A scoping review of network meta-analyses assessing the efficacy and safety of complementary and alternative medicine interventions.

BACKGROUND: Network meta-analysis (NMA) has rapidly grown in use during the past decade for the comparison of healthcare interventions. While its general use in the comparison of conventional medicines has been studied previously, to our awareness, its use to assess complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) has not been studied. A scoping review of the literature was performed to identify systematic reviews incorporating NMAs involving one or more CAM interventions. METHODS: An information specialist executed a multi-database search (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane), and two reviewers performed study selection and data collection. Information on publication characteristics, diseases studied, interventions compared, reporting transparency, outcomes assessed, and other parameters were extracted from each review. RESULTS: A total of 89 SR/NMAs were included. The largest number of NMAs was conducted in China (39.3%), followed by the United Kingdom (12.4%) and the United States (9.0%). Reviews were published between 2010 and 2018, with the majority published between 2015 and 2018. More than 90 different CAM therapies appeared at least once, and the median number per NMA was 2 (IQR 1-4); 20.2% of reviews consisted of only CAM therapies. Dietary supplements (51.1%) and vitamins and minerals (42.2%) were the most commonly studied therapies, followed by electrical stimulation (31.1%), herbal medicines (24.4%), and acupuncture and related treatments (22.2%). A diverse set of conditions was identified, the most common being various forms of cancer (11.1%), osteoarthritis of the hip/knee (7.8%), and depression (5.9%). Most reviews adequately addressed a majority of the PRISMA NMA extension items; however, there were limitations in indication of an existing review protocol, exploration of network geometry, and exploration of risk of bias across studies, such as publication bias. CONCLUSION: The use of NMA to assess the effectiveness of CAM interventions is growing rapidly. Efforts to identify priority topics for future CAM-related NMAs and to enhance methods for CAM comparisons with conventional medicine are needed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/35658.

Cannabis-based products for pediatric epilepsy: An updated systematic review.

PURPOSE: To provide an up-to-date summary of the benefits and harms of cannabis-based products for epilepsy in children. METHODS: We updated our earlier systematic review, by searching for studies published up to May 2019. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRS) involving cannabis-based products administered to children with epilepsy. Outcomes were seizure freedom, seizure frequency, quality of life, sleep, status epilepticus, death, gastrointestinal adverse events, and emergency room visits. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies, including four RCTs, have assessed the benefits and harms of cannabis-based products in pediatric epilepsy (12 since April 2018). All involved cannabis-based products as adjunctive treatment, and most involved cannabidiol. In the RCTs, there was no statistically significant difference between cannabidiol and placebo for seizure freedom (relative risk 6.77, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.36-128.38), quality of life (mean difference [MD] 0.6, 95 %CI -2.6 to 3.9), or sleep disruption (MD -0.3, 95 %CI -0.8 to 0.2). Data from both RCTs and NRS suggest that cannabidiol reduces seizure frequency and increases treatment response; however, there is an increased risk of gastrointestinal adverse events. CONCLUSION: Newly available evidence supports earlier findings that cannabidiol probably reduces the frequency of seizures among children with drug-resistant epilepsy. PROSPERO: CRD42018084755.

Benefits and harms of medical cannabis: a scoping review of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: There has been increased interest in the role of cannabis for treating medical conditions. The availability of different cannabis-based products can make the side effects of exposure unpredictable. We sought to conduct a scoping review of systematic reviews assessing benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines for any condition. METHODS: A protocol was followed throughout the conduct of this scoping review. A protocol-guided scoping review conduct. Searches of bibliographic databases (e.g., MEDLINE®, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library) and gray literature were performed. Two people selected and charted data from systematic reviews. Categorizations emerged during data synthesis. The reporting of results from systematic reviews was performed at a high level appropriate for a scoping review. RESULTS: After screening 1975 citations, 72 systematic reviews were included. The reviews covered many conditions, the most common being pain management. Several reviews focused on management of pain as a symptom of conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS), injury, and cancer. After pain, the most common symptoms treated were spasticity in MS, movement disturbances, nausea/vomiting, and mental health symptoms. An assessment of review findings lends to the understanding that, although in a small number of reviews results showed a benefit for reducing pain, the analysis approach and reporting in other reviews was sub-optimal, making it difficult to know how consistent findings are when considering pain in general. Adverse effects were reported in most reviews comparing cannabis with placebo (49/59, 83%) and in 20/24 (83%) of the reviews comparing cannabis to active drugs. Minor adverse effects (e.g., drowsiness, dizziness) were common and reported in over half of the reviews. Serious harms were not as common, but were reported in 21/59 (36%) reviews that reported on adverse effects. Overall, safety data was generally reported study-by-study, with few reviews synthesizing data. Only one review was rated as high quality, while the remaining were rated of moderate (n = 36) or low/critically low (n = 35) quality. CONCLUSIONS: Results from the included reviews were mixed, with most reporting an inability to draw conclusions due to inconsistent findings and a lack of rigorous evidence. Mild harms were frequently reported, and it is possible the harms of cannabis-based medicines may outweigh benefits. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The protocol for this scoping review was posted in the Open Access (https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/37247).

Cost-effectiveness of cannabinoids for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy: protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Drug-resistant epilepsy negatively impacts the quality of life and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality and high costs to the healthcare system. Cannabis-based treatments may be effective in reducing seizures in this population, but whether they are cost-effective is unclear. In this systematic review, we will search for cost-effectiveness analyses involving the treatment of pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy with cannabis-based products to inform decision-making by public healthcare payers about reimbursement of such products. We will also search for cost-effectiveness analyses of other pharmacologic treatments for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy, as well as estimates of healthcare resource use, costs, and utilities, for use in a subsequent cost-utility analysis to address this decision problem. METHODS: We will search the published and gray literature for economic evaluations of cannabis-based products and other pharmacologic treatments for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy, as well as resource utilization and utility studies. Two independent reviewers will screen the title and abstract of each identified record and the full-text version of any study deemed potentially relevant. Study and population characteristics, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), as well as total costs and benefits, will be extracted, and quality will be assessed by use of the Drummond and CHEERS checklists; context-specific issues will also be considered. From model-based cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses, we will extract and summarize the model structure, including health states, time horizon, and cycle length. From resource utilization studies, we will extract data about the frequency of resource use (e.g., neurology visits, emergency department visits, admissions to hospital). From utility studies, we will extract the utility for each health state, the source of the preferences (e.g., child, parent, patient, general public), and the method of elicitation. DISCUSSION: Drug-resistant epilepsy in children is associated with important costs to the healthcare system, and decision-makers require high-quality evidence on which to base reimbursement decisions. The results of this review will be useful to both decision-makers considering the decision problem of whether to reimburse cannabis-based products through public formularies and to analysts conducting studies in this area. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO no.: CRD42018099591 .

Comparative evaluation of group-based mindfulness-based stress reduction and cognitive behavioural therapy for the treatment and management of chronic pain: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

QUESTION: This review compares mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) to cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) in its ability to improve physical functioning and reduce pain intensity and distress in patients with chronic pain (CP), when evaluated against control conditions. STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS: Ovid MEDLINE, EmbaseClassic+Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomised controlled trials. The primary outcome measure was physical functioning. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity and depression symptoms. We used random and fixed effects (RE and FE) network meta-analyses (NMA) to compare MBSR, CBT and control interventions on the standardised mean difference scale. FINDINGS: Twenty-one studies were included: 13 CBT vs control (n=1095), 7 MBSR vs control (n=545) and 1 MBSR vs CBT vs control (n=341). Of the 21 articles, 12 were determined to be of fair or good quality. Findings from RE NMA for change in physical functioning, pain intensity and depression revealed clinically important advantages relative to control for MBSR and CBT, but no evidence of an important difference between MBSR and CBT was found. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that MBSR offers another potentially helpful intervention for CP management. Additional research using consistent measures is required to guide decisions about providing CBT or MBSR.

Effectiveness of stop smoking interventions among adults: protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and an updated systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of cancer, preventable death, and disability. Smoking cessation can increase life expectancy by nearly a decade if achieved in the third or fourth decades of life. Various stop smoking interventions are available including pharmacotherapies, electronic cigarettes, behavioural support, and alternative therapies. This protocol outlines an evidence review which will evaluate the benefits and harms of stop smoking interventions in adults. METHODS: The evidence review will consist of two stages. First, an overview of systematic reviews evaluating the benefits and harms of various stop smoking interventions delivered in or referred from the primary care setting will be conducted. The second stage will involve updating a systematic review on electronic cigarettes identified in the overview; randomized controlled trials will be considered for outcomes relating to benefits while randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, and comparative observational studies will be considered for evaluating harms. Search strategies will be developed and peer-reviewed by medical information specialists. The search strategy for the updated review on e-cigarettes will be developed using that of the candidate systematic review. The MEDLINE®, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Library electronic databases will be searched as of 2008 for the overview of reviews and from the last search date of the selected review for the updated review. Organizational websites and trial registries will be searched for unpublished or ongoing reviews/studies. Two reviewers will independently screen the title and abstracts of citations using the liberal accelerated method. Full-text screening will be performed independently by two reviewers. Extracted data will be verified by a second reviewer. Disagreements regarding full-text screening and data extraction will be resolved by consensus or third-party adjudication. The methodological quality of systematic reviews, risk of bias of randomized and non-randomized trials, and methodological quality of cohort studies will be evaluated using AMSTAR 2, the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and a modified version of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network critical appraisal tool, respectively. The GRADE framework will be used to assess the quality of the evidence for outcomes. DISCUSSION: The evidence review will evaluate the benefits and harms of various stop smoking interventions for adults. Findings will be used to inform a national tobacco cessation guideline by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42018099691, CRD42018099692).

Cannabis-based products for pediatric epilepsy: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefits and harms of cannabis-based products for pediatric epilepsy. METHODS: We identified in this living systematic review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies (NRSs) involving children with epilepsy treated with cannabis-based products. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and gray literature (April 25, 2018). The primary outcome was seizure freedom; secondary outcomes were seizure frequency (total, ≥50% reduction), quality of life, sleep, status epilepticus, death, gastrointestinal adverse events, and visits to the emergency room. Data were pooled by random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed for each study, and GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome. RESULTS: Four RCTs and 19 NRSs were included, primarily involving cannabidiol. All RCTs were at low risk of bias, whereas all NRSs were at high risk. Among RCTs, there was no statistically significant difference between cannabidiol and placebo in seizure freedom (relative risk [RR] = 6.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.36-128.38; 1 RCT), quality of life (mean difference = 0.6, 95% CI = -2.6 to 3.9; 3 RCTs), sleep disruption (mean difference = -0.3, 95% CI = -0.8 to 0.2; 3 RCTs), or vomiting (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.51-1.96; 4 RCTs). There was a statistically significant reduction in the median frequency of monthly seizures with cannabidiol compared with placebo (-19.8%, 95% CI = -27.0% to -12.6%; 3 RCTs) and an increase in the number of participants with at least a 50% reduction in seizures (RR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.07-2.88; 1 RCT) and diarrhea (RR = 2.25, 95% CI = 1.38-3.68; 3 RCTs). Death and status epilepticus were infrequently reported. SIGNIFICANCE: Evidence from high-quality RCTs suggests that cannabidiol probably reduces seizures among children with drug-resistant epilepsy (moderate certainty). At this time, the evidence base is primarily limited to cannabidiol, and these findings should not be extended to all cannabis-based products.

Fish-Derived Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The use of natural health products in prostate cancer (PrCa) is high despite a lack of evidence with respect to safety and efficacy. Fish-derived omega-3 fatty acids possess anti-inflammatory effects and preclinical data suggest a protective effect on PrCa incidence and progression; however, human studies have yielded conflicting results. METHODS: A search of OVID MEDLINE, Pre-MEDLINE, Embase, and the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) was completed for human interventional or observational data assessing the safety and efficacy of fish-derived omega-3 fatty acids in the incidence and progression of PrCa. RESULTS: Of 1776 citations screened, 54 publications reporting on 44 studies were included for review and analysis: 4 reports of 3 randomized controlled trials, 1 nonrandomized clinical trial, 20 reports of 14 cohort studies, 26 reports of 23 case-control studies, and 3 case-cohort studies. The interventional studies using fish oil supplements in patients with PrCa showed no impact on prostate-specific antigen levels; however, 2 studies showed a decrease in inflammatory or other cancer markers. A small number of mild adverse events were reported and interactions with other interventions were not assessed. Cohort and case-control studies assessing the relationship between dietary fish intake and the risk of PrCa were equivocal. Cohort studies assessing the risk of PrCa mortality suggested an association between higher intake of fish and decreased risk of prostate cancer-related death. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence is insufficient to suggest a relationship between fish-derived omega-3 fatty acid and risk of PrCa. An association between higher omega-3 intake and decreased PrCa mortality may be present but more research is needed. More intervention trials or observational studies with precisely measured exposure are needed to assess the impact of fish oil supplements and dietary fish-derived omega-3 fatty acid intake on safety, PrCa incidence, treatment, and progression.

Comparison of physical interventions, behavioral interventions, natural health products, and pharmacologics to manage hot flashes in patients with breast or prostate cancer: protocol for a systematic review incorporating network meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Breast and prostate cancers are the most commonly diagnosed non-dermatologic malignancies in Canada. Agents including endocrine therapies (e.g., aromatase inhibitors, gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogs, anti-androgens, tamoxifen) and chemotherapy have improved survival for both conditions. As endocrine manipulation is a mainstay of treatment, it is not surprising that hot flashes are a common and troublesome adverse effect. Hot flashes can cause chills, night sweats, anxiety, and insomnia, lessening patients' quality of life. These symptoms impact treatment adherence, worsening prognosis. While short-term estrogen replacement therapy is frequently used to manage hot flashes in healthy menopausal women, its use is contraindicated in breast cancer. Similarly, testosterone replacement therapy is contraindicated in prostate cancer. It is therefore not surprising that non-hormonal pharmacological treatments (anti-depressants, anti-epilectics, anti-hypertensives), physical/behavioral treatments (e.g., acupuncture, yoga/exercise, relaxation techniques, cognitive behavioral therapy), and natural health products (e.g., black cohosh, flax, vitamin E, ginseng) have been studied for control of hot flashes. There is a need to identify which interventions minimize the frequency and severity of hot flashes and their impact on quality of life. This systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized studies will synthesize available evidence addressing this knowledge gap. METHODS/DESIGN: An electronic search of Medline, Embase, AMED, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials has been designed by an information specialist and peer reviewed by a second information specialist. Study selection and data collection will be performed by two reviewers independently. Risk of bias assessments will be completed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Scale. Outcomes of interest will include validated measures of hot flash severity, hot flash frequency, quality of life, and harms. Bayesian network meta-analyses will be performed where judged appropriate based on review of clinical and methodologic features of included studies. DISCUSSION: Our review will include a broad range of interventions that patients with breast and prostate cancer have attempted to use to manage hot flashes. Our work will establish the extent of evidence underlying these interventions and will employ an inclusive approach to analysis to inform comparisons between them. Our findings will be shared with Cancer Care Ontario for consideration in the development of guidance related to supportive care in these patients. PROSPERO: CRD42015024286.

Comparative evaluation of group-based mindfulness-based stress reduction and cognitive behavioral therapy for the treatment and management of chronic pain disorders: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis with indirect comparisons.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain disorders impact the physical, psychological, social, and financial well-being of between 10%-30% of Canadians. The primary aims of psychological interventions targeting chronic pain disorders are to reduce patients' pain-related disability and to improve their quality of life. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is the prevailing treatment for chronic pain, however mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) has displayed promise as an alternative treatment option. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare MBSR to CBT in their relative ability to reduce pain-related disability and intensity, to alleviate emotional distress, and to improve global functioning in chronic pain patients. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a systematic review with meta-analyses to compare MBSR to CBT in the treatment of chronic pain disorders in adults. We will report our review according to the recommendations provided by the PRISMA statement. Randomized studies will be included and the literature search will comprise Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid MEDLINE® In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase Classic+Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library on Wiley, including CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE, and HTA. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted by independent investigators and in duplicate. Outcomes of interest will include pain interference, pain intensity, emotional functioning, and patient global impression of change. The Cochrane risk of bias tool will be used to assess risk of bias of included studies. As we anticipate that scales used to measure participant responses will be related but varied from study to study, standardized mean differences will be used to compare effect sizes between treatment modalities. Given the possibility of little or no head-to-head evidence comparing MBSR with CBT, we will use indirect treatment comparison methodology to assess the relative effectiveness of these interventions. DISCUSSION: The findings from this study will assist patients and treatment providers to make informed decisions regarding evidence-based treatment selection for chronic pain disorders. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014009356.

Intravenous Vitamin C and Cancer: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous vitamin C (IVC) is a contentious adjunctive cancer therapy, widely used in naturopathic and integrative oncology settings. We conducted a systematic review of human interventional and observational studies assessing IVC for use in cancer patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and AMED from inception to April 2013 for human studies examining the safety, effectiveness, or pharmacokinetics of IVC use in cancer patients. RESULTS: Of 897 records, a total of 39 reports of 37 studies were included: 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 15 uncontrolled trials, 6 observational studies, and 14 case reports. IVC dosing ranged from 1 g to more than 200 g ascorbic acid per infusion, typically administered 2 to 3 times weekly. IVC does not appear to increase toxicity or interfere with antitumor effects of gemcitabine/erlotinib therapy or paclitaxel and carboplatin. Based on 1 RCT and data from uncontrolled human trials, IVC may improve time to relapse and possibly enhance reductions in tumor mass and improve survival in combination with chemotherapy. IVC may improve quality of life, physical function, and toxicities associated with chemotherapy, including fatigue, nausea, insomnia, constipation, and depression. Case reports document several instances of tumor regression and long-term disease-free survival associated with use of IVC. CONCLUSION: There is limited high-quality clinical evidence on the safety and effectiveness of IVC. The existing evidence is preliminary and cannot be considered conclusive but is suggestive of a good safety profile and potentially important antitumor activity; however, more rigorous evidence is needed to conclusively demonstrate these effects. IVC may improve the quality of life and symptom severity of patients with cancer, and several cases of cancer remission have been reported. Well-designed, controlled studies of IVC therapy are needed.

Flax and Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Flax is a food and dietary supplement commonly used for menopausal symptoms. Flax is known for its lignan, α-linolenic acid, and fiber content, components that may possess phytogestrogenic, anti-inflammatory, and hormone modulating effects, respectively. We conducted a systematic review of flax for efficacy in improving menopausal symptoms in women living with breast cancer and for potential impact on risk of breast cancer incidence or recurrence. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and AMED from inception to January 2013 for human interventional or observational data pertaining to flax and breast cancer. RESULTS: Of 1892 records, we included a total of 10 studies: 2 randomized controlled trials, 2 uncontrolled trials, 1 biomarker study, and 5 observational studies. Nonsignificant (NS) decreases in hot flash symptomatology were seen with flax ingestion (7.5 g/d). Flax (25 g/d) increased tumor apoptotic index (P< .05) and decreased HER2 expression (P< .05) and cell proliferation (Ki-67 index; NS) among newly diagnosed breast cancer patients when compared with placebo. Uncontrolled and biomarker studies suggest beneficial effects on hot flashes, cell proliferation, atypical cytomorphology, and mammographic density, as well as possible anti-angiogenic activity at doses of 25 g ground flax or 50 mg secoisolariciresinol diglycoside daily. Observational data suggests associations between flax and decreased risk of primary breast cancer (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.69-0.97), better mental health (AOR = 1.76; 95% CI = 1.05-2.94), and lower mortality (multivariate hazard ratio = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.50-0.95) among breast cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that flax may be associated with decreased risk of breast cancer. Flax demonstrates antiproliferative effects in breast tissue of women at risk of breast cancer and may protect against primary breast cancer. Mortality risk may also be reduced among those living with breast cancer.

Black cohosh and breast cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Many women use black cohosh as a natural treatment for menopausal symptoms. However, controversy exists around safety in breast cancer, because of its purported estrogenic activity. We conducted a systematic review of black cohosh use in women with or at risk of breast cancer. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and AMED from inception to July 2012 and October 2012 for human interventional or observational data pertaining to the safety and efficacy of black cohosh in patients with or at risk of breast cancer, including an assessment of the effect of black cohosh on estrogen responsive tissues. RESULTS: Of 450 records, we included 26 articles: 14 randomized controlled trials, 7 uncontrolled trials, and 5 observational studies.The evidence on efficacy for ho t flashes is divided, with some benefits seen when compared with baseline, but not when compared with placebo. Two observational studies found no association between black cohosh and risk of breast cancer, whereas 2 studies reported significant reductions in risk of primary breast cancer among postmenopausal women (adjusted odds ratio = 0.47, 95% confidence interval = 0.27-0.82), and risk of recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.75, 95% confidence interval = 0.63-0.89). Seventeen trials showed no significant impact on circulating hormone levels or proliferation in estrogen responsive tissues. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence does not support an association between black cohosh and increased risk of breast cancer. There is a lack of evidence supporting the efficacy of black cohosh for reduction of hot flashes in breast cancer patients. Given conflicting but promising results, and apparent safety, further research is warranted.

Soy, red clover, and isoflavones and breast cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Soy and red clover isoflavones are controversial due to purported estrogenic activity and possible effects on breast cancer. We conducted a systematic review of soy and red clover for efficacy in improving menopausal symptoms in women with breast cancer, and for potential impact on risk of breast cancer incidence or recurrence. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and AMED from inception to March 2013 for human interventional or observational data pertaining to the safety and efficacy of soy and red clover isoflavones in patients with or at risk of breast cancer. RESULTS: Of 4179 records, we included a total of 131 articles: 40 RCTs, 11 uncontrolled trials, and 80 observational studies. Five RCTs reported on the efficacy of soy for hot flashes, showing no significant reductions in hot flashes compared to placebo. There is lack of evidence showing harm from use of soy with respect to risk of breast cancer or recurrence, based on long term observational data. Soy intake consistent with that of a traditional Japanese diet (2-3 servings daily, containing 25-50mg isoflavones) may be protective against breast cancer and recurrence. Human trials show that soy does not increase circulating estradiol or affect estrogen-responsive target tissues. Prospective data of soy use in women taking tamoxifen does not indicate increased risk of recurrence. Evidence on red clover is limited, however existing studies suggest that it may not possess breast cancer-promoting effects. CONCLUSION: Soy consumption may be associated with reduced risk of breast cancer incidence, recurrence, and mortality. Soy does not have estrogenic effects in humans. Soy intake consistent with a traditional Japanese diet appears safe for breast cancer survivors. While there is no clear evidence of harm, better evidence confirming safety is required before use of high dose (≥ 100 mg) isoflavones can be recommended for breast cancer patients.

Vitamin d: pharmacokinetics and safety when used in conjunction with the pharmaceutical drugs used in cancer patients: a systematic review.

Vitamin D has reported anti-cancer and anti-inflammatory properties modulated through gene transcription and non-genomic signaling cascades. The purpose of this review was to summarize the available research on interactions and pharmacokinetics between vitamin D and the pharmaceutical drugs used in patients with cancer. Hypercalcemia was the most frequently reported side effect that occurred in high dose calcitriol. The half-life of 25(OH)D3 and/or 1,25(OH)2D3 was found to be impacted by cimetidine; rosuvastatin; prednisone and possibly some chemotherapy drugs. No unusual adverse effects in cancer patients; beyond what is expected from high dose 1,25(OH)2D3 supplementation, were revealed through this review. While sufficient evidence is lacking, supplementation with 1,25(OH)2D3 during chemotherapy appears to have a low risk of interaction. Further interactions with vitamin D3 have not been studied.

Interactions of commonly used dietary supplements with cardiovascular drugs: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this systematic review was to examine the benefits, harms and pharmacokinetic interactions arising from the co-administration of commonly used dietary supplements with cardiovascular drugs. Many patients on cardiovascular drugs take dietary supplements for presumed benefits and may be at risk for adverse supplement-drug interactions. METHODS: The Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, International Bibliographic Information on Dietary Supplements and MEDLINE were searched from the inception of the review to October 2011. Grey literature was also reviewed.Two reviewers independently screened records to identify studies comparing a supplement plus cardiovascular drug(s) with the drug(s) alone. Reviewers extracted data using standardized forms, assessed the study risk of bias, graded the strength of evidence and reported applicability. RESULTS: Evidence was obtained from 65 randomized clinical trials, 2 controlled clinical trials and 1 observational study. With only a few small studies available per supplement, evidence was insufficient for all predefined gradable clinical efficacy and harms outcomes, such as mortality and serious adverse events. One long-term pragmatic trial showed no benefit from co-administering vitamin E with aspirin on a composite cardiovascular outcome. Evidence for most intermediate outcomes was insufficient or of low strength, suggesting no effect. Incremental benefits were noted for triglyceridemia with omega-3 fatty acid added to statins; and there was an improvement in levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol with garlic supplementation when people also consumed nitrates CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of low-strength indicates benefits of omega-3 fatty acids (plus statin, or calcium channel blockers and antiplatelets) and garlic (plus nitrates or warfarin) on triglycerides and HDL-C, respectively. Safety concerns, however, persist.

Effectiveness of brief interventions as part of the screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) model for reducing the non-medical use of psychoactive substances: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: There is a significant public health burden associated with substance use in Canada. The early detection and/or treatment of risky substance use has the potential to dramatically improve outcomes for those who experience harms from the non-medical use of psychoactive substances, particularly adolescents whose brains are still undergoing development. The Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment model is a comprehensive, integrated approach for the delivery of early intervention and treatment services for individuals experiencing substance use-related harms, as well as those who are at risk of experiencing such harm. METHODS: This article describes the protocol for a systematic review of the effectiveness of brief interventions as part of the Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment model for reducing the non-medical use of psychoactive substances. Studies will be selected in which brief interventions target non-medical psychoactive substance use (excluding alcohol, nicotine, or caffeine) among those 12 years and older who are opportunistically screened and deemed at risk of harms related to psychoactive substance use. We will include one-on-one verbal interventions and exclude non-verbal brief interventions (for example, the provision of information such as a pamphlet or online interventions) and group interventions. Primary, secondary and adverse outcomes of interest are prespecified. Randomized controlled trials will be included; non-randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series designs will be considered in the absence of randomized controlled trials. We will search several bibliographic databases (for example, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CORK) and search sources for grey literature. We will meta-analyze studies where possible. We will conduct subgroup analyses, if possible, according to drug class and intervention setting. DISCUSSION: This review will provide evidence on the effectiveness of brief interventions as part of the Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment protocol aimed at the non-medical use of psychoactive substances and may provide guidance as to where future research might be most beneficial.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and safety of selected complementary and alternative medicine for neck and low-back pain.

Background. Back pain is a common problem and a major cause of disability and health care utilization. Purpose. To evaluate the efficacy, harms, and costs of the most common CAM treatments (acupuncture, massage, spinal manipulation, and mobilization) for neck/low-back pain. Data Sources. Records without language restriction from various databases up to February 2010. Data Extraction. The efficacy outcomes of interest were pain intensity and disability. Data Synthesis. Reports of 147 randomized trials and 5 nonrandomized studies were included. CAM treatments were more effective in reducing pain and disability compared to no treatment, physical therapy (exercise and/or electrotherapy) or usual care immediately or at short-term follow-up. Trials that applied sham-acupuncture tended towards statistically nonsignificant results. In several studies, acupuncture caused bleeding on the site of application, and manipulation and massage caused pain episodes of mild and transient nature. Conclusions. CAM treatments were significantly more efficacious than no treatment, placebo, physical therapy, or usual care in reducing pain immediately or at short-term after treatment. CAM therapies did not significantly reduce disability compared to sham. None of the CAM treatments was shown systematically as superior to one another. More efforts are needed to improve the conduct and reporting of studies of CAM treatments.

Complementary and alternative therapies for back pain II.

BACKGROUND: Back and neck pain are important health problems with serious societal and economic implications. Conventional treatments have been shown to have limited benefit in improving patient outcomes. Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) therapies offer additional options in the management of low back and neck pain. Many trials evaluating CAM therapies have poor quality and inconsistent results. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the efficacy, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and harms of acupuncture, spinal manipulation, mobilization, and massage techniques in management of back, neck, and/or thoracic pain. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched up to 2010; unpublished literature and reference lists of relevant articles were also searched. study selection: All records were screened by two independent reviewers. Primary reports of comparative efficacy, effectiveness, harms, and/or economic evaluations from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the CAM therapies in adults (age ≥ 18 years) with back, neck, or thoracic pain were eligible. Non-randomized controlled trials and observational studies (case-control, cohort, cross-sectional) comparing harms were also included. Reviews, case reports, editorials, commentaries or letters were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers using a predefined form extracted data on study, participants, treatments, and outcome characteristics. RESULTS: 265 RCTs and 5 non-RCTs were included. Acupuncture for chronic nonspecific low back pain was associated with significantly lower pain intensity than placebo but only immediately post-treatment (VAS: -0.59, 95 percent CI: -0.93, -0.25). However, acupuncture was not different from placebo in post-treatment disability, pain medication intake, or global improvement in chronic nonspecific low back pain. Acupuncture did not differ from sham-acupuncture in reducing chronic non-specific neck pain immediately after treatment (VAS: 0.24, 95 percent CI: -1.20, 0.73). Acupuncture was superior to no treatment in improving pain intensity (VAS: -1.19, 95 percent CI: 95 percent CI: -2.17, -0.21), disability (PDI), functioning (HFAQ), well-being (SF-36), and range of mobility (extension, flexion), immediately after the treatment. In general, trials that applied sham-acupuncture tended to produce negative results (i.e., statistically non-significant) compared to trials that applied other types of placebo (e.g., TENS, medication, laser). Results regarding comparisons with other active treatments (pain medication, mobilization, laser therapy) were less consistent Acupuncture was more cost-effective compared to usual care or no treatment for patients with chronic back pain. For both low back and neck pain, manipulation was significantly better than placebo or no treatment in reducing pain immediately or short-term after the end of treatment. Manipulation was also better than acupuncture in improving pain and function in chronic nonspecific low back pain. Results from studies comparing manipulation to massage, medication, or physiotherapy were inconsistent, either in favor of manipulation or indicating no significant difference between the two treatments. Findings of studies regarding costs of manipulation relative to other therapies were inconsistent. Mobilization was superior to no treatment but not different from placebo in reducing low back pain or spinal flexibility after the treatment. Mobilization was better than physiotherapy in reducing low back pain (VAS: -0.50, 95 percent CI: -0.70, -0.30) and disability (Oswestry: -4.93, 95 percent CI: -5.91, -3.96). In subjects with acute or subacute neck pain, mobilization compared to placebo significantly reduced neck pain. Mobilization and placebo did not differ in subjects with chronic neck pain. Massage was superior to placebo or no treatment in reducing pain and disability only amongst subjects with acute/sub-acute low back pain. Massage was also significantly better than physical therapy in improving back pain (VAS: -2.11, 95 percent CI: -3.15, -1.07) or disability. For subjects with neck pain, massage was better than no treatment, placebo, or exercise in improving pain or disability, but not neck flexibility. Some evidence indicated higher costs for massage use compared to general practitioner care for low back pain. Reporting of harms in RCTs was poor and inconsistent. Subjects receiving CAM therapies reported soreness or bleeding on the site of application after acupuncture and worsening of pain after manipulation or massage. In two case-control studies cervical manipulation was shown to be significantly associated with vertebral artery dissection or vertebrobasilar vascular accident. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence was of poor to moderate grade and most of it pertained to chronic nonspecific pain, making it difficult to draw more definitive conclusions regarding benefits and harms of CAM therapies in subjects with acute/subacute, mixed, or unknown duration of pain. The benefit of CAM treatments was mostly evident immediately or shortly after the end of the treatment and then faded with time. Very few studies reported long-term outcomes. There was insufficient data to explore subgroup effects. The trial results were inconsistent due probably to methodological and clinical diversity, thereby limiting the extent of quantitative synthesis and complicating interpretation of trial results. Strong efforts are warranted to improve the conduct methodology and reporting quality of primary studies of CAM therapies. Future well powered head to head comparisons of CAM treatments and trials comparing CAM to widely used active treatments that report on all clinically relevant outcomes are needed to draw better conclusions.