Melatonin receptor agonists for bipolar mania: a systematic review and meta‐analyses of double‐blind randomized placebo‐controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taro Kishi ◽  
Hiroto Nishiyama ◽  
Yuki Kimura ◽  
Tomohiro Sadaka ◽  
Akihiro Terada ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Melatonin Receptor ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Receptor Agonists ◽  
Melatonin Receptor Agonists ◽  
Bipolar Mania ◽  
Meta Analyses

scholarly journals Pharmacological treatment for bipolar mania: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taro Kishi ◽  
Toshikazu Ikuta ◽  
Yuki Matsuda ◽  
Kenji Sakuma ◽  
Makoto Okuya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Response To Treatment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Bipolar Mania ◽  
The Cochrane Library

AbstractA systematic review and random-effects model network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety of pharmacological interventions for adults with acute bipolar mania. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase databases for eligible studies published before March 14, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of oral medication monotherapy lasting ≥10 days in adults with mania were included, and studies that allowed the use of antipsychotics as a rescue medication during a trial were excluded. The primary outcomes were response to treatment (efficacy) and all-cause discontinuation (acceptability). The secondary outcomes were the improvement of mania symptoms and discontinuation due to inefficacy. Of the 79 eligible RCTs, 72 double-blind RCTs of 23 drugs and a placebo were included in the meta-analysis (mean study duration = 3.96 ± 2.39 weeks, n = 16442, mean age = 39.55 years, with 50.93% males). Compared with the placebo, aripiprazole, asenapine, carbamazepine, cariprazine, haloperidol, lithium, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, tamoxifen, valproate, and ziprasidone outperformed response to treatment (N = 56, n = 14503); aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone had lower all-cause discontinuation; however, topiramate had higher all-cause discontinuation (N = 70, n = 16324). Compared with the placebo, aripiprazole, asenapine, carbamazepine, cariprazine, haloperidol, lithium, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, tamoxifen, valproate, and ziprasidone outperformed the improvement of mania symptoms (N = 61, n = 15466), and aripiprazole, asenapine, carbamazepine, cariprazine, haloperidol, lithium, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, valproate, and ziprasidone had lower discontinuation due to inefficacy (N = 50, n = 14284). In conclusions, these antipsychotics, carbamazepine, lithium, tamoxifen, and valproate were effective for acute mania. However, only aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone had better acceptability than the placebo.

scholarly journals Pre-Procedural Lumbar Neuraxial Ultrasound—A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials and Meta-Analysis

Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 479
Author(s):  
Tatiana Sidiropoulou ◽  
Kalliopi Christodoulaki ◽  
Charalampos Siristatidis
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Technical Failure ◽  
Obese Patients ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

A pre-procedural ultrasound of the lumbar spine is frequently used to facilitate neuraxial procedures. The aim of this review is to examine the evidence sustaining the utilization of pre-procedural neuraxial ultrasound compared to conventional methods. We perform a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with meta-analyses. We search the electronic databases Medline, Cochrane Central, Science Direct and Scopus up to 1 June 2019. We include trials comparing a pre-procedural lumbar spine ultrasound to a non-ultrasound-assisted method. The primary endpoints are technical failure rate, first-attempt success rate, number of needle redirections and procedure time. We retrieve 32 trials (3439 patients) comparing pre-procedural lumbar ultrasounds to palpations for neuraxial procedures in various clinical settings. Pre-procedural ultrasounds decrease the overall risk of technical failure (Risk Ratio (RR) 0.69 (99% CI, 0.43 to 1.10), p = 0.04) but not in obese and difficult spinal patients (RR 0.53, p = 0.06) and increase the first-attempt success rate (RR 1.5 (99% CI, 1.22 to 1.86), p < 0.0001, NNT = 5). In difficult spines and obese patients, the RR is 1.84 (99% CI, 1.44 to 2.3; p < 0.0001, NNT = 3). The number of needle redirections is lower with pre-procedural ultrasounds (SMD = −0.55 (99% CI, −0.81 to −0.29), p < 0.0001), as is the case in difficult spines and obese patients (SMD = −0.85 (99% CI, −1.08 to −0.61), p < 0.0001). No differences are observed in procedural times. Ιn conclusion, a pre-procedural ultrasound provides significant benefit in terms of technical failure, number of needle redirections and first attempt-success rate. Τhe effect of pre-procedural ultrasound scanning of the lumbar spine is more significant in a subgroup analysis of difficult spines and obese patients.

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for treating head lice: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e001129
Author(s):  
Bill Stevenson ◽  
Wubshet Tesfaye ◽  
Julia Christenson ◽  
Cynthia Mathew ◽  
Solomon Abrha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Head Lice ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017073375.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document