-
Journal of Chemotherapy (Florence,... Apr 2022Because of lacking of head-to-head comparison among lorlatinib, alectinib and brigatinib for patients with ALK inhibitor-naive or untreated (ALK inhibitor-naive and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of lorlatinib, alectinib and brigatinib in ALK inhibitor-naive/untreated ALK-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Because of lacking of head-to-head comparison among lorlatinib, alectinib and brigatinib for patients with ALK inhibitor-naive or untreated (ALK inhibitor-naive and chemotherapy-naive) ALK-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the optimal option for these patients still remains undefined. We searched published reports that described the activity and safety of those novel ALK inhibitors (lorlatinib, alectinib and brigatinib) for ALK inhibitor-naive or untreated (ALK inhibitor-naive and chemotherapy-naive) ALK-positive advanced NSCLC. Five randomized controlled trials were identified, covering 1111 subjects. In the network meta-analysis, lorlatinib seemed to prolong progression free survival than brigatinib (Hazard Ratio: 0.57, = 0.03) and alectinib (Hazard ratio: 0.65, = 0.05) for previously untreated patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC as assessed by the independent review committee. Meanwhile, lorlatinib significantly improved significant progression free survival than brigatinib (Hazard ratio: 0.57, = 0.03) and alectinib (Hazard ratio: 0.59, = 0.03) for ALK inhibitor-naive patients. Among lorlatinib, alectinib, brigatinib, and crizotinib, lorlatinib had the highest probability to reach the best overall confirmed response rates (probability of 48%) and intracranial confirmed response rates (probability of 44%). No significant difference was found among them in overall survival and adverse events analysis. In terms of progression free survival, our results indicated that lorlatinib was the best treatment choice for patients with ALK inhibitor-naive or untreated (ALK inhibitor-naive and chemotherapy-naive) ALK-positive advanced NSCLC. The future head-to-head trials assessing the relative efficacy of lorlatinib, alectinib and brigatinib were warranted.
Topics: Aminopyridines; Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase; Carbazoles; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Humans; Lactams; Lung Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Organophosphorus Compounds; Piperidines; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines
PubMed: 34139965
DOI: 10.1080/1120009X.2021.1937782 -
Journal of Drugs in Dermatology : JDD Jul 2023This article describes the clinical trial, safety, and efficacy of ruxolitinib 1.5% cream or repigmentation in patients with vitiligo.
BACKGROUND
This article describes the clinical trial, safety, and efficacy of ruxolitinib 1.5% cream or repigmentation in patients with vitiligo.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review was done using ruxolitinib or Opzelura in MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE.
CLINICALTRIALS
gov was used to identify ongoing or unpublished studies.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
Studies included were written in English and relevant to pharmacology, clinical trials, safety, and efficacy.
DATA SYNTHESIS
In two 52-week phase 3 trials, 52.0% of subjects had at least 75% improvement in their Facial Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (F-VASI).
RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
Ruxolitinib is a topical Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor newly approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for repigmentation in patients with vitiligo.
CONCLUSION
Topical ruxolitinib is the first medication approved for repigmentation in patients with vitiligo. It is a safe and effective treatment; however, cost may be a barrier to some patients when prescribing this medication. Trials to compare the efficacy and side effect profile of topical ruxolitinib with other topical treatments are still needed. Grossmann MC, Haidari W, Feldman SR. A Review on the use of topical ruxolitinib for the treatment of vitiligo. J Drugs Dermatol. 2023;22(7):664-667. doi:10.36849/JDD.7268.
Topics: Humans; Vitiligo; Pyrimidines; Nitriles; Pyrazoles; Treatment Outcome; Janus Kinase Inhibitors
PubMed: 37410047
DOI: 10.36849/JDD.7268 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Jan 2015The relative efficacy of available treatments of knee osteoarthritis (OA) must be determined for rational treatment algorithms to be formulated. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The relative efficacy of available treatments of knee osteoarthritis (OA) must be determined for rational treatment algorithms to be formulated.
PURPOSE
To examine the efficacy of treatments of primary knee OA using a network meta-analysis design, which estimates relative effects of all treatments against each other.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through 15 August 2014, and unpublished data.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized trials of adults with knee OA comparing 2 or more of the following: acetaminophen, diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen, celecoxib, intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, IA hyaluronic acid, oral placebo, and IA placebo.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers independently abstracted study data and assessed study quality. Standardized mean differences were calculated for pain, function, and stiffness at 3-month follow-up.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Network meta-analysis was performed using a Bayesian random-effects model; 137 studies comprising 33,243 participants were identified. For pain, all interventions significantly outperformed oral placebo, with effect sizes from 0.63 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.39 to 0.88) for the most efficacious treatment (hyaluronic acid) to 0.18 (CrI, 0.04 to 0.33) for the least efficacious treatment (acetaminophen). For function, all interventions except IA corticosteroids were significantly superior to oral placebo. For stiffness, most of the treatments did not significantly differ from one another.
LIMITATION
Lack of long-term data, inadequate reporting of safety data, possible publication bias, and few head-to-head comparisons.
CONCLUSION
This method allowed comparison of common treatments of knee OA according to their relative efficacy. Intra-articular treatments were superior to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, possibly because of the integrated IA placebo effect. Small but robust differences were observed between active treatments. All treatments except acetaminophen showed clinically significant improvement from baseline pain. This information, along with the safety profiles and relative costs of included treatments, will be helpful for individualized patient care decisions.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Celecoxib; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Diclofenac; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Ibuprofen; Injections, Intra-Articular; Naproxen; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain; Pyrazoles; Sulfonamides; Treatment Outcome; Viscosupplements
PubMed: 25560713
DOI: 10.7326/M14-1231 -
Stroke Jan 2018The use of oral anticoagulant therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation has been transformed by the availability of the nonvitamin K antagonist oral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The use of oral anticoagulant therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation has been transformed by the availability of the nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants. Real-world studies on the use of nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants would help elucidate their effectiveness and safety in daily clinical practice. Apixaban was the third nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants introduced to clinical practice, and increasing real-world studies have been published. Our aim was to summarize current evidence about real-world studies on apixaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all observational real-world studies comparing apixaban with other available oral anticoagulant drugs.
RESULTS
From the original 9680 results retrieved, 16 studies have been included in the final meta-analysis. Compared with warfarin, apixaban regular dose was more effective in reducing any thromboembolic event (odds ratio: 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.64-0.93), but no significant difference was found for stroke risk. Apixaban was as effective as dabigatran and rivaroxaban in reducing thromboembolic events and stroke. The risk of major bleeding was significantly lower for apixaban compared with warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban (relative risk reduction, 38%, 35%, and 46%, respectively). Similarly, the risk for intracranial hemorrhage was significantly lower for apixaban than warfarin and rivaroxaban (46% and 54%, respectively) but not dabigatran. The risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was lower with apixaban when compared with all oral anticoagulant agents (<0.00001 for all comparisons).
CONCLUSIONS
Use of apixaban in real-life is associated with an overall similar effectiveness in reducing stroke and any thromboembolic events when compared with warfarin. A better safety profile was found with apixaban compared with warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Clinical Trials as Topic; Female; Humans; Intracranial Hemorrhages; Male; Polymers; Pyrazoles; Pyridones; Risk Factors; Rivaroxaban; Saliva, Artificial; Stroke; Vitamin K; Warfarin
PubMed: 29167388
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.018395 -
Pediatrics Apr 2020Several antiemetics have been used in children with acute gastroenteritis. However, there is still controversy over their use. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CONTEXT
Several antiemetics have been used in children with acute gastroenteritis. However, there is still controversy over their use.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the effectiveness and safety of antiemetics for controlling vomiting in children with acute gastroenteritis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Latin America and the Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences, and gray literature, until December 2018.
STUDY SELECTION
We selected randomized clinical trials comparing metoclopramide, ondansetron, domperidone, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, and granisetron.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis using the random-effects model.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies were included (3482 children). Ondansetron revealed the largest effect in comparison to placebo for cessation of vomiting (odds ratio = 0.28 [95% credible interval = 0.16 to 0.46]; quality of evidence: high) and for hospitalization (odds ratio = 2.93 [95% credible interval = 1.69 to 6.18]; quality of evidence: moderate). Ondansetron was the only intervention that reduced the need for intravenous rehydration and the number of vomiting episodes. When considering side effects, dimenhydrinate was the only intervention that was worse than placebo.
LIMITATIONS
Most treatment comparisons had low- or very low-quality evidence, because of risk of biases and imprecise estimates.
CONCLUSIONS
Ondansetron is the only intervention that revealed an effect on the cessation of vomiting, on preventing hospitalizations, and in reducing the need for intravenous rehydration. Ondansetron was also considered a safe intervention.
Topics: Acute Disease; Antiemetics; Child; Child, Preschool; Dexamethasone; Diarrhea; Dimenhydrinate; Domperidone; Fluid Therapy; Gastroenteritis; Granisetron; Hospitalization; Humans; Infant; Metoclopramide; Network Meta-Analysis; Ondansetron; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Regression Analysis; Vomiting
PubMed: 32132152
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2019-3260 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Sep 2015It is common to advise that analgesics, and especially non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), be taken with food to reduce unwanted gastrointestinal adverse... (Review)
Review
AIMS
It is common to advise that analgesics, and especially non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), be taken with food to reduce unwanted gastrointestinal adverse effects. The efficacy of single dose analgesics depends on producing high, early, plasma concentrations; food may interfere with this. This review sought evidence from single dose pharmacokinetic studies on the extent and timing of peak plasma concentrations of analgesic drugs in the fed and fasting states.
METHODS
A systematic review of comparisons of oral analgesics in fed and fasting states published to October 2014 reporting kinetic parameters of bioavailability, time to maximum plasma concentration (tmax ), and its extent (Cmax ) was conducted. Delayed-release formulations were not included.
RESULTS
Bioavailability was not different between fasted and fed states. Food typically delayed absorption for all drugs where the fasting tmax was less than 4 h. For the common analgesics (aspirin, diclofenac, ibuprofen, paracetamol) fed tmax was 1.30 to 2.80 times longer than fasted tmax . Cmax was typically reduced, with greater reduction seen with more rapid absorption (fed Cmax only 44-85% of the fasted Cmax for aspirin, diclofenac, ibuprofen and paracetamol).
CONCLUSION
There is evidence that high, early plasma concentrations produces better early pain relief, better overall pain relief, longer lasting pain relief and lower rates of remedication. Taking analgesics with food may make them less effective, resulting in greater population exposure. It may be time to rethink research priorities and advice to professionals, patients and the public.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Administration, Oral; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Aspirin; Biological Availability; Dipyrone; Drug Liberation; Food-Drug Interactions; Humans
PubMed: 25784216
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12628 -
Acta Dermato-venereologica Jan 2023The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of treatment with Janus kinase inhibitors for alopecia areata, measured by change in Severity of Alopecia... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of treatment with Janus kinase inhibitors for alopecia areata, measured by change in Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score. A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was performed using Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane library. All studies investigating the efficacy of treatments for alopecia areata were included. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with alopecia areata achieving 30%, 50%, 75%, 90% and 100% improvement in SALT score after treatment with a Janus kinase inhibitor. A meta-analysis was performed including all randomized controlled trials investigating Janus kinase inhibitors. A total of 37 studies matched the inclusion criteria and were included. Meta-analysis was performed based on 5 randomized studies. Regarding patients with alopecia areata defined as ≥ 50% scalp hair loss, baricitinib 4 mg once daily demonstrated the highest efficacy. However, among patients with alopecia areata defined as a SALT score ≥ 50, oral deuruxolitinib 12 mg twice daily demonstrated the highest efficacy. Deuruxolitinib and baricitinib appear to be promising drugs for the treatment of alopecia areata. However, the response depends on the dosage of the drug. More randomized trials, with identical inclusion criteria and dose and duration of treatment, are required to confirm these findings.
Topics: Humans; Alopecia Areata; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Alopecia; Pyrazoles
PubMed: 36695751
DOI: 10.2340/actadv.v103.4536 -
Gastroenterology May 2020Inhibitors of Janus kinases (JAKs) are being developed for treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases and other immune-mediated diseases. Tofacitinib is effective in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Inhibitors of Janus kinases (JAKs) are being developed for treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases and other immune-mediated diseases. Tofacitinib is effective in treatment of ulcerative colitis, but there are safety concerns. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the safety profile of tofacitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib, and baricitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel diseases, psoriasis, or ankylosing spondylitis.
METHODS
We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 1990, through July 1, 2019. We performed a manual review of conference databases from 2012 through 2018. The primary outcome was incidence rates of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. We also estimated incidence rates of serious infections, herpes zoster infection, non-melanoma skin cancer, other malignancies, major cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and mortality. We performed a meta-analysis, which included controlled studies, to assess the relative risk of these events.
RESULTS
We identified 973 studies; of these, 82 were included in the final analysis, comprising 66,159 patients with immune-mediated diseases who were exposed to a JAK inhibitor. Two-thirds of the included studies were randomized controlled trials. The incidence rate of AEs was 42.65 per 100 person-years and of serious AEs was 9.88 per 100 person-years. Incidence rates of serious infections, herpes zoster infection, malignancy, and major cardiovascular events were 2.81 per 100 person-years, 2.67 per 100 person-years, 0.89 per 100 person-years, and 0.48 per 100 person-years, respectively. Mortality was not increased in patients treated with JAK inhibitors compared with patients given placebo or active comparator (relative risk 0.72; 95% confidence interval 0.40-1.28). The meta-analysis showed a significant increase in risk of herpes zoster infection among patients who received JAK inhibitors (relative risk 1.57; 95% confidence interval 1.04-2.37).
CONCLUSIONS
In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found an increased risk of herpes zoster infection among patients with immune-mediated diseases treated with JAK inhibitors. All other AEs were not increased among patients treated with JAK inhibitors.
Topics: Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Azetidines; Herpes Zoster; Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring; Humans; Incidence; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Janus Kinases; Piperidines; Placebos; Psoriasis; Purines; Pyrazoles; Pyridines; Pyrimidines; Pyrroles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spondylitis, Ankylosing; Sulfonamides; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome; Triazoles
PubMed: 31926171
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.001 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2016Burning mouth syndrome mainly affects women, particularly after the menopause, when its prevalence may be 18% to 33%. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Burning mouth syndrome mainly affects women, particularly after the menopause, when its prevalence may be 18% to 33%.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic overview, aiming to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of selected treatments for burning mouth syndrome? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to January 2015 (Clinical Evidence overviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this overview).
RESULTS
At this update, searching of electronic databases retrieved 70 studies. After deduplication and removal of conference abstracts, 45 records were screened for inclusion in the overview. Appraisal of titles and abstracts led to the exclusion of 25 studies and the further review of 20 full publications. Of the 20 full articles evaluated, one systematic review and nine RCTs were added at this update. We performed a GRADE evaluation for five PICO combinations.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic overview, we categorised the efficacy for six interventions based on information about the effectiveness and safety of alphalipoic acid, benzodiazepines, benzydamine hydrochloride, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and tricyclic antidepressants.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Benzodiazepines; Benzydamine; Burning Mouth Syndrome; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Humans; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26745781
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Clinical Rheumatology :... Mar 2022The Janus kinases (JAKs) are cytoplasmic tyrosine kinases associated with membrane cytokine receptors that mediate signaling of multiple cytokines and growth factors,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE
The Janus kinases (JAKs) are cytoplasmic tyrosine kinases associated with membrane cytokine receptors that mediate signaling of multiple cytokines and growth factors, contributing to the pathogenesis of multiple autoimmune disorders. The JAK inhibitors are a new class of targeted therapies with proven efficacy in treating rheumatoid arthritis but are associated with an increased risk of infections. This study is aimed at comparing the relative safety of the different JAK inhibitors with regard to the risk of serious infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The outcomes assessed were the risk of total and serious infections, tuberculosis, and herpes zoster. Sensitivity analysis disaggregated the results according to background therapy and licensed doses of JAK inhibitors.
RESULTS
Thirty-seven randomized controlled trials that were included met the inclusion criteria. Compared with filgotinib, adalimumab (4.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39-16.66), etanercept (6.04; 95% CI, 1.79-20.37), peficitinib (7.56; 95% CI, 1.63-35.12), tofacitinib (4.29; 95% CI, 1.43-12.88), and upadacitinib (4.35; 95% CI, 1.46-13.00) have an increased risk of herpes zoster infection. Risk differences between the drugs became statistically nonsignificant when the sensitivity analysis was conducted.
CONCLUSIONS
The risk of infections seems to be similar among the currently approved JAK inhibitor drugs. Although the initial results suggested that filgotinib could have a reduced risk of herpes zoster, the sensitivity analyses did not support those findings.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Azetidines; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Network Meta-Analysis; Purines; Pyrazoles; Sulfonamides
PubMed: 33902098
DOI: 10.1097/RHU.0000000000001749