Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Flow diagram of study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Flow diagram of study.

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 CCBs vs placebo (generic inverse variance method), outcome: 1.1 Frequency of attacks (average/week).
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 CCBs vs placebo (generic inverse variance method), outcome: 1.1 Frequency of attacks (average/week).

Funnel plot of comparison: 11 CCBs vs placebo (generic inverse variance method), outcome: 11.4 Severity of attacks (average, on a 10‐cm VAS).
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Funnel plot of comparison: 11 CCBs vs placebo (generic inverse variance method), outcome: 11.4 Severity of attacks (average, on a 10‐cm VAS).

Comparison 1 CCBs vs placebo (generic inverse variance method), Outcome 1 Frequency of attacks (average/week).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 CCBs vs placebo (generic inverse variance method), Outcome 1 Frequency of attacks (average/week).

Comparison 1 CCBs vs placebo (generic inverse variance method), Outcome 2 Frequency of attacks (average/week).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 CCBs vs placebo (generic inverse variance method), Outcome 2 Frequency of attacks (average/week).

Comparison 1 CCBs vs placebo (generic inverse variance method), Outcome 3 Duration of attacks (minutes).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 CCBs vs placebo (generic inverse variance method), Outcome 3 Duration of attacks (minutes).

Comparison 1 CCBs vs placebo (generic inverse variance method), Outcome 4 Severity of attacks (average, on a 10‐cm VAS).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 CCBs vs placebo (generic inverse variance method), Outcome 4 Severity of attacks (average, on a 10‐cm VAS).

Comparison 1 CCBs vs placebo (generic inverse variance method), Outcome 5 Pain (10‐cm visual analogue scale).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 CCBs vs placebo (generic inverse variance method), Outcome 5 Pain (10‐cm visual analogue scale).

Comparison 1 CCBs vs placebo (generic inverse variance method), Outcome 6 Patient global.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 CCBs vs placebo (generic inverse variance method), Outcome 6 Patient global.

Comparison 1 CCBs vs placebo (generic inverse variance method), Outcome 7 Number of withdrawals (due to treatment).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 CCBs vs placebo (generic inverse variance method), Outcome 7 Number of withdrawals (due to treatment).

Comparison 2 Subgroup analysis by RP type, Outcome 1 Frequency of attacks (average/week).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Subgroup analysis by RP type, Outcome 1 Frequency of attacks (average/week).

Comparison 2 Subgroup analysis by RP type, Outcome 2 Severity of attacks (average, on a 10‐cm VAS).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Subgroup analysis by RP type, Outcome 2 Severity of attacks (average, on a 10‐cm VAS).

Comparison 3 Subgroup analysis: nifedipine versus placebo by RP type, Outcome 1 Frequency of attacks: nifedipine vs placebo by RP type.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Subgroup analysis: nifedipine versus placebo by RP type, Outcome 1 Frequency of attacks: nifedipine vs placebo by RP type.

Comparison 3 Subgroup analysis: nifedipine versus placebo by RP type, Outcome 2 Severity of attacks: nifedipine vs placebo by RP type.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Subgroup analysis: nifedipine versus placebo by RP type, Outcome 2 Severity of attacks: nifedipine vs placebo by RP type.

Comparison 4 Subgroup analysis by CCB class, Outcome 1 Frequency of attacks (average/week).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Subgroup analysis by CCB class, Outcome 1 Frequency of attacks (average/week).

Comparison 4 Subgroup analysis by CCB class, Outcome 2 Frequency of attacks (average/week).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Subgroup analysis by CCB class, Outcome 2 Frequency of attacks (average/week).

Comparison 4 Subgroup analysis by CCB class, Outcome 3 Severity of attacks (average, on a 10‐cm VAS).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Subgroup analysis by CCB class, Outcome 3 Severity of attacks (average, on a 10‐cm VAS).

Comparison 4 Subgroup analysis by CCB class, Outcome 4 Severity of attacks (average, on a 10‐cm VAS).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 Subgroup analysis by CCB class, Outcome 4 Severity of attacks (average, on a 10‐cm VAS).

Comparison 5 Subgroup analysis by CCB dose, Outcome 1 Frequency of attacks (average/week).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Subgroup analysis by CCB dose, Outcome 1 Frequency of attacks (average/week).

Comparison 5 Subgroup analysis by CCB dose, Outcome 2 Duration of attacks (minutes).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Subgroup analysis by CCB dose, Outcome 2 Duration of attacks (minutes).

Comparison 5 Subgroup analysis by CCB dose, Outcome 3 Severity of attacks (average, on a 10‐cm VAS).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Subgroup analysis by CCB dose, Outcome 3 Severity of attacks (average, on a 10‐cm VAS).

Comparison 5 Subgroup analysis by CCB dose, Outcome 4 Pain (10‐cm visual analogue scale).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5 Subgroup analysis by CCB dose, Outcome 4 Pain (10‐cm visual analogue scale).

Comparison 5 Subgroup analysis by CCB dose, Outcome 5 Patient global.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.5

Comparison 5 Subgroup analysis by CCB dose, Outcome 5 Patient global.

Comparison 6 Minor outcomes, Outcome 1 Number of participants with improvement.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Minor outcomes, Outcome 1 Number of participants with improvement.

Comparison 6 Minor outcomes, Outcome 2 Side effects.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 Minor outcomes, Outcome 2 Side effects.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Calcium channel blockers compared with placebo for treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon

Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) compared with placebo for treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon

Patient or population: patients with Raynaud's phenomenon
Settings: outpatient settings
Intervention: calcium channel blockers (CCBs) (all)
Comparison: placebo

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No. of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Placebo

CCBs (all)

Frequency of attacks
Average number of attacks/week
Follow‐up: 4 to 20 weeks

Mean frequency of attacks in control groups:

13.7 attacksa

Mean frequency of attacks in intervention groups:

6.13 lower

(6.60 to 5.67 lower)b

528
(23 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

moderatec

Note: Excluding a study with a very large reduction in frequency of attacks changed the mean difference to ‐2.93 per week (95% CI ‐3.44 to ‐2.43).
NNTB: N/Ad

Absolute risk difference: N/Ad

Relative percent change: ‐44% (95% CI ‐48% to ‐41%)

Duration of attacks

Average duration per attack measured in minutes
Follow‐up: 2 to 20 weeks

Mean duration of attacks in control groups:
18.8 minutesa

Mean duration of attacks in intervention groups:
1.67 fewer minutes

(‐3.29 to 0)

69
(6 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

lowc,e

NNTB: N/Ad

Absolute risk difference: N/Ad

Relative percent change: ‐9% (95% CI ‐18% to 0%)

Severity of attacks
Average severity per attack assessed on a 10‐cm visual analogue scale (0 = no symptoms, 10 = maximal severity)
Follow‐up: 2 to 12 weeks

Mean severity of attacks in control groups:
6.7 cma

Mean severity of attacks in intervention groups:
0.62 lower
(0.72 to 0.51 lower)

415
(18 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

moderatec

NNTB: N/Ad

Absolute risk difference: ‐6% (95% CI ‐7% to ‐5%)

Relative percent change: ‐9% (95% CI ‐11% to ‐8%)

Pain

Average pain per attack, measured on a 10‐cm visual analogue scale (0 = no pain, 10 = maximal pain)
Follow‐up: 2 to 10 weeks

Mean pain in control groups:
3.13 cma

Mean pain in intervention groups:
1.47 lower
(2.21 to 0.74 lower)

62
(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

lowc,e

N/Ad

Absolute risk difference: ‐15% (95% CI ‐22% to ‐7%)

Relative percent change: ‐47% (95% CI ‐71% to ‐24%)

Patient global
Disability due to Raynaud's assessed on a 10‐cm visual analogue scale (0 = no disability, 10 = maximal disability)

Follow‐up: 5 weeks

Mean patient global in control group:

3.9 cma

Mean patient global in intervention groups:
0.37 lower
(0.73 lower to 0)

92
(2)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

moderatee

NNTB: N/Af

Absolute risk difference: ‐4% (95% CI ‐7% to 0%)

Relative percent change: ‐9% (95% CI ‐19% to 0%)

Number of withdrawals due to adverse events
Number of participants who dropped out of studies owing to adverse treatment effects
Follow‐up: 2 to 20 weeks

194 per 1000

252 per 1000
(99 to 645)

RR 1.30
(0.51 to 3.33)

63
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

lowe,g

NNTH: N/Af

Absolute risk reduction: 6% (95% CI ‐14% to 26%)

Relative percent change: 30% (95% CI ‐49% to 233%)

Serious adverse events
Number of participants who died or withdrew and were hospitalized as a result of adverse effects of treatment

See comment.

See comment.

Not estimable

0
(0)

See comment.

No serious adverse events reported

*The basis for the assumed risk (eg, median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CCB: calcium channel blocker; CI: confidence interval; NNTB: number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome; NNTH: number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome; RR: risk ratio.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

aFinal value: weighted mean of scores in placebo group across studies in the meta‐analysis.
bWith exclusion of Kahan 1985c, CCBs leading to reduced frequency of attacks per week by 2.93 (95% CI ‐3.44 to ‐2.43).
cDowngraded 1 level for significant statistical heterogeneity (I² > 50%).
dN/A value not calculated.
eDowngraded 1 level for imprecision (total population size < 400 for continuous outcomes; total number of events < 300 for dichotomous outcomes).
fNNTB (number needed to benefit) and NNTH (number needed to harm) calculated only for statistically significant outcomes.
gDowngraded 1 level for inclusion of studies with high risk of bias due to attrition.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Calcium channel blockers compared with placebo for treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon
Comparison 1. CCBs vs placebo (generic inverse variance method)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Frequency of attacks (average/week) Show forest plot

23

1024

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐6.07 [‐6.53, ‐5.61]

2 Frequency of attacks (average/week) Show forest plot

22

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.93 [‐3.44, ‐2.43]

3 Duration of attacks (minutes) Show forest plot

6

138

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.67 [‐3.29, ‐0.04]

4 Severity of attacks (average, on a 10‐cm VAS) Show forest plot

16

748

Risk Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.62 [‐0.72, ‐0.51]

5 Pain (10‐cm visual analogue scale) Show forest plot

4

124

Std. Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.47 [‐2.21, ‐0.74]

6 Patient global Show forest plot

2

192

Std. Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.37 [‐0.73, ‐0.02]

7 Number of withdrawals (due to treatment) Show forest plot

2

63

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.30 [0.51, 3.33]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. CCBs vs placebo (generic inverse variance method)
Comparison 2. Subgroup analysis by RP type

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Frequency of attacks (average/week) Show forest plot

15

624

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.15 [‐3.67, ‐2.63]

1.1 CCBs vs placebo for primary RP

12

420

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.02 [‐3.65, ‐2.38]

1.2 CCBs vs placebo for secondary RP

9

204

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.42 [‐4.33, ‐2.51]

2 Severity of attacks (average, on a 10‐cm VAS) Show forest plot

10

506

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.67 [‐0.77, ‐0.57]

2.1 Primary RP: CCBs vs placebo

8

368

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.95 [‐1.11, ‐0.79]

2.2 Secondary RP: CCBs vs placebo

6

138

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.48 [‐0.61, ‐0.35]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Subgroup analysis by RP type
Comparison 3. Subgroup analysis: nifedipine versus placebo by RP type

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Frequency of attacks: nifedipine vs placebo by RP type Show forest plot

9

268

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐4.34 [‐5.09, ‐3.59]

1.1 Nifedipine vs placebo for primary RP

6

148

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐4.42 [‐5.35, ‐3.50]

1.2 Nifedipine vs placebo for secondary RP

6

120

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐4.19 [‐5.47, ‐2.91]

2 Severity of attacks: nifedipine vs placebo by RP type Show forest plot

4

108

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.82 [‐1.07, ‐0.58]

2.1 Primary RP

2

54

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.74 [‐2.09, ‐1.39]

2.2 Secondary RP

3

54

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

0.01 [‐0.32, 0.34]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Subgroup analysis: nifedipine versus placebo by RP type
Comparison 4. Subgroup analysis by CCB class

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Frequency of attacks (average/week) Show forest plot

23

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐6.07 [‐6.53, ‐5.61]

1.1 Dihydropyridines vs placebo

22

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐6.13 [‐6.60, ‐5.67]

1.2 Non‐dihydropyridines vs placebo

1

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.15 [‐6.33, 0.03]

2 Frequency of attacks (average/week) Show forest plot

21

960

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐6.27 [‐6.73, ‐5.80]

2.1 Nifedipine vs placebo

15

582

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐8.62 [‐9.20, ‐8.03]

2.2 Nicardipine vs placebo

5

300

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.92 [‐2.80, ‐1.04]

2.3 Nisoldipine vs placebo

2

78

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.00 [‐4.57, ‐1.43]

3 Severity of attacks (average, on a 10‐cm VAS) Show forest plot

16

748

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.62 [‐0.72, ‐0.51]

3.1 Dihydropyridines vs placebo

15

716

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.60 [‐0.71, ‐0.50]

3.2 Non‐dihydropyridines vs placebo

1

32

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.0 [‐3.16, ‐0.84]

4 Severity of attacks (average, on a 10‐cm VAS) Show forest plot

15

716

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.60 [‐0.71, ‐0.50]

4.1 Nifedipine vs placebo

9

378

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.79 [‐0.96, ‐0.61]

4.2 Nicardipine vs placebo

5

300

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.47 [‐0.61, ‐0.33]

4.3 Nisoldipine vs placebo

1

38

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.79 [‐1.36, ‐0.22]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Subgroup analysis by CCB class
Comparison 5. Subgroup analysis by CCB dose

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Frequency of attacks (average/week) Show forest plot

23

1024

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐6.07 [‐6.53, ‐5.61]

1.1 Low‐dose CCBs vs placebo

14

620

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.00 [‐3.63, ‐2.37]

1.2 Medium/high‐dose CCBs vs placebo

9

404

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐9.50 [‐10.17, ‐8.83]

2 Duration of attacks (minutes) Show forest plot

6

138

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.67 [‐3.29, ‐0.04]

2.1 Low‐dose CCBs vs placebo

3

56

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.24 [‐0.24, 4.73]

2.2 Medium‐dose CCBs vs placebo

3

82

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐4.60 [‐6.76, ‐2.45]

3 Severity of attacks (average, on a 10‐cm VAS) Show forest plot

16

748

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.62 [‐0.72, ‐0.51]

3.1 Low‐dose CCBs vs placebo

9

434

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.56 [‐0.68, ‐0.45]

3.2 Medium/high‐dose CCBs vs placebo

7

314

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.91 [‐1.18, ‐0.64]

4 Pain (10‐cm visual analogue scale) Show forest plot

4

124

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.47 [‐2.21, ‐0.74]

4.1 Low‐dose CCBs vs placebo

2

72

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.04 [‐4.34, ‐1.75]

4.2 Medium‐dose CCBs vs placebo

2

52

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.73 [‐1.62, 0.16]

5 Patient global Show forest plot

2

192

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.37 [‐0.73, ‐0.02]

5.1 Low‐dose CCBs vs placebo

1

72

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.2 [‐0.63, 0.23]

5.2 High‐dose CCBs vs placebo

1

120

Mean Difference (Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.74 [‐1.37, ‐0.11]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 5. Subgroup analysis by CCB dose
Comparison 6. Minor outcomes

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Number of participants with improvement Show forest plot

3

59

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.38 [1.35, 4.20]

2 Side effects Show forest plot

3

78

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.12 [0.87, 1.45]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 6. Minor outcomes