No abstract

No abstract

Background: Bacterial vaginosis is a frequent source of vaginal infection among reproductive-aged women. Astodrimer gel is a novel drug which demonstrated favourable outcomes for treatment of patients with bacterial vaginosis. Aim:We attempted to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the efficacy and safety of astodrimer gel in patients with bacterial vaginosis. Methods:We searched four databases from inception to August 15, 2020, using relevant keywords. We identified all RCTs which surveyed the efficacy and safety of astodrimer gel in treating patients with bacterial vaginosis. We appraised the quality of the included RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. We pooled dichotomous outcomes as numbers and totals and reported them as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) under random-or fixed-effects meta-analysis models depending on heterogeneity.Results: Three eligible studies comprising four independent RCTs and 1165 patients were identified (614 and 551 patients received astodrimer gel and placebo, respectively). For efficacy outcomes (n = 320 astodrimer gel versus n = 260 placebo), astodrimer gel was significantly superior to placebo for all pooled efficacy outcomes, including clinical cure rate (at 9-12 and 21-30 days), microbiological Nugent cure rate (at 9-12 and 21-30 days), patient self-reported absence of vaginal odor/discharge (at 9-12 and 21-30 days), resolution of Amsel criteria (at 9-12 days) and percentage of patients who did not receive rescue therapy during study. With respect to safety outcomes (n = 614 astodrimer gel versus n = 551 placebo), astodrimer gel demonstrated equal tolerability to placebo for all pooled safety endpoints, expect unfavourably for vulvovaginal candidiasis and treatment-related vulvovaginal candidiasis.Conclusions: Astodrimer gel is effective in treating bacterial vaginosis and corroborated by clinical (Amsel criteria) and microbiological (Nugent score) measurements

No abstract

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of prophylactic tranexamic acid (TXA) versus a control (placebo or no treatment) during hysterectomy for benign conditions. Six databases were screened from inception to January 23, 2022. Eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. Outcomes were summarized as weighted mean differences and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals in a random-effects model. Five studies, comprising six arms and 911 patients were included in the study. Two and three studies had an overall unclear and low risk of bias, respectively. Estimated intraoperative blood loss, requirement for postoperative blood transfusion, and requirement for intraoperative topical hemostatic agents were significantly reduced in a prophylactic TXA group when compared with a control group. Moreover, postoperative hemoglobin level was significantly higher in the prophylactic TXA group than in the control group. Conversely, the frequency of self-limiting nausea and vomiting was significantly higher in the prophylactic TXA group than in the control group. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of surgery duration, hospital stay, and diarrhea rate. All the RCTs reported no incidence of major adverse events in either group, such as mortality, thromboembolic events, visual disturbances, or seizures. There was no publication bias for any outcome, and leave-one-out sensitivity analyses demonstrated stability of the findings. Among patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign conditions, prophylactic TXA appeared largely safe and correlated with substantial reductions in estimated intraoperative blood loss and related morbidities.