No abstract

Objective: A network meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials was conducted to investigate the effects of pharmacological interventions on smoking cessation.Methods: English databases were searched to obtain randomized controlled trials reporting the effect of pharmacological interventions on smoking cessation. The risk of bias for the included trials was assessed using Cochrane Handbook tool. Stata 15.1 software was used to perform network meta-analysis, and GRADE approach was used to assess the evidence credibility on the effects of different interventions on smoking cessation.Results: A total of 159 studies involving 60,285 smokers were included in the network meta-analysis. The analysis involved 15 interventions and which yielded 105 pairs of comparisons. Network meta-analysis showed that varenicline was more helpful for smoking cessation than other monotherapies, such as nicotine replacement therapy [Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.16, 1.73)] and bupropion [OR = 1.52, 95% CI (1.22, 1.89)]. Furthermore, combined interventions were superior to monotherapy in achieving smoking cessation, such as varenicline plus bupropion over bupropion [OR = 2.00, 95% CI (1.11, 3.61)], varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy over nicotine replacement therapy [OR = 1.84, 95% CI (1.07, 3.18)], and nicotine replacement therapy plus mecamylamine over naltrexone [OR = 6.29, 95% CI (1.59, 24.90)]. Finally, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value indicated that nicotine replacement therapy plus mecamylamine had the greatest probability of becoming the best intervention.Conclusion: Most pharmacological interventions demonstrated a benefit in smoking cessation compared with placebo, whether monotherapy or combination therapy. Moreover, confirmed evidence suggested that some combination treatments, such as varenicline plus bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy plus mecamylamine have a higher probability of being the best smoking cessation in

Background: Pharmacotherapies are widely used for smoking cessation. However, their efficacy for people with alcohol dependence remains unclear.Objective: This study aimed to explore the effects of pharmacotherapies on smoking cessation for people with alcohol dependence.Methods: Five electronic databases were searched in January 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the use of pharmacotherapies to promote smoking cessation in people with alcohol dependence. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. RevMan version 5.3 was used to perform meta-analyses of the changes in smoking behaviour, and the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. Results:The search identified nine RCTs involving 908 smokers with alcohol dependence; eight were published in the USA and one in Canada. The risk of bias was low in three studies and unclear in the remaining six. The meta-analysis results showed that, compared with the placebo group, Varenicline had a significant effect on short-term smoking cessation (three RCTs, odds ratio [OR] = 6.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]:[2.49, 15.78], P < .05, very low certainty). Naltrexone had no significant effect on smoking cessation in short-term or long-term observations (three RCTs, OR = 0.99, 95% CI: [0.54, 1.81], P = .97, moderate certainty), and Topiramate had no significant effects (two RCTs, OR = 1.56, 95% CI: [0.67, 3.46], P > .05, low certainty). Only one trial reported that Bupropion did not affect smoking cessation. Conclusion:Varenicline may promote smoking cessation in people with alcohol dependence. However, Naltrexone, Topiramate and Bupropion have no clear effect on increasing smoking abstinence among drinkers. The small number of studies and the low certainty of evidence indicate that the results should be interpreted cautiously. How to cite this article: Guo K, Li J, Li J, et al. The effects of pharmacological interventions on smoking cessation in people with alcohol dependence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of nine randomized controlled trials.

No abstract

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of probiotics in the treatment of constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-C), we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing probiotic care versus placebos for patients with IBS-C in five comprehensive databases (March 2022). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. RevMan 5.3 was used to perform a meta-analysis on stool consistency, abdominal pain, bloating, quality of life (QoL), fecal Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus counts, and adverse events. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Ten RCTs involving 757 patients were included. Only three studies were rated as having a low risk of bias. The meta-analysis results show that, compared to the placebo, probiotics significantly improved stool consistency (MD = 0.72, 95% CI (0.18, 1.26), p < 0.05, low quality) and increased the number of fecal Bifidobacteria (MD = 1.75, 95% CI (1.51, 2.00), p < 0.05, low quality) and Lactobacillus (MD = 1.69, 95% CI (1.48, 1.89), p < 0.05, low quality), while no significant differences were found in abdominal pain scores, bloating scores, QoL scores, or the incidence of adverse events (p > 0.05). The low-to-very low certainty evidence suggests that probiotics might improve the stool consistency of patients with IBS-C and increase the number of Bifidobacteria and Lactobacilli in feces with good safety. However, more high-quality studies with large samples are needed to verify the findings.