-
1.
Mycotoxin-Linked Mutations and Cancer Risk: A Global Health Issue.
Ekwomadu, T, Mwanza, M, Musekiwa, A
International journal of environmental research and public health. 2022;19(13)
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Mycotoxins are toxic substances produced by fungi, which can be found in common foods like maize, wheat, nuts, and foods containing them. Mycotoxins such as aflatoxins, ochratoxin, fumonisins, zearalenone, and some Penicillium toxins can alter genetic material. According to previous studies, they can damage genetic material and affect cell growth. Usage of chemicals such as fertilizers and fungicides is a common practice in the agricultural industry to protect plants from fungus and to feed them. However, fungicides can accelerate mycotoxin production. 16 studies were included in this Systematic Review and 11 in Meta-Analysis. This research looked at the harmful effects of mycotoxins such as aflatoxins, fumonisins, ochratoxin, T2, zearalenone, and some Penicillium toxins in causing cancers. The researchers evaluated the link between aflatoxin exposure and liver cancer, fumonisin B1 exposure and liver cancer, zearalenone exposure and breast cancer, zearalenone exposure and cervical cancer, citrinine and patulin exposure and colorectal cancer, and NEO, HT-2, and T-2 exposure and Oesophageal cancer. This research did not show significant associations between various mycotoxins and cancer risk. As currently, most studies are primarily focused on aflatoxin; more robust studies are needed to assess the cancer risk associated with different mycotoxin exposure. Using the results of this study, healthcare professionals can gain a better understanding of how mycotoxins affect our bodies.
Abstract
Humans continue to be constantly exposed to mycotoxins, mainly through oral exposure (dietary), inhalation, or dermal contact. Recently, it has been of increasing interest to investigate mycotoxin-linked carcinogenicity. This systematic review was conducted to synthesize evidence of the association between mycotoxin-linked mutations and the risk of cancer, to provide an overview of the data linking exposure to different mycotoxins with human cancer risk, and to provide an update on current research on the risk of cancer associated with human exposure to mycotoxins. PRISMA guidelines were used when conducting the systematic review. PubMed, MEDLINE, and CINAHL electronic databases were comprehensively searched to extract the relevant studies published from inception to May 2022. A total of sixteen relevant studies (4907 participants) were identified and included in this review. Of these, twelve studies were from Asia, while four of the studies were conducted in Africa. The overall meta-analysis result found no significant association, although some of the studies confirmed an association between mycotoxin-linked mutations and primary liver cancer risk. Mainly, the experimental studies have shown associations between mycotoxin-linked mutations and cancer risk, and there is a need for researchers to confirm these links in epidemiological studies in order to guide public health policies and interventions.
-
2.
Interventions for preventing postpartum constipation.
Turawa, EB, Musekiwa, A, Rohwer, AC
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2020;(8):CD011625
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Postpartum constipation, with symptoms, such as pain or discomfort, straining, and hard stool, is a common condition affecting mothers. Haemorrhoids, pain at the episiotomy site, effects of pregnancy hormones, and haematinics used in pregnancy can increase the risk of postpartum constipation. Eating a high-fibre diet and increasing fluid intake are usually encouraged. Although laxatives are commonly used in relieving constipation, the effectiveness and safety of available interventions for preventing postpartum constipation should be ascertained. This is an update of a review first published in 2015. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of interventions for preventing postpartum constipation. SEARCH METHODS We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, and two trials registers ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (7 October 2019), and screened reference lists of retrieved trials. SELECTION CRITERIA We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any intervention for preventing postpartum constipation versus another intervention, placebo, or no intervention in postpartum women. Interventions could include pharmacological (e.g. laxatives) and non-pharmacological interventions (e.g. acupuncture, educational and behavioural interventions). Quasi-randomised trials and cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion; none were identified. Trials using a cross-over design were not eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened the results of the search to select potentially relevant trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence, using the GRADE approach. We did not pool results in a meta-analysis, but reported them per study. MAIN RESULTS We included five trials (1208 postpartum mothers); three RCTs and two quasi-RCTs. Four trials compared a laxative with placebo; one compared a laxative plus a bulking agent versus the same laxative alone, in women who underwent surgical repair of third degree perineal tears. Trials were poorly reported, and four of the five trials were published over 40 years ago. We judged the risk of bias to be unclear for most domains. Overall, we found a high risk of selection and attrition bias. Laxative versus placebo We included four trials in this comparison. Two of the trials examined the effects of laxatives that are no longer used; one has been found to have carcinogenic properties (Danthron), and the other is not recommended for lactating women (Bisoxatin acetate); therefore, we did not include their results in our main findings. None of the trials included in this comparison assessed our primary outcomes: pain or straining on defecation, incidence of postpartum constipation, or quality of life; or many of our secondary outcomes. A laxative (senna) may increase the number of women having their first bowel movement within 24 hours after delivery (risk ratio (RR) 2.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.24 to 3.75; 1 trial, 471 women; low-certainty evidence); may have little or no effect on the number of women having their first bowel movement on day one after delivery (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.22; 1 trial, 471 women; very low-certainty evidence); may reduce the number of women having their first bowel movement on day two (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.45; 1 trial, 471 women; low-certainty evidence); and day three (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.89; 1 trial, 471 women; low-certainty evidence); and may have little or no effect on the number of women having their first bowel movement on day four after delivery (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.87; 1 trial, 471 women; very low-certainty evidence), but some of the evidence is very uncertain. Adverse effects were poorly reported. Low-certainty evidence suggests that the laxative (senna) may increase the number of women experiencing abdominal cramps (RR 4.23, 95% CI 1.75 to 10.19; 1 trial, 471 women). Very low-certainty evidence suggests that laxatives taken by the mother may have little or no effect on loose stools in the baby (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.41; 1 trial, 281 babies); or diarrhoea (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.23 to 26.82; 1 trial, 281 babies). Laxative plus bulking agent versus laxative only Very low-certainty evidence from one trial (147 women) suggests no evidence of a difference between these two groups of women who underwent surgical repair of third degree perineal tears; only median and range data were reported. The trial also reported no evidence of a difference in the incidence of postpartum constipation (data not reported), but did not report on quality of life. Time to first bowel movement was reported as a median (range); very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference between the two groups. A laxative plus bulking agent may increase the number of women having any episode of faecal incontinence during the first 10 days postpartum (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.23; 1 trial, 147 women; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report on adverse effects of the intervention on babies, or many of our secondary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is insufficient evidence to make general conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of laxatives for preventing postpartum constipation. The evidence in this review was assessed as low to very low-certainty evidence, with downgrading decisions based on limitations in study design, indirectness and imprecision. We did not identify any trials assessing educational or behavioural interventions. We identified four trials that examined laxatives versus placebo, and one that examined laxatives versus laxatives plus stool bulking agents. Further, rigorous trials are needed to assess the effectiveness and safety of laxatives during the postpartum period for preventing constipation. Trials should assess educational and behavioural interventions, and positions that enhance defecation. They should report on the primary outcomes from this review: pain or straining on defecation, incidence of postpartum constipation, quality of life, time to first bowel movement after delivery, and adverse effects caused by the intervention, such as: nausea or vomiting, pain, and flatus.
-
3.
Ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) for home-based nutritional rehabilitation of severe acute malnutrition in children from six months to five years of age.
Schoonees, A, Lombard, MJ, Musekiwa, A, Nel, E, Volmink, J
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2019;(5):CD009000
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Management of severe acute malnutrition (SAM) in children comprises two potential phases: stabilisation and rehabilitation. During the initial stabilisation phase, children receive treatment for dehydration, electrolyte imbalances, intercurrent infections and other complications. In the rehabilitation phase (applicable to children presenting with uncomplicated SAM or those with complicated SAM after complications have been resolved), catch-up growth is the main focus and the recommended energy and protein requirements are much higher. In-hospital rehabilitation of children with SAM is not always desirable or practical - especially in rural settings - and home-based care can offer a better solution. Ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) is a widely used option for home-based rehabilitation, but the findings of our previous review were inconclusive. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of home-based RUTF used during the rehabilitation phase of SAM in children aged between six months and five years on recovery, relapse, mortality and rate of weight gain. SEARCH METHODS We searched the following databases in October 2018: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and three trials registers. We ran separate searches for cost-effectiveness studies, contacted researchers and healthcare professionals in the field, and checked bibliographies of included studies and relevant reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, where children aged between six months and five years with SAM were, during the rehabilitation phase, treated at home with RUTF compared to an alternative dietary approach, or with different regimens and formulations of RUTF compared to each other. We assessed recovery, deterioration or relapse and mortality as primary outcomes; and rate of weight gain, time to recovery, anthropometrical changes, cognitive development and function, adverse outcomes and acceptability as secondary outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We screened for eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of those included, independently and in duplicate. Where data allowed, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis using Review Manager 5, and investigated substantial heterogeneity through subgroup and sensitivity analyses. For the main outcomes, we evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE, and presented results in a 'Summary of findings' table per comparison. MAIN RESULTS We included 15 eligible studies (n = 7976; effective sample size = 6630), four of which were cluster trials. Eight studies were conducted in Malawi, four in India, and one apiece in Kenya, Zambia, and Cambodia. Six studies received funding or donations from industry whereas eight did not, and one study did not report the funding source.The overall risk of bias was high for six studies, unclear for three studies, and low for six studies. Among the 14 studies that contributed to meta-analyses, none (n = 5), some (n = 5) or all (n = 4) children were stabilised in hospital prior to commencement of the study. One small study included only children known to be HIV-infected, another study stratified the analysis for 'recovery' according to HIV status, while the remaining studies included HIV-uninfected or untested children. Across all studies, the intervention lasted between 8 and 16 weeks. Only five studies followed up children postintervention (maximum of six months), and generally reported on a limited number of outcomes.We found seven studies with 2261 children comparing home-based RUTF meeting the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for nutritional composition (referred to in this review as standard RUTF) with an alternative dietary approach (effective sample size = 1964). RUTF probably improves recovery (risk ratio (RR) 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16 to 1.54; 6 studies, 1852 children; moderate-quality evidence), and may increase the rate of weight gain slightly (mean difference (MD) 1.12 g/kg/day, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.96; 4 studies, 1450 children; low-quality evidence), but we do not know the effects on relapse (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.01; 4 studies, 1505 children; very low-quality evidence) and mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.16; 4 studies, 1505 children; very low-quality evidence).Two quasi-randomised cluster trials compared standard, home-based RUTF meeting total daily nutritional requirements with a similar RUTF but given as a supplement to the usual diet (213 children; effective sample size = 210). Meta-analysis showed that standard RUTF meeting total daily nutritional requirements may improve recovery (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.68; low-quality evidence) and reduce relapse (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.85; low-quality evidence), but the effects are unknown for mortality (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.46 to 4.04; very low-quality evidence) and rate of weight gain (MD 1.21 g/kg/day, 95% CI - 0.74 to 3.16; very low-quality evidence).Eight studies randomised 5502 children (effective sample size = 4456) and compared standard home-based RUTF with RUTFs of alternative formulations (e.g. using locally available ingredients, containing less or no milk powder, containing specific fatty acids, or with added pre- and probiotics). For recovery, it made little or no difference whether standard or alternative formulation RUTF was used (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.08; 6 studies, 4188 children; high-quality evidence). Standard RUTF decreases relapse (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98; 6 studies, 4188 children; high-quality evidence). However, it probably makes little or no difference to mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.24; 7 studies, 4309 children; moderate-quality evidence) and may make little or no difference to the rate of weight gain (MD 0.11 g/kg/day, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.54; 6 studies, 3807 children; low-quality evidence) whether standard or alternative formulation RUTF is used. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Compared to alternative dietary approaches, standard RUTF probably improves recovery and may increase rate of weight gain slightly, but the effects on relapse and mortality are unknown. Standard RUTF meeting total daily nutritional requirements may improve recovery and relapse compared to a similar RUTF given as a supplement to the usual diet, but the effects on mortality and rate of weight gain are not clear. When comparing RUTFs with different formulations, the current evidence does not favour a particular formulation, except for relapse, which is reduced with standard RUTF. Well-designed, adequately powered, pragmatic RCTs with standardised outcome measures, stratified by HIV status, and that include diarrhoea as an outcome, are needed.
-
4.
Interventions for preventing postpartum constipation.
Turawa, EB, Musekiwa, A, Rohwer, AC
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2015;(9):CD011625
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Postpartum constipation, with symptoms such as pain or discomfort, straining, and hard stool, is a common condition affecting mothers. Haemorrhoids, pain at the episiotomy site, effects of pregnancy hormones and haematinics used in pregnancy can increase the risk of postpartum constipation. Eating a high-fibre diet and increasing fluid intake is usually encouraged, although laxatives are commonly used in relieving constipation. The effectiveness and safety of available interventions for preventing postpartum constipation needs to be ascertained. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of interventions for preventing postpartum constipation. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2015), Stellenbosch University database, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov (30 April 2015) and reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any intervention for preventing postpartum constipation versus another intervention, placebo or no intervention. Interventions could include pharmacological (e.g. laxatives) and non-pharmacological interventions (e.g. acupuncture, educational and behavioural interventions).We included quasi-randomised trials. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Studies using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened the results of the search to select potentially relevant studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Results were pooled in a meta-analysis only where there was no substantial statistical heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS We included five trials (1208 postpartum mothers); four compared a laxative with placebo and one compared a laxative alone versus the same laxative plus a bulking agent in women who underwent surgical repair of third degree perineal tears. Trials were poorly reported and risk of bias was unclear for most domains. Overall, there was a high risk of selection and attrition bias. Laxative versus placeboNone of the four trials included in this comparison assessed any of our pre-specified primary outcomes (pain or straining on defecation, incidence of postpartum constipation or changes in quality of life).All four trials reported time to first bowel movement (not pre-specified in our protocol). In one trial, more women in the laxative group had their first bowel movement less than 24 hours after delivery compared to women in the placebo group (risk ratio (RR) 2.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.24 to 3.75, 471 women). Individual trials also reported inconsistent results for days one, two and three after delivery. Pooled results of two trials showed that fewer women in the laxative group were having their first bowel movement at day four compared with controls (average RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.61, 671 women).Regarding secondary outcomes, no trials reported on stool consistency using the Bristol stool form scale orrelief of abdominal pain/discomfort . One trial reported the number of women having loose or watery stools and there were more women who experienced this in the laxative group compared to the placebo group (RR 26.96, 95% CI 3.81 to 191.03, 106 women). One trial found no clear difference in the number of enemas between groups (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.05, 244 women). One trial reported more women having more than two bowel movements per day in the laxative compared to the placebo group (RR 26.02, 95% CI 1.59 to 426.73, 106 women). Adverse effects were poorly reported; two trials reported the number of women having abdominal cramps, but their results could not be pooled in a meta-analysis due to substantial statistical heterogeneity. In one trial, more women in the laxative group had abdominal cramps compared to the placebo group (RR 4.23, 95% CI 1.75 to 10.19, 471 women), while the other trial showed no difference between groups (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.20, 200 women). With regards to adverse effects of the intervention on the baby , one trial found no difference in the incidence of loose stools (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.41, 281 women) or diarrhoea (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.23 to 26.82, 281 women) between the two groups. Laxative versus laxative plus bulking agentOnly one trial was included in this comparison and reported on pain or straining on defecation in women who underwent surgical repair of third degree perineal tears; there was no reported difference between groups (median (range) data only). No difference was reported in the incidence of postpartum constipation (data not reported) and the outcome changes in quality of life was not mentioned.Time to first bowel movement was reported as a median (range) with no difference between the two groups. In terms of adverse effects , women in the laxative plus stool-bulking group were reported to be at a greater risk of faecal incontinence during the immediate postpartum period (median (range) data only). However the number of women having any episode of faecal incontinence during first 10 days postpartum was reported with no clear difference between the two groups (14/77 (18.2%) versus 23/70 (32.9%), RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.99, 147 women). The trial did not report on adverse effects of the intervention on the babies.The trial reported none of the following pre-specified secondary outcomes: stool consistency using Bristol stool form scale , use of alternative products , laxative agents , enemas , relief of abdominal pain/discomfort and stool frequency . AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We did not identify any trials assessing educational or behavioural interventions. We identified four trials that examined laxatives versus placebo and one that examined laxatives versus laxatives plus stool bulking agents. Results from trials were inconsistent and there is insufficient evidence to make general conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of laxatives.Further rigorous trials are needed to assess the effectiveness and safety of laxatives during the postpartum period for preventing constipation. Trials assessing educational and behavioural interventions and positions that enhance defecation are also needed. Future trials should report on the following important outcomes: pain or straining on defecation; incidence of postpartum constipation, quality of life, time to first bowel movement after delivery, and adverse effects caused by the intervention such as: nausea or vomiting, pain and flatus.
-
5.
Interventions for treating postpartum constipation.
Turawa, EB, Musekiwa, A, Rohwer, AC
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2014;(9):CD010273
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Constipation is a functional bowel disorder that can reduce quality of life in the puerperium period. The diagnosis of postpartum constipation is both subjective and objective. It is characterised by symptoms such as pain or discomfort, straining, hard lumpy stools and a sense of incomplete bowel evacuation. Haemorrhoids, pain at the episiotomy site, effects of pregnancy hormones and hematinics used in pregnancy can increase the risk of postpartum constipation. Although a high fibre diet and increased fluid intake is encouraged to assist defecation in the puerperium, pain-relieving drugs and laxatives are common drugs of choice to alleviate constipation. However, the effectiveness and safety of laxatives on the nursing mother need to be ascertained. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for treating postpartum constipation. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 March 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov), the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry platform (ICTRP), the ProQuest database, Stellenbosch University database and Google Scholar (28 March 2014). We also searched the reference lists of potentially relevant studies identified by the search, reviewed articles for relevant trials and contacted experts to identify any additional published or unpublished trials (10 April 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA All randomised controlled trials comparing any intervention for the treatment of postpartum constipation to another intervention, placebo or no intervention.Interventions could include laxatives, surgery, as well as educational and behavioural interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened the results of the search to select potentially relevant studies using pre-designed eligibility inclusion criteria. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion. We did not identify any studies for inclusion. MAIN RESULTS We did not identify any studies that met our inclusion criteria. We excluded nine studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We could not make explicit conclusions on interventions for treating postpartum constipation because we found no studies for inclusion in this review. Rigorous and well-conducted large randomised controlled trials aimed at treating postpartum women diagnosed with constipation would be beneficial. These trials should also address the criteria for administering the intervention (time and stage of a diagnosis of postpartum constipation), and the safety and effectiveness of such interventions.
-
6.
Ready-to-use therapeutic food for home-based treatment of severe acute malnutrition in children from six months to five years of age.
Schoonees, A, Lombard, M, Musekiwa, A, Nel, E, Volmink, J
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2013;(6):CD009000
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Malnourished children have a higher risk of death and illness. Treating severe acute malnourished children in hospitals is not always desirable or practical in rural settings, and home treatment may be better. Home treatment can be food prepared by the carer, such as flour porridge, or commercially manufactured food such as ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF). RUTF is made according to a standard, energy-rich composition defined by the World Health Organization (WHO). The benefits of RUTF include a low moisture content, long shelf life without needing refrigeration and that it requires no preparation. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of home-based RUTF on recovery, relapse and mortality in children with severe acute malnutrition. SEARCH METHODS We searched the following electronic databases up to April 2013: Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-process, EMBASE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index, African Index Medicus, LILACS, ZETOC and three trials registers. We also contacted researchers and clinicians in the field and handsearched bibliographies of included studies and relevant reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials where children between six months and five years of age with severe acute malnutrition were treated at home with RUTF compared to a standard diet, or different regimens and formulations of RUTFs compared to each other. We assessed recovery, relapse and mortality as primary outcomes, and anthropometrical changes, time to recovery and adverse outcomes as secondary outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility using prespecified criteria, and three review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS We included four trials (three having a high risk of bias), all conducted in Malawi with the same contact author. One small trial included children infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). We found the risk of bias to be high for the three quasi-randomised trials while the fourth trial had a low to moderate risk of bias. Because of the sparse data for HIV, we reported below the main results for all children together. RUTF meeting total daily requirements versus standard dietWhen comparing RUTF with standard diet (flour porridge), we found three quasi-randomised cluster trials (n = 599). RUTF may improve recovery slightly (risk ratio (RR) 1.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16 to 1.50; low quality evidence), but we do not know whether RUTF improves relapse, mortality or weight gain (very low quality evidence). RUTF supplement versus RUTF meeting total daily requirementsWhen comparing RUTF supplement with RUTF that meets total daily nutritional requirements, we found two quasi-randomised cluster trials (n = 210). For recovery, relapse, mortality and weight gain the quality of evidence was very low; therefore, the effects of RUTF are unknown. RUTF containing less milk powder versus standard RUTFWhen comparing a cheaper RUTF containing less milk powder (10%) versus standard RUTF (25% milk powder), we found one trial that randomised 1874 children. For recovery, there was probably little or no difference between the groups (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.01; moderate quality evidence). RUTF containing less milk powder may lead to slightly more children relapsing (RR 1.33; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.72; low quality evidence) and to less weight gain (mean difference (MD) -0.5 g/kg/day; 95% CI -0.75 to -0.25; low-quality evidence) than standard RUTF. We do not know whether the cheaper RUTF improved mortality (very low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Given the limited evidence base currently available, it is not possible to reach definitive conclusions regarding differences in clinical outcomes in children with severe acute malnutrition who were given home-based ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) compared to the standard diet, or who were treated with RUTF in different daily amounts or formulations. For this reason, either RUTF or flour porridge can be used to treat children at home depending on availability, affordability and practicality. Well-designed, adequately powered pragmatic randomised controlled trials of HIV-uninfected and HIV-infected children with severe acute malnutrition are needed.
-
7.
Pycnogenol® (extract of French maritime pine bark) for the treatment of chronic disorders.
Schoonees, A, Visser, J, Musekiwa, A, Volmink, J
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2012;(4):CD008294
Abstract
BACKGROUND Oxidative stress has been implicated in the development of a number of conditions including cancer, arthritic disorders and cardiovascular disease. Pycnogenol(®), a herbal dietary supplement derived from French maritime pine bark extract, is standardised to contain 70% procyanidin which is a powerful antioxidant. Pycnogenol(®) is marketed as a supplement for preventing or treating a wide range of chronic conditions. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy and safety of Pycnogenol(®) for the treatment of chronic disorders. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL (until 18 September 2010), MEDLINE (until 18 September 2010) and EMBASE (until 13 October 2010) as well as three trial registries. We also contacted the manufacturer of Pycnogenol(®) and hand-searched bibliographies of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of Pycnogenol(®) in adults or children with any chronic disorder were included. We assessed clinical outcomes directly related to the disorder (stratified as participant- and investigator-reported) and all-cause mortality as primary outcomes. We also assessed adverse events and biomarkers of oxidative stress. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted all data and assessed risk of bias. A third author additionally extracted information on outcomes and results. With three exceptions, results for outcomes across studies could not be pooled. MAIN RESULTS This review includes 15 trials with a total of 791 participants that have evaluated Pycnogenol(®) for the treatment of seven different chronic disorders. These included asthma (two studies; N = 86), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (one study; N = 61), chronic venous insufficiency (two studies; N = 60), diabetes mellitus (four studies; N = 201), erectile dysfunction (one study; N = 21), hypertension (two studies; N = 69) and osteoarthritis (three studies; N = 293). Two of the studies were conducted exclusively in children; the others involved adults.Due to small sample size, limited numbers of trials per condition, variation in outcomes evaluated and outcome measures used, as well as the risk of bias in the included studies, no definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy or safety of Pycnogenol(®) are possible. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Current evidence is insufficient to support Pycnogenol(®) use for the treatment of any chronic disorder. Well-designed, adequately powered trials are needed to establish the value of this treatment.
-
8.
Pycnogenol(®) for the treatment of chronic disorders.
Schoonees, A, Visser, J, Musekiwa, A, Volmink, J
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2012;(2):CD008294
Abstract
BACKGROUND Oxidative stress has been implicated in the development of a number of conditions including cancer, arthritic disorders and cardiovascular disease. Pycnogenol(®), a herbal dietary supplement derived from French maritime pine bark extract, is standardised to contain 70% procyanidin which is a powerful antioxidant. Pycnogenol(®) is marketed as a supplement for preventing or treating a wide range of chronic conditions. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy and safety of Pycnogenol(®) for the treatment of chronic disorders. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL (until 18 September 2010), MEDLINE (until 18 September 2010) and EMBASE (until 13 October 2010) as well as three trial registries. We also contacted the manufacturer of Pycnogenol(®) and hand-searched bibliographies of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of Pycnogenol(®) in adults or children with any chronic disorder were included. We assessed clinical outcomes directly related to the disorder (stratified as participant- and investigator-reported) and all-cause mortality as primary outcomes. We also assessed adverse events and biomarkers of oxidative stress. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted all data and assessed risk of bias. A third author additionally extracted information on outcomes and results. With three exceptions, results for outcomes across studies could not be pooled. MAIN RESULTS This review includes 15 trials with a total of 791 participants that have evaluated Pycnogenol(®) for the treatment of seven different chronic disorders. These included asthma (two studies; N = 86), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (one study; N = 61), chronic venous insufficiency (two studies; N = 60), diabetes mellitus (four studies; N = 201), erectile dysfunction (one study; N = 21), hypertension (two studies; N = 69) and osteoarthritis (three studies; N = 293). Two of the studies were conducted exclusively in children; the others involved adults.Due to small sample size, limited numbers of trials per condition, variation in outcomes evaluated and outcome measures used, as well as the risk of bias in the included studies, no definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy or safety of Pycnogenol(®) are possible. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Current evidence is insufficient to support Pycnogenol(®) use for the treatment of any chronic disorder. Well-designed, adequately powered trials are needed to establish the value of this treatment.
-
9.
Synbiotics, probiotics or prebiotics in infant formula for full term infants: a systematic review.
Mugambi, MN, Musekiwa, A, Lombard, M, Young, T, Blaauw, R
Nutrition journal. 2012;:81
Abstract
BACKGROUND Synbiotics, probiotics or prebiotics are being added to infant formula to promote growth and development in infants. Previous reviews (2007 to 2011) on term infants given probiotics or prebiotics focused on prevention of allergic disease and food hypersensitivity. This review focused on growth and clinical outcomes in term infants fed only infant formula containing synbiotics, probiotics or prebiotics. METHODS Cochrane methodology was followed using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared term infant formula containing probiotics, prebiotics or synbiotics to conventional infant formula with / without placebo among healthy full term infants. The mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported for continuous outcomes, risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. Where appropriate, meta-analysis was performed; heterogeneity was explored using subgroup and sensitivity analyses. If studies were too diverse a narrative synthesis was provided. RESULTS Three synbiotic studies (N = 475), 10 probiotics studies (N = 933) and 12 prebiotics studies (N = 1563) were included. Synbiotics failed to significantly increase growth in boys and girls. Use of synbiotics increased stool frequency, had no impact on stool consistency, colic, spitting up / regurgitation, crying, restlessness or vomiting. Probiotics in formula also failed to have any significant effect on growth, stool frequency or consistency. Probiotics did not lower the incidence of diarrhoea, colic, spitting up / regurgitation, crying, restlessness or vomiting. Prebiotics in formula did increase weight gain but had no impact on length or head circumference gain. Prebiotics increased stool frequency but had no impact on stool consistency, the incidence of colic, spitting up / regurgitation, crying, restlessness or vomiting. There was no impact of prebiotics on the volume of formula tolerated, infections and gastrointestinal microflora. The quality of evidence was compromised by imprecision, inconsistency of results, use of different study preparations and publication bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is not enough evidence to state that supplementation of term infant formula with synbiotics, probiotics or prebiotics does result in improved growth or clinical outcomes in term infants. There is no data available to establish if synbiotics are superior to probiotics or prebiotics.
-
10.
Probiotics, prebiotics infant formula use in preterm or low birth weight infants: a systematic review.
Mugambi, MN, Musekiwa, A, Lombard, M, Young, T, Blaauw, R
Nutrition journal. 2012;:58
Abstract
BACKGROUND Previous reviews (2005 to 2009) on preterm infants given probiotics or prebiotics with breast milk or mixed feeds focused on prevention of Necrotizing Enterocolitis, sepsis and diarrhea. This review assessed if probiotics, prebiotics led to improved growth and clinical outcomes in formula fed preterm infants. METHODS Cochrane methodology was followed using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared preterm formula containing probiotic(s) or prebiotic(s) to conventional preterm formula in preterm infants. The mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported for continuous outcomes, risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed by visual inspection of forest plots and a chi² test. An I² test assessed inconsistencies across studies. I²> 50% represented substantial heterogeneity. RESULTS Four probiotics studies (N=212), 4 prebiotics studies (N=126) were included. Probiotics: There were no significant differences in weight gain (MD 1.96, 95% CI: -2.64 to 6.56, 2 studies, n=34) or in maximal enteral feed (MD 35.20, 95% CI: -7.61 to 78.02, 2 studies, n=34), number of stools per day increased significantly in probiotic group (MD 1.60, 95% CI: 1.20 to 2.00, 1 study, n=20). Prebiotics: Galacto-oligosaccharide/Fructo-oligosaccharide (GOS/FOS) yielded no significant difference in weight gain (MD 0.04, 95% CI: -2.65 to 2.73, 2 studies, n=50), GOS/FOS yielded no significant differences in length gain (MD 0.01, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.04, 2 studies, n=50). There were no significant differences in head growth (MD -0.01, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.00, 2 studies, n=76) or age at full enteral feed (MD -0.79, 95% CI: -2.20 to 0.61, 2 studies, n=86). Stool frequency increased significantly in prebiotic group (MD 0.80, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.1, 2 studies, n=86). GOS/FOS and FOS yielded higher bifidobacteria counts in prebiotics group (MD 2.10, 95% CI: 0.96 to 3.24, n=27) and (MD 0.48, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.68, n=56). CONCLUSIONS There is not enough evidence to state that supplementation with probiotics or prebiotics results in improved growth and clinical outcomes in exclusively formula fed preterm infants.