Background Pain ratings reported by patients with cancer continue to increase, and numerous computer and phone apps for managing cancer-related pain have been developed recently; however, whether these apps effectively alleviate patients’ pain remains unknown. Objective This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the role of mobile apps in the management of cancer pain. Methods Literature on the use of apps for cancer pain management and interventions, published before August 2019, was retrieved from the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycINFO. The effects of apps on cancer pain were evaluated using RevMan5.3 software, and the rates of adverse drug reactions were analyzed using the R Statistical Software Package 3.5.3. Results A total of 13 studies were selected for the analysis: 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 4 before-after studies, 2 single-arm trials, 1 prospective cohort study, and 1 prospective descriptive study. The 5 RCTs reported data for 487 patients (240 patients in the intervention group and 247 patients in the control group), and the remaining studies reported data for 428 patients. We conducted a meta-analysis of the RCTs. According to the meta-analysis, apps can significantly reduce pain scores (mean difference [MD]=–0.50, 95% CI –0.94 to –0.07, I2=62%, P=.02). We then used apps that have an instant messaging module for subgroup analysis; these apps significantly reduced patients’ pain scores (MD=–0.67, 95% CI –1.06 to –0.28, I2=57%, P<.01). Patients using apps without an instant messaging module did not see a reduction in the pain score (MD=0.30, 95% CI –1.31 to 1.92, I2=70%, P=.71). Overall, patients were highly satisfied with using apps. Other outcomes, such as pain catastrophizing or quality of life, demonstrated greater improvement in patients using apps with instant messaging modules compared with patients not using an app. Conclusions The use of apps with instant messaging modules is associated with reduced pain scores in patients with cancer-related pain, and patient acceptance of these apps is high. Apps without instant messaging modules are associated with relatively higher pain scores. The presence of an instant messaging module may be a key factor affecting the effect of an app on cancer pain.
Background Controlled studies and observational studies have shown that sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) are beneficial for the survival of patients with heart failure (HF). However, it is unclear whether SGLT-2i can provide benefit in patients with other cardiovascular diseases. Here, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the outcomes of cardiovascular, renal, and safety outcomes of SGLT-2i administration in patients with cardiovascular diseases. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for randomised controlled trials written in English from inception until November 1, 2020. Two reviewers independently identified randomised controlled trials comparing the effects of SGLT-2i in patients with cardiovascular disease with or without diabetes. Primary outcomes were cardiovascular outcomes and renal outcomes. Secondary outcomes were safety outcomes, including adverse endocrine outcomes and adverse infection outcomes. The effects of SGLT-2i were evaluated using RevMan5.3 software. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess study quality. Results We identified 10 randomised controlled trials (25,108 patients in the SGLT-2i group and 18,574 patients in the placebo group). Meta-analysis revealed that SGLT-2i treatment significantly reduced all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalisation for heart failure (HHF) in patients with cardiovascular disease (all-cause mortality relative risk [RR]: 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81–0.91; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%; cardiovascular mortality RR: 0.85; 95% CI 0.79–0.92; P < 0.0001; I2 = 26%; HHF RR: 0.69; 95% CI 0.64–0.81; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%). In patients with HF, mortality and HHF after SGLT-2i treatment for HF with reduced ejection fraction were significantly reduced, whereas HF with preserved ejection fraction did not differ compared with placebo treatment. Moreover, SGLT-2i induced a lower incidence of renal damage and myocardial infarction than the placebo group; however, the risk of infection, amputation, volume depletion, and diabetic ketoacidosis was higher. Conclusions SGLT-2i had significant clinical effects on cardiovascular outcomes and significantly influenced acute kidney injury. The effects of SGLT-2i on cardiovascular disease were independent of diabetic status. Sotagliflozin could have advantages over other SGLT-2i in lowering HHF.
Background: This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to provide a complete hepatotoxicity profile, hepatotoxicity spectrum, and safety ranking of immune checkpoint inhibitor drugs for cancer treatment. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, psycINFO, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. websites were searched, and a manual search of relevant reviews and trials up to January 1, 2022, was undertaken. Head-to-head III randomized controlled trials comparing any 2 or 3 of the following treatments or different doses of the same immune checkpoint inhibitor drug were included: programmed death 1 (PD-1), programmed death ligand 1, and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors and conventional therapy. We included 106 randomized trials (n=164,782) containing 17 treatment arms. Results: The overall incidence of hepatotoxicity was 4.06%. The rate of fatal liver adverse events was 0.07%. The programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor+targeted therapy drug+chemotherapy group had the highest risk of treatment-related increases in all-grade alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels, and the differences were significant. For immune-related hepatotoxicity, no significant difference was found between PD-1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors for all-grade hepatotoxicity; however, CTLA-4 inhibitors were associated with a higher risk of grade 3–5 hepatotoxicity than PD-1 inhibitors. Conclusions: The highest incidence of hepatotoxicity and fatality was observed with triple therapy. The overall incidence of hepatotoxicity was similar between different dual regimens. For immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy, the overall risk of immune-mediated hepatotoxicity related to CTLA-4 inhibitors did not differ significantly from that of PD-1 inhibitors. There was no direct relationship between the risk of liver injury and drug dose, whether monotherapy or combination therapy was used.
BACKGROUND Pain ratings reported by patients with cancer continue to increase, and numerous computer and phone apps for managing cancer-related pain have been developed recently; however, whether these apps effectively alleviate patients’ pain remains unknown. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the role of mobile apps in the management of cancer pain. METHODS Literature on the use of apps for cancer pain management and interventions, published before August 2019, was retrieved from the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycINFO. The effects of apps on cancer pain were evaluated using RevMan5.3 software, and the rates of adverse drug reactions were analyzed using the R Statistical Software Package 3.5.3. RESULTS A total of 13 studies were selected for the analysis: 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 4 before-after studies, 2 single-arm trials, 1 prospective cohort study, and 1 prospective descriptive study. The 5 RCTs reported data for 487 patients (240 patients in the intervention group and 247 patients in the control group), and the remaining studies reported data for 428 patients. We conducted a meta-analysis of the RCTs. According to the meta-analysis, apps can significantly reduce pain scores (mean difference [MD]=–0.50, 95% CI –0.94 to –0.07, I<sup>2</sup>=62%, <i>P</i>=.02). We then used apps that have an instant messaging module for subgroup analysis; these apps significantly reduced patients’ pain scores (MD=–0.67, 95% CI –1.06 to –0.28, I<sup>2</sup>=57%, <i>P</i><.01). Patients using apps without an instant messaging module did not see a reduction in the pain score (MD=0.30, 95% CI –1.31 to 1.92, I<sup>2</sup>=70%, <i>P</i>=.71). Overall, patients were highly satisfied with using apps. Other outcomes, such as pain catastrophizing or quality of life, demonstrated greater improvement in patients using apps with instant messaging modules compared with patients not using an app. CONCLUSIONS The use of apps with instant messaging modules is associated with reduced pain scores in patients with cancer-related pain, and patient acceptance of these apps is high. Apps without instant messaging modules are associated with relatively higher pain scores. The presence of an instant messaging module may be a key factor affecting the effect of an app on cancer pain.
BACKGROUND An increasing number of patients have received prophylactic or therapeutic oral anticoagulants (OACs) for thromboembolic complications of diseases. The use of OACs is associated with both clinical benefits and risks. Considering the challenges imposed by this class of drugs, as well as the enormous progress made in portable device technology, it is possible that technology-based interventions may improve clinical benefits for patients and optimize anticoagulation management. OBJECTIVE This study was designed to comprehensively evaluate the role of technology-based interventions in the management of OACs. METHODS We searched 6 databases—PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus, and PsycINFO—to retrieve relevant studies published as of November 1, 2019, to evaluate the effect of technology-based interventions on oral anticoagulation management. RevMan (version 5.3; Cochrane) software was used to evaluate and analyze clinical outcomes. The methodological quality of studies was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS A total of 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected for analysis. They reported data for 2218 patients (1110 patients in the intervention groups and 1108 patients in the control groups). A meta-analysis was performed on the effectiveness and safety data reported in the RCTs. Technology-based interventions significantly improved the effectiveness of oral anticoagulation management (mean difference [MD]=6.07; 95% CI 0.84-11.30; I2=72%; P=.02). The safety of oral anticoagulation management was also improved, but the results were not statistically significant. Bleeding events were reduced (major bleeding events MD=1.02; 95% CI 0.78-1.32; I2=0%; P=.90; minor bleeding events MD=1.06, 95% CI 0.77-1.44; I2=41%; P=.73) and thromboembolism events were reduced (MD=0.71; 95% CI 0.49-1.01; I2=0%; P=.06). In general, patients were more satisfied with technology-based interventions, which could also improve their knowledge of anticoagulation management, improve their quality of life, and reduce mortality and hospitalization events. CONCLUSIONS Using technology to manage OACs can improve the effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulation management, result in higher patient satisfaction, and allow greater understanding of anticoagulation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.