User login
Ginkgo is not a smart pill
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Extracts of ginkgo have shown some promise in enhancing memory in demented elderly individuals.1 These authors set out to test the veracity of one manufacturer’s claim that ginkgo biloba “enhances mental focus and improves memory and concentration” in nondemented older adults.
POPULATION STUDIED: The authors solicited community-dwelling, functionally independent individuals older than 60 years who volunteered to participate in a study to improve memory. They excluded individuals with recent strokes, head injuries, or other “life-threatening illnesses,” mental illness or retardation, and persons who lacked someone to provide an evaluation of their memory and concentration. Participants were excluded if they scored less than 27 out of a possible 30 points on the Mini-Mental Status Examination at baseline. Highly educated or intelligent participants with mild dementia may have been included.
STUDY DESIGN AND VALIDITY: In this randomized controlled trial, participants received 40 mg of ginkgo biloba 3 times daily (the dose recommended by the manufacturer) or identical-appearing placebo for 6 weeks. This duration is 2 weeks longer than the manufacturer’s indicated onset of action. The number of subjects (230) was sufficient to detect a large effect. The researchers involved in dispensing study drugs and evaluating outcomes were effectively blinded, as were patients. Allocation to the control treatment groups may not have been concealed from the enrolling investigators. All persons screened for participation were accounted for, and the few dropouts were evenly balanced between the treatment and placebo groups. Analysis was by intention to treat.
OUTCOMES MEASURED: The authors measured performance on a wide variety of age-normed tests of memory, intelligence, and word-finding, such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, well chosen to allow measurements to increase dramatically from baseline (ie, avoiding the ceiling effect that would be present if only tests for dementia were used). No quality of life measures were included. Companions were asked whether the subjects’ memory improved.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were noted between placebo and control groups on any of the scales measured. No significant changes from baseline to posttreatment and no adverse effects were found in either of the groups.
Ginkgo, in standard doses for 6 weeks, was ineffective in improving memory, intelligence, and concentration in older patients without dementia. Because of the lack of regulation among herbal supplements, ginkgo products by other manufacturers might be effective. Nevertheless, if you do not currently recommend ginkgo supplements to older patients who are worried about memory loss, do not start now.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Extracts of ginkgo have shown some promise in enhancing memory in demented elderly individuals.1 These authors set out to test the veracity of one manufacturer’s claim that ginkgo biloba “enhances mental focus and improves memory and concentration” in nondemented older adults.
POPULATION STUDIED: The authors solicited community-dwelling, functionally independent individuals older than 60 years who volunteered to participate in a study to improve memory. They excluded individuals with recent strokes, head injuries, or other “life-threatening illnesses,” mental illness or retardation, and persons who lacked someone to provide an evaluation of their memory and concentration. Participants were excluded if they scored less than 27 out of a possible 30 points on the Mini-Mental Status Examination at baseline. Highly educated or intelligent participants with mild dementia may have been included.
STUDY DESIGN AND VALIDITY: In this randomized controlled trial, participants received 40 mg of ginkgo biloba 3 times daily (the dose recommended by the manufacturer) or identical-appearing placebo for 6 weeks. This duration is 2 weeks longer than the manufacturer’s indicated onset of action. The number of subjects (230) was sufficient to detect a large effect. The researchers involved in dispensing study drugs and evaluating outcomes were effectively blinded, as were patients. Allocation to the control treatment groups may not have been concealed from the enrolling investigators. All persons screened for participation were accounted for, and the few dropouts were evenly balanced between the treatment and placebo groups. Analysis was by intention to treat.
OUTCOMES MEASURED: The authors measured performance on a wide variety of age-normed tests of memory, intelligence, and word-finding, such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, well chosen to allow measurements to increase dramatically from baseline (ie, avoiding the ceiling effect that would be present if only tests for dementia were used). No quality of life measures were included. Companions were asked whether the subjects’ memory improved.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were noted between placebo and control groups on any of the scales measured. No significant changes from baseline to posttreatment and no adverse effects were found in either of the groups.
Ginkgo, in standard doses for 6 weeks, was ineffective in improving memory, intelligence, and concentration in older patients without dementia. Because of the lack of regulation among herbal supplements, ginkgo products by other manufacturers might be effective. Nevertheless, if you do not currently recommend ginkgo supplements to older patients who are worried about memory loss, do not start now.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Extracts of ginkgo have shown some promise in enhancing memory in demented elderly individuals.1 These authors set out to test the veracity of one manufacturer’s claim that ginkgo biloba “enhances mental focus and improves memory and concentration” in nondemented older adults.
POPULATION STUDIED: The authors solicited community-dwelling, functionally independent individuals older than 60 years who volunteered to participate in a study to improve memory. They excluded individuals with recent strokes, head injuries, or other “life-threatening illnesses,” mental illness or retardation, and persons who lacked someone to provide an evaluation of their memory and concentration. Participants were excluded if they scored less than 27 out of a possible 30 points on the Mini-Mental Status Examination at baseline. Highly educated or intelligent participants with mild dementia may have been included.
STUDY DESIGN AND VALIDITY: In this randomized controlled trial, participants received 40 mg of ginkgo biloba 3 times daily (the dose recommended by the manufacturer) or identical-appearing placebo for 6 weeks. This duration is 2 weeks longer than the manufacturer’s indicated onset of action. The number of subjects (230) was sufficient to detect a large effect. The researchers involved in dispensing study drugs and evaluating outcomes were effectively blinded, as were patients. Allocation to the control treatment groups may not have been concealed from the enrolling investigators. All persons screened for participation were accounted for, and the few dropouts were evenly balanced between the treatment and placebo groups. Analysis was by intention to treat.
OUTCOMES MEASURED: The authors measured performance on a wide variety of age-normed tests of memory, intelligence, and word-finding, such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, well chosen to allow measurements to increase dramatically from baseline (ie, avoiding the ceiling effect that would be present if only tests for dementia were used). No quality of life measures were included. Companions were asked whether the subjects’ memory improved.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were noted between placebo and control groups on any of the scales measured. No significant changes from baseline to posttreatment and no adverse effects were found in either of the groups.
Ginkgo, in standard doses for 6 weeks, was ineffective in improving memory, intelligence, and concentration in older patients without dementia. Because of the lack of regulation among herbal supplements, ginkgo products by other manufacturers might be effective. Nevertheless, if you do not currently recommend ginkgo supplements to older patients who are worried about memory loss, do not start now.
Does oral metronidazole prevent preterm delivery in normal-risk pregnant women with asymptomatic bacterial vaginosis (BV)?
BACKGROUND: Given the high cost of neonatal intensive care and the serious sequelae associated with preterm delivery, an inexpensive safe treatment that would reduce the risk of preterm delivery is appealing. One previous study demonstrated a small decrease in the rate of preterm delivery using oral erythromycin plus metronidazole in a population of women at high risk of preterm delivery (mostly women with a previous preterm delivery)1; a small study of women at low risk of preterm delivery, however, found no benefit.2
POPULATION STUDIED: Women presenting for prenatal care were considered for randomization. Exclusions were reasonable and included women with: symptoms of vaginitis, contraindications to metronidazole, recent or anticipated antibiotic use, preterm labor, planned or current cervical cerclage, multifetal gestation, failure to have a postscreening visit before 24-weeks’ gestation, and unanticipated use of antibiotics between the screening and the postscreening visit. This was a group of fairly low-risk and adherent patients.
STUDY DESIGN AND VALIDITY: This was a randomized placebo-controlled double-blinded study. Women were considered to have BV if they had a vaginal hydrogen ion concentration higher than 4.4 and a positive Gram’s stain using reasonable criteria well described by the authors. Women with BV who were seen before 24 weeks’ gestation, had given consent, and had not used antibiotics since the screening were randomized to receive either 2 doses of 2 g of oral metronidazole 48 hours apart or a matching placebo. They were scheduled for a follow-up visit at least 2 weeks later and were given 2 more doses of the same active medication or placebo given previously. Randomization was well described, and concealment of allocation was adequate. One significant weakness of this study is the large number of women who screened positive for BV but were excluded from randomization (4604 out of 6540, including 2126 who had difficulty arranging follow-up).
OUTCOMES MEASURED: The primary outcome measures were the length of gestation and the rate of preterm labor.
RESULTS: No significant differences in the length of gestation or in birth weight were observed between the treatment and placebo groups. The number of preterm deliveries - 116 of 953 (12.2%) in the metronidazole group and 121 of 956 (12.5%) in the placebo group-make the likelihood of any clinically significant difference extremely small. Extreme prematurity, low birth weight, and very low birth weight were also equal between the 2 groups. Subgroup analyses for women with significant risk factors for premature delivery, such as previous preterm delivery and prepregnancy weight less than 50 kg (110 pounds), also failed to show any benefit of treatment.
There is no benefit to screening for BV in asymptomatic pregnant women in the second trimester who are at low risk for preterm delivery. For those women at highest risk for preterm labor (ie, those with a previous preterm delivery or a prepregnancy weight <50 kg), the results of a previous study1 suggest a benefit from treatment with metronidazole plus erythromycin. It is also still reasonable to treat symptomatic BV with metronidazole on the basis of its ability to improve symptoms, its established safety in midgestation, and the theoretical possibility that some small subgroup (excluded from this study) might have a lowered incidence of preterm labor.
BACKGROUND: Given the high cost of neonatal intensive care and the serious sequelae associated with preterm delivery, an inexpensive safe treatment that would reduce the risk of preterm delivery is appealing. One previous study demonstrated a small decrease in the rate of preterm delivery using oral erythromycin plus metronidazole in a population of women at high risk of preterm delivery (mostly women with a previous preterm delivery)1; a small study of women at low risk of preterm delivery, however, found no benefit.2
POPULATION STUDIED: Women presenting for prenatal care were considered for randomization. Exclusions were reasonable and included women with: symptoms of vaginitis, contraindications to metronidazole, recent or anticipated antibiotic use, preterm labor, planned or current cervical cerclage, multifetal gestation, failure to have a postscreening visit before 24-weeks’ gestation, and unanticipated use of antibiotics between the screening and the postscreening visit. This was a group of fairly low-risk and adherent patients.
STUDY DESIGN AND VALIDITY: This was a randomized placebo-controlled double-blinded study. Women were considered to have BV if they had a vaginal hydrogen ion concentration higher than 4.4 and a positive Gram’s stain using reasonable criteria well described by the authors. Women with BV who were seen before 24 weeks’ gestation, had given consent, and had not used antibiotics since the screening were randomized to receive either 2 doses of 2 g of oral metronidazole 48 hours apart or a matching placebo. They were scheduled for a follow-up visit at least 2 weeks later and were given 2 more doses of the same active medication or placebo given previously. Randomization was well described, and concealment of allocation was adequate. One significant weakness of this study is the large number of women who screened positive for BV but were excluded from randomization (4604 out of 6540, including 2126 who had difficulty arranging follow-up).
OUTCOMES MEASURED: The primary outcome measures were the length of gestation and the rate of preterm labor.
RESULTS: No significant differences in the length of gestation or in birth weight were observed between the treatment and placebo groups. The number of preterm deliveries - 116 of 953 (12.2%) in the metronidazole group and 121 of 956 (12.5%) in the placebo group-make the likelihood of any clinically significant difference extremely small. Extreme prematurity, low birth weight, and very low birth weight were also equal between the 2 groups. Subgroup analyses for women with significant risk factors for premature delivery, such as previous preterm delivery and prepregnancy weight less than 50 kg (110 pounds), also failed to show any benefit of treatment.
There is no benefit to screening for BV in asymptomatic pregnant women in the second trimester who are at low risk for preterm delivery. For those women at highest risk for preterm labor (ie, those with a previous preterm delivery or a prepregnancy weight <50 kg), the results of a previous study1 suggest a benefit from treatment with metronidazole plus erythromycin. It is also still reasonable to treat symptomatic BV with metronidazole on the basis of its ability to improve symptoms, its established safety in midgestation, and the theoretical possibility that some small subgroup (excluded from this study) might have a lowered incidence of preterm labor.
BACKGROUND: Given the high cost of neonatal intensive care and the serious sequelae associated with preterm delivery, an inexpensive safe treatment that would reduce the risk of preterm delivery is appealing. One previous study demonstrated a small decrease in the rate of preterm delivery using oral erythromycin plus metronidazole in a population of women at high risk of preterm delivery (mostly women with a previous preterm delivery)1; a small study of women at low risk of preterm delivery, however, found no benefit.2
POPULATION STUDIED: Women presenting for prenatal care were considered for randomization. Exclusions were reasonable and included women with: symptoms of vaginitis, contraindications to metronidazole, recent or anticipated antibiotic use, preterm labor, planned or current cervical cerclage, multifetal gestation, failure to have a postscreening visit before 24-weeks’ gestation, and unanticipated use of antibiotics between the screening and the postscreening visit. This was a group of fairly low-risk and adherent patients.
STUDY DESIGN AND VALIDITY: This was a randomized placebo-controlled double-blinded study. Women were considered to have BV if they had a vaginal hydrogen ion concentration higher than 4.4 and a positive Gram’s stain using reasonable criteria well described by the authors. Women with BV who were seen before 24 weeks’ gestation, had given consent, and had not used antibiotics since the screening were randomized to receive either 2 doses of 2 g of oral metronidazole 48 hours apart or a matching placebo. They were scheduled for a follow-up visit at least 2 weeks later and were given 2 more doses of the same active medication or placebo given previously. Randomization was well described, and concealment of allocation was adequate. One significant weakness of this study is the large number of women who screened positive for BV but were excluded from randomization (4604 out of 6540, including 2126 who had difficulty arranging follow-up).
OUTCOMES MEASURED: The primary outcome measures were the length of gestation and the rate of preterm labor.
RESULTS: No significant differences in the length of gestation or in birth weight were observed between the treatment and placebo groups. The number of preterm deliveries - 116 of 953 (12.2%) in the metronidazole group and 121 of 956 (12.5%) in the placebo group-make the likelihood of any clinically significant difference extremely small. Extreme prematurity, low birth weight, and very low birth weight were also equal between the 2 groups. Subgroup analyses for women with significant risk factors for premature delivery, such as previous preterm delivery and prepregnancy weight less than 50 kg (110 pounds), also failed to show any benefit of treatment.
There is no benefit to screening for BV in asymptomatic pregnant women in the second trimester who are at low risk for preterm delivery. For those women at highest risk for preterm labor (ie, those with a previous preterm delivery or a prepregnancy weight <50 kg), the results of a previous study1 suggest a benefit from treatment with metronidazole plus erythromycin. It is also still reasonable to treat symptomatic BV with metronidazole on the basis of its ability to improve symptoms, its established safety in midgestation, and the theoretical possibility that some small subgroup (excluded from this study) might have a lowered incidence of preterm labor.