-
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Oct 2021Maternal immune activation (mIA) during pregnancy is hypothesised to disrupt offspring neurodevelopment and predispose offspring to neurodevelopmental disorders such as... (Review)
Review
Maternal immune activation (mIA) during pregnancy is hypothesised to disrupt offspring neurodevelopment and predispose offspring to neurodevelopmental disorders such as schizophrenia. Rodent models of mIA have explored possible mechanisms underlying this paradigm and provide a vital tool for preclinical research. However, a comprehensive analysis of the molecular changes that occur in mIA-models is lacking, hindering identification of robust clinical targets. This systematic review assesses mIA-driven transcriptomic and epigenomic alterations in specific offspring brain regions. Across 118 studies, we focus on 88 candidate genes and show replicated changes in expression in critical functional areas, including elevated inflammatory markers, and reduced myelin and GABAergic signalling proteins. Further, disturbed epigenetic markers at nine of these genes support mIA-driven epigenetic modulation of transcription. Overall, our results demonstrate that current outcome measures have direct relevance for the hypothesised pathology of schizophrenia and emphasise the importance of mIA-models in contributing to the understanding of biological pathways impacted by mIA and the discovery of new drug targets.
Topics: Animals; Behavior, Animal; Brain; Disease Models, Animal; Epigenesis, Genetic; Epigenomics; Female; Gene Expression; Poly I-C; Pregnancy; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Rodentia
PubMed: 34280428
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.07.015 -
International Journal of Molecular... Feb 2023Polydeoxyribonucleotide (PDRN) is a proprietary and registered drug with several beneficial effects, including tissue repairing, anti-ischemic action, and... (Review)
Review
Polydeoxyribonucleotide (PDRN) is a proprietary and registered drug with several beneficial effects, including tissue repairing, anti-ischemic action, and anti-inflammatory properties. The present study aims to summarize the current evidence about PRDN's clinical effectiveness in the management of tendon disorders. From January 2015 to November 2022, OVID-MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Google Scholar and PubMed were searched to identify relevant studies. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated, and relevant data were extracted. Nine studies (two in vivo studies and seven clinical studies) were finally included in this systematic review. Overall, 169 patients (male: 103) were included in the present study. The effectiveness and safeness of PDRN has been investigated in the management of the following diseases: plantar fasciitis; epicondylitis; Achilles tendinopathy; pes anserine bursitis; chronic rotator cuff disease. No adverse effects have been recorded in the included studies and all the patients showed an improvement in clinical symptoms during the follow-up. PDRN are a valid emerging therapeutic drug in the treatment of tendinopathies. Further multicentric randomized clinical studies are needed to better define the therapeutic role of PDRN, especially in combined clinical protocols.
Topics: Humans; Male; Tendinopathy; Rotator Cuff Injuries; Polydeoxyribonucleotides; Achilles Tendon; Rotator Cuff; Treatment Outcome; Chronic Disease
PubMed: 36902012
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24054582 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is a complication of diabetic retinopathy that can cause blindness. Although panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is the treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is a complication of diabetic retinopathy that can cause blindness. Although panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is the treatment of choice for PDR, it has secondary effects that can affect vision. An alternative treatment such as anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF), which produces an inhibition of vascular proliferation, could improve the vision of people with PDR.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of anti-VEGFs for PDR.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to April 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 28 April 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-VEGFs to another active treatment, sham treatment or no treatment for people with PDR. We also included studies that assessed the combination of anti-VEGFs with other treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included trials. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or the mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 RCTs with 1005 participants (1131 eyes) of whom 57% were men. The median number of participants per RCT was 40 (range 15 to 261). The studies took place in Asia (three studies), Europe (two studies), the Middle East (seven studies), North America (three studies) and South America (three studies). Eight RCTs recruited people eligible for PRP, nine RCTs enrolled people with diabetes requiring vitrectomy and one RCT recruited people undergoing cataract surgery. The median follow-up was six months (range one to 12 months). Seven studies were at high risk of bias and the remainder were unclear risk of bias in one or more domains.Very low quality evidence from one study of 61 people showed that people treated with bevacizumab and PRP were less likely to lose 3 or more lines of visual acuity at 12 months compared with people treated with PRP alone (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.81). People treated with anti-VEGF had an increased chance of gaining 3 or more lines of visual acuity but the effect was imprecise and compatible with no effect or being less likely to gain vision (RR 6.78, 95% CI 0.37 to 125.95). No other study reported these two outcomes. On average, people treated with anti-VEGF (bevacizumab, pegaptanib or ranibizumab) had better visual acuity at 12 months compared with people not receiving anti-VEGF (MD -0.07 logMAR, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.02; 5 RCTs, 373 participants, low quality evidence). There was some evidence to suggest a regression of PDR with smaller leakage on fluorescein angiography but it was difficult to estimate a pooled result from the two trials reporting this outcome. People receiving anti-VEGF were less likely to have vitreous or pre-retinal haemorrhage at 12 months (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.65; 3 RCTs, 342 participants, low quality evidence). No study reported on fluorescein leakage or quality of life.All of the nine trials of anti-VEGF before or during vitrectomy investigated bevacizumab; most studies investigated bevacizumab before vitrectomy, one study investigated bevacizumab during surgery.People treated with bevacizumab and vitrectomy were less likely to lose 3 or more lines of visual acuity at 12 months compared with people given vitrectomy alone but the effect was imprecise and compatible with no effect or being more likely to lose vision (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.08 to 3.14; 3 RCTs, 94 participants, low quality evidence). People treated with bevacizumab were more likely to gain 3 or more lines of visual acuity (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.17; 3 RCTs, 94 participants, low quality evidence). On average, people treated with bevacizumab had better visual acuity at 12 months compared with people not receiving bevacizumab but there was uncertainty in the estimate (the CIs included 0; i.e. were compatible with no effect, and there was considerable inconsistency between studies; MD -0.24 logMAR, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.01; 6 RCTs, 335 participants, I(2) = 67%; low quality evidence). People receiving bevacizumab were less likely to have vitreous or pre-retinal haemorrhage at 12 months (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.52; 7 RCTs, 393 participants, low quality evidence). No study reported on quality of life.Reasons for downgrading the quality of the evidence included risk of bias in included studies, imprecision of the estimates, inconsistency of effect estimates and indirectness (few studies reported at 12 months).Adverse effects were rarely reported and there was no evidence for any increased risk with anti-VEGF but given the relatively few studies that reported these, and the low event rate, the power of the analysis to detect any differences was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was very low or low quality evidence from RCTs for the efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF agents when used to treat PDR over and above current standard treatments. However, the results suggest that anti-VEGFs can reduce the risk of intraocular bleeding in people with PDR. Further carefully designed clinical trials should be able to improve this evidence.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Aptamers, Nucleotide; Bevacizumab; Diabetic Retinopathy; Female; Humans; Light Coagulation; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranibizumab; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Visual Acuity; Vitrectomy; Vitreoretinopathy, Proliferative
PubMed: 25418485
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008721.pub2 -
Medicine Sep 2019The purpose of this study was to use meta-analysis techniques to evaluate the efficacy and safety of polydeoxyribonucleotide (PDRN) injections for knee osteoarthritis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to use meta-analysis techniques to evaluate the efficacy and safety of polydeoxyribonucleotide (PDRN) injections for knee osteoarthritis (OA) treatment.
METHODS
Multiple comprehensive databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, were searched in November 2018 for studies that compared the effectiveness and safety of intra-articular PDRN injection for the knee joint with hyaluronic acid (HA) injection. Two reviewers independently determined study inclusion and they extracted data using a standardized data extraction form. The predefined primary outcome was Visual Analogue Scale. Secondary outcomes included Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Society Score (KSS), and adverse events.
RESULTS
Five randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. After 1 and 2 months, patients in the PDRN group showed significantly better improvement in pain than the HA group (P = .04 and P = .02, respectively). There was no significant difference in pain after 4 months. The pooled analysis showed that no significant differences were seen in function (KOOS and KSS) scores between the PDRN and HA groups (all P > .05) at all time points. There was no significant difference in adverse events between 2 groups (relative risks = 2.15, 95% confidential interval: 0.17-26.67, P = .55).
CONCLUSION
The intra-articular use of PDRN was similar in function to HA, and the pain-relief effect was superior to HA for 2 months post-injection. Therefore, it could be a favorable alternative to HA to treat persistent pain associated with knee OA while avoiding side effects.Level of evidence I.
Topics: Aged; Female; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Injections, Intra-Articular; Knee Joint; Male; Middle Aged; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain Measurement; Polydeoxyribonucleotides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Viscosupplements
PubMed: 31574892
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017386 -
Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and... Nov 2014The present study evaluates the safety of the biologics approved for the treatment of ocular diseases. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The present study evaluates the safety of the biologics approved for the treatment of ocular diseases.
METHODS
The European medicines agency Website was searched to identify biologics with approved ophthalmologic therapeutic indications. A systematic search was performed using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to December 2013. Pre-marketing, phase III randomized controlled trials (RCT), postmarketing clinical trials, observational longitudinal studies, and case reports involving adverse events (AE) were included. Methodological quality was assessed by Downs & Black checklist. All European spontaneous reports of AE included in the Eudravigilance up to December 2013 were also considered. AE were classified as ocular (related and non-related with the injection procedure) and non-ocular (related or non-related with vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition). Incidences of all reported AEs were estimated.
RESULTS
Pegaptanib, ranibizumab, and aflibercept were identified as ophthalmic biologics. Fourteen premarketing RCT, 7 postmarketing clinical trials, 31 observational studies, along with 31 case reports and 7,720 spontaneous reports were identified and included in this study. Both in pre- and postmarketing settings, ocular AEs were more frequent than non-ocular AEs. Premarketing safety data inform the most common AEs. Postmarketing studies suggest an increased number of events such as retinal pigmented epithelium tears (0.6%-24%), thromboembolic events (0.8%-5%), and mortality (2.8%-4%).
CONCLUSIONS
This study highlights the need to properly evaluate the risk for rare, serious, and long-term AEs, such as thromboembolic events, since they can lead to imbalances in the benefit-risk ratio of biologics in ophthalmology.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Aptamers, Nucleotide; Biological Products; Eye Diseases; Humans; Ranibizumab; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; Retinal Pigment Epithelium; Thromboembolism; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 25073069
DOI: 10.1089/jop.2013.0206 -
International Journal of Antimicrobial... Mar 2024Peptide nucleic acids (PNAs) are synthetic molecules that are like DNA/RNA, but with different building blocks. PNAs target and bind to mRNAs and disrupt the function of... (Review)
Review
Peptide nucleic acids (PNAs) are synthetic molecules that are like DNA/RNA, but with different building blocks. PNAs target and bind to mRNAs and disrupt the function of a targeted gene, hence they have been studied as potential antibacterials. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an in-depth analysis of the current status of PNAs as antibacterial agents, define the characteristics of the effective PNA constructs, and address the gap in advancing PNAs to become clinically competent agents. Following the PRISMA model, four electronic databases were searched: Web of Science, PubMed, SciFinder and Scopus. A total of 627 articles published between 1994 and 2023 were found. After screening and a rigorous selection process using explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria, 65 scientific articles were selected, containing 656 minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) data. The antibacterial activity of PNAs was assessed against 20 bacterial species. The most studied Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria were Escherichia coli (n=266) and Staphylococcus aureus (n=53), respectively. In addition, the effect of PNA design, including construct length, binding location, and carrier agents, on antibacterial activity was shown. Finally, antibacterial test models to assess the inhibitory effects of PNAs were examined, emphasising gaps and prospects. This systematic review provides a comprehensive assessment of the potential of PNAs as antibacterial agents and offers valuable insights for researchers and clinicians seeking novel therapeutic strategies in the context of increasing rates of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Peptide Nucleic Acids; Staphylococcus aureus
PubMed: 38185398
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2024.107083 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2016Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) plays a key role in angiogenesis in fetal life. Recently, researchers have attempted to use anti-VEGF agents for the treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) plays a key role in angiogenesis in fetal life. Recently, researchers have attempted to use anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), a vasoproliferative disorder. There is currently uncertainty regarding the safety and efficacy of these agents in preterm infants with ROP.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF drugs when used either as monotherapy, i.e. without concomitant cryotherapy or laser therapy or in combination with planned cryo/laser therapy in preterm infants with type 1 ROP (defined as zone I any stage with plus disease, zone I stage 3 with or without plus disease or zone II stage 2 or 3 with plus disease).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to January 1, 2016), EMBASE (1980 to January 1, 2016), CINAHL (1982 to January 1, 2016), conference proceedings, and previous reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy and safety of administration, or both, of anti-VEGF agents compared with conventional therapy in premature infants with ROP.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane and Cochrane Neonatal methods for data collection and analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Three trials, in which 239 infants participated, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Two trials compared intravitreal bevacizumab with conventional laser therapy (monotherapy) while the third compared intravitreal pegaptanib plus laser treatment with laser and cryotherapy (combination therapy) in infants with type 1 ROP.Of the two studies that evaluated intravitreal bevacizumab, one randomized infants while the other randomized eyes of the infants to the intervention and control groups. The former did not report any difference in the incidence of complete or partial retinal detachment between the groups (143 infants; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.21 to 5.13; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.07; very low quality evidence) but reported a significant reduction in the risk of refractive errors - very high myopia - at 30 months of age (211 eyes; RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.20; RD -0.40, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.30; low quality evidence) and recurrence of ROP by 54 weeks' postmenstrual age (143 infants; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.62; RD -0.20, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.09; moderate quality evidence) in the bevacizumab group. The study found no difference in the risk of mortality before discharge from the hospital (150 infants; RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.26 to 8.75; RD 0.01; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.07; low quality evidence), mortality at 30 months of age (150 infants; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.45; RD -0.01; 95% CI -0.10 to 0.08; low quality evidence), corneal opacity requiring corneal transplant (286 eyes; RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.26; RD -0.01; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02; very low quality evidence), or lens opacity requiring cataract removal (286 eyes; RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.79; RD -0.02; 95% CI -0.05 to 0.01; very low quality evidence). The second trial that randomized eyes of the infants did not find any difference in the risk of complete retinal detachment between the eyes randomized to bevacizumab and those that were randomized to laser therapy (13 eyes; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.50; RD -0.08, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.11).When used in combination with laser therapy, intravitreal pegaptanib was found to reduce the risk of retinal detachment when compared to laser/cryotherapy alone (152 eyes; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.55; RD -0.29, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.16; low quality evidence). The incidence of recurrence of ROP by 55 weeks' postmenstrual age was also lower in the pegaptanib + laser therapy group (76 infants; RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.7; RD -0.35, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.16; low quality evidence). There was no difference in the risk of perioperative retinal haemorrhages between the two groups (152 eyes; RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.56; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.05; very low quality evidence). The risk of delayed systemic adverse effects with either of the drugs is, however, not known.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Intravitreal bevacizumab reduces the risk of refractive errors during childhood when used as monotherapy while intravitreal pegaptanib reduces the risk of retinal detachment when used in conjunction with laser therapy in infants with type 1 ROP. Quality of evidence was, however, low for both the outcomes because of the risk of detection and other biases. Effect on other critical outcomes and, more importantly, the long-term systemic adverse effects of the drugs are not known. The insufficient data precludes strong conclusions favouring routine use of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents in preterm infants with type 1 ROP.
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH
Further studies are needed to evaluate the effect of anti-VEGF agents on structural and functional outcomes in childhood and delayed systemic adverse effects such as myocardial dysfunction and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Aptamers, Nucleotide; Bevacizumab; Combined Modality Therapy; Cryotherapy; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Intravitreal Injections; Laser Therapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retinal Detachment; Retinopathy of Prematurity; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 26932750
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009734.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) modalities can reduce oedema and thereby improve vision and prevent further visual loss. These drugs have replaced laser photocoagulation as the standard of care for people with DMO.
OBJECTIVES
The 2014 update of this review found high-quality evidence of benefit with antiangiogenic therapy with anti-VEGF modalities, compared to laser photocoagulation, for the treatment of DMO.The objective of this updated review is to compare the effectiveness and safety of the different anti-VEGF drugs in preserving and improving vision and quality of life using network meta-analysis methods.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched various electronic databases on 26 April 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any anti-angiogenic drug with an anti-VEGF mechanism of action versus another anti-VEGF drug, another treatment, sham or no treatment in people with DMO.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods for pair-wise meta-analysis and we augmented this evidence using network meta-analysis methods. We focused on the relative efficacy and safety of the three most commonly used drugs as interventions of direct interest for practice: aflibercept and ranibizumab, used on-label; and off-label bevacizumab.We collected data on three efficacy outcomes (gain of 15 or more Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters; mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA); mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT)), three safety outcomes (all severe systemic adverse events (SSAEs); all-cause death; arterial thromboembolic events) and quality of life.We used Stata 'network' meta-analysis package for all analyses. We investigated the risk of bias of mixed comparisons based on the variance contribution of each study, having assigned an overall risk of bias to each study.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-four studies included 6007 participants with DMO and moderate vision loss, of which two studies randomised 265 eyes of 230 participants and one was a cross-over study on 56 participants (62 eyes) that was treated as a parallel-arm trial. Data were collected on drugs of direct interest from three studies on aflibercept (975 eyes), eight studies on bevacizumab (515 eyes), and 14 studies on ranibizumab (1518 eyes). As treatments of indirect interest or legacy treatment we included three studies on pegaptanib (541 eyes), five studies on ranibizumab plus prompt laser (557 eyes), one study on ranibizumab plus deferred laser (188 eyes), 13 studies on laser photocoagulation (936 eyes) and six studies on sham treatment (793 eyes).Aflibercept, bevacizumab and ranibizumab were all more effective than laser for improving vision by 3 or more lines after one year (high-certainty evidence). Approximately one in 10 people improve vision with laser, and about three in 10 people improve with anti-VEGF treatment: risk ratio (RR) versus laser 3.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.79 to 4.79) for aflibercept; RR 2.47 (95% CI 1.81 to 3.37) for bevacizumab; RR 2.76 (95% CI 2.12 to 3.59) for ranibizumab. On average there was no change in visual acuity (VA) with laser after one year, compared with a gain of 1 or 2 lines with anti-VEGF treatment: laser versus aflibercept mean difference (MD) -0.20 (95% CI -0.22 to -0.17) logMAR; versus bevacizumab MD -0.12 (95% CI -0.15 to -0.09) logMAR; versus ranibizumab MD -0.12 (95% CI -0.14 to -0.10) logMAR. The certainty of the evidence was high for the comparison of aflibercept and ranibizumab with laser and moderate for bevacizumab comparison with laser due to inconsistency between the indirect and direct evidence.People receiving ranibizumab were less likely to gain 3 or more lines of VA at one year compared with aflibercept: RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.94), moderate-certainty evidence. For every 1000 people treated with aflibercept, 92 fewer would gain 3 or more lines of VA at one year if treated with ranibizumab (22 to 148 fewer). On average people receiving ranibizumab had worse VA at one year (MD 0.08 logMAR units, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11), moderate-certainty evidence; and higher CRT (MD 39 µm, 95% CI 2 µm to 76 µm; low-certainty evidence). Ranibizumab and bevacizumab were comparable with respect to aflibercept and did not differ in terms of VA: RR of gain of 3 or more lines of VA at one year 1.11 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.43), moderate-certainty evidence, and difference in change in VA was 0.00 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.03) logMAR, moderate-certainty evidence. CRT reduction favoured ranibizumab by -29 µm (95% CI -58 µm to -1 µm, low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of overall statistical inconsistency in our analyses.The previous version of this review found moderate-certainty evidence of good safety of antiangiogenic drugs versus control. This update used data at the longest available follow-up (one or two years) and found that aflibercept, ranibizumab and bevacizumab do not differ regarding systemic serious adverse events (SSAEs) (moderate- or high-certainty evidence). However, risk of bias was variable, loop inconsistency could be found and estimates were not precise enough on relative safety regarding less frequent events such as arterial thromboembolic events or death (low- or very low-certainty evidence).Two-year data were available and reported in only four RCTs in this review. Most industry-sponsored studies were open-label after one year. One large publicly-funded study compared the three drugs at two years and found no difference.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Anti-VEGF drugs are effective at improving vision in people with DMO with three to four in every 10 people likely to experience an improvement of 3 or more lines VA at one year. There is moderate-certainty evidence that aflibercept confers some advantage over ranibizumab and bevacizumab in people with DMO at one year in visual and anatomic terms. Relative effects among anti-VEGF drugs at two years are less well known, since most studies were short term. Evidence from RCTs may not apply to real-world practice, where people in need of antiangiogenic treatment are often under-treated and under-monitored.We found no signals of differences in overall safety between the three antiangiogenic drugs that are currently available to treat DMO, but our estimates are imprecise for cardiovascular events and death.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Aptamers, Nucleotide; Bevacizumab; Diabetic Retinopathy; Humans; Laser Coagulation; Macular Edema; Network Meta-Analysis; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranibizumab; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; Triamcinolone; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 28639415
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007419.pub5 -
Clinical Drug Investigation Jun 2022Defibrotide is approved to treat severe veno-occlusive disease/sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (VOD/SOS) after haematopoietic cell transplantation in patients aged > 1... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Defibrotide is approved to treat severe veno-occlusive disease/sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (VOD/SOS) after haematopoietic cell transplantation in patients aged > 1 month in the European Union and for VOD/SOS with renal/pulmonary dysfunction post-haematopoietic cell transplantation in the United States. This meta-analysis estimated the incidence and risk of VOD/SOS after intravenous defibrotide prophylaxis using the published literature.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were searched through 30 November 2021 for defibrotide studies in VOD/SOS "prevention" or "prophylaxis," excluding phase I studies, case reports, studies with fewer than ten patients and reviews.
RESULTS
The search identified 733 records; 24 met inclusion criteria, of which 20 (N = 3005) evaluated intravenous defibrotide for VOD/SOS prophylaxis. Overall VOD/SOS incidence with intravenous defibrotide was 5%, with incidences of 5% in adults and 8% in paediatric patients. In eight studies with data on intravenous defibrotide prophylaxis vs controls (e.g. heparin, no prophylaxis), VOD/SOS incidence in controls was 16%. The risk ratio for developing VOD/SOS with defibrotide prophylaxis vs controls was 0.30 (95% confidence interval 0.12-0.71; p = 0.006).
CONCLUSIONS
This analysis suggests a low incidence of VOD/SOS following intravenous defibrotide prophylaxis, regardless of age group, and a lower relative risk for VOD/SOS with defibrotide prophylaxis vs controls in patient populations at high risk of VOD/SOS.
Topics: Adult; Child; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Hepatic Veno-Occlusive Disease; Humans; Odds Ratio; Polydeoxyribonucleotides
PubMed: 35594010
DOI: 10.1007/s40261-022-01140-y -
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases Jun 2018Exon skipping has been considered a promising therapeutic approach for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). Eteplirsen received conditional approval in the United States... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Exon skipping has been considered a promising therapeutic approach for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). Eteplirsen received conditional approval in the United States in 2016. To date, no systematic reviews or meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of exon skipping drugs have been published to determine the pooled estimates for the effect of exon skipping in treating DMD.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind RCTs comparing exon-skipping drugs with placebo in DMD was performed. Trials were identified by searching published and unpublished studies from electronically available databases and clinical trial registries through October 2017. The primary outcomes were changes in the 6-min walk test (6MWT) distance, North Star Ambulatory Assessment (NSAA) scores, and adverse events. Random-effects meta-analysis and assessment of risk of bias were performed. This systematic review was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42016037504).
RESULTS
Five studies involving 322 participants were included, investigating eteplirsen in one and drisapersen in four studies. There were no changes in 6MWT distance (mean difference [MD] - 9.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 21.94 to 3.62) or NSAA scores (MD 1.20, 95% CI - 2.35 to 4.75) after 24 weeks of treatment in the exon-skipping group compared with placebo. Subgroup analysis for a 6 mg/kg weekly injection of drisapersen showed significant changes in the 6MWT, favoring drisapersen after 24 weeks (MD - 20.24; 95% CI - 39.59 to - 0.89). However, drisapersen resulted in a significant increase in injection site reactions (risk ratio [RR] 3.67, 95% CI 1.96 to 6.89, p < 0.0001) and renal toxicity (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.94, p = 0.02). Risk of bias was high in two of the five studies, including the eteplirsen and one drisapersen study.
CONCLUSIONS
Current available data do not show evidence that exon-skipping drugs are effective in DMD. Despite potential effectiveness when used at a specific dose, significant side effects were reported with drisapersen. The small number of RCTs with relatively small numbers of participants indicate the difficulty in conducting sufficiently powered studies of DMD. Prospectively planned meta-analysis and utilization of the real-world data may provide a more precise estimate of the effect of exon skipping in this disease.
Topics: Double-Blind Method; Exons; Humans; Morpholinos; Muscular Dystrophy, Duchenne; Oligonucleotides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Walk Test
PubMed: 29907124
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-018-0834-2