Search

Introduction: Recent studies have demonstrated an association between hypoglycemic medications and neuroprotective action in neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson's disease (PD). Therefore, in this meta-analysis, our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of these medications, compared to placebo, as disease-modifying therapy in patients with PD., Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for studies comparing the use of hypoglycemic drugs and placebo in patients with PD. Statistical analyses were performed using R Studio 4.3.2. Mean difference (MD) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were pooled across trials. Outcomes of interest were change in Movement Disorders Society - Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) parts I, II, III, IV, and Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire 39 (PDQ-39)., Results: This meta-analysis included six randomized controlled trials (RCT) reporting data on 787 patients. Among them, 480 (61 %) received hypoglycemic drugs. Follow-up ranged from 36 to 61 weeks. At the end of follow-up, improvement in MDS-UPDRS part III score during OFF state occurred when subjects received any hypoglycemic agents at their lowest dose (MD -1.36; 95 % IC -2.78 to -0.47; I2 = 38 %), as well as highest doses (MD -1.58; 95 % IC -3.07 to -0.09; I2 = 50 %). Changes in MDS-UPDRS part III score in patients examined in the ON state who received any dose of any hypoglycemic agents (MD -3.32; 95 % IC -5.28 to -1.36; I2 = 0 %) were significant. There was no significant difference between groups MDS-UPDRS parts I, II, IV, and PDQ-39., Conclusion: In patients with PD, the use of hypoglycemic agents showed efficacy on symptomatic PD treatment with an improvement in MDS-UPDRS part III., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

The benefits and potential risks of oral minoxidil therapy versus topical minoxidil therapy in patients with androgenetic alopecia (AGA) are controversial. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the use of oral minoxidil and minoxidil topical solution in patients with AGA. Statistical analyses were performed using R Studio 4.3.2. Standard mean difference (SMD) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled across trials. This meta-analysis included four RCTs reporting data on 279 patients. Follow-up ranged from 24 to 39 weeks. There were no differences in hair density (SMD 0.02; 95% CI -0.25 to 0.29; P = 0.88; I 2  = 0%) or hair diameter (SMD -0.25; 95% CI -0.75 to 0.26; P = 0.34; I 2  = 36%). The incidence of hypertrichosis was statistically significantly higher in the oral minoxidil group when compared to the topical minoxidil group (RR 2.01; 95% CI 1.18-3.41; P = 0.01; I 2  = 0%). There was no statistically significant difference between groups for the incidence of hypotension (RR 2.42; 95% CI 0.26-22.46; P = 0.44; I 2  = 0%). In patients with AGA, oral minoxidil and minoxidil topical solution have similar efficacy and safety, with equivalent improvements in hair density, hair diameter, and incidence of adverse events, such as hypotension., (© 2024 the International Society of Dermatology.)