-
Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery Aug 2022Ischemic stroke is a major cause of death and disability. Despite major advances in reperfusion therapies, most patients don´t benefit from these treatments as the time... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Ischemic stroke is a major cause of death and disability. Despite major advances in reperfusion therapies, most patients don´t benefit from these treatments as the time window for such interventions is limited. Therefore, other treatment options are desirable. Edaravone has been demonstrated in previous studies to reduce neurologic deficits in stroke patients.
OBJECTIVE
To test the hypothesis that edaravone reduces functional dependence in ischemic stroke patients.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing edaravone to placebo in adult patients with ischemic stroke. The efficacy outcomes of interest were good and excellent functional outcomes at 90 days, defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 0-2 and 0-1 respectively. The safety outcomes of interest were intracranial hemorrhage and mortality.
RESULTS
19 studies were included. Edaravone treatment was associated with improved chances of 90-day good (OR=1.31, 95% CI 1.06-1.67) and excellent (OR=1.26, 95% CI 1.04-1.54) functional outcomes. Mortality was also lower in edaravone treated patients (OR=0.50, 95% CI 0.45-0.56). There were no differences in terms of intracranial hemorrhage. Most studies were observational and performed in Asian populations, especially Japan. Heterogeneity was high for all outcomes but reduced when analysis was restricted to randomized trials.
CONCLUSION
Edaravone is a promising treatment for ischemic stroke patients, with a more favorable time window. However, more randomized studies including patient populations outside Asia are required to confirm this hypothesis.
Topics: Adult; Antipyrine; Brain Ischemia; Edaravone; Free Radical Scavengers; Humans; Intracranial Hemorrhages; Ischemic Stroke; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35753163
DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2022.107299 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2014The original authors of this review are unable to update it. The Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group (PaPaS) is seeking new authors to update and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The original authors of this review are unable to update it. The Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group (PaPaS) is seeking new authors to update and split the review into two separate reviews on migraine and tension‐type headache. If you are interested, please contact the Managing Editor of PaPaS (contact details provided under 'Contact Person'). At July 2014, this review has been withdrawn. This review is out of date although it is correct as of the date of publication. The latest version is available in the ‘Other versions’ tab on The Cochrane Library, and may still be useful to readers. The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Dipyrone; Headache Disorders, Primary; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25019294
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004842.pub3 -
European Urology Mar 2017While vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition are effective strategies in treating clear cell renal cell... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
While vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition are effective strategies in treating clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), the most effective therapeutic approach for patients with non-clear cell RCC (non-ccRCC) is unknown.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review relevant literature comparing the oncological outcomes and adverse events of different systemic therapies for patients with metastatic non-ccRCC.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Relevant databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to March 24, 2016. Only comparative studies were included. Risk of bias and confounding assessments were performed. A meta-analysis was planned for and only performed if methodologically appropriate; otherwise, a narrative synthesis was undertaken.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
The literature search identified 812 potential titles and abstracts. Five randomized controlled trials, recruiting a total of 365 patients, were included. Three studies compared sunitinib against everolimus, one of which reported the results for non-ccRCC as a subgroup rather than as an entire randomized cohort. Individually, the studies showed a trend towards favoring sunitinib in terms of overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS; Everolimus versus Sunitinib in Patients with Metastatic Non-clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma hazard ratio [HR]: 1.41, 80% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.92 and 1.41, 95% CI: 0.88-2.27, Evaluation in Metastatic Non-clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.67-2.01, Efficacy and Safety Comparison of RAD001 Versus Sunitinib in the First-line and Second-line Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma HR: 1.5, 95% CI: 0.9-2.8), but this trend did not reach statistical significance in any study. Meta-analysis was performed on two studies which solely recruited patients with non-ccRCC reporting on PFS, the results of which were inconclusive (HR: 1.30, 95% CI: 0.91-1.86). Sunitinib was associated with more Grade 3-4 adverse events than everolimus, although this was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis represent a robust summary of the evidence base for systemic treatment of metastatic non-ccRCC. The results show a trend towards favoring vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy for PFS and overall survival compared with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors, although statistical significance was not reached. The relative benefits and harms of these treatments remain uncertain. Further research, either in the form of an individual patient data meta-analysis involving all relevant trials, or a randomized controlled trial with sufficient power to detect potential differences between treatments, is needed.
PATIENT SUMMARY
We examined the literature to determine the most effective treatments for advanced kidney cancer patients whose tumors are not of the clear cell subtype. The results suggest that a drug called sunitinib might be more effective than everolimus, but the statistics supporting this statement are not yet entirely reliable. Further research is required to clarify this unmet medical need.
Topics: Anilides; Antineoplastic Agents; Axitinib; Benzimidazoles; Bevacizumab; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Disease-Free Survival; Erlotinib Hydrochloride; Everolimus; Humans; Imidazoles; Indazoles; Indoles; Interferons; Interleukin-2; Kidney Neoplasms; Niacinamide; Phenylurea Compounds; Pyridines; Pyrimidines; Pyrroles; Pyrrolidinones; Quinolines; Quinolones; Sirolimus; Sorafenib; Sulfonamides; Sunitinib
PubMed: 27939075
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.11.020 -
Daru : Journal of Faculty of Pharmacy,... Dec 2022Since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved ibrutinib to treat patients with refractory/relapsed mantle cell lymphoma (R/R MCL), it is used in clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved ibrutinib to treat patients with refractory/relapsed mantle cell lymphoma (R/R MCL), it is used in clinical trials, whether as a single agent or in combination with other chemotherapy agents. The efficacy and safety of ibrutinib administration alone or in combinations have not been studied systematically. This study systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib-containing regimens for the treatment of patients with MCL.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. Then, a team of independent reviewers selected relevant studies and extracted the data.
RESULTS
From a total of 1,436 studies, 12 trials were eligible. The overall response rates (ORRs) of patients with R/R MCL receiving single-agent ibrutinib ranged between 62.7% to 93.8%, and the ORRs of ibrutinib combinations ranged from 74 to 88%. In patients with newly diagnosed MCL receiving ibrutinib and rituximab, ORR ranged from 84 to 100%. The highest progression-free survival (PFS) was reported in patients receiving ibrutinib and rituximab (43 months). The meta-analysis performed on adverse events (AEs) demonstrated that single-agent ibrutinib had a high risk of bleeding, nausea, and diarrhea.
CONCLUSION
Single-agent ibrutinib showed acceptable efficacy and safety in the treatment of patients with MCL. Moreover, combining ibrutinib with other agents such as rituximab, venetoclax, and ublituximab can increase its efficacy and reduce chemotherapy-induced resistance in most cases; however, in the case of combination therapy, patients need to be monitored more strictly in terms of AEs. In our review, the ibrutinib and rituximab combination showed promising results in patients with R/R MCL. Also, this combination showed favorable efficacy and safety in patients with newly diagnosed untreated MCL, making it a great candidate to be studied more in large and well-designed trials.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Lymphoma, Mantle-Cell; Rituximab; Pyrimidines; Pyrazoles
PubMed: 36057010
DOI: 10.1007/s40199-022-00444-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021This is the third update of this review, first published in July 2009. All major guidelines on treatment of hypertension recommend weight loss; anti-obesity drugs may be... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This is the third update of this review, first published in July 2009. All major guidelines on treatment of hypertension recommend weight loss; anti-obesity drugs may be able to help in this respect.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objectives: To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically-induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and adverse events (including total serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, and total non-serious adverse events).. Secondary objectives: To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically-induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on change from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and on body weight reduction.
SEARCH METHODS
For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to March 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The searches had no language restrictions. We contacted authors of relevant papers about further published and unpublished work.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of at least 24 weeks' duration in adults with hypertension that compared approved long-term weight-loss medications to placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, and extracted data. Where appropriate and in the absence of significant heterogeneity between studies (P > 0.1), we pooled studies using a fixed-effect meta-analysis. When heterogeneity was present, we used the random-effects method and investigated the cause of the heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
This third update of the review added one new trial, investigating the combination of naltrexone/bupropion versus placebo. Two medications, which were included in the previous versions of this review (rimonabant and sibutramine) are no longer considered relevant for this update, since their marketing approval was withdrawn in 2010 and 2009, respectively. The number of included studies in this review update is therefore six (12,724 participants in total): four RCTs comparing orlistat to placebo, involving a total of 3132 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 46 to 55 years; one trial comparing phentermine/topiramate to placebo, involving 1305 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 53 years; and one trial comparing naltrexone/bupropion to placebo, involving 8283 participants with hypertension and a mean age of 62 years. We judged the risks of bias to be unclear for the trials investigating orlistat or naltrexone/bupropion. and low for the trial investigating phentermine/topiramate. Only the study of naltrexone/bupropion included cardiovascular mortality and morbidity as predefined outcomes. There were no differences in the rates of all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, major cardiovascular events, or serious adverse events between naltrexone/bupropion and placebo. The incidence of overall adverse events was significantly higher in participants treated with naltrexone/bupropion. For orlistat, the incidence of gastrointestinal side effects was consistently higher compared to placebo. The most frequent side effects with phentermine/topiramate were dry mouth and paraesthesia. After six to 12 months, orlistat reduced systolic blood pressure compared to placebo by mean difference (MD) -2.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.8 to -1.4 mm Hg; 4 trials, 2058 participants) and diastolic blood pressure by MD -2.0 mm Hg (95% CI -2.7 to -1.2 mm Hg; 4 trials, 2058 participants). After 13 months of follow-up, phentermine/topiramate decreased systolic blood pressure compared to placebo by -2.0 to -4.2 mm Hg (1 trial, 1030 participants) (depending on drug dosage), and diastolic blood pressure by -1.3 to -1.9 mm Hg (1 trial, 1030 participants) (depending on drug dosage). There was no difference in the change in systolic or diastolic blood pressure between naltrexone/bupropion and placebo (1 trial, 8283 participants). We identified no relevant studies investigating liraglutide or lorcaserin in people with hypertension.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In people with elevated blood pressure, orlistat, phentermine/topiramate and naltrexone/bupropion reduced body weight; the magnitude of the effect was greatest with phentermine/topiramate. In the same trials, orlistat and phentermine/topiramate, but not naltrexone/bupropion, reduced blood pressure. One RCT of naltrexone/bupropion versus placebo showed no differences in all-cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality or morbidity after two years. The European Medicines Agency refused marketing authorisation for phentermine/topiramate due to safety concerns, while for lorcaserin the application for European marketing authorisation was withdrawn due to a negative overall benefit/risk balance. In 2020 lorcaserin was also withdrawn from the US market. Two other medications (rimonabant and sibutramine) had already been withdrawn from the market in 2009 and 2010, respectively.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Obesity Agents; Appetite Depressants; Bias; Blood Pressure; Body Weight; Bupropion; Diet, Reducing; Drug Combinations; Female; Fructose; Humans; Hypertension; Lactones; Male; Middle Aged; Naltrexone; Orlistat; Phentermine; Piperidines; Pyrazoles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Safety-Based Drug Withdrawals; Time; Topiramate
PubMed: 33454957
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007654.pub5 -
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and... Dec 2023Cancer cachexia (CC) is a multifactorial syndrome driven by inflammation, defined by ongoing loss of skeletal muscle mass (with or without loss of fat mass) that cannot... (Review)
Review
Cancer cachexia (CC) is a multifactorial syndrome driven by inflammation, defined by ongoing loss of skeletal muscle mass (with or without loss of fat mass) that cannot be fully reversed by conventional nutritional support. CC leads to progressive functional impairment, with its clinical management complicated and limited therapeutic options available. The objective of this review was to assess the efficacy and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on patient-centred outcomes in patients with CC. In 2013, two systematic reviews concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend NSAIDs for clinical management of CC outside of clinical trials. However, clinical trials of multi-component CC interventions have included NSAIDs as an intervention component, so an up-to-date assessment of the evidence for NSAIDs in the treatment of CC is warranted. Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL) and three trial registers (clinicaltrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and ISRCTN) were searched on 16 December 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any NSAID (any dose or duration) with a control arm, in adult patients with CC, reporting measures of body weight, body composition, nutrition impact symptoms, inflammation, physical function or fatigue, were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes (determined with patient involvement) were survival, changes in muscle strength, body composition, body weight and quality of life. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. Five studies were included, which investigated Indomethacin (n = 1), Ibuprofen (n = 1) and Celecoxib (n = 3). Four studies were judged to be at high risk of bias for all outcomes, with one study raising concerns for most outcomes. Considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity amongst the studies meant that meta-analysis was not appropriate. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether Indomethacin or Ibuprofen is effective or safe for use in patients with CC; RCTs with lower risk of bias are needed. Celecoxib studies indicated it was safe for use in this population at the doses tested (200-400 mg/day) but found contrasting results regarding efficacy, potentially reflecting heterogeneity amongst the studies. There is inadequate evidence to recommend any NSAID for CC. While current clinical trials for CC treatments are shifting towards multi-component interventions, further research to determine the efficacy and safety of NSAIDs alone is necessary if they are to be included in such multi-component interventions. Furthermore, the lack of data on patient-determined primary outcomes in this review highlights the need for patient involvement in clinical trials for CC.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Ibuprofen; Celecoxib; Cachexia; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Indomethacin; Inflammation; Neoplasms
PubMed: 37750475
DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.13327 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023As a popular antidiabetic drug, teneligliptin has been used for over 10 years, but its efficacy and safety have rarely been systematically evaluated. Therefore, a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
As a popular antidiabetic drug, teneligliptin has been used for over 10 years, but its efficacy and safety have rarely been systematically evaluated. Therefore, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of teneligliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing teneligliptin with placebo or active comparators in T2DM patients for at least 12 weeks were included in the study. Data analysis was performed using R 4.2.3 and Stata 17.0 software. Each outcome was presented as a mean difference (MD) or an odds ratio (OR) along with 95% confidence interval (CI) and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value (SUCRA).
RESULTS
A total of 18 RCTs with 3,290 participants with T2DM were included in this study. Generally, compared to placebo, sitagliptin, vildagliptin, metformin, and bromocriptine, 20 mg of teneligliptin showed better efficacy in reducing HbA1c (MD [95% CI], -0.78 [-0.86 to -0.70], -0.08 [-0.36 to 0.19], -0.04 [-0.72 to 0.60], -0.12 [-0.65 to 0.42], and -0.50 [-0.74 to -0.26], respectively) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (MD [95% CI], -18.02 [-20.64 to -15.13], 1.17 [-9.39 to 11.70], -8.06 [-30.95 to 14.35], -2.75 [-18.89 to 13.01], and -34.23 [-45.93 to -22.96], respectively), and 40 mg of teneligliptin also showed better efficacy in reducing HbA1c (MD [95% CI], -0.84 [-1.03 to -0.65], -0.15 [-0.49 to 0.19], -0.10 [-0.81 to 0.57], -0.18 [-0.76 to 0.39], and -0.56 [-0.88 to -0.26], respectively) and FPG (MD [95% CI], -20.40 [-26.07 to -14.57], -1.20 [-13.21 to 10.38], -10.43 [-34.16 to 12.65], -5.13 [-22.21 to 11.66], and -36.61 [-49.33 to -24.01], respectively). Compared to placebo, 20 mg of teneligliptin showed no significant difference in incidences of hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal adverse events (OR [95% CI], 1.30 [0.70 to 2.19] and 1.48 [0.78 to 2.98], respectively), and 40 mg of teneligliptin showed no significant difference in incidence of hypoglycemia (OR [95% CI], 2.63 [0.46 to 8.10]). Generally, antidiabetic effect and hypoglycemia risk of teneligliptin gradually increased as its dose increased from 5 mg to 40 mg. Compared to 20 mg of teneligliptin, 40 mg of teneligliptin showed superior efficacy and no-inferior safety, which was considered as the best option in reducing HbA1c, FPG, and 2h PPG and increasing proportion of the patients achieving HbA1c < 7% (SUCRA, 85.51%, 84.24%, 79.06%, and 85.81%, respectively) among all the included interventions.
CONCLUSION
Compared to sitagliptin, vildagliptin, metformin, bromocriptine, and placebo, teneligliptin displayed favorable efficacy and acceptable safety in treating T2DM. Twenty milligrams or 40 mg per day was the optimal dosage regimen of teneligliptin. The results of this study will provide important evidence-based basis for rational use of teneligliptin and clinical decision-making of T2DM medication.
Topics: Humans; Bromocriptine; Glycated Hemoglobin; Network Meta-Analysis; Vildagliptin; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Metformin; Sitagliptin Phosphate; Hypoglycemic Agents; Hypoglycemia
PubMed: 38189048
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1282584 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Apr 2017Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are emerging as a promising new treatment modality for many inflammatory conditions. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are emerging as a promising new treatment modality for many inflammatory conditions.
OBJECTIVE
Our aim was to systematically review the available data on the use of JAK inhibitors in cutaneous diseases.
METHODS
This is a systematic review of PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov.
RESULTS
One hundred thirty-four articles matched our search terms, of which 78 were original articles and 12 reports on adverse events. Eighteen clinical trials were found. JAK inhibitors have been extensively studied for psoriasis, showing beneficial results that were comparable to the effects achieved by etanercept. Favorable results were also observed for alopecia areata. Promising preliminary results were reported for vitiligo, dermatitis, graft versus host disease, cutaneous T cell lymphoma, and lupus erythematosus. The most common adverse events reported were infections, mostly nasopharyngitis and upper respiratory tract infections.
LIMITATIONS
It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis of the results.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review shows that while JAK inhibitors hold promise for many skin disorders, there are still gaps regarding the correct dosing and safety profile of these medications for dermatologic indications. Additional trials are necessary to address these gaps.
Topics: Alopecia Areata; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antineoplastic Agents; Azetidines; Dermatologic Agents; Drug Eruptions; Humans; Janus Kinases; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Nitriles; Piperidines; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Psoriasis; Purines; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Pyrroles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Signal Transduction; Skin Diseases; Sulfonamides
PubMed: 28169015
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2016.12.004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015Although often considered to be lacking adequate evidence, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in the management of neuropathic pain. Previous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although often considered to be lacking adequate evidence, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in the management of neuropathic pain. Previous surveys found 18% to 47% of affected people reported using NSAIDs specifically for their neuropathic pain, although possibly not in the United Kingdom (UK).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy of oral NSAIDs for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, when compared to placebo or another active intervention, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 29 May 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and an online trials registry.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any pooled analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two studies involving 251 participants with chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component or postherpetic neuralgia; 209 of these participants were involved in a study of an experimental NSAID not used in clinical practice, and of the remaining 42, only 16 had neuropathic pain. This represented only third tier evidence, and was of very low quality. There was no indication of any significant pain reduction with NSAIDs. Adverse event rates were low, with insufficient events for any analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence to support or refute the use of oral NSAIDs to treat neuropathic pain conditions.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Back Pain; Celecoxib; Humans; Neuralgia; Neuralgia, Postherpetic; Pregabalin; Pyrazoles; Pyridazines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26436601
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010902.pub2 -
Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) Mar 2023Natural product derivatives are essential in searching for compounds with important chemical, biological, and medical applications. Naphthoquinones are secondary... (Review)
Review
Natural product derivatives are essential in searching for compounds with important chemical, biological, and medical applications. Naphthoquinones are secondary metabolites found in plants and are used in traditional medicine to treat diverse human diseases. Considering this, the synthesis of naphthoquinone derivatives has been explored to contain compounds with potential biological activity. It has been reported that the chemical modification of naphthoquinones improves their pharmacological properties by introducing amines, amino acids, furan, pyran, pyrazole, triazole, indole, among other chemical groups. In this systematic review, we summarized the preparation of nitrogen naphthoquinones derivatives and discussed their biological effect associated with redox properties and other mechanisms. Preclinical evaluation of antibacterial and/or antitumoral naphthoquinones derivatives is included because cancer is a worldwide health problem, and there is a lack of effective drugs against multidrug-resistant bacteria. The information presented herein indicates that naphthoquinone derivatives could be considered for further studies to provide drugs efficient in treating cancer and multidrug-resistant bacteria.
PubMed: 37111253
DOI: 10.3390/ph16040496