[i] Lancet Infect Dis. 2007 Jul;7(7):473-80. Links

 

Erratum in:

Lancet Infect Dis. 2007 Sep;7(9):580.

Comment in:

Lancet Infect Dis. 2008 Jun;8(6):346-7; author reply 347-8.

Evaluation of echinacea for the prevention and treatment of the common cold: a meta-analysis.Shah SA, Sander S, White CM, Rinaldi M, Coleman CI.

University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy, Storrs, CT, USA.

 

Echinacea is one of the most commonly used herbal products, but controversy exists about its benefit in the prevention and treatment of the common cold. Thus, we did a meta-analysis evaluating the effect of echinacea on the incidence and duration of the common cold. 14 unique studies were included in the meta-analysis. Incidence of the common cold was reported as an odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI, and duration of the common cold was reported as the weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI. Weighted averages and mean differences were calculated by a random-effects model (DerSimonian-Laird methodology). Heterogeneity was assessed by the Q statistic and review of L'Abbé plots, and publication bias was assessed through the Egger weighted regression statistic and visual inspection of funnel plots. Echinacea decreased the odds of developing the common cold by 58% (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.25-0.71; Q statistic p<0.001) and the duration of a cold by 1.4 days (WMD -1.44, -2.24 to -0.64; p=0.01). Similarly, significant reductions were maintained in subgroup analyses limited to Echinaguard/Echinacin use, concomitant supplement use, method of cold exposure, Jadad scores less than 3, or use of a fixed-effects model. Published evidence supports echinacea's benefit in decreasing the incidence and duration of the common cold.

 

PMID: 17597571

[ii] Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jan 21;(1):CD003120. Links

 

Update of:

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):CD003120.

Ginkgo biloba for cognitive impairment and dementia.Birks J, Grimley Evans J.

Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Wolfson College, Linton Road, Oxford, UK, OX2 6UD. jacqueline.birks@csm.ox.ac.uk

 

BACKGROUND: Extracts of the leaves of the maidenhair tree, Ginkgo biloba, have long been used in China as a traditional medicine for various disorders of health. A standardized extract is widely prescribed for the treatment of a range of conditions including memory and concentration problems, confusion, depression, anxiety, dizziness, tinnitus and headache. The mechanisms of action are thought to reflect the action of several components of the extract and include increasing blood supply by dilating blood vessels, reducing blood viscosity, modification of neurotransmitter systems, and reducing the density of oxygen free radicals. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of Ginkgo biloba for dementia or cognitive decline. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (CDCIG), The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS were searched on 20 September 2007 using the terms: ginkgo*, tanakan, EGB-761, EGB761, "EGB 761" and gingko*. The CDCIG Specialized Register contains records from all major health care databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS) as well as from many trials databases and grey literature sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized, double-blind studies, in which extracts of Ginkgo biloba at any strength and over any period were compared with placebo for their effects on people with acquired cognitive impairment, including dementia, of any degree of severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted from the published reports of the included studies, pooled where appropriate and the treatment effects or the risks and benefits estimated. MAIN RESULTS: 36 trials were included but most were small and of duration less than three months. Nine trials were of six months duration (2016 patients). These longer trials were the more recent trials and generally were of adequate size, and conducted to a reasonable standard. Most trials tested the same standardised preparation of Ginkgo biloba, EGb 761, at different doses, which are classified as high or low. The results from the more recent trials showed inconsistent results for cognition, activities of daily living, mood, depression and carer burden. Of the four most recent trials to report results three found no difference between Ginkgo biloba and placebo, and one found very large treatment effects in favour of Ginkgo biloba.There are no significant differences between Ginkgo biloba and placebo in the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events.A subgroup analysis including only patients diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease (925 patients from nine trials) also showed no consistent pattern of any benefit associated with Ginkgo biloba. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Ginkgo biloba appears to be safe in use with no excess side effects compared with placebo. Many of the early trials used unsatisfactory methods, were small, and publication bias cannot be excluded. The evidence that Ginkgo biloba has predictable and clinically significant benefit for people with dementia or cognitive impairment is inconsistent and unreliable.

 

PMID: 19160216

[iii] Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008 Feb;16(2):137-62. Links

 

Comment in:

Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008 Dec;16(12):1585; author reply 1589.

Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008 Dec;16(12):1586-7; author reply 1588.

OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, Part II: OARSI evidence-based, expert consensus guidelines.Zhang W, Moskowitz RW, Nuki G, Abramson S, Altman RD, Arden N, Bierma-Zeinstra S, Brandt KD, Croft P, Doherty M, Dougados M, Hochberg M, Hunter DJ, Kwoh K, Lohmander LS, Tugwell P.

University of Edinburgh, Osteoarticular Research Group, The Queen's Medical Research Institute, 47 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh EH16 4TJ, United Kingdom.

 

PURPOSE: To develop concise, patient-focussed, up to date, evidence-based, expert consensus recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), which are adaptable and designed to assist physicians and allied health care professionals in general and specialist practise throughout the world. METHODS: Sixteen experts from four medical disciplines (primary care, rheumatology, orthopaedics and evidence-based medicine), two continents and six countries (USA, UK, France, Netherlands, Sweden and Canada) formed the guidelines development team. A systematic review of existing guidelines for the management of hip and knee OA published between 1945 and January 2006 was undertaken using the validated appraisal of guidelines research and evaluation (AGREE) instrument. A core set of management modalities was generated based on the agreement between guidelines. Evidence before 2002 was based on a systematic review conducted by European League Against Rheumatism and evidence after 2002 was updated using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, the Cochrane Library and HTA reports. The quality of evidence was evaluated, and where possible, effect size (ES), number needed to treat, relative risk or odds ratio and cost per quality-adjusted life years gained were estimated. Consensus recommendations were produced following a Delphi exercise and the strength of recommendation (SOR) for propositions relating to each modality was determined using a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: Twenty-three treatment guidelines for the management of hip and knee OA were identified from the literature search, including six opinion-based, five evidence-based and 12 based on both expert opinion and research evidence. Twenty out of 51 treatment modalities addressed by these guidelines were universally recommended. ES for pain relief varied from treatment to treatment. Overall there was no statistically significant difference between non-pharmacological therapies [0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16, 0.34] and pharmacological therapies (ES=0.39, 95% CI 0.31, 0.47). Following feedback from Osteoarthritis Research International members on the draft guidelines and six Delphi rounds consensus was reached on 25 carefully worded recommendations. Optimal management of patients with OA hip or knee requires a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological modalities of therapy. Recommendations cover the use of 12 non-pharmacological modalities: education and self-management, regular telephone contact, referral to a physical therapist, aerobic, muscle strengthening and water-based exercises, weight reduction, walking aids, knee braces, footwear and insoles, thermal modalities, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and acupuncture. Eight recommendations cover pharmacological modalities of treatment including acetaminophen, cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) non-selective and selective oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), topical NSAIDs and capsaicin, intra-articular injections of corticosteroids and hyaluronates, glucosamine and/or chondroitin sulphate for symptom relief; glucosamine sulphate, chondroitin sulphate and diacerein for possible structure-modifying effects and the use of opioid analgesics for the treatment of refractory pain. There are recommendations covering five surgical modalities: total joint replacements, unicompartmental knee replacement, osteotomy and joint preserving surgical procedures; joint lavage and arthroscopic debridement in knee OA, and joint fusion as a salvage procedure when joint replacement had failed. Strengths of recommendation and 95% CIs are provided. CONCLUSION: Twenty-five carefully worded recommendations have been generated based on a critical appraisal of existing guidelines, a systematic review of research evidence and the consensus opinions of an international, multidisciplinary group of experts. The recommendations may be adapted for use in different countries or regions according to the availability of treatment modalities and SOR for each modality of therapy. These recommendations will be revised regularly following systematic review of new research evidence as this becomes available.

 

PMID: 18279766

[iv] Pharmacol Res. 2008 Jul;58(1):8-14. Epub 2008 Jun 8. Links

Black cohosh (Cimicifuga racemosa) for menopausal symptoms: a systematic review of its efficacy.Borrelli F, Ernst E.

Department of Experimental Pharmacology, University of Naples Federico II, Via D. Montesano 49, 80131 Naples, Italy. franborr@unina.it

 

Since conventional hormone replacement therapy has fallen out of favour, alternatives are being sought by many women. These therapies include herbal preparations such as black cohosh (Cimicifuga racemosa). The purpose of this update of a previous systematic review is to evaluate the clinical evidence for or against the efficacy of black cohosh in alleviating menopausal symptoms. Five computerized databases (Medline, Embase, Amed, Phytobase and Cochrane Library) were searched to identify all clinical data that provided evidence on the efficacy of C. racemosa. Bibliographies of the articles thus located were scanned for further relevant publications. Only double blind, randomized, clinical trials (RCTs) were included in the evaluation of efficacy. No language restrictions were imposed. Trials were excluded if they did not focus on menopausal problems, they included women suffering medically induced menopause, they did not use black cohosh monopreparations, or they did not use placebo or a standard drug treatment for the control group. Six studies with a total of 1112 peri- and post-menopausal women met our inclusion criteria. The evidence from these RCTs does not consistently demonstrate an effect of black cohosh on menopausal symptoms; a beneficial effect of black cohosh on peri-menopausal women cannot be excluded. The efficacy of black cohosh as a treatment for menopausal symptoms is uncertain and further rigorous trials seem warranted.

 

PMID: 18585461

[v] Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Apr 15;(2):CD001423. Links

 

Update of:

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(3):CD001423.

Serenoa repens for benign prostatic hyperplasia.Tacklind J, MacDonald R, Rutks I, Wilt TJ.

Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research (111-0), Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, One Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55417, USA. james.tacklind@med.va.gov

 

BACKGROUND: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), a nonmalignant enlargement of the prostate, can lead to obstructive and irritative lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). The pharmacologic use of plants and herbs (phytotherapy) for the treatment of LUTS associated with BPH is common. The extract of the berry of the American saw palmetto, or dwarf palm plant, Serenoa repens (also known by its botanical name of Sabal serrulatum), is one of several phytotherapeutic agents available for the treatment of BPH. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to assess the effects of Serenoa repens in the treatment of LUTS consistent with BPH. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were searched in computerized general and specialized databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library), by checking bibliographies, and by handsearching the relevant literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were eligible if they (1) randomized men with symptomatic BPH to receive preparations of Serenoa repens (alone or in combination) for at least four weeks in comparison with placebo or other interventions, and (2) included clinical outcomes such as urologic symptom scales, symptoms, and urodynamic measurements. Eligibility was assessed by at least two independent observers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information on patients, interventions, and outcomes was extracted by at least two independent reviewers using a standard form. The main outcome measure for comparing the effectiveness of Serenoa repens with placebo or other interventions was the change in urologic symptom-scale scores. Secondary outcomes included changes in nocturia and urodynamic measures. The main outcome measure for side effects or adverse events was the number of men reporting side effects. MAIN RESULTS: In this update 9 new trials involving 2053 additional men (a 64.8% increase) have been included. For the main comparison - Serenoa repens versus placebo - 3 trials were added with 419 subjects and 3 endpoints (IPSS, peak urine flow, prostate size). Overall, 5222 subjects from 30 randomized trials lasting from 4 to 60 weeks were assessed. Twenty-six trials were double blinded and treatment allocation concealment was adequate in eighteen studies.Serenoa repens was not superior to placebo in improving IPSS urinary symptom scores, (WMD (weighted mean difference) -0.77 points, 95% CI -2.88 to 1.34, P > 0.05; 2 trials), finasteride (MD (mean difference) 0.40 points, 95% CI -0.57 to 1.37, P > 0.05; 1 trial), or tamsulosin (WMD -0.52 points, 95% CI -1.91 to 0.88, P > 0.05; 2 trials).For nocturia, Serenoa repens was significantly better than placebo (WMD -0.78 nocturnal visits, 95% CI -1.34 to -0.22, P < 0.05; 9 trials), but with the caveat of significant heterogeneity (I(2) = 66%). A sensitivity analysis, utilizing higher quality, larger trials (>/= 40 subjects), demonstrated no significant difference (WMD -0.31 nocturnal visits, 95% CI -0.70 to 0.08, P > 0.05; 5 trials) (I(2) = 11%). Serenoa repens was not superior to finasteride (MD -0.05 nocturnal visits, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.39, P > 0.05; 1 trial), or to tamsulosin (per cent improvement) (RR) (risk ratio) 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.27, P > 0.05; 1 trial).Comparing peak urine flow, Serenoa repens was not superior to placebo at trial endpoint (WMD 1.02 mL/s, 95% CI -0.14 to 2.19, P > 0.05; 10 trials), or by comparing mean change (WMD 0.31 mL/s, 95% CI -0.56 to 1.17, P > 0.05; 2 trials).Comparing prostate size at endpoint, there was no significant difference between Serenoa repens and placebo (MD -1.05 cc, 95% CI -8.84 to 6.75, P > 0.05; 2 trials), or by comparing mean change (MD -1.22 cc, 95% CI -3.91 to 1.47, P > 0.05; 1 trial). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Serenoa repens was not more effective than placebo for treatment of urinary symptoms consistent with BPH.

 

PMID: 19370565