Search

BACKGROUND: Testosterone is the standard treatment for male hypogonadism, but there is uncertainty about its cardiovascular safety due to inconsistent findings. We aimed to provide the most extensive individual participant dataset (IPD) of testosterone trials available, to analyse subtypes of all cardiovascular events observed during treatment, and to investigate the effect of incorporating data from trials that did not provide IPD. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials including IPD. We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, Embase, Science Citation Index, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Database of Abstracts of Review of Effects for literature from 1992 onwards (date of search, Aug 27, 2018). The following inclusion criteria were applied: (1) men aged 18 years and older with a screening testosterone concentration of 12 nmol/L (350 ng/dL) or less; (2) the intervention of interest was treatment with any testosterone formulation, dose frequency, and route of administration, for a minimum duration of 3 months; (3) a comparator of placebo treatment; and (4) studies assessing the pre-specified primary or secondary outcomes of interest. Details of study design, interventions, participants, and outcome measures were extracted from published articles and anonymised IPD was requested from investigators of all identified trials. Primary outcomes were mortality, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular events at any time during follow-up. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We did a one-stage meta-analysis using IPD, and a two-stage meta-analysis integrating IPD with data from studies not providing IPD. The study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018111005. FINDINGS: 9871 citations were identified through database searches and after exclusion of duplicates and of irrelevant citations, 225 stu

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to clarify the role(s) of endogenous sex hormones to influence health outcomes in men, specifically to define the associations of plasma testosterone with incidence of cardiovascular events, cancer, dementia and mortality risk, and to identify factors predicting testosterone concentrations. Data will be accrued from at least three Australian, two European and four North American population-based cohorts involving approximately 20 000 men. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Eligible studies include prospective cohort studies with baseline testosterone concentrations measured using mass spectrometry and 5 years of follow-up data on incident cardiovascular events, mortality, cancer diagnoses or deaths, new-onset dementia or decline in cognitive function recorded. Data for men, who were not taking androgens or drugs suppressing testosterone production, metabolism or action; and had no prior orchidectomy, are eligible. Systematic literature searches were conducted from 14 June 2019 to 31 December 2019, with no date range set for searches. Aggregate level data will be sought where individual participant data (IPD) are not available. One-stage IPD random-effects meta-analyses will be performed, using linear mixed models, generalised linear mixed models and either stratified or frailty-augmented Cox regression models. Heterogeneity in estimates from different studies will be quantified and bias investigated using funnel plots. Effect size estimates will be presented in forest plots and non-negligible heterogeneity and bias investigated using subgroup or meta-regression analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approvals obtained for each of the participating cohorts state that participants have consented to have their data collected and used for research purposes. The Androgens In Men Study has been assessed as exempt from ethics review by the Human Ethics office at the University of Western Australia (file reference number RA/4/20/5014). Each of the compo

Objectives: To summarize the delirium treatment trial literature, identify the unique challenges in delirium treatment trials, and formulate recommendations to address each in older adults. Design: A 39-member interprofessional and international expert working group of clinicians (physicians, nurses, and pharmacists) and nonclinicians (biostatisticians, epidemiologists, and trial methodologists) was convened. Four expert panels were assembled to explore key subtopics (pharmacological/nonpharmacologic treatment, methodological challenges, and novel research designs). Methods: To provide background and context, a review of delirium treatment randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2003 and 2023 was conducted and evidence gaps were identified. The four panels addressed the identified subtopics. For each subtopic, research challenges were identified and recommendations to address each were proposed through virtual discussion before a live, full-day, and in-person conference. General agreement was reached for each proposed recommendation across the entire working group via moderated conference discussion. Recommendations were synthesized across panels and iteratively discussed through rounds of virtual meetings and draft reviews. Results: We identified key evidence gaps through a systematic literature review, yielding 43 RCTs of delirium treatments. From this review, eight unique challenges for delirium treatment trials were identified, and recommendations to address each were made based on panel input. The recommendations start with design of interventions that consider the multifactorial nature of delirium, include both pharmacological and nonpharmacologic approaches, and target pathophysiologic pathways where possible.