-
Skin Research and Technology : Official... Mar 2024The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and safety of oral and injectable systemic treatments, such as methotrexate, azathioprine, cyclosporine,... (Review)
Review
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and safety of oral and injectable systemic treatments, such as methotrexate, azathioprine, cyclosporine, tofacitinib, baricitinib, corticosteroids, statins, zinc, apremilast, etc., for treating vitiligo lesions.
METHOD
Databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were meticulously searched for studies spanning from 2010 to August 2023, focusing on systemic oral and injectable therapies for vitiligo, using comprehensive keywords and search syntaxes tailored to each database. Key data extracted included study design, treatment efficacy, patient outcomes, patient satisfaction, and safety profiles.
RESULTS
In a total of 42 included studies, oral mini-pulse corticosteroid therapy (OMP) was the subject of six studies (14.2%). Minocycline was the focus of five studies (11.9%), while methotrexate, apremilast, and tofacitinib each were examined in four studies (9.5%). Antioxidants and Afamelanotide were the subjects of three studies each (7.1%). Cyclosporine, simvastatin, oral zinc, oral corticosteroids (excluding OMP) and injections, and baricitinib were each explored in two studies (4.8%). Azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, and Alefacept were the subjects of one study each (2.4%).
CONCLUSION
Systemic treatments for vitiligo have been successful in controlling lesions without notable side effects. OMP, Methotrexate, Azathioprine, Cyclosporine, Mycophenolate mofetil, Simvastatin, Apremilast, Minocycline, Afamelanotide, Tofacitinib, Baricitinib, Antioxidants, and oral/injectable corticosteroids are effective treatment methods. However, oral zinc and alefacept did not show effectiveness.
Topics: Humans; Methotrexate; Azathioprine; Vitiligo; Mycophenolic Acid; Minocycline; Alefacept; Cyclosporine; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Hypopigmentation; Simvastatin; Zinc; Purines; Pyrazoles; Sulfonamides; Azetidines; Thalidomide
PubMed: 38454597
DOI: 10.1111/srt.13642 -
International Journal of Surgery... Dec 2016A systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials was performed to update the present evidence about the safety and efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Dexamethasone combined with other antiemetics versus single antiemetics for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
A systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials was performed to update the present evidence about the safety and efficacy of dexamethasone combined with other antiemetics versus single antiemetics for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
METHODS
A computer literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Embase was conducted to identify the relevant randomized controlled trials. In addition, a manual search of reference lists of the retrieved articles was conducted. Relevant outcomes were pooled as odds ratio (OR) by RevMan version 5.3 for windows.
RESULTS
Pooled data from 14 RCTs (1542 patients) favored dexamethasone combined with other antiemetics over single antiemetics as a prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the early postoperative period (OR = 0.39, 95% CI [0.27 to 0.54], p < 0.00001), late postoperative period (OR = 0.36, 95% CI [0.23 to 0.56], p < 0.00001), and overall postoperative period (OR = 0.34, 95% CI [0.23 to 0.51], p < 0.00001). Subsequently, rescue antiemetic usage was significantly lower in the combination group (OR = 0.25, 95% CI [0.16 to 0.41], p < 0.00001). Subgroup analysis showed that all combinations of dexamethasone and other antiemetics were superior to corresponding singel antiemetics except for the combination of dexamethasone and ramosetron which was not superior to ramosetron alone in all postoperative periods and the combination of dexamethasone and granisetron which was not superior to granisetron alone in the early postoperative period (OR = 0.26, 95% CI [0.07 to 1.01], p = 0.05). For all adverse events, there was no significant difference between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
Dexamethasone combined with other antiemetics provided better prophylaxis than single antiemetics against postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The underlying mechanism of dexamethasone action and its optimal dose should be further investigated.
Topics: Antiemetics; Benzimidazoles; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Metoclopramide; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Quinuclidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27793640
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.10.034 -
BMC Cancer Feb 2024To compare the efficacy, safety and effects on quality of life of different ALK-inhibitors for global and Asian patients with advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Identifying optimal ALK inhibitors in first- and second-line treatment of patients with advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy, safety and effects on quality of life of different ALK-inhibitors for global and Asian patients with advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
METHODS
The included RCTs were identified through a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials.gov, and major cancer conferences. The assessment of progression-free survival (PFS), intracranial PFS, overall survival (OS), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) was carried out using restricted mean survival time (RMST) model, fractional polynomial model and Royston-Parmar model. Time-invariant hazard ratio (HR) models were also used to validate and supplement the primary analysis. Objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events with any grade, grade 3-5 were assessed through a Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary measures for OS, PFS, and PROs were HR and RMST. The odds ratio was the metric for evaluating safety, ORR, 12-month PFS rate, 24-month OS rate, and the 12-month non-deterioration rate of PROs. Subgroup analyses based on patient characteristics were performed.
RESULTS
A total of fourteen studies (ten for first-line, four for second-line) consisting of nine treatments (chemotherapy, crizotinib, alectinib [600mg BID], low-dose alectinib [300mg BID], brigatinib, ceritinib, ensartinib, envonalkib, and lorlatinib) were included. In the first-line setting, alectinib showed a significant advantage over crizotinib and had the longest OS among all ALK-inhibitors. Compared to crizotinib, lorlatinib had the best efficacy regarding PFS for global patients, followed closely by alectinib and brigatinib. For Asian patients, alectinib significantly improved PFS compared to other treatments. In second-line, alectinib had the highest PFS for patients pretreated with crizotinib, followed by brigatinib, ceritinib and chemotherapy. Alectinib, irrespective of the dose, was the safest first-line option, whereas lorlatinib, brigatinib, and ceritinib showed poorer safety profiles. Alectinib was also the safest ALK-inhibitor for crizotinib-resistant patients. Brigatinib had the best performance in terms of PROs.
CONCLUSIONS
Considering both efficacy and safety, alectinib appears to be the preferable treatment in first-line and second-line, particularly for Asian patients.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Crizotinib; Lung Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Quality of Life; Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Carbazoles; Sulfones; Aminopyridines; Lactams; Pyrimidines; Pyrazoles; Organophosphorus Compounds
PubMed: 38331773
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-11916-4 -
Stroke Feb 2016The association between hemorrhagic stroke and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is not well established. We conducted a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The association between hemorrhagic stroke and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is not well established. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observation studies to further characterize this possible association.
METHODS
Case-control and cohort studies that reported odds ratio, relative risk, hazard ratio, or standardized incidence ratio comparing risk of hemorrhagic stroke among NSAIDs users versus nonusers were systematically searched. Point estimates from each study were extracted. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all NSAIDs and individual NSAIDs were calculated using random-effect, generic inverse variance method.
RESULTS
Ten studies were identified and included in our data analysis. As a single group, NSAIDs use was associated with a small but insignificant risk of hemorrhagic stroke with the pooled RR of 1.09 (95% CI, 0.98-1.22). Individual NSAIDs analysis revealed a significantly increased risk among diclofenac and meloxicam users (RR 1.27; 95% CI, 1.02-1.59 and RR 1.27; 95% CI, 1.08-1.50, respectively). The risk estimate for rofecoxib users was higher, but statistically nonsignificant (RR 1.35; 95% CI, 0.88-2.06).
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the use of NSAIDs is not associated with an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke, although this risk was modestly significantly elevated in diclofenac and meloxicam users.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Celecoxib; Cerebral Hemorrhage; Diclofenac; Humans; Ibuprofen; Incidence; Indomethacin; Lactones; Meloxicam; Naproxen; Observational Studies as Topic; Odds Ratio; Piroxicam; Proportional Hazards Models; Stroke; Sulfones; Thiazines; Thiazoles
PubMed: 26670086
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.011678 -
PloS One 2016Historically, warfarin or aspirin have been the recommended therapeutic options for the extended treatment (>3 months) of VTE. Data from Phase III randomised controlled... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Comparison of the Non-VKA Oral Anticoagulants Apixaban, Dabigatran, and Rivaroxaban in the Extended Treatment and Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
Historically, warfarin or aspirin have been the recommended therapeutic options for the extended treatment (>3 months) of VTE. Data from Phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are now available for non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in this indication. The current systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants for the extended treatment of VTE.
METHODS
Electronic databases (accessed July 2014 and updated April 2016) were systematically searched to identify RCTs evaluating apixaban, aspirin, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and warfarin for the extended treatment of VTE. Eligible studies included adults with an objectively confirmed deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism or both. A fixed-effect Bayesian NMA was conducted, and results were presented as relative risks (RRs). Sensitivity analyses examining (i) the dataset employed according to the time frame for outcome assessment (ii) the model used for the NMA were conducted.
RESULTS
Eleven Phase III RCTs (examining apixaban, aspirin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, warfarin and placebo) were included. The risk of the composite efficacy outcome (VTE and VTE-related death) was statistically significantly lower with the NOACs and warfarin INR 2.0-3.0 compared with aspirin, with no significant differences between the NOACs. Treatment with apixaban (RR 0.23, 95% CrI 0.10, 0.55) or dabigatran (RR 0.55, 95% Crl 0.43, 0.71) was associated with a statistically significantly reduced risk of 'major or clinically relevant non-major bleed' compared with warfarin INR 2.0-3.0. Apixaban also showed a significantly reduced risk compared with dabigatran (RR 0.42, 95% Crl 0.18, 0.97) and rivaroxaban (RR 0.23, 95% Crl 0.09, 0.59). Sensitivity analyses indicate that results were dependent on the dataset, but not on the type of NMA model employed.
CONCLUSIONS
Results from the NMA indicate that NOACs are an effective treatment for prevention of VTE or VTE-related death) in the extended treatment setting. However, bleeding risk differs between potential treatments, with apixaban reporting the most favourable profile compared with other NOACs, warfarin INR 2.0-3.0, and aspirin.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Dabigatran; Humans; Long-Term Care; Network Meta-Analysis; Pyrazoles; Pyridones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rivaroxaban; Treatment Outcome; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 27487187
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160064 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jan 2018Several therapies have recently been approved for use in the NHS for pretreated advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (amRCC), but there is a lack of comparative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Several therapies have recently been approved for use in the NHS for pretreated advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (amRCC), but there is a lack of comparative evidence to guide decisions between them.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of axitinib (Inlyta, Pfizer Inc., NY, USA), cabozantinib (Cabometyx, Ipsen, Slough, UK), everolimus (Afinitor, Novartis, Basel, Switzerland), nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb, NY, USA), sunitinib (Sutent, Pfizer, Inc., NY, USA) and best supportive care (BSC) for people with amRCC who were previously treated with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review and mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes were objective response rates (ORRs), adverse events (AEs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January and June 2016 for RCTs and non-RCTs, respectively. Two reviewers abstracted data and performed critical appraisals.
REVIEW METHODS
A fixed-effects MTC was conducted for OS, PFS [hazard ratios (HRs)] and ORR (odds ratios), and all were presented with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The RCT data formed the primary analyses, with non-RCTs and studies rated as being at a high risk of bias included in sensitivity analyses (SAs). HRQoL and AE data were summarised narratively. A partitioned survival model with health states for pre progression, post progression and death was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis. Survival curves were fitted to the PFS and OS results from the MTC. A systematic review of HRQoL was undertaken to identify sources of health state utility values.
RESULTS
Four RCTs ( = 2618) and eight non-RCTs ( = 1526) were included. The results show that cabozantinib has longer PFS than everolimus (HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.63) and both treatments are better than BSC. Both cabozantinib (HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.53 to 0.82) and nivolumab (HR 0.73, 95% CrI 0.60 to 0.89) have longer OS than everolimus. SAs were consistent with the primary analyses. The economic analysis, using drug list prices, shows that everolimus may be more cost-effective than BSC with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), as it is likely to be considered an end-of-life treatment. Cabozantinib has an ICER of £126,000 per QALY compared with everolimus and is unlikely to be cost-effective. Nivolumab was dominated by cabozantinib (i.e. more costly and less effective) and axitinib was dominated by everolimus.
LIMITATIONS
Treatment comparisons were limited by the small number of RCTs. However, the key limitation of the analysis is the absence of the drug prices paid by the NHS, which was a limitation that could not be avoided owing to the confidentiality of discounts given to the NHS.
CONCLUSIONS
The RCT evidence suggests that cabozantinib is likely to be the most effective for PFS and OS, closely followed by nivolumab. All treatments appear to delay disease progression and prolong survival compared with BSC, although the results are heterogeneous. The economic analysis shows that at list price everolimus could be recommended as the other drugs are much more expensive with insufficient incremental benefit. The applicability of these findings to the NHS is somewhat limited because existing confidential patient access schemes could not be used in the analysis. Future work using the discounted prices at which these drugs are provided to the NHS would better inform estimates of their relative cost-effectiveness.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016042384.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Anilides; Antineoplastic Agents; Axitinib; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Everolimus; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Models, Econometric; Nivolumab; Pyridines; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Sunitinib; Technology Assessment, Biomedical; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 29393024
DOI: 10.3310/hta22060 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Mar 2016Postoperative pain continues to be undertreated after noncardiac surgery. Preoperative analgesic administration may enhance postoperative analgesia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative pain continues to be undertreated after noncardiac surgery. Preoperative analgesic administration may enhance postoperative analgesia.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the effects of preoperative administration of celecoxib in noncardiac surgery on pain and postoperative outcomes.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINHAL Web of Sciences and ProQuest databases were searched from inception to 2014. Reference lists of retrieved articles and grey literature were searched for additional trials.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Articles were included if they enrolled patients of at least 18 years of age and randomised patients to receive celecoxib within 4 h of noncardiac surgery. Studies were excluded if they were animal studies, reviews/meta-analyses, did not report pain as an outcome or used epidural analgesia.
RESULTS
Twenty trials met the eligibility criteria. Preoperative celecoxib in 14 studies (994 patients) amenable to meta-analysis demonstrated a significant decrease in 24-h parenteral morphine-equivalent consumption (mean difference -4.13 mg, 95% confidence interval -5.58 to -2.67, I = 94%). Eleven studies (755 patients) assessed postoperative pain scores at 24 h and found a significant decrease with celecoxib use [mean difference (on a 0-10 pain scale) -1.02, 95% confidence interval -1.54 to -0.50, I = 99%]. The risks of postoperative nausea and vomiting were also decreased by 44% (P = 0.01) and 38% (P = 0.03), respectively. Preoperative celecoxib did not improve patient satisfaction or length of recovery room stay, or increase intraoperative bleeding. Subgroup analyses indicated no difference between celecoxib 200 and 400 mg or between a single preoperative dose and continued postoperative dosing.
CONCLUSION
Results of this study are limited by significant heterogeneity and inclusion of mainly small trials. However, there appears to be a slight to modest benefit of preoperative celecoxib on reducing postoperative morphine consumption, pain, nausea and vomiting.
Topics: Celecoxib; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Humans; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26760402
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000346 -
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology Dec 2023Cesarean section is associated with moderate to severe pain and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly employed. The optimal NSAID, however, has not... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cesarean section is associated with moderate to severe pain and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly employed. The optimal NSAID, however, has not been elucidated. In this network meta-analysis and systematic review, we compared the influence of control and individual NSAIDs on the indices of analgesia, side effects, and quality of recovery.
METHODS
CDSR, CINAHL, CRCT, Embase, LILACS, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing a specific NSAID to either control or another NSAID in elective or emergency cesarean section under general or neuraxial anesthesia. Network plots and league tables were constructed, and the quality of evidence was evaluated with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) analysis.
RESULTS
We included 47 trials. Cumulative intravenous morphine equivalent consumption at 24 h, the primary outcome, was examined in 1,228 patients and 18 trials, and control was found to be inferior to diclofenac, indomethacin, ketorolac, and tenoxicam (very low quality evidence owing to serious limitations, imprecision, and publication bias). Indomethacin was superior to celecoxib for pain score at rest at 8-12 h and celecoxib + parecoxib, diclofenac, and ketorolac for pain score on movement at 48 h. In regard to the need for and time to rescue analgesia COX-2 inhibitors such as celecoxib were inferior to other NSAIDs.
CONCLUSIONS
Our review suggests the presence of minimal differences among the NSAIDs studied. Nonselective NSAIDs may be more effective than selective NSAIDs, and some NSAIDs such as indomethacin might be preferable to other NSAIDs.
Topics: Humans; Pregnancy; Female; Diclofenac; Ketorolac; Celecoxib; Cesarean Section; Network Meta-Analysis; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Indomethacin; Pain
PubMed: 37066603
DOI: 10.4097/kja.23014 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2016All major guidelines on antihypertensive therapy recommend weight loss; anti-obesity drugs may be able to help in this respect. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
All major guidelines on antihypertensive therapy recommend weight loss; anti-obesity drugs may be able to help in this respect.
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 blood pressure, change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure, and body weight reduction.
SEARCH METHODS
We obtained studies using computerised searches of the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, the clinical trials registry ClinicalTrials.gov, and from handsearches in reference lists and systematic reviews (status as of 13 April 2015).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials in hypertensive adults of at least 24 weeks' duration that compared long-term pharmacologic interventions for weight loss with placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Where appropriate and in the absence of significant heterogeneity between studies (P > 0.1), we pooled studies using fixed-effect meta-analysis. When heterogeneity was present, we used the random-effects method and investigated the cause of heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
After updating the literature search, which was extended to include four new weight-reducing drugs, we identified one additional study of phentermine/topiramate, bringing the total number of studies to nine that compare orlistat, sibutramine, or phentermine/topiramate to placebo and thus fulfil our inclusion criteria. We identified no relevant studies investigating rimonabant, liraglutide, lorcaserin, or naltrexone/bupropion. No study included mortality and cardiovascular morbidity as predefined outcomes. Incidence of gastrointestinal side effects was consistently higher in those participants treated with orlistat versus those treated with placebo. The most frequent side effects were dry mouth, constipation, and headache with sibutramine, and dry mouth and paresthaesia with phentermine/topiramate. In participants assigned to orlistat, sibutramine, or phentermine/topiramate body weight was reduced more effectively than in participants in the usual-care/placebo groups. Orlistat reduced systolic blood pressure as compared to placebo by -2.5 mm Hg (mean difference (MD); 95% confidence interval (CI): -4.0 to -0.9 mm Hg) and diastolic blood pressure by -1.9 mm Hg (MD; 95% CI: -3.0 to -0.9 mm Hg). Sibutramine increased diastolic blood pressure compared to placebo by +3.2 mm Hg (MD; 95% CI: +1.4 to +4.9 mm Hg). The one trial that investigated phentermine/topiramate suggested it lowered blood pressure.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In people with elevated blood pressure, orlistat and sibutramine reduced body weight to a similar degree, while phentermine/topiramate reduced body weight to a greater extent. In the same trials, orlistat and phentermine/topiramate reduced blood pressure, while sibutramine increased it. We could include no trials investigating rimonabant, liraglutide, lorcaserin, or naltrexone/bupropion in people with elevated blood pressure. Long-term trials assessing the effect of orlistat, liraglutide, lorcaserin, phentermine/topiramate, or naltrexone/bupropion on mortality and morbidity are unavailable and needed. Rimonabant and sibutramine have been withdrawn from the market, after long-term trials on mortality and morbidity have confirmed concerns about the potential severe side effects of these two drugs. The European Medicines Agency refused marketing authorisation for phentermine/topiramate due to safety concerns, while the application for European marketing authorisation for lorcaserin was withdrawn by the manufacturer after the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use judged the overall benefit/risk balance to be negative.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Obesity Agents; Appetite Depressants; Blood Pressure; Cyclobutanes; Diet, Reducing; Female; Fructose; Humans; Hypertension; Lactones; Male; Middle Aged; Orlistat; Phentermine; Piperidines; Pyrazoles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rimonabant; Safety-Based Drug Withdrawals; Time; Topiramate; Weight Loss
PubMed: 26934640
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007654.pub4 -
Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis Apr 2018The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) versus warfarin therapy in patients undergoing different operations.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) versus warfarin therapy in patients undergoing different operations. We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and reports presented at scientific meetings. The efficacy and safety of NOACs during the perioperative period was compared to that using warfarin. Of the 2652 studies initially reviewed, we identified 9 that included 15,880 patients for the meta-analysis. Compared to warfarin, dabigatran increased the risk of major bleeding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.06-1.78, P = 0.02). Apixaban (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-0.99, P = 0.04) reduced thrombotic events. NOAC therapy decreased thrombotic events in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.92, P = 0.02). Compared to warfarin, the administration of NOACs in the perioperative period has the same risk of thromboembolism and major bleeding. But patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery may benefit more from perioperative NOAC therapy. Apixaban may reduce thrombotic events and dabigatran increases the risk of major bleeding during the perioperative period.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Dabigatran; Hemorrhage; Humans; Preoperative Period; Pyrazoles; Pyridones; Venous Thromboembolism; Warfarin
PubMed: 29344822
DOI: 10.1007/s11239-018-1612-7