Improved quantitative determination of (R)- and (S)-rabeprazole sodium and its metabolites in rat plasma by LC-MS/MS and its application to a toxicokinetic study.

There exist two enantiomers: (R)- and (S)-rabeprazole. (R)-rabeprazole offers specific pharmacokinetic advantages and enhanced therapeutic efficacy, warranting further investigation and development. Here, we developed a simple and rapid chiral liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method to simultaneously quantify rabeprazole enantiomers and their metabolites (rabeprazole sulfoxide and desmethyl rabeprazole enantiomers) and a LC-MS to quantify rabeprazole thioether. As for the chiral LC-MS/MS method, Chiral-AGP column (150 × 4 mm, 5 µm) was used and its mobile phase was acetonitrile (mobile phase A) and 10 mmol/L ammonium acetate (mobile phase B) (linear gradient profile: 0 min, 10 % B; 5 min, 15 % B; 9 min, 15 % B; 9.01 min, 10 % B; 13 min, 10 % B). The multiple reactions monitoring transitions of m/z 360.3 â†’ 242.1, 376.2 â†’ 240.1, 346.2 â†’ 228.2 and 368.2 â†’ 190.2 were opted for quantifying rabeprazole enantiomers, rabeprazole sulfoxide, desmethyl rabeprazole enantiomers and internal standard omeprazole. The analyte samples were prepared by a simple liquid-liquid extraction method. As for the LC-MS method, analytes were separated on a Inertsil® ODS-3 column (4.6 × 150 mm, 5 µm). The mobile phase was acetonitrile-5 mmol/L ammonium acetate water solution (65:35, v/v). ESI+ was used and ion peaks with m/z 344.2 (rabeprazole thioether) and 285.1 (internal standard diazepam) were monitored. Both these 2 methods were validated for specificity, linearity, precision, accuracy, matrix effect and extraction recovery, and, particularly, the stability of analytes under various conditions. We successfully applied these methods to a 13-week toxicokinetic study of rabeprazole in rats after intravenous administration of (R)- (80, 20, 5 mg/kg/d) and racemic (80 mg/kg/d) rabeprazole sodium. The results showed that rabeprazole and its metabolites did not accumulate in rats. However, desmethyl rabeprazole and rabeprazole thioether showed higher exposure and lower clearance rate in the last administration than in the first one. (R)-rabeprazole showed a higher exposure and a slower elimination rate than (S)-rabeprazole in rats. These findings offer experimental evidence and a theoretical foundation for further preclinical investigations and clinical applications of (R)-rabeprazole.

Determining the safety and effectiveness of Tai Chi: a critical overview of 210 systematic reviews of controlled clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: This overview summarizes the best available systematic review (SR) evidence on the health effects of Tai Chi. METHODS: Nine databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), Sino-Med, and Wanfang Database) were searched for SRs of controlled clinical trials of Tai Chi interventions published between Jan 2010 and Dec 2020 in any language. Effect estimates were extracted from the most recent, comprehensive, highest-quality SR for each population, condition, and outcome. SR quality was appraised with AMSTAR 2 and overall certainty of effect estimates with the GRADE method. RESULTS: Of the 210 included SRs, 193 only included randomized controlled trials, one only included non-randomized studies of interventions, and 16 included both. Common conditions were neurological (18.6%), falls/balance (14.7%), cardiovascular (14.7%), musculoskeletal (11.0%), cancer (7.1%), and diabetes mellitus (6.7%). Except for stroke, no evidence for disease prevention was found; however, multiple proxy-outcomes/risks factors were evaluated. One hundred and fourteen effect estimates were extracted from 37 SRs (2 high, 6 moderate, 18 low, and 11 critically low quality), representing 59,306 adults. Compared to active and/or inactive controls, 66 of the 114 effect estimates reported clinically important benefits from Tai Chi, 53 reported an equivalent or marginal benefit, and 6 an equivalent risk of adverse events. Eight of the 114 effect estimates (7.0%) were rated as high, 43 (37.7%) moderate, 36 (31.6%) low, and 27 (23.7%) very low certainty evidence due to concerns with risk of bias (92/114, 80.7%), imprecision (43/114, 37.7%), inconsistency (37/114, 32.5%), and publication bias (3/114, 2.6%). SR quality was often limited by the search strategies, language bias, inadequate consideration of clinical, methodological, and statistical heterogeneity, poor reporting standards, and/or no registered SR protocol. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest Tai Chi has multidimensional effects, including physical, psychological and quality of life benefits for a wide range of conditions, as well as multimorbidity. Clinically important benefits were most consistently reported for Parkinson's disease, falls risk, knee osteoarthritis, low back pain, cerebrovascular, and cardiovascular diseases including hypertension. For most conditions, higher-quality SRs with rigorous primary studies are required. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021225708.

Chinese herbal injections versus intrapleural cisplatin for lung cancer patients with malignant pleural effusion: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is a common complication in patients with advanced lung cancer that can severely compromise the quality of life and limit life expectancy. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that Chinese herbal injections (CHIs) may be beneficial in improving quality of life. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to explore several CHIs used for lung cancer patients with MPE. Methods: Seven databases were systematically searched for eligible RCTs from inception to November 2021. The primary outcome was the clinical effective rate. Secondary outcomes were the improvement rate of Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score and incidence of adverse events (AEs). The Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool was used to assess the quality of included studies. Data analysis was performed using STATA 16.0 and R software 4.1.0. Both pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian NMA were conducted. Competing interventions were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. Evidence grading was evaluated using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis online software (https://cinema.ispm.unibe.ch/). Results: A total of 44 studies involving 2,573 patients were included. The combined Huachansu injection (HCS) with intrapleural cisplatin (cis-diamminedichloro-platinum, DDP) had the highest probability of improving the clinical effective rate (SUCRA, 84.33%). The Kangai injection (KA) combined with DDP had the most improvement rate of KPS score (SUCRA, 80.82%), while the Fufangkushen injection (FFKS) alone was more likely to reduce AEs including gastrointestinal reactions (SUCRA, 89.92%), leukopenia (SUCRA, 91.85%), and chest pain (SUCRA, 98.17%). FFKS combined with DDP ranked the best in reducing the incidence of fever (SUCRA, 75.45%). Conclusions: Our NMA showed that CHIs alone or combined with DDP could improve clinical effectiveness and quality of life and reduce AEs, compared to DDP alone. HSC and KA, combined with DDP, may be the most effective considering clinical effective rate and improvement of KPS score, respectively. FFKS, either used alone or in combination therapy with DDP, may be the best in reducing AEs. However, high-quality RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed to further support the evidence. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42021285275.

Tai Chi for health and well-being: A bibliometric analysis of published clinical studies between 2010 and 2020.

The objective of this bibliometric review was to identify the volume, breadth, and characteristics of clinical studies evaluating Tai Chi published between January 2010 and January 2020. Five English and four Chinese language databases were searched. Following independent screening, 1018 eligible publications representing 987 studies were identified, which was a three-fold increase from the previous decade. Most common were randomized controlled trials (548/987, 55.5 %), followed by systematic reviews (157/987, 15.9 %), non-randomized controlled clinical studies (152/987, 15.4 %), case series (127/987, 12.9 %) and case reports (3/987, 0.3 %) that were conducted in China (730/987, 74.0 %), followed by the United States of America (123/987, 12.5 %) and South Korea (20/987, 2.0 %). Study participants were mostly in the adult (55.2 %) and/or older adult (72.0 %) age groups. The top ten diseases/conditions were hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, knee osteoarthritis, heart failure, depression, osteoporosis/osteopenia, breast cancer, coronary heart disease and insomnia. A quarter of the studies enrolled healthy participants to evaluate the effects of Tai Chi on health promotion/preservation, balance/falls, and physiological/biomechanical outcomes. Yang style Tai Chi was the most popular, followed by Chen and Sun style. Tai Chi was mostly commonly delivered face-to-face by a Tai Chi instructor in group settings for 60 min, three times a week, for 12 weeks. Most studies (93.8 %) reported at least one outcome in favor of Tai Chi. Adverse events were underreported (7.2 %). Over half fell short of expected intervention reporting standards, signalling the need for Tai Chi extensions to existing guidelines.

Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: Second edition of a living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project).

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. This is the second edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review was based on PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines, and our eight-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. According to the number of outcome comparisons, we adjusted our threshold for significance to p = 0.033. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until November 2, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 82 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 40,249 participants. 81 out of 82 trials were at overall high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference between corticosteroids versus control on all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 23.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), on serious adverse events (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; p = 0.04; I2 = 39.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), and on mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.33; p = 0.49; I2 = 55.3%; two trials; very low certainty). The fixed-effect meta-analyses showed indications of beneficial effects. Trial sequential analyses showed that the required information size for all three analyses was not reached. Meta-analysis (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07; p = 0.31; I2 = 0%; four trials; moderate certainty) and trial sequential analysis (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that remdesivir versus control reduced the risk of death by 20%. Meta-analysis (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 38.9%; four trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of difference between remdesivir versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of remdesivir on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.87; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin versus control on all-cause mortality, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.14; p = 0.12; I2 = 77.4%; five trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of a difference between tocilizumab versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; three trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab versus control on mechanical ventilation, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm of reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.69; p < 0.00; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of bromhexine versus standard care on non-serious adverse events, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that hydroxychloroquine versus control reduced the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20%. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that lopinavir-ritonavir versus control reduced the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation by 20%. All remaining outcome comparisons showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Nine single trials showed statistically significant results on our outcomes, but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Due to lack of data, it was not relevant to perform network meta-analysis or possible to perform individual patient data meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. Very low certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids might reduce the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation; that remdesivir might reduce the risk of serious adverse events; that intravenous immunoglobin might reduce the risk of death and serious adverse events; that tocilizumab might reduce the risk of serious adverse events and mechanical ventilation; and that bromhexine might reduce the risk of non-serious adverse events. More trials with low risks of bias and random errors are urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020178787.

The effect of e-cigarettes on smoking cessation and cigarette smoking initiation: An evidence-based rapid review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The contribution made by e-cigarettes to smoking cessation continues to be controversial. Reports suggest that teenagers are becoming increasingly addicted to e-cigarettes and that e-cigarette use in adolescents is associated with subsequent cigarette smoking. METHODS: Systematic searches of eleven databases were conducted (January 2015 to June 2020). Systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing e-cigarettes with placebo e-cigarettes, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or no e-cigarette use were included. The two primary outcomes were smoking cessation among smokers and smoking initiation among non-smoking teenagers. The secondary outcome was adverse events. Data were synthesized using risk ratio (RR) or adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Six systematic reviews, 5 RCTs and 24 cohort studies were identified. For smoking cessation, findings from 4 systematic reviews indicated that e-cigarettes contributed to cessation while one found the opposite. Meta-analysis of 5 RCTs suggested that e-cigarettes were superior to NRT or placebo for smoking cessation (RR=1.55; 95% CI: 1.00-2.40; I2=57.6%; low certainty; 5 trials, n=4025). Evidence from 9 cohort studies showed that e-cigarette use was not associated with cessation (AOR=1.16; 95% CI: 0.88-1.54; I2=69.0%; n=22220). Subgroup analysis suggested that intensive e-cigarette use may be associated with cessation. In terms of smoking initiation, adolescents who ever used e-cigarettes had a greater risk for smoking initiation than non-users (AOR=2.91; 95% CI: 2.61-3.23; I2=61.0%; 15 trials, n=68943), the findings were consistent with one included systematic review. No serious adverse events were reported in the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Low certainty evidence suggests that e-cigarettes appear to be potentially effective for smoking cessation. The use of e-cigarettes in adolescents may be associated with smoking initiation. No serious adverse events were reported.

Beneficial and harmful effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Current guidelines recommend angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) (sacubitril/valsartan) as a replacement for angiotensin-converting-enzymeinhibitor (ACE-I) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who remain symptomatic despite optimal medical therapy. The effects of ARNIs have not previously been assessed in a systematic review. We searched for relevant trials until October 2019 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, BIOSIS, CNKI, VIP, WanFang and CBM. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. We systematically assessed the risks of random errors and systematic errors. PROSPERO registration: CRD42019129336. 48 trials randomising 19 086 participants were included. The ARNI assessed in all trials was sacubitril/valsartan. ACE-I or ARB were used as control interventions. Trials randomising HFrEF participants (27 trials) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) participants (four trials) were analysed separately. In HFrEF participants, meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analyses showed evidence of a beneficial effect of sacubitril/valsartan when assessing all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR), 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.94) and serious adverse events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.93); and the results did not differ between the guideline recommended target population and HFrEF participants in general. We found no evidence of an effect of sacubitril/valsartan in HFpEF participants. Sacubitril/valsartan compared with either ACE-I or ARB seems to have a beneficial effect in patients with HFrEF. Our results indicate that sacubitril/valsartan might be beneficial in a wider population of patients with heart failure than the guideline recommended target population. Sacubitril/valsartan does not seem to show evidence of a difference compared with valsartan in patients with HFpEF.

Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING VACCINE Project).

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which has rapidly spread worldwide. Several human randomized clinical trials assessing potential vaccines are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living systematic review that continuously assesses the beneficial and harmful effects of all available vaccines for COVID-19. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any vaccine aiming to prevent COVID-19 (including but not limited to messenger RNA; DNA; non-replicating viral vector; replicating viral vector; inactivated virus; protein subunit; dendritic cell; other vaccines) with any comparator (placebo; "active placebo;" no intervention; standard care; an "active" intervention; another vaccine for COVID-19) for participants in all age groups. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality; a diagnosis of COVID-19; and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analyses, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Within-study bias will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approaches will be used to assess certainty of evidence. Observational studies describing harms identified during the search for trials will also be included and described and analyzed separately. DISCUSSION: COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of different vaccines is urgently needed. This living systematic review will regularly inform best practice in vaccine prevention and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020196492.

Berberine for diarrhea in children and adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Diarrhea is a ubiquitous digestive system disease, leading to loss of fluid and electrolytes, and may be life-threatening, especially in children and adults who are immunosuppressed or malnourished. Berberine has a broad-spectrum antibiotic activity and is very widely used to treat diarrhea in China. No systematic review has been carried out to evaluate the evidence presented in clinical trials. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of berberine in diarrhea treatment among children and adults. METHODS: Seven databases and two clinical trial registries were searched on 1 September 2019. Randomized controlled trials were included, where participants were diagnosed (first diagnosed) as having diarrhea according to clear diagnostic criteria. Berberine alone or in combination with Western medication as intervention were included. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on children or adults, acute or persistent diarrhea, infectious or noninfectious and treatment courses. Primary outcomes were clinical cure rate and duration of diarrhea. The GRADE tool was used to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 38 randomized controlled trials were included involving 3948 participants (including 27 trials on 2702 children) were included. Compared with antibiotics, berberine plus antibiotics showed better results in both adults and in children in general, especially when given for 7 days or 3 days in acute infectious diarrhea of children. Compared with the control groups, using berberine alone or in combination with montmorillonite, probiotics, and vitamin B increased the clinical cure rate of diarrhea. The use of berberine alone or berberine combined with montmorillonite reduced the duration of hospitalization. Using berberine had significantly better laboratory indicators (isoenzyme, inflammatory factors, myocardial enzyme, and fecal trait) and fewer systemic symptoms than the no berberine groups. Overall, 22 of 27 trials on children used berberine as an enema. No deaths and serious adverse events were reported. The quality of evidence of included trials was moderate to low or very low. The impact of different dosages, frequencies and treatment durations on the outcomes was not evaluated due to insufficient number of trials. CONCLUSION: This review demonstrated that berberine was generally effective in improving clinical cure rates and shortening the duration of diarrhea compared with control groups. No severe adverse event was reported. However, there is still a lack of high-quality evidence for evaluating the efficacy and safety of berberine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020151001 (available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/).

Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project).

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This is the first edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials comparing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19. We planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review is based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) and Cochrane guidelines, and our 8-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and nonserious adverse events. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until August 7, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 33 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 13,312 participants. All trials were at overall high risk of bias. We identified one trial randomizing 6,425 participants to dexamethasone versus standard care. This trial showed evidence of a beneficial effect of dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (rate ratio 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-0.93; p < 0.001; low certainty) and on mechanical ventilation (risk ratio [RR] 0.77; 95% CI 0.62-0.95; p = 0.021; low certainty). It was possible to perform meta-analysis of 10 comparisons. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between remdesivir versus placebo on all-cause mortality (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.40-1.37; p = 0.34, I2 = 58%; 2 trials; very low certainty) or nonserious adverse events (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.80-1.11; p = 0.48, I2 = 29%; 2 trials; low certainty). Meta-analysis showed evidence of a beneficial effect of remdesivir versus placebo on serious adverse events (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.63-0.94; p = 0.009, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty) mainly driven by respiratory failure in one trial. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses showed that we could exclude the possibility that hydroxychloroquine versus standard care reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.97-1.19; p = 0.17; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; low certainty) and serious adverse events (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.96-1.18; p = 0.21; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; low certainty) by 20% or more, and meta-analysis showed evidence of a harmful effect on nonserious adverse events (RR 2.40; 95% CI 2.01-2.87; p < 0.00001; I2 = 90%; 6 trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between lopinavir-ritonavir versus standard care on serious adverse events (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.39-1.04; p = 0.07, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty) or nonserious adverse events (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.85-1.53; p = 0.38, I2 = 75%; 2 trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between convalescent plasma versus standard care on all-cause mortality (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.33-1.10; p = 0.10, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty). Five single trials showed statistically significant results but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. None of the remaining trials showed evidence of a difference on our predefined outcomes. Because of the lack of relevant data, it was not possible to perform other meta-analyses, network meta-analysis, or individual patient data meta-analyses. The main limitation of this living review is the paucity of data currently available. Furthermore, the included trials were all at risks of systematic errors and random errors. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that dexamethasone and remdesivir might be beneficial for COVID-19 patients, but the certainty of the evidence was low to very low, so more trials are needed. We can exclude the possibility of hydroxychloroquine versus standard care reducing the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20% or more. Otherwise, no evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19.

A systematic review of Tuina for irritable bowel syndrome: Recommendations for future trials.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review assessed whether Tuina (therapeutic massage) is more effective and safer than no treatment or routine medical treatment for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). METHODS: Eleven databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of IBS diagnosed based on Manning or Rome criteria. Tuina with or without routine treatments (RTs) was tested against RTs. The Cochrane risk of bias was evaluated for each trial. RevMan 5.3 was used to conduct a meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 8 trials (5 IBS-diarrhea and 3 IBS-constipation) with 545 participants using 8 different manipulations were included. All trials were published in Chinese. For overall symptom improving rate (> 30 % improvement in overall symptom scores), it had not been shown that Tuina was significantly better than RTs (RR 1.23, 95 % CI 0.94-1.60, 197 participants, 3 studies, I2 = 65 %) for IBS-diarrhea, and Tuina combined with RTs showed more benefit than RTs alone (RR 1.29, 95 % CI 1.08-1.54, 115 participants, 3 studies) for IBS-diarrhea. All trials did not report adverse effect in relation to Tuina. Risk of bias was generally unclear across all domains. CONCLUSIONS: Tuina combined with RTs may be superior to RTs for improving overall symptom of IBS-diarrhea. Due to the existing methodological issues and the heterogeneity of Tuina manipulation, current findings need to be confirmed in large scale, multicenter, and robust randomized trials (especially on outcome assessing blinding and allocation concealment).

Relationship between caffeine intake and infertility: a systematic review of controlled clinical studies.

BACKGROUND: For a long time, the relationship between caffeine consumption and infertility in the general population is unclear, this study is aimed to systematically review the evidence from any type of controlled clinical studies to explore whether caffeine intake is a risk factor for human infertility. METHODS: Seven databases were searched from inception to May 2019. We included women/men without a history of infertility but were willing to have children in prospective studies and women/men who were diagnosed with infertility in retrospective studies. The observed exposure factor should be caffeine or caffeine containing beverage. Diagnosis of infertility or not for participants was the key outcome. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) or Cochrane risk of bias tool were used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. Meta-analysis was conducted if there were acceptable clinical and statistical heterogeneity among studies. The GRADE method was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: Four studies (one cohort study and three case-control studies) involving 12,912 participants were included. According NOS, the average score of case-control studies was 6, and the cohort study achieved 9. Meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were conducted. The results showed that low (OR 0.95, 95%CI 0.78-1.16), medium (OR 1.14, 95%CI 0.69-1.86) and high doses (OR 1.86, 95%CI 0.28-12.22) of caffeine intake may not increase the risk of infertility. The quality of the current evidence bodies were all low. CONCLUSION: Our study provides low quality evidence that regardless of low, medium and high doses of caffeine intake do not appear increase the risk of infertility. But the conclusion should be treated with caution.

The Effectiveness of Self-Management of Hypertension in Adults Using Mobile Health: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Effective treatment of hypertension requires careful self-management. With the ongoing development of mobile technologies and the scarcity of health care resources, mobile health (mHealth)-based self-management has become a useful treatment for hypertension, and its effectiveness has been assessed in many trials. However, there is a paucity of comprehensive summaries of the studies using both qualitative and quantitative methods. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to measure the effectiveness of mHealth in improving the self-management of hypertension for adults. The outcome measures were blood pressure (BP), BP control, medication adherence, self-management behavior, and costs. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using 5 electronic databases. The snowballing method was used to scan the reference lists of relevant studies. Only peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2010 and September 2019 were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by 3 researchers independently, adhering to the validation guideline and checklist. Both a meta-analysis and a narrative synthesis were carried out. RESULTS: A total of 24 studies with 8933 participants were included. Of these, 23 studies reported the clinical outcome of BP, 12 of these provided systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) data, and 16 articles focused on change in self-management behavior and medication adherence. All 24 studies were included in the narrative synthesis. According to the meta-analysis, a greater reduction in both SBP and DBP was observed in the mHealth intervention groups compared with control groups, -3.78 mm Hg (P<.001; 95% CI -4.67 to -2.89) and -1.57 mm Hg (P<.001; 95% CI -2.28 to -0.86), respectively. Subgroup analyses showed consistent reductions in SBP and DBP across different frequencies of reminders, interactive patterns, intervention functions, and study duration subgroups. A total of 16 studies reported better medication adherence and behavioral change in the intervention groups, while 8 showed no significant change. Six studies included an economic evaluation, which drew inconsistent conclusions. However, potentially long-term financial benefits were mentioned in all economic evaluations. All studies were assessed to be at high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: This review found that mHealth self-management interventions were effective in BP control. The outcomes of this review showed improvements in self-management behavior and medication adherence. The most successful mHealth intervention combined the feature of tailored messages, interactive communication, and multifaceted functions. Further research with longer duration and cultural adaptation is necessary. With increasing disease burden from hypertension globally, mHealth offers a potentially effective method for self-management and control of BP. mHealth can be easily integrated into existing health care systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019152062; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=152062.

The Potential Effects and Use of Chinese Herbal Medicine Pine Pollen (Pinus pollen): A Bibliometric Analysis of Pharmacological and Clinical Studies.

The objectives of this study are to conduct a comprehensive literature search and bibliometric analysis to identify the breadth and volume of pharmacological and clinical studies on pine pollen (Pinus pollen) and to identify the potential effects and the use of pine pollen. Three Chinese electronic databases and two English electronic databases were searched for pharmacological and clinical studies on pine pollen. Data were extracted and analyzed and included publication year, authors, study type, pharmacological research topics or clinical diseases/conditions, usage and type of preparation, authors' conclusions, and adverse effects. Of 239 publications identified, 180 were pharmacological studies, 37 were clinical trials, and 22 were reviews. Numbers of publications increased particularly from 2004 onward. The top 10 most frequent topics in pharmacological studies were immune regulation, antisenility, antioxidation, liver protection, inhibiting prostate hyperplasia, inhibiting tumor cell proliferation, lowering blood glucose, lowering blood lipids, antifatigue, and improving intestinal function. The top 10 most frequent clinical diseases treated or where pine pollen was used as an adjuvant were bedsores, diaper dermatitis, hyperlipidemia, oral mucositis, eczema, hyperplasia of prostate, hypertension, prostatitis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and radiodermatitis. Eight trials reported no adverse events associated with pine pollen, one reported mild gastrointestinal reactions, but symptoms disappeared without special management. There have been an increasing number of publications on pine pollen during the past 20 years. Pharmacological studies have shown many potential benefits, and clinical studies have indicated some positive effects when it is either used as a single herb or as an adjuvant to treat disease. Its use as a topical agent, especially for skin diseases, was notable.

Bioequivalence Study of Warfarin in Healthy Chinese Volunteers With a Validated High-Performance Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry Method.

This study was designed to investigate the pharmacokinetics of an innovative film-coated warfarin sodium tablet and to compare it with the marketed sugar-coated warfarin sodium tablet in humans. A single-dose, open-label, randomized, two-way crossover study was performed in 24 healthy Chinese male volunteers. They were administered 2.5 mg of innovative film-coated warfarin sodium tablets or the marketed sugar-coated warfarin sodium tablets. Blood samples were collected at different time points after dosing for investigation of the pharmacokinetics of warfarin in human plasma. A sensitive liquid chromatography mass spectrometry method was established to determine warfarin in plasma. Drug and Statistics 2.1.1 was applied to calculate the pharmacokinetics parameters. The main pharmacokinetic parameters for film-coated and sugar-coated warfarin were the following: t½ , 103.5 ± 18.8 and 105.8 ± 21.3 hours; Tmax , 0.7 ± 0.5 and 1.3 ± 0.8 hours; Cmax , 347.8 ± 74.8 and 322.9 ± 75.7 ng/mL; AUC0∼360 , 16,024.2 ± 3713.9 and 15,586.6 ± 3477.0 ng·mL-1 ·h; AUC0∼∞ , 17,335.7 ± 4089.1 and 16,912.0 ± 3911.2 ng·mL-1 ·h, respectively. The human pharmacokinetics of film-coated and sugar-coated warfarin were slightly different. The oral absorption and bioavailability of innovative film-coated warfarin were slightly higher than those of the sugar-coated warfarin. This study is vital to clinical usage of warfarin not only because of the pharmacokinetic parameters of the 2 pharmaceutical dosage forms of warfarin but also to obtain data on the prevalence of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genes and their influence on the concentration of warfarin.

Determination of brusatol in plasma and tissues by LC-MS method and its application to a pharmacokinetic and distribution study in mice.

OBJECTIVES: The quassinoid brusatol, which can be isolated from Brucea javanica (L.) Merr., becomes popularly studied because of its anti-tumor activity. In order to further investigate brusatol and extend its applications, a sensitive analytical method for determination of brusatol in biological samples is essential. However, few methods had been reported until now. In this study, a highly sensitive and reproducible LC-MS method for simultaneous quantification of brusatol in mouse plasma and tissues was developed and validated. METHOD: Plasma samples and tissue homogenate were extracted with diethyl ether after addition of the internal standard solution(IS). The supernatant was blown to dryness with nitrogen and residual was reconstituted with 100µl of methanol. The separation was performed on an Intersil ODS-3 column and gradient elution was conducted with the mobile phase of water and methanol (0-5min 47:53, 5-5.5min 47:53-10:90, 5.5-9min 10:90, posttime 4min 47:53) at a flow rate of 0.8mL/min. Quantification was performed in the selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode at m/z 543.2 for brusatol and 220.0 for IS (ornidazole). The method was validated by analyzing quality control plasma and tissue homogenate samples, and was applied to analyze samples obtained from mice after injections of brusatol via the tail vein. RESULTS: With ornidazole as the internal standard, calibration curve of the method ranged from 10 to 320ng/ml for plasma and 10-240ng/ml for tissues. Recovery rate of brusatol from plasma and tissues were between 71.09%-94.91%. Relative standard deviation (RSD) for inter- and intra-day precision was less than 15%, and the accuracy was between 96.1%-111.8%. The pharmacokinetics and distribution study of brusatol in mice after three single doses via the tail vein were carried out based on this method. The concentration of brusatol in plasma decreased rapidly and a more than 10 fold concentration of brusatol was found as compared to that in other tissues. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first reported LC-MS method for detecting brusatol in tissues and can accurately determine the concentrations of these compounds in plasma and different tissues. Further research on the metabolism of brusatol in vivo is still needed.

Determination of the active metabolite of moguisteine in human plasma and urine by LC-ESI-MS method and its application in pharmacokinetic study.

In this study, a sensitive and reproducible electro-spray ionization liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-ESI-MS) method was established to determine the concentration of M1, the main active metabolite of moguisteine in human plasma and urine. The analysis was performed on a Diamonsil® C18(2) column (150 mm × 4.6 mm, 5 µm) with the mobile phase consisting of 0.1% formic acid-acetonitrile (57:43, v/v, pH=3.0) at a flow rate of 0.8 mL min⁻¹. The pseudo-molecular ions [M+H]+ (m/z 312.2 for M1 and 446.3 for glipizide) were selected as the target ions for quantification in the selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode. Plasma samples were analyzed after being processed by acidification with formic acid and protein precipitation with acetonitrile. Urine samples were appropriately diluted with blank urine for analysis. Calibration curve was ranged from 0.02 to 8 µg mL⁻¹. The extraction recovery in plasma was over 90%. Both the inter- and intra-day precision values were less than 7.5%, and the accuracy was in the range from -6.0% to 6.0%. This is the first reported LC-ESI-MS method for analyzing M1 in human plasma and urine. The method was successfully applied to the pharmacokinetic study after oral administration of single-dose and multiple-dose of moguisteine tablets in healthy Chinese subjects.

Bioequivalence of nifedipine softgel and capsule in healthy Chinese volunteers by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry.

The study aimed to compare and evaluate the bioequivalence of Calcigard-10 softgel and Adalat 10 capsule in healthy Chinese volunteers in a randomized, two-way cross over study design with a washout period of 7 days. A sensitive and reproducible electro-spray ionization liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (ESI-LCMS) assay was developed and validated to determine nifedipine in human plasma using nitrendipine as internal standard. Nifedipine and nitrendipine were extracted from plasma using liquid-liquid extraction with methylene chloride as extraction solvent. The separation was performed by a Diamonsil ODS column (150 x 4.6 mm, 5 microm). The mobile phase was consisted of acetonitrile-5 mM ammonium acetate (52:48, v/v), delivered at flow rate of 1 mL/min. The 90% confidence intervals for the ratio values of logarithmic transformed Cmax and AUC were calculated to evaluate the bioequivalence of two preparations. The values of Cmax (92.3-112.7%), AUC0-t (84.5-95.1%) and AUC0-inf (84.4-95.5%) are within the interval criterion of 70-143% for Cmax and 80-125% for AUC. The Calcigard-10 softgel and Adalat 10 capsule are bioequivalent.