-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Many treatments for the common cold exist and are sold over-the-counter. Nevertheless, evidence on the effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants is limited. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Many treatments for the common cold exist and are sold over-the-counter. Nevertheless, evidence on the effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants is limited.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, and short- and long-term safety, of nasal decongestants used in monotherapy to alleviate symptoms of the common cold in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 6, June 2016), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to July 2016), Embase (2010 to 15 July 2016), CINAHL (1981 to 15 July 2016), LILACS (1982 to July 2016), Web of Science (1955 to July 2016) and clinical trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating the effectiveness and adverse effects of nasal decongestants compared with placebo for treating the common cold in adults and children. We excluded quasi-RCTs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently extracted and summarised data on subjective measures of nasal congestion, overall patient well-being score, objective measures of nasal airway resistance, adverse effects and general recovery. One review author acted as arbiter in cases of disagreement. We categorised trials as single and multi-dose and analysed data both separately and together. We also analysed studies using an oral or topical nasal decongestant separately and together.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 trials with 1838 participants. Fourteen studies included adult participants only (aged 18 years and over). In six studies the intervention was a single dose and in nine studies multiple doses were used. Nine studies used pseudoephedrine and three studies used oxymetazoline. Other decongestants included phenylpropanolamine, norephedrine and xylometazoline. Phenylpropanolamine (or norephedrine) is no longer available on the market therefore we did not include the results of these studies in the meta-analyses. Eleven studies used oral decongestants; four studies used topical decongestants.Participants were included after contracting the common cold. The duration of symptoms differed among studies; in 10 studies participants had symptoms for less than three days, in three studies symptoms were present for less than five days, one study counted the number of colds over one year, and one study experimentally induced the common cold. In the single-dose studies, the effectiveness of a nasal decongestant was measured on the same day, whereas the follow-up in multi-dose studies ranged between one and 10 days.Most studies were conducted in university settings (N = eight), six at a specific university common cold centre. Three studies were conducted at a university in collaboration with a hospital and two in a hospital only setting. In two studies the setting was unclear.There were large differences in the reporting of outcomes and the reporting of methods in most studies was limited. Therefore, we judged most studies to be at low or unclear risk of bias. Pooling was possible for a limited number of studies only; measures of effect are expressed as standardised mean differences (SMDs). A positive SMD represents an improvement in congestion. There is no defined minimal clinically important difference for measures of subjective improvement in nasal congestion, therefore we used the SMDs as a guide to assess whether an effect was small (0.2 to 0.49), moderate (0.5 to 0.79) or large (≥ 0.8).Single-dose decongestant versus placebo: 10 studies compared a single dose of nasal decongestant with placebo and their effectiveness was tested between 15 minutes and 10 hours after dosing. Seven of 10 studies reported subjective symptom scores for nasal congestion; none reported overall patient well-being. However, pooling was not possible due to the large diversity in the measurement and reporting of symptoms of congestion. Two studies recorded adverse events. Both studies used an oral decongestant and each of them showed that there was no statistical difference between the number of adverse events in the treatment group versus the placebo group.Multi-dose decongestant versus placebo: nine studies compared multiple doses of nasal decongestants with placebo, but only five reported on the primary outcome, subjective symptom scores for nasal congestion. Only one study used a topical decongestant; none reported overall patient well-being. Subjective measures of congestion were significantly better for the treatment group compared with placebo approximately three hours after the last dose (SMD 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.92; P = 0.02; GRADE: low-quality evidence). However, the SMD of 0.49 only indicates a small clinical effect. Pooling was based on two studies, one oral and one topical, therefore we were unable to assess the effects of oral and topical decongestants separately. Seven studies reported adverse events (six oral and one topical decongestant); meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical difference between the number of adverse events in the treatment group (125 per 1000) compared to the placebo group (126 per 1000). The odds ratio (OR) for adverse events in the treatment group was 0.98 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.40; P = 0.90; GRADE: low-quality evidence). The results remained the same when we only considered studies using an oral decongestant (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.39; P = 0.80; GRADE: low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We were unable to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of single-dose nasal decongestants due to the limited evidence available. For multiple doses of nasal decongestants, the current evidence suggests that these may have a small positive effect on subjective measures of nasal congestion in adults with the common cold. However, the clinical relevance of this small effect is unknown and there is insufficient good-quality evidence to draw any firm conclusions. Due to the small number of studies that used a topical nasal decongestant, we were also unable to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of oral versus topical decongestants. Nasal decongestants do not seem to increase the risk of adverse events in adults in the short term. The effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants in children and the clinical relevance of their small effect in adults is yet to be determined.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adult; Child; Common Cold; Humans; Imidazoles; Nasal Decongestants; Oxymetazoline; Phenylpropanolamine; Pseudoephedrine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 27748955
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009612.pub2 -
Obesity Reviews : An Official Journal... Nov 2021Anti-obesity medications (AOMs) are efficacious and well tolerated in randomized controlled trials, but findings may not be generalizable to routine clinical practice.... (Review)
Review
Anti-obesity medications (AOMs) are efficacious and well tolerated in randomized controlled trials, but findings may not be generalizable to routine clinical practice. This systematic literature review aimed to identify real-world (RW) evidence for AOMs to treat adults ( ≥ 18 years) with obesity or overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m ). Searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database, National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies of relevant FDA-approved AOMs yielded 41 publications. Weight loss (WL) was consistently observed, with 14% to 58.6% of patients achieving ≥ 5% WL on orlistat, phentermine/topiramate, naltrexone/bupropion, phentermine, or liraglutide in studies of 3-6 months' duration where this was measured. When cardiometabolic risk factors were assessed, AOMs reduced or had no impact on blood pressure, lipids, or glycemia. RW data on the impact of AOMs on existing obesity-related comorbidities and mortality were generally lacking. AOMs were associated with various adverse events, but these were of mild to moderate severity and no unexpected safety signals were reported. A pattern of poor adherence and persistence with AOMs was observed across studies. Overall, the review confirmed the effectiveness of AOMs in RW settings but demonstrated large gaps in the evidence base.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Obesity Agents; Humans; Orlistat; Phentermine; State Medicine; Weight Loss
PubMed: 34423889
DOI: 10.1111/obr.13326 -
CNS Drugs Apr 2020Stimulant drugs are second only to cannabis as the most widely used class of illicit drug globally, accounting for 68 million past-year consumers. Dependence on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Stimulant drugs are second only to cannabis as the most widely used class of illicit drug globally, accounting for 68 million past-year consumers. Dependence on amphetamines (AMPH) or methamphetamine (MA) is a growing global concern. Yet, there is no established pharmacotherapy for AMPH/MA dependence. A comprehensive assessment of the research literature on pharmacotherapy for AMPH/MA dependence may inform treatment guidelines and future research directions.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed the peer-reviewed literature via the electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and SCOPUS for randomised controlled trials reported in the English language examining a pharmacological treatment for AMPH/MA dependence or use disorder. We included all studies published to 19 June 2019. The selected studies were evaluated for design; methodology; inclusion and exclusion criteria; sample size; pharmacological and (if included) psychosocial interventions; length of follow-up and follow-up schedules; outcome variables and measures; results; overall conclusions and risk of bias. Outcome measures were any reported impact of treatment related to AMPH/MA use.
RESULTS
Our search returned 43 studies that met our criteria, collectively enrolling 4065 participants and reporting on 23 individual pharmacotherapies, alone or in combination. Disparate outcomes and measures (n = 55 for the primary outcomes) across studies did not allow for meta-analyses. Some studies demonstrated mixed or weak positive signals (often in defined populations, e.g. men who have sex with men), with some variation in efficacy signals dependent on baseline frequency of AMPH/MA use. The most consistent positive findings have been demonstrated with stimulant agonist treatment (dexamphetamine and methylphenidate), naltrexone and topiramate. Less consistent benefits have been shown with the antidepressants bupropion and mirtazapine, the glutamatergic agent riluzole and the corticotropin releasing factor (CRF-1) antagonist pexacerfont; whilst in general, antidepressant medications (e.g. selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs], tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs]) have not been effective in reducing AMPH/MA use.
CONCLUSIONS
No pharmacotherapy yielded convincing results for the treatment of AMPH/MA dependence; mostly studies were underpowered and had low treatment completion rates. However, there were positive signals from several agents that warrant further investigation in larger scale studies; agonist therapies show promise. Common outcome measures should include change in use days. Future research must address the heterogeneity of AMPH/MA dependence (e.g. coexisting conditions, severity of disorder, differences between MA and AMPH dependence) and the role of psychosocial intervention.
Topics: Amphetamine; Amphetamine-Related Disorders; Animals; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Humans; Methamphetamine; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 32185696
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-020-00711-x -
Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism Sep 2023To compare the benefits and harms of drugs approved for weight management in adults with obesity or overweight. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To compare the benefits and harms of drugs approved for weight management in adults with obesity or overweight.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We performed a systematic review of drugs approved for treating obesity and overweight. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL through 26 February 2023. Random-effects network meta-analysis was applied.
RESULTS
A total of 168 trials (97 938 patients) were included. There was no evidence that drugs approved for weight management had different associations with cardiovascular death (69 trials, 59 037 participants). Naltrexone/bupropion was associated with lower cardiovascular mortality than placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI: 0.39, 0.99]; low certainty evidence). All drugs were associated with greater weight loss at 12 months than placebo (33 trials, 37 616 participants), mainly semaglutide (mean difference [MD], -9.02 kg [95% CI: -10.42, -7.63]; moderate certainty) and phentermine/topiramate (MD, -8.10 kg [95% CI: -10.14, -6.05]; high certainty); and with greater waist circumference reduction at 12 months than placebo (24 trials, 35 733 participants), mainly semaglutide (MD, -7.84 cm [95% CI: -9.34, -6.34]; moderate certainty) and phentermine/topiramate (MD, -6.20 cm [95% CI: -7.46, -4.94]; high certainty). Semaglutide and phentermine/topiramate were associated with lower or no difference in the odds of treatment withdrawal compared with all other drugs (87 trials, 70 860 participants).
CONCLUSIONS
Among adults with obesity or overweight, semaglutide and phentermine/topiramate were associated with greater body weight loss and waist circumference reduction at 12 months than all other drugs, and lower or no significant difference in risks of withdrawal. There was no evidence that drugs approved for weight management had different associations with cardiovascular death.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Overweight; Topiramate; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Obesity; Phentermine
PubMed: 37254688
DOI: 10.1111/dom.15138 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018This is an update of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2011.Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most prevalent of the comorbid... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2011.Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most prevalent of the comorbid psychiatric disorders that complicate tic disorders. Medications commonly used to treat ADHD symptoms include stimulants such as methylphenidate and amphetamine; non-stimulants, such as atomoxetine; tricyclic antidepressants; and alpha agonists. Alpha agonists are also used as a treatment for tics. Due to the impact of ADHD symptoms on the child with tic disorder, treatment of ADHD is often of greater priority than the medical management of tics. However, for many decades, clinicians have been reluctant to use stimulants to treat children with ADHD and tics for fear of worsening their tics. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological treatments for ADHD in children with comorbid tic disorders on symptoms of ADHD and tics.
SEARCH METHODS
In September 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and 12 other databases. We also searched two trial registers and contacted experts in the field for any ongoing or unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized, double-blind, controlled trials of any pharmacological treatment for ADHD used specifically in children with comorbid tic disorders. We included both parallel-group and cross-over study designs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane, in that two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data using standardized forms, assessed risk of bias, and graded the overall quality of the evidence by using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight randomized controlled trials (four of which were cross-over trials) with 510 participants (443 boys, 67 girls) in this review. Participants in these studies were children with both ADHD and a chronic tic disorder. All studies took place in the USA and ranged from three to 22 weeks in duration. Five of the eight studies were funded by charitable organizations or government agencies, or both. One study was funded by the drug manufacturer. The other two studies did not specify the source of funding. Risk of bias of included studies was low for blinding; low or unclear for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and attrition bias; and low or high for selective outcome reporting. We were unable to combine any of the studies in a meta-analysis due to important clinical heterogeneity and unit-of-analysis issues.Several of the trials assessed multiple agents. Medications assessed included methylphenidate, clonidine, desipramine, dextroamphetamine, guanfacine, atomoxetine, and deprenyl. There was low-quality evidence for methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and clonidine, and very low-quality evidence for desipramine, dextroamphetamine, guanfacine and deprenyl in the treatment of ADHD in children with tics. All studies, with the exception of a study using deprenyl, reported improvement in symptoms of ADHD. Tic symptoms also improved in children treated with guanfacine, desipramine, methylphenidate, clonidine, and a combination of methylphenidate and clonidine. In one study, tics limited further dosage increases of methylphenidate. High-dose dextroamphetamine appeared to worsen tics in one study, although the length of this study was limited to three weeks. There was appetite suppression or weight loss in association with methylphenidate, dextroamphetamine, atomoxetine, and desipramine. There was insomnia associated with methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine, and sedation associated with clonidine.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Following an updated search of potentially relevant studies, we found no new studies that matched our inclusion criteria and thus our conclusions have not changed.Methylphenidate, clonidine, guanfacine, desipramine, and atomoxetine appear to reduce ADHD symptoms in children with tics though the quality of the available evidence was low to very low. Although stimulants have not been shown to worsen tics in most people with tic disorders, they may, nonetheless, exacerbate tics in individual cases. In these instances, treatment with alpha agonists or atomoxetine may be an alternative. Although there is evidence that desipramine may improve tics and ADHD in children, safety concerns will likely continue to limit its use in this population.
Topics: Adolescent; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Child, Preschool; Clonidine; Desipramine; Dextroamphetamine; Female; Guanfacine; Humans; Male; Methylphenidate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selegiline; Tic Disorders
PubMed: 29944175
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007990.pub3 -
Current Neuropharmacology 2022Despite increasing worldwide incidence of Parkinson's disease, the therapy is still suboptimal due to the diversified clinical manifestations, lack of sufficient...
BACKGROUND
Despite increasing worldwide incidence of Parkinson's disease, the therapy is still suboptimal due to the diversified clinical manifestations, lack of sufficient treatment, the poor adherence in advanced patients, and varied response. Proper intake of medications regarding food and managing drug-food interactions may optimize Parkinson's disease treatment.
OBJECTIVES
We investigated potential effects that food, beverages, and dietary supplements may have on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of drugs used by parkinsonian patients; identified the most probable interactions; and shaped recommendations for the optimal intake of drugs regarding food.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review in adherence to PRISMA guidelines, and included a total of 81 studies in the qualitative synthesis.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
We found evidence for levodopa positive interaction with coffee, fiber and vitamin C, as well as for the potential beneficial impact of low-fat and protein redistribution diet. Contrastingly, high-protein diet and ferrous sulfate supplements can negatively affect levodopa pharmacokinetics and effectiveness. For other drugs, the data of food impact are scarce. Based on the available limited evidence, all dopamine agonists (bromocriptine, cabergoline, ropinirole), tolcapone, rasagiline, selegiline in tablets, safinamide, amantadine and pimavanserin can be taken with or without a meal. Opicapone and orally disintegrating selegiline tablets should be administered on an empty stomach. Of monoamine oxidase B inhibitors, safinamide is the least susceptible for interaction with the tyramine-rich food, whereas selegiline and rasagiline may lose selectivity to monoamine oxidase B when administered in supratherapeutic doses. The level of presented evidence is low due to the poor studies design, their insufficient actuality, and missing data.
Topics: Antiparkinson Agents; Dietary Supplements; Humans; Levodopa; Monoamine Oxidase; Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors; Parkinson Disease; Selegiline
PubMed: 34784871
DOI: 10.2174/1570159X19666211116142806 -
Drugs Oct 2023Dravet syndrome (DS) is a severe developmental and epileptic encephalopathy characterized by drug-resistant, lifelong seizures. The management of seizures in DS has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dravet syndrome (DS) is a severe developmental and epileptic encephalopathy characterized by drug-resistant, lifelong seizures. The management of seizures in DS has changed in recent years with the approval of new antiseizure medications (ASMs).
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to estimate the comparative efficacy and tolerability of the ASMs for the treatment of seizures associated with DS using a network meta-analysis (NMA).
METHODS
Studies were identified by conducting a systematic search (week 4, January 2023) of the MEDLINE (accessed by PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry ( http://www.
CLINICALTRIALS
gov ) databases. Any randomized, controlled, double- or single-blinded, parallel-group study comparing at least one ASM therapy against placebo, another ASM, or a different dose of the same ASM in participants with a diagnosis of DS was identified. The efficacy outcomes were the proportions of participants with ≥ 50% (seizure response) and 100% reduction (seizure freedom) in baseline convulsive seizure frequency during the maintenance period. The tolerability outcomes included the proportions of patients who withdrew from treatment for any reason and who experienced at least one adverse event (AE). Effect sizes were estimated by network meta-analyses within a frequentist framework.
RESULTS
Eight placebo-controlled trials were included, and the active add-on treatments were stiripentol (n = 2), pharmaceutical-grade cannabidiol (n = 3), fenfluramine hydrochloride (n = 2), and soticlestat (n = 1). The studies recruited 680 participants, of whom 409 were randomized to active treatments (stiripentol = 33, pharmaceutical-grade cannabidiol = 228, fenfluramine hydrochloride = 122, and soticlestat = 26) and 271 to placebo. Pharmaceutical-grade cannabidiol was associated with a lower rate of seizure response than fenfluramine hydrochloride (odds ratio [OR] 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07-0.54), and stiripentol was associated with a higher seizure response rate than pharmaceutical-grade cannabidiol (OR 14.07, 95% CI 2.57-76.87). No statistically significant differences emerged across the different ASMs for the seizure freedom outcome. Stiripentol was associated with a lower probability of drug discontinuation for any reason than pharmaceutical-grade cannabidiol (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.04-5.69), and pharmaceutical-grade cannabidiol was associated with a lower proportion of participants experiencing any AE than fenfluramine hydrochloride (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.78). Stiripentol had a higher risk of AE occurrence than pharmaceutical-grade cannabidiol (OR 75.72, 95% CI 3.59-1598.58). The study found high-quality evidence of efficacy and tolerability of the four ASMs in the treatment of convulsive seizures in DS.
CONCLUSIONS
There exists first-class evidence that documents the efficacy and tolerability of stiripentol, pharmaceutical-grade cannabidiol, fenfluramine hydrochloride, and soticlestat for the treatment of seizures associated with DS, and allows discussion about the expected outcomes regarding seizure frequency reduction and tolerability profiles.
Topics: Humans; Anticonvulsants; Cannabidiol; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Epilepsies, Myoclonic; Fenfluramine; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 37695433
DOI: 10.1007/s40265-023-01936-y -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018Cardiogenic shock (CS) and low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) as complications of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF) or cardiac surgery are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cardiogenic shock (CS) and low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) as complications of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF) or cardiac surgery are life-threatening conditions. While there is a broad body of evidence for the treatment of people with acute coronary syndrome under stable haemodynamic conditions, the treatment strategies for people who become haemodynamically unstable or develop CS remain less clear. We have therefore summarised here the evidence on the treatment of people with CS or LCOS with different inotropic agents and vasodilative drugs. This is the first update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess efficacy and safety of cardiac care with positive inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies in people with CS or LCOS due to AMI, HF or cardiac surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CPCI-S Web of Science in June 2017. We also searched four registers of ongoing trials and scanned reference lists and contacted experts in the field to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials in people with myocardial infarction, heart failure or cardiac surgery complicated by cardiogenic shock or LCOS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 13 eligible studies with 2001 participants (mean or median age range 58 to 73 years) and two ongoing studies. We categorised studies into eight comparisons, all against cardiac care and additional other active drugs or placebo. These comparisons investigated the efficacy of levosimendan versus dobutamine, enoximone or placebo, epinephrine versus norepinephrine-dobutamine, amrinone versus dobutamine, dopexamine versus dopamine, enoximone versus dopamine and nitric oxide versus placebo.All trials were published in peer-reviewed journals, and analysis was done by the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. Twelve of 13 trials were small with few included participants. Acknowledgement of funding by the pharmaceutical industry or missing conflict of interest statements emerged in five of 13 trials. In general, confidence in the results of analysed studies was reduced due to serious study limitations, very serious imprecision or indirectness. Domains of concern, which show a high risk of more than 50%, include performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel) and bias affecting the quality of evidence on adverse events.Levosimendan may reduce short-term mortality compared to a therapy with dobutamine (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.95; 6 studies; 1776 participants; low-quality evidence; NNT: 16 (patients with moderate risk), NNT: 5 (patients with CS)). This initial short-term survival benefit with levosimendan vs. dobutamine is not confirmed on long-term follow up. There is uncertainty (due to lack of statistical power) as to the effect of levosimendan compared to therapy with placebo (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.94; 2 studies; 55 participants, very low-quality evidence) or enoximone (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.14; 1 study; 32 participants, very low-quality evidence).All comparisons comparing other positive inotropic, inodilative or vasodilative drugs presented uncertainty on their effect on short-term mortality with very low-quality evidence and based on only one RCT. These single studies compared epinephrine with norepinephrine-dobutamine (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.77; 30 participants), amrinone with dobutamine (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.85; 30 participants), dopexamine with dopamine (no in-hospital deaths from 70 participants), enoximone with dobutamine (two deaths from 40 participants) and nitric oxide with placebo (one death from three participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Apart from low quality of evidence data suggesting a short-term mortality benefit of levosimendan compared with dobutamine, at present there are no robust and convincing data to support a distinct inotropic or vasodilator drug-based therapy as a superior solution to reduce mortality in haemodynamically unstable people with cardiogenic shock or LCOS.Considering the limited evidence derived from the present data due to a generally high risk of bias and imprecision, it should be emphasised that there remains a great need for large, well-designed randomised trials on this topic to close the gap between daily practice in critical care medicine and the available evidence. It seems to be useful to apply the concept of 'early goal-directed therapy' in cardiogenic shock and LCOS with early haemodynamic stabilisation within predefined timelines. Future clinical trials should therefore investigate whether such a therapeutic concept would influence survival rates much more than looking for the 'best' drug for haemodynamic support.
Topics: Aged; Cardiac Output, Low; Cardiotonic Agents; Cause of Death; Dobutamine; Enoximone; Humans; Hydrazones; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; Nitric Oxide; Pyridazines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Shock, Cardiogenic; Simendan; Vasodilator Agents
PubMed: 29376560
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009669.pub3 -
Psychopharmacology Aug 2020Agonist-based pharmacologic intervention is an accepted approach in treatment of opioid and tobacco use disorders. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
RATIONALE
Agonist-based pharmacologic intervention is an accepted approach in treatment of opioid and tobacco use disorders.
OBJECTIVES
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate usefulness of an agonist approach as treatment of (psycho)stimulant use disorder (PSUD).
METHODS
We reviewed PubMed/Medline, LILACS, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases searching for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-design studies evaluating outcomes of individuals treated for cocaine- or amphetamine-type substance use disorder. We combined results of all trials that included the following prescription psychostimulants (PPs): modafinil, methylphenidate, or amphetamines (mixed amphetamine salts, lisdexamphetamine, and dextroamphetamine). The combined sample consisted of 2889 patients. Outcomes of interest included the following: drug abstinence (defined as 2-3 weeks of sustained abstinence and the average maximum days of consecutive abstinence), percentage of drug-negative urine tests across trial, and retention in treatment. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and assessed quality of evidence using the GRADE system.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight trials were included. Treatment with PPs increases rates of sustained abstinence [risk ratio (RR) = 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (1.10, 1.92)] and duration of abstinence [mean difference (MD) = 3.34, 95% CI = (1.06, 5.62)] in patients with PSUD, particularly those with cocaine use disorder (very low-quality evidence). Prescription amphetamines were particularly efficacious in promoting sustained abstinence in patients with cocaine use disorder [RR = 2.44, 95% CI = (1.66, 3.58)], and higher doses of PPs were particularly efficacious for treatment of cocaine use disorder [RR = 1.95, 95% CI = (1.38, 2.77)] (moderate-quality evidence). Treatment with prescription amphetamines also yielded more cocaine-negative urines [MD = 8.37%, 95% CI = (3.75, 12.98)]. There was no effect of PPs on the retention in treatment.
CONCLUSION
Prescription psychostimulants, particularly prescription amphetamines given in robust doses, have a clinically significant beneficial effect to promote abstinence in the treatment of individuals with PSUD, specifically the population with cocaine use disorder.
Topics: Amphetamine; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cocaine; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Prescription Drugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Substance-Related Disorders; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32601988
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-020-05563-3 -
Advances in Therapy Nov 2022Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus other dual and mono-bronchodilator therapies in symptomatic patients with COPD.
METHODS
A systematic literature review (October 2015-November 2020) was performed to identify RCTs ≥ 8 weeks long in adult patients with COPD that compared LAMA/LABA combinations against any long-acting bronchodilator-containing dual therapy or monotherapy. Data extracted on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score, rescue medication use and moderate/severe exacerbation rate were analysed using an NMA in a frequentist framework. The primary comparison was at 24 weeks. Fixed effects model results are presented.
RESULTS
The NMA included 69 full-length publications (including 10 GSK clinical study reports) reporting 49 studies. At 24 weeks, UMEC/VI provided statistically significant greater improvements in FEV versus all dual therapy and monotherapy comparators. UMEC/VI provided similar improvements in SGRQ total score compared with all other LAMA/LABAs, and significantly greater improvements versus UMEC 125 μg, glycopyrronium 50 μg, glycopyrronium 18 μg, tiotropium 18 μg and salmeterol 50 μg. UMEC/VI also provided significantly better outcomes versus some comparators for TDI focal score, rescue medication use, annualised moderate/severe exacerbation rate, and time to first moderate/severe exacerbation.
CONCLUSION
UMEC/VI provided generally better outcomes compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapies, and consistent improvements in lung function (measured by change from baseline in trough FEV at 24 weeks) versus dual therapies. Treatment with UMEC/VI may improve outcomes for symptomatic patients with COPD compared with alternative maintenance treatments.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Adult; Benzyl Alcohols; Bronchodilator Agents; Chlorobenzenes; Drug Combinations; Dyspnea; Forced Expiratory Volume; Glycopyrrolate; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quinuclidines; Salmeterol Xinafoate; Tiotropium Bromide; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35857184
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-022-02234-x