RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Women seeking nonhormonal interventions for vulvovaginal, urinary, and sexual symptoms associated with genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) may seek out complementary and alternative medicine or therapies (CAMs). PURPOSE: To summarize published evidence of CAMs for GSM. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from inception through 11 December 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) 8 weeks or more in duration that evaluated the effectiveness or harms of CAMs for postmenopausal women with GSM and reported 1 or more outcomes of interest, with sample sizes of 20 or more participants randomly assigned per group. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. DATA SYNTHESIS: An evidence map approach was used to organize and describe trials. Studies were organized by type of intervention, with narrative summaries for population, study characteristics, interventions, and outcomes. Fifty-seven trials were identified that investigated 39 unique interventions. Studies were typically small (n < 200), and most were done in Iran (k = 24) or other parts of Asia (k = 9). Few trials evaluated similar combinations of populations, interventions, comparators, or outcomes. Most studies (k = 44) examined natural products (that is, herbal or botanical supplements and vitamins), whereas fewer reported on mind and body practices (k = 6) or educational programs (k = 7). Most studies reported 1 or 2 GSM symptoms, mainly sexual (k = 44) or vulvovaginal (k = 30). Tools used to measure outcomes varied widely. Most trials reported on adverse events (k = 33). LIMITATIONS: Only English-language studies were used. Effect estimates, risk of bias, and certainty of evidence were not assessed. CONCLUSION: There is a large and heterogeneous literature of CAM interventions for GSM. Trials were small, and few were done in North America. Standardized population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes reporting in future RCTs are needed. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. (PROSPERO: CRD42023400684).
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Postmenopausal women commonly experience vulvovaginal, urinary, and sexual symptoms associated with genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). PURPOSE: To evaluate effectiveness and harms of vaginal estrogen, nonestrogen hormone therapies, and vaginal moisturizers for treatment of GSM symptoms. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and CINAHL through 11 December 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 8 weeks' duration enrolling postmenopausal women with at least 1 GSM symptom and reporting effectiveness or harms of hormonal interventions or vaginal moisturizers. DATA EXTRACTION: Risk of bias and data extraction were performed by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Certainty of evidence (COE) was assessed by one reviewer and verified by consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: From 11 993 citations, 46 RCTs evaluating vaginal estrogen (k = 22), nonestrogen hormones (k = 16), vaginal moisturizers (k = 4), or multiple interventions (k = 4) were identified. Variation in populations, interventions, comparators, and outcomes precluded meta-analysis. Compared with placebo or no treatment, vaginal estrogen may improve vulvovaginal dryness, dyspareunia, most bothersome symptom, and treatment satisfaction. Compared with placebo, vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) may improve dryness, dyspareunia, and distress, bother, or interference from genitourinary symptoms; oral ospemifene may improve dryness, dyspareunia, and treatment satisfaction; and vaginal moisturizers may improve dryness (all low COE). Vaginal testosterone, systemic DHEA, vaginal oxytocin, and oral raloxifene or bazedoxifene may provide no benefit (low COE) or had uncertain effects (very low COE). Although studies did not report frequent serious harms, reporting was limited by short-duration studies that were insufficiently powered to evaluate infrequent serious harms. LIMITATIONS: Most studies were 12 weeks or less in duration and used heterogeneous GSM diagnostic criteria and outcome measures. Few studies enrolled women with a history of cancer. CONCLUSION: Vaginal estrogen, vaginal DHEA, oral ospemifene, and vaginal moisturizers may improve some GSM symptoms in the short term. Few long-term data exist on efficacy, comparative effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of GSM treatments. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. (PROSPERO: CRD42023400684).
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Newer diabetes medications may have beneficial effects on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and renal outcomes. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and harms of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, and long-acting insulins as monotherapy or combination therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2010 through January 2023. STUDY SELECTION: RCTs lasting at least 52 weeks that included at least 500 adults with T2DM receiving eligible medications and reported any outcomes of interest. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE) were done. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 130 publications from 84 RCTs were identified. CoE was appraised using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria for direct, indirect, and network meta-analysis (NMA); the highest CoE was reported. Compared with usual care, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (high CoE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (moderate to high CoE), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure hospitalizations and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke (high CoE), and SGLT2 inhibitors reduce serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia (high CoE). The threshold for minimally important differences, which was predefined with the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee, was not met for these outcomes. Compared with usual care, insulin, tirzepatide, and DPP4 inhibitors do not reduce all-cause mortality (low to high CoE). Compared with insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (low to moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors, GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors and sulfonylurea (SU), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce MACE (moderate to high CoE). Compared with SU and insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce severe hypoglycemia (low to high CoE). LIMITATIONS: Infrequent direct comparisons between drugs of interest; sparse data for NMA on most outcomes; possible incoherence due to differences in baseline patient characteristics and usual care; insufficient data on predefined subgroups, including demographic subgroups, patients with prior cardiovascular disease, and treatment-naive persons. CONCLUSION: In adults with T2DM, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists (but not DPP4 inhibitors, insulin, or tirzepatide) reduce all-cause mortality and MACE compared with usual care. SGLT2 inhibitors reduce CKD progression and heart failure hospitalization and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke compared with usual care. Serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia are less frequent with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists than with insulin or SU. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022322129).
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Inhibidores de la Dipeptidil-Peptidasa IV , Hipoglucemiantes , Metaanálisis en Red , Inhibidores del Cotransportador de Sodio-Glucosa 2 , Humanos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Inhibidores de la Dipeptidil-Peptidasa IV/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores de la Dipeptidil-Peptidasa IV/efectos adversos , Inhibidores del Cotransportador de Sodio-Glucosa 2/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores del Cotransportador de Sodio-Glucosa 2/efectos adversos , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Hipoglucemiantes/efectos adversos , Insulina/uso terapéutico , Adulto , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/prevención & control , Péptido 1 Similar al Glucagón/agonistas , Hipoglucemia/inducido químicamente , Quimioterapia CombinadaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In the United States, costs of antidiabetes medications exceed $327 billion. PURPOSE: To systematically review cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of newer antidiabetes medications for type 2 diabetes. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases from 1 January 2010 through 13 July 2023, limited to English. STUDY SELECTION: Nonindustry-funded CEAs, done from a U.S. perspective that estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for newer antidiabetic medications. Two reviewers screened the literature; disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. DATA EXTRACTION: Cost-effectiveness analyses were reviewed for treatment comparisons, model inputs, and outcomes. Risk of bias (RoB) of the CEAs was assessed using Drummond criteria and certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations). Certainty of evidence was determined using cost per QALY thresholds predetermined by the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee; low (>$150 000), intermediate ($50 to $150 000), or high (<$50 000) value per QALY compared with the alternative. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nine CEAs were eligible (2 low, 1 high, and 6 some concerns RoB), evaluating glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP1a), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide agonist (GIP/GLP1a), and insulin. Comparators were metformin, sulfonylureas, neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, and others. Compared with metformin, GLP1a and SGLT2i are low value as first-line therapy (high CoE) but may be of intermediate value when added to metformin or background therapy compared with adding nothing (low CoE). Insulin analogues may be similarly effective but more expensive than NPH insulin (low CoE). The GIP/GLP1a value is uncertain (insufficient CoE). LIMITATIONS: Cost-effectiveness analyses varied in methodological approach, assumptions, and drug comparisons. Risk of bias and GRADE method for CEAs are not well established. CONCLUSION: Glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists and SGLT2i are of low value as first-line therapy but may be of intermediate value when added to metformin or other background therapy compared with adding nothing. Other drugs and comparisons are of low or uncertain value. Results are sensitive to drug effectiveness and cost assumptions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022382315).