Prevalence of evidence of inconsistency and its association with network structural characteristics in 201 published networks of interventions

Efficacy, acceptability and side-effects of oral versus long-acting- injectables antipsychotics: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

Long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) are primarily used for relapse prevention, but in some settings and situations, they may also be useful for acute treatment of schizophrenia. We conducted a systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs), focusing on adult patients in the acute phase of schizophrenia. Interventions were risperidone, paliperidone, aripiprazole, olanzapine, and placebo, administered either orally or as LAI. We synthesized data on overall symptoms, complemented by 17 other efficacy and tolerability outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed with the Confidence-in-Network-Meta-Analysis-framework (CINeMA). We included 115 RCTs with 25,550 participants. All drugs were significantly more efficacious than placebo with the following standardized mean differences and their 95 % confidence intervals: olanzapine LAI -0.66 [-1.00; -0.33], risperidone LAI -0.59[-0.73;-0.46], olanzapine oral -0.55[-0.62;-0.48], aripiprazole LAI -0.54[-0.71; -0.37], risperidone oral -0.48[-0.55;-0.41], paliperidone oral -0.47[-0.58;-0.37], paliperidone LAI -0.45[-0.57;-0.33], aripiprazole oral -0.40[-0.50; -0.31]. There were no significant efficacy differences between LAIs and oral formulations. Sensitivity analyses of the primary outcome overall symptoms largely confirmed these findings. Moreover, some side effects were less frequent under LAIs than under their oral counterparts. Confidence in the evidence was moderate for most comparisons. LAIs are efficacious for acute schizophrenia and may have some benefits compared to oral formulations in terms of side effects. These findings assist clinicians with insights to weigh the risks and benefits between oral and injectable agents when treating patients in the acute phase.

Twenty years of network meta-analysis: Continuing controversies and recent developments

Network meta-analysis (NMA) is an extension of pairwise meta-analysis (PMA) which combines evidence from trials on multiple treatments in connected networks. NMA delivers internally consistent estimates of relative treatment efficacy, needed for rational decision making. Over its first 20 years NMA's use has grown exponentially, with applications in both health technology assessment (HTA), primarily re-imbursement decisions and clinical guideline development, and clinical research publications. This has been a period of transition in meta-analysis, first from its roots in educational and social psychology, where large heterogeneous datasets could be explored to find effect modifiers, to smaller pairwise meta-analyses in clinical medicine on average with less than six studies. This has been followed by narrowly-focused estimation of the effects of specific treatments at specific doses in specific populations in sparse networks, where direct comparisons are unavailable or informed by only one or two studies. NMA is a powerful and well-established technique but, in spite of the exponential increase in applications, doubts about the reliability and validity of NMA persist. Here we outline the continuing controversies, and review some recent developments. We suggest that heterogeneity should be minimized, as it poses a threat to the reliability of NMA which has not been fully appreciated, perhaps because it has not been seen as a problem in PMA. More research is needed on the extent of heterogeneity and inconsistency in datasets used for decision making, on formal methods for making recommendations based on NMA, and on the further development of multi-level network meta-regression.

Fertility Challenges in Asthmatic Women: Examining the Complexities of Pregnancy Loss, Infertility, and Assisted Reproductive Technologies

Asthma is a prevalent chronic respiratory condition affecting a significant portion of women of reproductive age. While the impact of asthma on general health and well-being has been extensively studied, its association with fertility challenges in women remains an area of growing concern. This review article explores the complexities surrounding fertility challenges in asthmatic women, specifically focusing on pregnancy loss, infertility, and the utilization of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs). Various factors contribute to the heightened risk of pregnancy loss in asthmatic women, including the systemic inflammation associated with asthma, suboptimal asthma control, medication usage, and comorbidities. The review highlights the need for multidisciplinary management approaches to optimize asthma control before and during pregnancy, reducing the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Furthermore, the review investigates the potential impact of asthma on female fertility and the underlying mechanisms involved. Asthma-related factors, such as chronic inflammation, altered hormonal balance, and medication effects, may disrupt the delicate reproductive processes, leading to infertility. It emphasizes the importance of comprehensive fertility evaluations and personalized treatment strategies for asthmatic women experiencing difficulties conceiving. Additionally, the article explores the utilization of ARTs, including in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), in asthmatic women. It discusses the safety considerations and potential challenges associated with these techniques, such as the impact of asthma medications on oocyte quality, the effects of hormonal stimulation on asthma control, and the risk of exacerbations during the IVF process. The review underscores the importance of collaborative efforts among healthcare providers, including allergists, pulmonologists, obstetricians, and fertility specialists, to ensure optimal management of asthmatic women seeking to conceive. It emphasizes the significance of preconception counseling, meticulous asthma control, appropriate medication management, and individualized fertility treatments to enhance the reproductive outcomes in this population.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for adults with acute non-specific low back pain: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinicialtrialsregister.eu, and World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to 20 February 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials of analgesic medicines (eg, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anti-convulsant drugs, skeletal muscle relaxants, or corticosteroids) compared with another analgesic medicine, placebo, or no treatment. Adults (≥18 years) who reported acute non-specific low back pain (for less than six weeks).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity (0-100 scale) at end of treatment and safety (number of participants who reported any adverse event during treatment). Secondary outcomes were low back specific function, serious adverse events, and discontinuation from treatment. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was done and confidence was evaluated by the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis method.

RESULTS

98 randomised controlled trials (15 134 participants, 49% women) included 69 different medicines or combinations. Low or very low confidence was noted in evidence for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference -26.1 (95% confidence intervals -34.0 to -18.2)), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (-26.1 (-38.5 to -13.6)), pregabalin (-24.7 (-34.6 to -14.7)), and 14 other medicines compared with placebo. Low or very low confidence was noted for no difference between the effects of several of these medicines. Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 4.5)), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (2.4 (1.5 to 3.8)), baclofen (2.3 (1.5 to 3.4)), and paracetamol plus tramadol (2.1 (1.3 to 3.4)) compared with placebo. These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesic medicines for acute non-specific low back pain are uncertain. Until higher quality randomised controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are published, clinicians and patients are recommended to take a cautious approach to manage acute non-specific low back pain with analgesic medicines.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019145257.

CBT treatment delivery formats for panic disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Several in-person and remote delivery formats of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for panic disorder are available, but up-to-date and comprehensive evidence on their comparative efficacy and acceptability is lacking. Our aim was to evaluate the comparative efficacy and acceptability of all CBT delivery formats to treat panic disorder. To answer our question we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL, from inception to 1st January 2022. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). The protocol was published in a peer-reviewed journal and in PROSPERO. We found a total of 74 trials with 6699 participants. Evidence suggests that face-to-face group [standardised mean differences (s.m.d.) -0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.87 to -0.07; CINeMA = moderate], face-to-face individual (s.m.d. -0.43, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.15; CINeMA = Moderate), and guided self-help (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.07; CINeMA = low), are superior to treatment as usual in terms of efficacy, whilst unguided self-help is not (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.16; CINeMA = low). In terms of acceptability (i.e. all-cause discontinuation from the trial) CBT delivery formats did not differ significantly from each other. Our findings are clear in that there are no efficacy differences between CBT delivered as guided self-help, or in the face-to-face individual or group format in the treatment of panic disorder. No CBT delivery format provided high confidence in the evidence at the CINeMA evaluation.