Efficacy and Safety of Non-Steroidal Anti-Androgens in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammed Rashid ◽  
Madhan Ramesh ◽  
K. Shamshavali ◽  
Amit Dang ◽  
Himanshu Patel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the sixth primary cause of cancer death. However, conflicts are present about the efficacy and safety of Non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAA) for its treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of NSAAs versus any comparator for the treatment of advanced or metastatic PCa (mPCa). Methodology: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched. References of included studies and clinicaltrials.gov were also searched for relevant studies. Only English language studies after 1990 were considered for review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of NSAAs as compared with any other comparator including surgery or chemotherapy in mPCa patients were included. The outcomes include efficacy, safety and the tolerability of the treatment. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used for quality assessment. Two authors were independently involved in the selection, extraction and quality assessment of included studies and disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third reviewer. Results: Fifty-eight out of 1307 non-duplicate RCTs with 29154 patients were considered for the review. NSAA showed significantly better progression-free survival [PFS] (Hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.78; P=0.0001), time to distant metastasis or death [TTD] (HR, 0.80; 95% CI 0.73-0.91; p<0.0001), objective response (Odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI 1.06-2.54; P=0.03) and clinical benefits (OR, 1.33; 95% CI 1.08-1.63; P=0.006) as compared to the control group. There was no significant difference observed between the groups in terms of overall survival (HR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.87-1.03; P=0.18) and time to progression (HR, 0.93; 95% CI 0.77-1.11; P=0.43). Treatment-related adverse events were more with the NSAA group, but the discontinuation due to lack of efficacy reason was 43% significantly lesser than the control group in patients with mPCa. Rest of the outcomes were appeared to be non-significant. Conclusion: Treatment with NSAA was appeared to be better efficacious with respect to PFS, TTD, and response rate with considerable adverse events when compared to the control group in patients with metastatic PCa.

scholarly journals Hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bahman Amani ◽  
Ahmad Khanijahani ◽  
Behnam Amani
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

AbstractThe efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is disputed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ in addition to standard of care (SOC) in COVID-19. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of sciences, and medRxiv were searched up to March 15, 2021. Clinical studies registry databases were also searched for identifying potential clinical trials. The references list of the key studies was reviewed to identify additional relevant resources. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and Jadad checklist. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3). Eleven randomized controlled trials with a total number of 8161 patients were identified as eligible for meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in terms of negative rate of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Risk ratio [RR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90, 1.08; P = 0.76), PCR negative conversion time (Mean difference [MD]: − 1.06, 95% CI − 3.10, 0.97; P = 0.30), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 1.00, 1.20; P = 0.06), body temperature recovery time (MD: − 0.64, 95% CI − 1.37, 0.10; P = 0.09), length of hospital stay (MD: − 0.17, 95% CI − 0.80, 0.46; P = 0.59), use of mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.95, 1.32; P = 0.19), and disease progression (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.37, 1.85; P = 0.64). However, there was a significant difference between two groups regarding adverse events (RR: 1.81, 95% CI 1.36, 2.42; P < 0.05). The findings suggest that the addition of HCQ to SOC has no benefit in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Additionally, it is associated with more adverse events.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Sinomenine Preparation for Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Shan-Shan Lin ◽  
Chun-Xiang Liu ◽  
Jun-Hua Zhang ◽  
Hui Wang ◽  
Jing-Bo Zhai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Morning Stiffness ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Objectives. To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of sinomenine preparation (SP) for treating ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods. Clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SP for treating AS were systematically identified in six electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), and Wanfang Databases from the inception up to 31 October 2019. Cochrane’s risk of bias tool was used to assess the methodological quality and Review Manager 5.3 software was used to analyze data. Results. A total of 12 RCTs involving 835 patients were finally included. According to interventions, RCTs were divided into two types. The intervention in 10 RCTs was SP combined with conventional pharmacotherapy (CPT) versus CPT and that in 2 RCTs was SP alone versus CPT. The results of the meta-analysis showed that, compared with CPT alone, SP combined with oral CPT has better improvement in BASDAI (WMD = −1.84, 95% CI [−3.31, −0.37], P=0.01), morning stiffness time (WMD = −13.46, 95% CI [−16.12, −10.79], P<0.00001), the Schober test (WMD = 1.26, 95% CI [0.72, 1.80], P<0.00001), the occipital wall test (WMD = −0.55, 95% CI [−0.96, −0.14], P=0.009), the finger-to-ground distance (WMD = −3.28, 95% CI [−5.64, −0.93], P=0.006), 15 m walking time (WMD = −8.81, 95% CI [−13.42, −4.20], P=0.0002), the C-reactive protein (CRP) (WMD = −1.84, 95% CI [−3.24, −0.45], P=0.01), and the total effective rate (RR = 1.10, 95% CI [1.01, 1.20], P=0.03). Besides, it also showed that oral SP alone may be more effective in improving morning stiffness time (WMD = −31.89, 95% CI [−34.91, −28.87], P<0.00001) compared with CPT alone. However, this study cannot provide evidence that loading the injectable SP based on CPT can significantly increase the efficacy due to the insufficient number of studies included. In terms of adverse events, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental group and the control group. Conclusions. This study shows that oral SP may be effective and safe in the treatment of AS. Due to the low methodological quality of the included RCTs and the limitations of the meta-analysis, it is still necessary to carry out more multicenter, large-sample, and high-quality RCTs to further verify the conclusions. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018099170), and the review was constructed following the PRISMA guidelines (Annex 1).

scholarly journals Activity and Safety of Tegafur, Gimeracil, and Oteracil Potassium for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Ximing Zhang ◽  
Xiumei Tian ◽  
Yuezi Wei ◽  
Hao Deng ◽  
Lichun Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

In clinical practice, tegafur, gimeracil, and oteracil potassium (S-1) therapy is commonly administered to treat nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). However, its efficacy and safety remain controversial in both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of S-1 treatment for NPC. We searched PubMed, Ovid, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, and VIP databases for RCTs of chemotherapy with or without S-1 for NPC, from 2001 to 2020. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 and Stata15. Randomized controlled trials published in journals were included irrespective of blinding and language used. Patients were diagnosed with NPC through a clinicopathological examination; patients of all cancer stages and ages were included. Overall, 25 trials and 1858 patients were included. There were significant differences in the complete remission (OR = 2.42, 95% CI (1.88–3.10), P < 0.05 ) and overall response rate (OR = 2.68, 95% CI (2.08–3.45), P < 0.05 ) between the S-1 and non-S-1 groups. However, there was no significant difference in partial remission (OR = 1.10, 95% CI (0.87–1.39), P = 0.42 ) and seven adverse reactions (leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, dermatitis, oral mucositis, and anemia) between the S-1 and non-S-1 groups. Additionally, statistical analyses with six subgroups were performed. S-1 was found to be a satisfactory chemotherapeutic agent combined with radiotherapy, intravenous chemotherapy, or chemoradiotherapy for NPC. As an oral medicine, the adverse reactions of S-1, especially gastrointestinal reactions, can be tolerated by patients, thereby optimizing their quality of life. S-1 may be a better choice for the treatment of NPC. This trial is registered with CRD42019122041.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Immunosuppressive Treatment in IgA Nephropathy: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zheng Zhang ◽  
Yue Yang ◽  
Shi-min Jiang ◽  
Wen-ge Li
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Immunosuppressive Therapy ◽  
Iga Nephropathy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Immunosuppressive Agents ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled

AbstractBackgroundThere is some controversy regarding the efficacy and safety of immunosuppressive agents for the treatment of kidney diseases. The recent STOP-IgAN and TESTING studies have focused attention on the application of immunosuppressive agents in IgA nephropathy (IgAN). This study investigated the benefits and risks of immunosuppressive agents in IgAN.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and article reference lists were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immunosuppressive agents with any other non-immunosuppressive agents for treating IgAN. A meta-analysis was performed on the outcomes of proteinuria, creatinine (Cr), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and adverse events in patients with IgAN, and trial sequential analyses were also performed for outcomes.ResultsTwenty-nine RCTs (1957 patients) that met our inclusion criteria were identified. Steroids (weighted mean difference [WMD] −0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] −1.2 to −0.20), non-steroidal immunosuppressive agents (NSI) (WMD −0. 43, 95% CI −0.55 to −0.31), and combined steroidal and non-steroidal immunosuppressive agents (S&NSI) (WMD −1.46, 95% CI −2.13 to −0.79) therapy significantly reduced proteinuria levels in patients with IgAN. Steroid treatment significantly reduced the risk for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (relative risk [RR] 0.39, CI 0.19 to 0.79). The immunosuppressive therapy group showed significant increases in gastrointestinal, hematological, dermatological, and genitourinary side effects, as well as impaired glucose tolerance or diabetes. Hyperkalemia was more common in the control group.ConclusionImmunosuppressive therapy can significantly reduce proteinuria and ESRD risk in patients with IgAN, but with a concomitant increase in adverse reactions. Therefore, care is required in the application of immunosuppressive agents in IgAN.

Efficacy and Safety of Methylnaltrexone for the Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ying-Ying Zhang ◽  
Rong Zhou ◽  
Wan-Jie Gu
Keyword(s):  
Abdominal Pain ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Safety Outcome ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Safety Outcomes

Abstract Background: Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a distressing side effect during opioid analgesia and is mainly mediated by gastrointestinal μ opioid receptors. Methylnaltrexone, a peripheral μ opioid receptor antagonist with restricted ability to cross the blood-brain barrier, may alleviate OIC without reversing analgesia. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of methylnaltrexone for the treatment of OIC.Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials that compared methylnaltrexone with placebo for the treatment of OIC. The primary efficacy outcome was rescue-free bowel movement (RFBM) within 4 hours after the first dose. Secondary efficacy outcomes included RFBM within 24 hours after the first dose, RFBM ≥3 times per week, and need take rescue laxatives. The primary safety outcome was any adverse events. Secondary safety outcomes included abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and flatulence. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled using random-effects model with the intention-to-treat principle. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.Results: Eight trials with 2,034 participants were included. Compared with placebo, methylnaltrexone significantly increased RFBM within 4 hours after the first dose (8 trials; 1,833 participants; RR 3.74, 95% CI 3.02-4.62; I2 = 0%; high-certainty evidence), RFBM within 24 hours after the first dose (2 trials; 614 participants; RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.52-2.58; I2 = 9%; moderate-certainty evidence), and RFBM ≥3 times per week (3 trials; 1,396 participants; RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.17-1.52; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) and decreased need to take rescue laxatives (3 trials; 807 participants; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63-0.85; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For safety outcomes, there was no difference in any adverse events between the two groups (8 trials; 2,034 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99-1.23; I2 = 34%; moderate-certainty evidence), including diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and flatulence; but for the most commonly reported adverse events, the abdominal pain was higher in methylnaltrexone group than that in placebo group (6 trials; 1,813 participants; RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.29-4.08; I2 = 62%; moderate-certainty evidence).Conclusions: Methylnaltrexone is an effective and safe drug for treating OIC. But the safety of abdominal pain should be considered.Trial registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020187290).

scholarly journals Assessing the Short-Term Efficacy and Safety of Guselkumab for Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Jing Yang ◽  
Zongming Wang ◽  
Xilin Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Plaque Psoriasis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Severe Plaque Psoriasis ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background. To investigate the efficacy and safety of guselkumab in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Methods. A systematic review was undertaken to identify double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs). PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched before 1 March 2020. The odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. All analyses were conducted with intention-to-treat basis. A range of sensitivity analyses was undertaken. Results. A total of 7 articles contained 1206 plaque psoriasis patients with guselkumab, 585 patients with placebo, and 1250 patients with adalimumab were included. The results indicated that guselkumab had better efficacy than placebo or adalimumab for Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score reductions from baseline of 75% (PASI 75) (OR=61.37, 95% CI=31.15 to 120.91; OR=3.08, 95% CI=2.35 to 4.06), Investigator’s Global Assessment scores of 0 or 1 (IGA 0/1) (OR=65.75, 95% CI=45.54 to 94.95; OR=2.79, 95% CI=2.17 to 3.59), and Dermatology Life Quality Index scores of 0 or 1 (DLQI 0/1) (OR=29.64, 95% CI=18.80 to 46.73; OR=1.86, 95% CI=1.50 to 2.31). The guselkumab had similar safety with placebo or adalimumab about the incidence of adverse events (AEs) (OR=1.05, 95% CI=0.86 to 1.29; OR=0.97, 95% CI=0.79 to 1.19) and serious adverse events (SAEs) (OR=1.03, 95% CI=0.47 to 2.27; OR=0.91, 95% CI=0.44 to 1.87). Meanwhile, there was no statistically significant association of infections and serious infections compared with the placebo or adalimumab group. The guselkumab was more effective and had the similar tolerance. Conclusion. The guselkumab had excellent efficacy and great safety in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, but long-term safety remained to be determined.

scholarly journals Hydroxychloroquine plus standard care compared with the standard care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bahman Amani ◽  
Ahmad Khanijahani ◽  
Behnam Amani
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

AbstractBackground & ObjectiveThe efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease COVID-19 pandemic is disputed. This study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ plus the standard of care in COVID-19 patients.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, and web of sciences were searched up to June 1, 2020. The references list of the key studies was reviewed for additional relevant resources. Clinical studies registry databases were searched for identifying potential clinical trials. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3).ResultsThree randomized controlled trials with total number of 242 patients were identified eligible for meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between HCQ and standard care in terms of viral clearance (Risk ratio [RR] = 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91, 1.16; P = 0.68), disease progression (RR = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.10, 0.81; P = 0.94), Chest CT (RR = 1.40; 95% CI = 1.03, 1.91; P = 0.03). There is a significant difference between HCQ and standard care for adverse events (RR = 2.88; 95% CI = 1.50, 5.54; P = 0.002).ConclusionAlthough the current meta-analysis failed to confirm the efficacy and safety of HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, further rigorous randomized clinical trials are necessary to evaluate conclusively the efficacy and safety of HCQ against COVID-19.

scholarly journals Evaluating the Efficacy of Massage Intervention for the Treatment of Poststroke Constipation: A Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiu-Shuang Wang ◽  
Ya Liu ◽  
Xiang-Ni Zou ◽  
Yan-Ling Ma ◽  
Gen-Li Liu
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Stroke Event ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Massage Group

Background. It is essential to determine a safe and effective method for treating constipation after stroke. Massage has been widely used in recent years. However, meta-analysis data on the efficacy of massage for the treatment of constipation experienced after stroke are almost nonexistent. Objective. This review aimed to examine the effectiveness of using massage therapy to treat constipation in patients who suffered a stroke event. Methods. This systematic review adhered to the reporting guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Electronic databases, including Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, China Biology Medicine, Wan Fang Data, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, and National Knowledge Infrastructure, were searched for relevant studies on the efficacy of massage for the treatment of poststroke constipation. Rev-Man 5.3 software was used to analyze the study data. Results. A total of 11 randomized controlled trials with 1045 patients were included. A statistically significant difference in the total effective rates was found between the massage and control groups (OR = 4.96; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.81, 8.76; P<0.001). Compared with the control groups, the massage group had markedly reduced incidences of constipation (OR = 0.34; 95% CI: 0.25, 0.47; P<0.001) and of four symptoms of discomfort (P<0.001). The frequency of defecation on day two and day three in the massage group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P<0.001). Conclusion. Our results strongly suggest that massage can effectively reduce the incidence and severity of constipation after stroke. However, large, multicenter, long-term, and high-quality randomized controlled trials need to be conducted to establish a definitive conclusion.

Comparison of dexmedetomidine and lipophilic opioids as adjuvants to local anesthetics for epidural labor analgesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Local Anesthetics ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Labor Analgesia ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Maternal Complications ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

The aim of this study is to evaluate the benefits of dexmedetomidine in epidural labor analgesia compared with lipophilic opioids. The databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang, and SinoMed were searched from inception to Mar. 25, 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCT) that assessed dexmedetomidine versus lipophilic opioids as adjuvants to local anesthetics in epidural labor analgesia. Meta-analyses were conducted with RevMan 5.3, and a random-effects model was adopted. A total of 11 RCTs involving 1099 parturients were enrolled. The results showed that, compared with the control group, dexmedetomidine significantly reduced Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores both at 30 minutes after induction [weighted mean difference (WMD) = –0.40, 95% CI: –0.61 to –0.20] and on delivery (WMD = –0.83, 95% CI: –1.15 to –0.50), reduced analgesic consumption (WMD = –6.29 mL, 95% CI: –10.49 to –2.10), shortened the duration of the first (WMD = –9.58 minutes, 95% CI: –18.12 to –1.04) and second (WMD = –1.66 minutes, 95%CI: –3.20 to –0.12) stage of labor, increased maternal bradycardia [risk ratio (RR) = 2.44, 95% CI: 1.31 to 4.53] and motor blockade (RR = 5.30, 95% CI: 2.21 to 12.73), reduced nausea/vomiting (RR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.57), pruritis (RR= 0.19, 95%CI: 0.06 to 0.58) and shivering (RR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.77). There was no significant difference between groups in the rate of instrumental delivery (p = 0.68), and cesarean delivery (p = 0.40), Apgar scores at 1 minute (p = 0.24), at 5 minutes (p = 0.36), and the umbilical arterial PH (p = 0.16). In summary, compared to lipophilic opioids, dexmedetomidine for epidural labor analgesia reduced analgesic agent consumption and resulted in fewer maternal complications.

scholarly journals Acupuncture Treatment for Cough-Variant Asthma: A Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Jian Xiong ◽  
WenChuan Qi ◽  
Han Yang ◽  
SiTing Zou ◽  
Jing Kong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Acupuncture Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Cough Variant Asthma ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background. In recent years, there have been many clinical reports on acupuncture treatment of cough-variant asthma, but no researcher has objectively analysed and evaluated the efficacy and safety of acupuncture treatment of cough-variant asthma from the perspective of evidence-based medicine. Objective. To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of acupuncture in treating cough-variant asthma and to provide reference values for clinical decision-making. Methods. The comprehensive computer retrieval Chinese journal full-text database (CNKI), Chinese science and technology periodical database (VIP), ten thousand data knowledge service platform (WanFang Data), PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were used to collect literature for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCT) of acupuncture treatment of cough-variant asthma, as well as to retrieve papers and add reference retrieval after literature review, in accordance with the standard of literature filtering, data extraction, and quality evaluation. The data were meta-analysed using ReviewManager5.3 software recommended by Cochrane. Results. A total of 11 randomized controlled clinical studies were screened and included, comprising 929 patients. The results of the meta-analysis showed that, compared with the control group, acupuncture intervention on CVA could enhance the total clinical effectiveness rate, reduce the relapse rate of drug withdrawal, relieve symptoms of cough, phlegm, and diaphragmatic congestion, and improve lung function-related indicators and immune inflammation indicators. There were statistically significant differences in all efficacy evaluation criteria. Conclusion. The clinical curative effect of acupuncture treatment for cough-variant asthma is precise and has certain advantages in relieving symptoms and reducing the recurrence rate. However, the low quality of the evaluation in the RCT research literature is a problem, and more high-quality clinical randomized controlled trials are needed to further verify the comprehensive clinical efficacy and safety of this treatment. Registration number: PROSPERO (no. CRD42020155244) (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document