest drug in terms of any AEs, but for SEAs the safest was ustekinumab 90 mg. Our study revealed no significant differences among non-anti-TNF-? biologics in the treatment of PsA in the comparisons performed with regards to the highest efficacy and safety. Both in the overall population and in the analyzed subpopulations, secukinumab 300 mg was ranked the highest for the ACR20 response rate. Secukinumab 300 mg was the safest drug in terms of any AEs, and ustekinumab 90 mg presented the lowest overall risk of SAEs. Head-to-head trials and evaluation of comparative efficacy and safety between non-TNF-? biologics are warranted to inform clinical decision making with a relevant treatment paradigm.