OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of 1.8% SPHNSI and 0.9% commercial isotonic nasal saline irrigation (0.9% CINSI) in patients with AR.

METHODS: A randomised, single-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was performed as a pilot study. Seventy-eight patients with AR were included. Each patient was randomised to nasal irrigation with 80 mL of either 1.8% SPHNSI or 0.9% CINSI twice-daily for 4 weeks. Randomised codes were generated using a computer and a block of 4 procedure. The primary outcome was improvement of quality of life scores in Thai patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (Rcq-36). Secondary outcomes were clinical symptoms using total nasal symptom scores (TNSS) and adverse events. All outcomes were assessed by blinded assessors at baseline, week 2, and week 4.

RESULTS: At week 4, nasal irrigation with 1.8% SPHNSI had significantly improved the Rcq-36 score (54% versus 50%; p < 0.032) and congestion symptom score (96% versus 84%; p < 0.018) compared to nasal irrigation with 0.9% CINSI. Adverse events were comparable for both groups at week 4.

DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING: Primary care setting.

PARTICIPANTS: Of 1568 studies screened, 14 studies with 7035 PWID were included.

MEASURES: PubMed, Embase, Web of Sciences, CENTRAL and Cochrane review databases were searched without language restriction from their inception to 27 January 2016. All published study designs with control groups that reported the effectiveness of pharmacy-based NSP on outcomes of interest were included. Outcomes of interest are risk behaviour (RB), HIV/hepatitis C virus (HCV) prevalence and economic outcomes. The estimates of pooled effects of these outcomes were calculated as pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 and χ2 tests.

FINDINGS: Most studies (nine of 14, 64.3%) were rated as having a serious risk of bias, while 28.6 and 7.1% were rated as having a moderate risk and low risk of bias, respectively. For sharing-syringe behaviour, pharmacy-based NSPs were significantly better than no NSPs for both main (OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.34-0.73; I2  = 59.6%) and sensitivity analyses, excluding studies with a serious risk of bias (OR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.32-0.84; I2  = 41.4%). For safe syringe disposal and HIV/HCV prevalence, the evidence for pharmacy-based NSPs compared with other NSP or no NSP was unclear, as few of the studies reported this and most of them had a serious risk of bias. Compared with the total life-time cost of US$55 640 for treating a person with HIV infection, the HIV prevalence among PWID has to be at least 0.8% (for pharmacy-based NSPs) or 2.1% (for other NSPs) to result in cost-savings.

OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to determine the clinical effects and safety of D. scandens for musculoskeletal pain treatment compared with standard regimen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

METHODS: International and Thai databases were searched from inception through August 2015. Comparative randomized controlled trials investigating oral D. scandens for musculoskeletal pain were included. Outcomes of interest included level of pain and adverse event. Mean changes of the outcomes from baseline were compared between D. scandens and NSAIDs by calculating mean difference.

RESULTS: From 42 articles identified, 4 studies involving a total of 414 patients were included for efficacy analysis. The effects of oral D. scandens on reducing pain score were no different from those of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs at any time points (3, 7, 14 days and overall). The overall pain reduction in the D. scandens group was not inferior to treatment with NSAIDs (weighted mean difference 0.06; 95% CI: -0.20, 0.31) without evident of heterogeneity (I(2)=0.00%, p=0.768). When compared, the adverse events (AEs) of D. scandens showed no different relative risk with NSAIDs. The major adverse events were gastrointestinal symptoms.

METHODS: A cost-utility analysis using a lifetime Markov model was conducted among Thai patients with NAFLD, from a societal perspective. Pioglitazone, vitamin E, a weight reduction program, and usual care were investigated, with the outcomes of interest being the number of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cases, life expectancy, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS: When compared with usual care, a weight reduction program can prevent cirrhosis and HCC cases by 13.91% (95% credible interval [CrI] 0.97, 20.59) and 2.12% (95% CrI 0.43, 4.56), respectively; pioglitazone can prevent cirrhosis and HCC cases by 9.30% (95% CrI -2.52, 15.24) and 1.42% (95% CrI -0.18, 3.74), respectively; and vitamin E can prevent cirrhosis and HCC cases by 7.32% (95% CrI -4.64, 15.56) and 1.12% (95% CrI -0.81, 3.44), respectively. Estimated incremental life expectancy and incremental QALYs for all treatment options compared with usual care were approximately 0.06 years and 0.07 QALYs, respectively. The lifetime costs of both a weight reduction program and pioglitazone were less than usual care, while vitamin E was $3050 (95% CrI 2354, 3650). The weight reduction program dominated all other treatment options. The probability of being cost-effective in Thailand's willingness-to-pay threshold ($4546/QALY gained) was 76% for the weight reduction program, 22% for pioglitazone, 2% for usual care, and 0% for vitamin E.

OBJECTIVES: This review evaluated the effectiveness of strategies for enhancing ADR reporting by healthcare professionals (HCPs).

METHODS: This systematic review was conducted following the Cochrane and the PRISMA guidelines. Five international databases were searched from inception to December 2023 and updated search to September 2024. Randomized clinical controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs on enhancing ADR reporting were included. The primary outcomes were the number of overall ADR and high-quality ADR reports. Study quality was assessed using the EPOC risk of bias (ROB), and ROBIN-I for RCT, and non-RCT. All data were evaluated using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistic and chi-squared tests.

RESULTS: From 1,672 studies, 13 studies (10 RCTs, and 3 non-RCTs) with 28,116 participants were included. Two of 10 RCTs had low ROB while the remaining were judged as unclear and moderate ROB. Most studies were in high-income countries, and the main strategy was educating HCPs through workshops. Meta-analysis showed significant increases in overall ADR reporting through educating HCPs with a rate ratio (RR) of 5.09 (95%CI: 3.36-7.71, I2=84.5%, low certainty), and in high-quality reporting with 1.31 (95%CI:1.09-1.58, I2=0.0%, moderate certainty). Subgroup analysis indicated that educating HCPs through face-to-face workshops combined with the Tawai app (RR:10.5, 95%CI:8.74-12.61), a face-to-face workshop alone (RR:6.69, 95%CI:5.43-8.25, I2=0.0%), and repeated telephone (RR:2.59, 95%CI:1.75-3.84, I2=8.8%) significantly increased the overall number of ADR reports with moderate certainty. Email or letter communications showed no significant effect.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of different types of systemic immunosuppressive treatments for moderate to severe eczema using NMA and to generate rankings of available systemic immunosuppressive treatments for eczema according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to August 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic immunosuppressive agents for moderate to severe atopic eczema when compared against placebo or any other eligible eczema treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We synthesised data using pair-wise analysis and NMA to compare treatments and rank them according to their effectiveness. Effectiveness was assessed primarily by determining the proportion of participants who achieved at least 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75) and improvement in the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). Safety was evaluated primarily by considering the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) and infection. We deemed short-term follow-up as ≤ 16 weeks and long-term follow-up as > 16 weeks. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for these primary outcomes using six domains of CiNEMA grading.

MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 74 studies, with 8177 randomised participants. Approximately 55% of participants were male, with average age of 32 years (range 2 to 84 years), although age and gender were unreported for 419 and 902 participants, respectively. Most of the included trials were placebo controlled (65%), 34% were head-to-head studies (15% assessed the effects of different doses of the same drug), and 1% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. All trials included participants with moderate to severe eczema, but 62% of studies did not separate data by severity; 38% of studies assessed only severe eczema. The total duration of included trials ranged from 2 weeks to 60 months, whereas treatment duration varied from a single dose (CIM331, KPL-716) to 60 months (methotrexate (MTX)). Seventy studies were available for quantitative synthesis; this review assessed 29 immunosuppressive agents from three classes of interventions. These included (1) conventional treatments, with ciclosporin assessed most commonly; (2) small molecule treatments, including phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors; and (3) biological treatments, including anti-CD31 receptors, anti-interleukin (IL)-22, anti-IL-31, anti-IL-13, anti-IL-12/23p40, anti-OX40, anti-TSLP, anti-CRTH2, and anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) monoclonal antibodies, but most commonly dupilumab. Most trials (73) assessed outcomes at a short-term duration ranging from 2 to 16 weeks, whereas 33 trials assessed long-term outcomes, with duration ranging from 5 to 60 months. All participants were from a hospital setting. Fifty-two studies declared a source of funding, and of these, pharmaceutical companies funded 88%. We rated 37 studies as high risk; 21, unclear risk, and 16, low risk of bias, with studies most commonly at high risk of attrition bias. Network meta-analysis suggests that dupilumab ranks first for effectiveness when compared with other biological treatments. Dupilumab is more effective than placebo in achieving EASI75 (risk ratio (RR) 3.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.51 to 3.69) and improvement in POEM score (mean difference 7.30, 95% CI 6.61 to 8.00) at short-term follow-up (high-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain of the effects of dupilumab when compared with placebo, in terms of the proportion of participants who achieve EASI75 (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.60) at longer-term follow-up. Low-certainty evidence indicates that tralokinumab may be more effective than placebo in achieving short-term EASI75 (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.21 to 5.34), but there was no evidence for tralokinumab to allow us to assess short-term follow-up of POEM or long-term follow-up of EASI75. We are uncertain of the effect of ustekinumab compared with placebo in achieving EASI75 (long-term follow-up: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.45; short-term follow-up: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.97; both very low certainty). We found no evidence on ustekinumab for the POEM outcome. We are uncertain whether other immunosuppressive agents that targeted our key outcomes influence the achievement of short-term EASI75 compared with placebo due to low- or very low-certainty evidence. Dupilumab and ustekinumab were the only immunosuppressive agents evaluated for longer-term EASI75. Dupilumab was the only agent evaluated for improvement in POEM during short-term follow-up. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence indicates a lower proportion of participants with SAEs after treatment with QAW039 and dupilumab compared to placebo during short-term follow-up, but low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in SAEs during short-term follow-up of other immunosuppressive agents compared to placebo. Evidence for effects of immunosuppressive agents on risk of any infection during short-term follow-up and SAEs during long-term follow-up compared with placebo was of low or very low certainty but did not indicate a difference. We did not identify differences in other adverse events (AEs), but dupilumab is associated with specific AEs, including eye inflammation and eosinophilia.

METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and clinicaltrials.gov were searched up to 7 February 2017. Two independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments to alleviate agitation in people with all-types dementia. Data were extracted using standardized forms and study quality was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs. Data were pooled using meta-analysis. The primary outcome, efficacy, was 8-week response rates defined as a 50% reduction in baseline agitation score. The secondary outcome was treatment acceptability defined as treatment continuation for 8 weeks.

RESULTS: Thirty-six RCTs comprising 5585 participants (30.9% male; mean ± standard deviation age, 81.8 ± 4.9 years) were included. Dextromethorphan/quinidine [odds ratio (OR) 3.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.63-5.66], risperidone (OR 1.96; 95% CI, 1.49-2.59) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors as a class (OR 1.61; 95% CI, 1.02-2.53) were found to be significantly more efficacious than placebo. Haloperidol appeared less efficacious than nearly all comparators. Most treatments had noninferior treatment continuation compared to placebo, except oxcarbazepine, which was inferior. Findings were supported by subgroup and sensitivity analyses.