Comparative effectiveness of different treatments for post-stroke insomnia: A network meta-analysis☆
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Song Z
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10658229 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Bacterial vaginosis (BV) is a common vaginal dysbiosis in women of reproductive age. However, the cure rate for BV varies considerably and many women experience a relapse after the initial treatment. The present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical cure rates (CCRs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through different therapies and administration routes. This meta-analysis included a final set of 25 eligible studies with a total of 57 RCTs and compared the effectiveness of BV treatments among non-pregnant and pregnant women. The initial range of CCRs varied greatly from 46.75% to 96.20% and the final pooled CCR was 75.5% (CI: 69.4-80.8) using the random model. The heterogeneity indices were Q = 418.91, I2 = 94.27%, and τ = 0.7498 (p < 0.0001). No publication bias was observed according to Funnel plot symmetry and Egger's linear regression test (p = 0.1097). To evaluate different variables, sub-group analysis, meta-regressions, and network meta-analysis were also realized. The highest P-scores in CCR were obtained by: (1) a combined therapy with local probiotic treatment and application of antibiotics by both administration route (oral clindamycin and local 5-nitroimidazole; P-score = 0.92); (2) a combined therapy with oral administration of 5-nitroimidazole and probiotic treatment (P-score = 0.82); (3) and a combined therapy with local administration of 5-nitroimidazole and oral probiotic treatment (P-score = 0.68). A clear-cut decision of the best BV treatment was not possible due to the heterogeneity of outcomes reported in the trials, indicating the necessity for a better characterization of RCTs. Finally, combined therapies suggested the reduction of the optimal concentration of antibiotics, and double phase treatments of antibiotics indicated an increment of CCRs in BV.
| S-EPMC8388924 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The goal of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of individual antiembolic interventions in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF): novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban); vitamin K antagonists (VKA); aspirin; and the Watchman device.A network meta-analysis of randomized, clinical trials (RCTs) was performed. RCTs that included patients with prosthetic cardiac valves or mitral stenosis, mean or median follow-up <6 months, <200 participants, without published report in English language, and NOAC phase II studies were excluded. The placebo/control arm received either placebo or no treatment. The primary efficacy outcome was the combination of stroke (of any type) and systemic embolism. All-cause mortality served as a secondary efficacy outcome. The primary safety outcome was the combination of major extracranial bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage. A total of 21 RCTs (96 017 nonvalvular AF patients; median age, 72 years; 65% males; median follow-up, 1.7 years) were included. In comparison to placebo/control, use of aspirin (odds ratio [OR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.60-0.95]), VKA (0.38 [0.29-0.49]), apixaban (0.31 [0.22-0.45]), dabigatran (0.29 [0.20-0.43]), edoxaban (0.38 [0.26-0.54]), rivaroxaban (0.27 [0.18-0.42]), and the Watchman device (0.36 [0.16-0.80]) significantly reduced the risk of any stroke or systemic embolism in nonvalvular AF patients, as well as all-cause mortality (aspirin: OR, 0.82 [0.68-0.99]; VKA: 0.69 [0.57-0.85]; apixaban: 0.62 [0.50-0.78]; dabigatran: 0.62 [0.50-0.78]; edoxaban: 0.62 [0.50-0.77]; rivaroxaban: 0.58 [0.44-0.77]; and the Watchman device: 0.47 [0.25-0.88]). Apixaban (0.89 [0.80-0.99]), dabigatran (0.90 [0.82-0.99]), and edoxaban (0.89 [0.82-0.96]) reduced risk of all-cause death as compared to VKA.The entire spectrum of therapy to prevent thromboembolism in nonvalvular AF significantly reduced stroke/systemic embolism events and mortality.
| S-EPMC4889191 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background: Several neoadjuvant treatments are available for patients with resectable gastroesophageal cancer. We did a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare available treatments, summarizing the direct and indirect evidence. Method: We searched relevant databases for randomized controlled trials of neoadjuvant treatments for resectable gastroesophageal cancer which compared two or more of the following treatments: surgery alone, perioperative docetaxel, oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (FLOT), and neoadjuvant treatments listed in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline. Then we performed a NMA to summarize the direct and indirect evidence to estimate the relative efficacy for outcomes including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival and R0 resection rate. We calculated odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) for dichotomous data and time-to-event data, respectively. We also calculated the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value of each intervention to obtain a hierarchy of treatments. Result: Eight eligible trials (2434 patients) were included in our NMA. The treatment with the highest probability of benefit on OS as compared with surgery alone was perioperative FLOT [HR = 0.58 with 95% CrI: (0.43, 0.78), SUCRA = 93%], followed by preoperative radiotherapy, paclitaxel, and carboplatin (RT/PC) [HR = 0.68 with 95% CrI: (0.53, 0.87), SUCRA = 72%], perioperative cisplatin with fluorouracil (CF) [HR = 0.70 with 95% CrI: (0.51, 0.95), SUCRA = 68%], and perioperative epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil or capecitabine (ECF/ECX) [HR = 0.75 with 95% CrI: (0.60, 0.94), SUCRA = 56%]. Conclusion: Compared with surgery alone, perioperative CF, perioperative ECF/ECX, perioperative FLOT, and preoperative RT/PC significantly improved survival. Perioperative FLOT is likely to be the most effective neoadjuvant treatment for the disease. Further clinical studies are needed and justified.
| S-EPMC6087755 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the most efficacious treatment for eradication of Helicobacter pylori with the lowest likelihood of some common adverse events among pre-recommended and newer treatment regimens.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesCochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase without language or date restrictions.Study selectionFull text reports of randomised controlled trials that compared different eradication treatments for H pylori among adults.ResultsOf the 15,565 studies identified, 143 were eligible and included. Data on 14 kinds of treatments were available. Of 91 possible comparisons for the efficacy outcome, 34 were compared directly and the following treatments performed better: seven days of concomitant treatment (proton pump inhibitor and three kinds of antibiotics administered together), 10 or 14 days of concomitant treatment, 10 or 14 days of probiotic supplemented triple treatment (standard triple treatment which is probiotic supplemented), 10 or 14 days of levofloxacin based triple treatment (proton pump inhibitor, levofloxacin, and antibiotic administered together), 14 days of hybrid treatment (proton pump inhibitor and amoxicillin used for seven days, followed by a proton pump inhibitor, amoxicillin, clarithromycin, and 5-nitroimidazole for another seven days), and 10 or 14 days of sequential treatment (five or seven days of a proton pump inhibitor plus amoxicillin, followed by five or seven additional days of a proton pump inhibitor plus clarithromycin and 5-nitroimidazole or amoxicillin). In terms of tolerance, all treatments were considered tolerable, but seven days of probiotic supplemented triple treatment and seven days of levofloxacin based triple treatment ranked best in terms of the proportion of adverse events reported.ConclusionComparison of different eradication treatments for H pylori showed that concomitant treatments, 10 or 14 days of probiotic supplemented triple treatment, 10 or 14 days of levofloxacin based triple treatment, 14 days of hybrid treatment, and 10 or 14 days of sequential treatment might be better alternatives for the eradication of H pylori.
| S-EPMC4541168 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImmunosuppressive agents in general are shown to prevent renal progression and all-cause mortality in idiopathic membranous nephropathy (IMN) patients with nephrotic syndrome. However, the efficacy and safety of different immunosuppressive treatments have not been systematic assessed and compared. A network meta-analysis was performed to compare different immunosuppressive treatment in IMN.MethodsCochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and trial register system were searched for randomized controlled trials reporting the treatments for IMN to May 3, 2016. Composite endpoint of mortality or end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), complete or partial proteinuria remission and withdrawal because of treatment adverse events were compared combing direct and indirect comparison using network meta-analysis. Ranking different immunosuppressive treatments in the outcomes were analyzed by using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).ResultsTotal 36 randomized controlled trials (n = 2018) covering 11 kinds of treatments were included. Compared with non-immunosuppressive treatment, only cyclophosphamide (CTX) and chlorambucil significantly reduced the risk of composite outcome of mortality or ESKD while combining the direct and indirect comparison (OR = 0.31, 95%CI: 0.12-0.81 and OR = 0.33, 95%CI: 0.12-0.92). CTX increased the composite outcome of complete remission (CR) or partial remission (PR) (OR = 4.29, 95%CI: 2.30-8.00) but chlorambucil did not (OR = 1.58, 95%CI: 0.80-3.12) as compared with non-immunosuppressive treatment. Chlorambucil also significantly increased the withdrawal risk (OR = 3.34, 95%CI: 1.37-8.17) as compared to CTX. Both tacrolimus (OR = 3.10, 95%CI: 1.36-7.09) and cyclosporine (CsA) (OR = 2.81, 95%CI: 1.08-7.32) also significantly increased the rate of CR or PR as compared with non-immunosuppressive treatment (without significant difference as compared with CTX), while ranking results showed that cyclosporine or tacrolimus was with less possibility of drug withdrawal as compared to CTX.ConclusionsCyclophosphamide and chlorambucil reduce risk of ESKD or death in IMN with nephrotic range proteinuria, but carry substantial toxicity that may be lower for cyclophosphamide. Tacrolimus and cyclosporine increase the possibility of proteinuria remission with less drug withdrawal, but the effects on kidney failure remain uncertain.
| S-EPMC5595305 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Post-stroke depression (PSD) is a common mental health problem after cerebrovascular accidents. There are several treatments that have been shown to be effective in treating post-stroke depression. However, it is not clear which treatment is more effective. Methods: In this meta-analysis, an appropriate search strategy was used to search eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on different treatments to treat patients with Post-stroke depression published up to December 2021 from the CNKI, PubMed, and Cochrane Library. We assessed the mean difference or odds ratio between each treatment and placebo and summarized them as the average and 95% confidence interval (CI) by conducting Bayesian network meta-analyses. Results: By constructing a Bayesian network meta-analysis, we found that acupuncture combined with fluoxetine (vs placebo MD, -8.9; 95% CI, [-15, -2.9]) or paroxetine (vs placebo MD,-8.5; 95% CI, [-15, -2.5]) was the most effective for change in Hamilton depression scale (HAMD) at the end of the 4th week. For change in Hamilton depression scale at the end of the 8th week, rTMS combined with paroxetine (vs placebo MD, -13; 95% CI, [-17, -7.9]) had the greatest amount of change. The efficacy of medication combined with adjuvant therapy was also superior for the percentage of patients with Hamilton depression scale change over 50%. Discussion: The combination of antidepressants with adjuvant therapy may enhance the efficacy of antidepressants and achieve better results than antidepressant monotherapy in both Hamilton depression scale changes at the end of week 4 or 8 and 50% Hamilton depression scale improvement rate. Acupuncture combined with fluoxetine treatment was more effective in the treatment of post-stroke depression at week 4, while rTMS combined with paroxetine was more effective at week 8. Further research is needed to determine whether acupuncture combined with fluoxetine is better than rTMS combined with paroxetine for post-stroke depression at week 8.
| S-EPMC9806231 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Menstrual migraine is a subtype of migraine disease that is typically more disabling, longer-lasting, and more challenging to treat. The purpose of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare the relative efficacy of treatments for menstrual migraine. Methods We systematically searched databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane, and included all eligible randomized controlled trials in the study. We conducted the statistical analysis using Stata version 14.0, based on the frequentist framework. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials version 2 (RoB2) to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. Results This network meta-analysis included 14 randomized controlled trials with 4601 patients. For short-term prophylaxis, frovatriptan 2.5 mg twice daily had the highest probability of effectiveness [OR = 1.87 (95% CI: 1.48 to 2.38)] compared to placebo. For acute treatment, the results showed that sumatriptan 100 mg [OR = 4.32 (95% CI: 2.95 to 6.34)] was the most effective treatment compared to placebo. Conclusions These findings suggest that frovatriptan 2.5 mg twice daily was best for short-term prevention, sumatriptan 100 mg were best for acute treatment. More high-quality randomized trials are required to determine the most effective treatment. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-023-01625-x.
| S-EPMC10316537 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe anti-spasticity efficacy of botulinum toxin (BoNT) injection has been well established for patients with chronic stroke; however, extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT), i.e. focused shockwave (FSW) and radial shockwave (RSW), has recently been applied. We aimed to investigate the comparative effectiveness of BoNT vs. ESWT in the reduction of spasticity among stroke survivors.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from the earliest record to September 2021 for randomized controlled trials. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) on the reduction of the Modified Ashworth Scale before or at the 6th post-treatment week (short-term) and between the 7th and 12th weeks (mid-term) after the intervention were calculated. Ranking probabilities of the WMD were simulated to determine which treatment had the potential to possess the best effectiveness. inplasy.com registration: INPLASY202170018.FindingsA total of 33 studies comprising 1,930 patients were enrolled. The network meta-analysis revealed that BoNT injections, FSW and RSW were better in spasticity reduction than the control treatment(s) at the short term, with WMDs of -0.69 (95% CI, -0.87 to -0.50), -0.36 (95% CI, -0.69 to -0.03) and -0.62 (95% CI, -0.84 to -0.40), respectively. Likewise, mid-term effects of BoNT injections, FSW and RSW also revealed superiority, with WMDs of -0.44 (95% CI, -0.62 to -0.26), -0.74 (95% CI, -1.26 to -0.23) and -0.79 (95% CI, -1.07 to -0.51), respectively. Ranking probability analysis revealed that RSW had the highest probability of being the best treatment for spasticity reduction at the short-term (62.2%) and mid-term (72.3%) periods during the follow up.InterpretationBoNT injections and ESWT are effective in alleviating post-stroke spasticity at the mid-term. The effectiveness of ESWT was comparable to BoNT injections, and RSW had the potential to be the best treatment for spasticity reduction among the three treatment options. More prospective trials incorporating head-to-head comparisons of BoNT injections vs. ESWT are needed to validate the role of ESWT in reducing post-stroke spasticity.FundingThe current research project was supported by (1) National Taiwan University Hospital, Bei-Hu Branch; (2) Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST 106-2314-B-002-180-MY3 and 109-2314-B-002-114-MY3); 3) Taiwan Society of Ultrasound in Medicine.
| S-EPMC8649216 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAlthough one of the major presentations of vestibular migraine is dizziness with/without unsteady gait, it is still classified as one of the migraine categories. However, in contrast to ordinary migraine, vestibular migraine patients have distinct characteristics, and the detailed treatment strategy for vestibular migraine is different and more challenging than ordinary migraine treatment. Currently, there is no conclusive evidence regarding its management, including vestibular migraine prophylaxis.AimThe objective of this current network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and acceptability of individual treatment strategies in patients with vestibular migraine.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, Web of Science, ClinicalKey, Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with a final literature search date of 30 December 2022. Patients diagnosed with vestibular migraine were included. The PICO of the current study included (1) patients with vestibular migraine; (2) intervention: any active pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic intervention; (3) comparator: placebo-control, active control, or waiting list; and (4) outcome: changes in migraine frequency or severity. This NMA of RCTs of vestibular migraine treatment was conducted using a frequentist model. We arranged inconsistency and similarity tests to re-examine the assumption of NMA, and also conducted a subgroup analysis focusing on RCTs of pharmacological treatment for vestibular migraine management. The primary outcome was changes in the frequency of vestibular migraines, while the secondary outcomes were changes in vestibular migraine severity and acceptability. Acceptability was set as the dropout rate, which was defined as the participant leaving the study before the end of the trial for any reason. Two authors independently evaluated the risk of bias for each domain using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.ResultsSeven randomized controlled trials (N = 828, mean age 37.6 years, 78.4% female) and seven active regimens were included. We determined that only valproic acid (standardized mean difference [SMD] -1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.69, -0.54), propranolol (SMD -1.36, 95% CI -2.55, -0.17), and venlafaxine (SMD -1.25, 95% CI -2.32, -0.18) were significantly associated with better improvement in vestibular migraine frequency than the placebo/control groups. Furthermore, among all the investigated pharmacologic/non-pharmacologic treatments, valproic acid yielded the greatest decrease in vestibular migraine frequency among all the interventions. In addition, most pharmacologic/non-pharmacologic treatments were associated with similar acceptability (i.e. dropout rate) as those of the placebo/control groups.ConclusionsThe current study provides evidence that only valproic acid, propranolol, and venlafaxine might be associated with beneficial efficacy in vestibular migraine treatment.Trial registrationCRD42023388343.
| S-EPMC10501927 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionChronic low back pain disorders (CLBDs) present a substantial societal burden; however, optimal treatment remains debated. To date, pairwise and network meta-analyses have evaluated individual treatment modes, yet a comparison of a wide range of common treatments is required to evaluate their relative effectiveness. Using network meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments (acupuncture, education or advice, electrophysical agents, exercise, manual therapies/manipulation, massage, the McKenzie method, pharmacotherapy, psychological therapies, surgery, epidural injections, percutaneous treatments, traction, physical therapy, multidisciplinary pain management, placebo, 'usual care' and/or no treatment) on pain intensity, disability and/or mental health in patients with CLBDs.Methods and analysisSix electronic databases and reference lists of 285 prior systematic reviews were searched. Eligible studies will be randomised controlled/clinical trials (including cross-over and cluster designs) that examine individual treatments or treatment combinations in adult patients with CLBDs. Studies must be published in English, German or Chinese as a full-journal publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data, and, where feasible, network meta-analyses will be performed. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidance, including the network meta-analysis extension (PRISMA-NMA). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for network meta-analysis will be implemented for assessing the quality of the findings.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this systematic review of the published data. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication.Prospero registration numberPROSPERO registration number CRD42020182039.
| S-EPMC8634013 | biostudies-literature