-
Sleep Medicine Reviews Jun 2023The consumption of caffeine in response to insufficient sleep may impair the onset and maintenance of subsequent sleep. This systematic review and meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The consumption of caffeine in response to insufficient sleep may impair the onset and maintenance of subsequent sleep. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effect of caffeine on the characteristics of night-time sleep, with the intent to identify the time after which caffeine should not be consumed prior to bedtime. A systematic search of the literature was undertaken with 24 studies included in the analysis. Caffeine consumption reduced total sleep time by 45 min and sleep efficiency by 7%, with an increase in sleep onset latency of 9 min and wake after sleep onset of 12 min. Duration (+6.1 min) and proportion (+1.7%) of light sleep (N1) increased with caffeine intake and the duration (-11.4 min) and proportion (-1.4%) of deep sleep (N3 and N4) decreased with caffeine intake. To avoid reductions in total sleep time, coffee (107 mg per 250 mL) should be consumed at least 8.8 h prior to bedtime and a standard serve of pre-workout supplement (217.5 mg) should be consumed at least 13.2 h prior to bedtime. The results of the present study provide evidence-based guidance for the appropriate consumption of caffeine to mitigate the deleterious effects on sleep.
Topics: Humans; Caffeine; Sleep; Polysomnography; Coffee; Sleep Deprivation
PubMed: 36870101
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2023.101764 -
Cureus Dec 2021Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects multiple cognitive domains, including impaired attention, hyperactivity, and increased impulsivity. According to... (Review)
Review
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects multiple cognitive domains, including impaired attention, hyperactivity, and increased impulsivity. According to the CDC, 9.4% of children between 2 and 17 years old have been diagnosed with ADHD. Neurotransmitters such as noradrenaline and dopamine have been suggested as crucial players in the pathophysiology of ADHD and are often targets of modern medication. Adenosine receptors types A1 and A2a in the brain are inhibited by caffeine: a stimulant known to augment attention by increasing cholinergic and dopaminergic transmission. The cognitive function of attention is also enhanced by the amino acid: L-theanine. The mechanism of action is that it behaves like a glutamate reuptake inhibitor while also acting in the hippocampus as a competitive low-affinity glutamate receptor antagonist. It's also shown to have a neuroprotective effect by its action on the gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA)-A receptors. Our systematic review investigates the literature and clinical trials on the cognitive-enhancing effects of caffeine and L-theanine.
PubMed: 35111479
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.20828 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Sep 2022The benefits of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remain debated with the National Institutes of Health and the World Health... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The benefits of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remain debated with the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization providing contradictory recommendations for and against use.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the role of remdesivir for hospitalized inpatients as a function of oxygen requirements.
DATA SOURCES
Beginning with our prior systematic review, we searched MEDLINE using PubMed from 15 January 2021 through 5 May 2022.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials; all languages.
PARTICIPANTS
All hospitalized adults with COVID-19.
INTERVENTIONS
Remdesivir, in comparison to either placebo, or standard of care.
ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS
We used the ROB-2 criteria.
METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS
The primary outcome was mortality, stratified by oxygen use (none, supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation, and mechanical ventilation). We conducted a frequentist random effects meta-analysis on the risk ratio scale and, to contextualize the probabilistic benefits, we also performed a Bayesian random effects meta-analysis on the risk difference scale. A ≥1% absolute risk reduction was considered clinically important.
RESULTS
We identified eight randomized trials, totaling 10 751 participants. The risk ratio for mortality comparing remdesivir vs. control was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.5-1.19) in the patients who did not require supplemental oxygen; 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79-0.99) for nonventilated patients requiring oxygen; and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.88-1.31) in the setting of mechanical ventilation. Using neutral priors, the probabilities that remdesivir reduces mortality were 76.8%, 93.8%, and 14.7%, respectively. The probability that remdesivir reduced mortality by ≥ 1% was 77.4% for nonventilated patients requiring oxygen.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on this meta-analysis, there is a high probability that remdesivir reduces mortality for nonventilated patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen therapy. Treatment guidelines should be re-evaluated.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Adult; Alanine; Bayes Theorem; Humans; Oxygen; SARS-CoV-2; United States; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35598856
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.04.018 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Coenzyme Q10, or ubiquinone, is a non-prescription nutritional supplement. It is a fat-soluble molecule that acts as an electron carrier in mitochondria, and as a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Coenzyme Q10, or ubiquinone, is a non-prescription nutritional supplement. It is a fat-soluble molecule that acts as an electron carrier in mitochondria, and as a coenzyme for mitochondrial enzymes. Coenzyme Q10 deficiency may be associated with a multitude of diseases, including heart failure. The severity of heart failure correlates with the severity of coenzyme Q10 deficiency. Emerging data suggest that the harmful effects of reactive oxygen species are increased in people with heart failure, and coenzyme Q10 may help to reduce these toxic effects because of its antioxidant activity. Coenzyme Q10 may also have a role in stabilising myocardial calcium-dependent ion channels, and in preventing the consumption of metabolites essential for adenosine-5'-triphosphate (ATP) synthesis. Coenzyme Q10, although not a primary recommended treatment, could be beneficial to people with heart failure. Several randomised controlled trials have compared coenzyme Q10 to other therapeutic modalities, but no systematic review of existing randomised trials was conducted prior to the original version of this Cochrane Review, in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To review the safety and efficacy of coenzyme Q10 in heart failure.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL Plus, and AMED on 16 October 2020; ClinicalTrials.gov on 16 July 2020, and the ISRCTN Registry on 11 November 2019. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of either parallel or cross-over design that assessed the beneficial and harmful effects of coenzyme Q10 in people with heart failure. When we identified cross-over studies, we considered data only from the first phase.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods, assessed study risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and GRADE methods to assess the quality of the evidence. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR); for continuous data, the mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate data were available, we conducted meta-analysis. When meta-analysis was not possible, we wrote a narrative synthesis. We provided a PRISMA flow chart to show the flow of study selection.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eleven studies, with 1573 participants, comparing coenzyme Q10 to placebo or conventional therapy (control). In the majority of the studies, sample size was relatively small. There were important differences among studies in daily coenzyme Q10 dose, follow-up period, and the measures of treatment effect. All studies had unclear, or high risk of bias, or both, in one or more bias domains. We were only able to conduct meta-analysis for some of the outcomes. None of the included trials considered quality of life, measured on a validated scale, exercise variables (exercise haemodynamics), or cost-effectiveness. Coenzyme Q10 probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality more than control (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.95; 1 study, 420 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 13.3; moderate-quality evidence). There was low-quality evidence of inconclusive results between the coenzyme Q10 and control groups for the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.27 to 9.59; 1 study, 420 participants), and stroke (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.48; 1 study, 420 participants). Coenzyme Q10 probably reduces hospitalisation related to heart failure (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.78; 2 studies, 1061 participants; NNTB 9.7; moderate-quality evidence). Very low-quality evidence suggests that coenzyme Q10 may improve the left ventricular ejection fraction (MD 1.77, 95% CI 0.09 to 3.44; 7 studies, 650 participants), but the results are inconclusive for exercise capacity (MD 48.23, 95% CI -24.75 to 121.20; 3 studies, 91 participants); and the risk of developing adverse events (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 2 studies, 568 participants). We downgraded the quality of the evidence mainly due to high risk of bias and imprecision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The included studies provide moderate-quality evidence that coenzyme Q10 probably reduces all-cause mortality and hospitalisation for heart failure. There is low-quality evidence of inconclusive results as to whether coenzyme Q10 has an effect on the risk of myocardial infarction, or stroke. Because of very low-quality evidence, it is very uncertain whether coenzyme Q10 has an effect on either left ventricular ejection fraction or exercise capacity. There is low-quality evidence that coenzyme Q10 may increase the risk of adverse effects, or have little to no difference. There is currently no convincing evidence to support or refute the use of coenzyme Q10 for heart failure. Future trials are needed to confirm our findings.
Topics: Ataxia; Heart Failure; Humans; Mitochondrial Diseases; Muscle Weakness; Myocardial Infarction; Quality of Life; Stroke; Stroke Volume; Ubiquinone; Ventricular Function, Left
PubMed: 35608922
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008684.pub3 -
JAMA Neurology Feb 2022Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel and aspirin is effective in preventing recurrent strokes after minor ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel and aspirin is effective in preventing recurrent strokes after minor ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). However, there is emerging evidence for the use of ticagrelor and aspirin, and the 2 DAPT regimens have not been compared directly.
OBJECTIVE
To compare ticagrelor and aspirin with clopidogrel and aspirin in patients with acute minor ischemic stroke or TIA in the prevention of recurrent strokes or death.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane from database inception until February 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials that enrolled adults with acute minor ischemic stroke or TIA and provided the mentioned interventions within 72 hours of symptom onset, with a minimum follow-up of 30 days.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
PRISMA guidelines for network meta-analyses were followed. Two reviewers independently extracted data and appraised risk of bias. Fixed-effects models were fit using a bayesian approach to network meta-analysis. Between-group comparisons were estimated using hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs). Surface under the cumulative rank curve plots were produced.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent stroke or death up to 90 days. Secondary outcomes include major bleeding, mortality, adverse events, and functional disability. A sensitivity analysis was performed at 30 days for the primary outcome.
RESULTS
A total of 4014 citations were screened; 5 randomized clinical trials were included. Data from 22 098 patients were analyzed, including 5517 in the clopidogrel and aspirin arm, 5859 in the ticagrelor and aspirin arm, and 10 722 in the aspirin arm. Both clopidogrel and aspirin (HR, 0.74; 95% CrI, 0.65-0.84) and ticagrelor and aspirin (HR, 0.79; 95% CrI, 0.68-0.91) were superior to aspirin in the prevention of recurrent stroke and death. There was no statistically significant difference between clopidogrel and aspirin compared with ticagrelor and aspirin (HR, 0.94; 95% CrI, 0.78-1.13). Both DAPT regimens had higher rates of major hemorrhage than aspirin alone. Clopidogrel and aspirin was associated with a decreased risk of functional disability compared with aspirin alone (HR, 0.82; 95% CrI, 0.74-0.91) and ticagrelor and aspirin (HR, 0.85; 95% CrI, 0.75-0.97).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
DAPT combining aspirin with either ticagrelor or clopidogrel was superior to aspirin alone, but there was no statistically significant difference found between the 2 regimens for the primary outcome.
Topics: Aspirin; Clopidogrel; Drug Therapy, Combination; Dual Anti-Platelet Therapy; Humans; Ischemic Attack, Transient; Ischemic Stroke; Network Meta-Analysis; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Ticagrelor
PubMed: 34870698
DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.4514 -
Journal of Asthma and Allergy 2023Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) is a key feature of asthma. Biologic therapies used to treat asthma target specific components of the inflammatory pathway, and their... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) is a key feature of asthma. Biologic therapies used to treat asthma target specific components of the inflammatory pathway, and their effects on AHR can provide valuable information about the underlying disease pathophysiology. This review summarizes the available evidence regarding the effects of biologics on allergen-specific and non-allergen-specific airway responses in patients with asthma.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, including risk-of-bias assessment. PubMed and Ovid were searched for studies published between January 1997 and December 2021. Eligible studies were randomized, placebo-controlled trials that assessed the effects of biologics on AHR, early allergic response (EAR) and/or late allergic response (LAR) in patients with asthma.
RESULTS
Thirty studies were identified for inclusion. Bronchoprovocation testing was allergen-specific in 18 studies and non-allergen-specific in 12 studies. Omalizumab reduced AHR to methacholine, acetylcholine or adenosine monophosphate (3/9 studies), and reduced EAR (4/5 studies) and LAR (2/3 studies). Mepolizumab had no effect on AHR (3/3 studies), EAR or LAR (1/1 study). Tezepelumab reduced AHR to methacholine or mannitol (3/3 studies), and reduced EAR and LAR (1/1 study). Pitrakinra reduced LAR, with no effect on AHR (1/1 study). Etanercept reduced AHR to methacholine (1/2 studies). No effects were observed for lebrikizumab, tocilizumab, efalizumab, IMA-638 and anti-OX40 ligand on AHR, EAR or LAR; benralizumab on LAR; tralokinumab on AHR; and Ro-24-7472 on AHR or LAR (all 1/1 study each). No dupilumab or reslizumab studies were identified.
CONCLUSION
Omalizumab and tezepelumab reduced EAR and LAR to allergens. Tezepelumab consistently reduced AHR to methacholine or mannitol. These findings provide insights into AHR mechanisms and the precise effects of asthma biologics. Furthermore, findings suggest that tezepelumab broadly targets allergen-specific and non-allergic forms of AHR, and the underlying cells and mediators involved in asthma.
PubMed: 37496824
DOI: 10.2147/JAA.S410592 -
Rheumatology (Oxford, England) Jun 2021To identify clinical factors associated with cancer risk in the idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) and to systematically review the existing evidence related to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To identify clinical factors associated with cancer risk in the idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) and to systematically review the existing evidence related to cancer screening.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was carried out on Medline, Embase and Scopus. Cancer risk within the IIM population (i.e. not compared with the general population) was expressed as risk ratios (RR) for binary variables and weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous variables. Evidence relating to cancer screening practices in the IIMs were synthesized via narrative review.
RESULTS
Sixty-nine studies were included in the meta-analysis. DM subtype (RR 2.21), older age (WMD 11.19), male sex (RR 1.53), dysphagia (RR 2.09), cutaneous ulceration (RR 2.73) and anti-transcriptional intermediary factor-1 gamma positivity (RR 4.66) were identified as being associated with significantly increased risk of cancer. PM (RR 0.49) and clinically amyopathic DM (RR 0.44) subtypes, Raynaud's phenomenon (RR 0.61), interstitial lung disease (RR 0.49), very high serum creatine kinase (WMD -1189.96) or lactate dehydrogenase (WMD -336.52) levels, and anti-Jo1 (RR 0.45) or anti-EJ (RR 0.17) positivity were identified as being associated with significantly reduced risk of cancer. Nine studies relating to IIM-specific cancer screening were included. CT scanning of the thorax, abdomen and pelvis appeared to be effective in identifying underlying asymptomatic cancers.
CONCLUSION
Cancer risk factors should be evaluated in patients with IIM for risk stratification. Screening evidence is limited but CT scanning could be useful. Prospective studies and consensus guidelines are needed to establish cancer screening strategies in IIM patients.
Topics: Adenosine Triphosphatases; Age Factors; Antibodies, Antinuclear; Creatine Kinase; DNA-Binding Proteins; Deglutition Disorders; Dermatomyositis; Female; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; L-Lactate Dehydrogenase; Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Male; Myositis; Neoplasms; Publication Bias; Raynaud Disease; Risk; Sex Factors; Skin Ulcer; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Transcription Factors
PubMed: 33599244
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab166 -
Nutrients Aug 2021Caffeine (1,3,7-trimethylxanthine) is one of the most common substances used by athletes to enhance their performance during competition. Evidence suggests that the...
Caffeine (1,3,7-trimethylxanthine) is one of the most common substances used by athletes to enhance their performance during competition. Evidence suggests that the performance-enhancing properties of caffeine can be obtained by employing several forms of administration, namely, capsules/tablets, caffeinated drinks (energy drinks and sports drinks), beverages (coffee), and chewing gum. However, caffeinated drinks have become the main form of caffeine administration in sport due to the wide presence of these products in the market. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the different effects of caffeinated drinks on physical performance in various sports categories such as endurance, power-based sports, team sports, and skill-based sports. A systematic review of published studies was performed on scientific databases for studies published from 2000 to 2020. All studies included had blinded and cross-over experimental designs, in which the ingestion of a caffeinated drink was compared to a placebo/control trial. The total number of studies included in this review was 37. The analysis of the included studies revealed that both sports drinks with caffeine and energy drinks were effective in increasing several aspects of sports performance when the amount of drink provides at least 3 mg of caffeine per kg of body mass. Due to their composition, caffeinated sports drinks seem to be more beneficial to consume during long-duration exercise, when the drinks are used for both rehydration and caffeine supplementation. Energy drinks may be more appropriate for providing caffeine before exercise. Lastly, the magnitude of the ergogenic benefits obtained with caffeinated drinks seems similar in women and men athletes. Overall, the current systematic review provides evidence of the efficacy of caffeinated drinks as a valid form for caffeine supplementation in sport.
Topics: Athletes; Athletic Performance; Caffeine; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Energy Drinks; Female; Humans; Male; Performance-Enhancing Substances
PubMed: 34578821
DOI: 10.3390/nu13092944 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jul 2020To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).
DESIGN
Living systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 1 December 2021 were included in the analysis.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.
METHODS
After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance.
RESULTS
463 trials enrolling 166 581 patients were included; 267 (57.7%) trials and 89 814 (53.9%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 265 (57.2%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, three drugs reduced mortality in patients with mostly severe disease with at least moderate certainty: systemic corticosteroids (risk difference 23 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 40 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), interleukin-6 receptor antagonists when given with corticosteroids (23 fewer per 1000, 36 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), and Janus kinase inhibitors (44 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 20 fewer, high certainty). Compared with standard care, two drugs probably reduce hospital admission in patients with non-severe disease: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (36 fewer per 1000, 41 fewer to 26 fewer, moderate certainty) and molnupiravir (19 fewer per 1000, 29 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty). Remdesivir may reduce hospital admission (29 fewer per 1000, 40 fewer to 6 fewer, low certainty). Only molnupiravir had at least moderate quality evidence of a reduction in time to symptom resolution (3.3 days fewer, 4.8 fewer to 1.6 fewer, moderate certainty); several others showed a possible benefit. Several drugs may increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation; hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of mechanical ventilation (moderate certainty).
CONCLUSION
Corticosteroids, interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors probably reduce mortality and confer other important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduce admission to hospital in patients with non-severe covid-19.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material.
READERS' NOTE
This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fifth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Alanine; Antiviral Agents; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.; China; Coronavirus Infections; Databases, Factual; Drug Combinations; Evidence-Based Medicine; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Lopinavir; Network Meta-Analysis; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; Severity of Illness Index; Standard of Care; Treatment Outcome; United States; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 32732190
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m2980 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2024Different therapeutic strategies are available for the treatment of people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), including immunomodulators,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Different therapeutic strategies are available for the treatment of people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), including immunomodulators, immunosuppressants and biological agents. Although each one of these therapies reduces relapse frequency and slows disability accumulation compared to no treatment, their relative benefit remains unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety, through network meta-analysis, of interferon beta-1b, interferon beta-1a, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, alemtuzumab, pegylated interferon beta-1a, daclizumab, laquinimod, azathioprine, immunoglobulins, cladribine, cyclophosphamide, diroximel fumarate, fludarabine, interferon beta 1-a and beta 1-b, leflunomide, methotrexate, minocycline, mycophenolate mofetil, ofatumumab, ozanimod, ponesimod, rituximab, siponimod and steroids for the treatment of people with RRMS.
SEARCH METHODS
CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers were searched on 21 September 2021 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. A top-up search was conducted on 8 August 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that studied one or more of the available immunomodulators and immunosuppressants as monotherapy in comparison to placebo or to another active agent, in adults with RRMS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We considered both direct and indirect evidence and performed data synthesis by pairwise and network meta-analysis. Certainty of the evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 50 studies involving 36,541 participants (68.6% female and 31.4% male). Median treatment duration was 24 months, and 25 (50%) studies were placebo-controlled. Considering the risk of bias, the most frequent concern was related to the role of the sponsor in the authorship of the study report or in data management and analysis, for which we judged 68% of the studies were at high risk of other bias. The other frequent concerns were performance bias (34% judged as having high risk) and attrition bias (32% judged as having high risk). Placebo was used as the common comparator for network analysis. Relapses over 12 months: data were provided in 18 studies (9310 participants). Natalizumab results in a large reduction of people with relapses at 12 months (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.63; high-certainty evidence). Fingolimod (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.57; moderate-certainty evidence), daclizumab (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73; moderate-certainty evidence), and immunoglobulins (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.79; moderate-certainty evidence) probably result in a large reduction of people with relapses at 12 months. Relapses over 24 months: data were reported in 28 studies (19,869 participants). Cladribine (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.64; high-certainty evidence), alemtuzumab (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.68; high-certainty evidence) and natalizumab (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65; high-certainty evidence) result in a large decrease of people with relapses at 24 months. Fingolimod (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.60; moderate-certainty evidence), dimethyl fumarate (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.70; moderate-certainty evidence), and ponesimod (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.70; moderate-certainty evidence) probably result in a large decrease of people with relapses at 24 months. Glatiramer acetate (RR 0.84, 95%, CI 0.76 to 0.93; moderate-certainty evidence) and interferon beta-1a (Avonex, Rebif) (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91; moderate-certainty evidence) probably moderately decrease people with relapses at 24 months. Relapses over 36 months findings were available from five studies (3087 participants). None of the treatments assessed showed moderate- or high-certainty evidence compared to placebo. Disability worsening over 24 months was assessed in 31 studies (24,303 participants). Natalizumab probably results in a large reduction of disability worsening (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.75; moderate-certainty evidence) at 24 months. Disability worsening over 36 months was assessed in three studies (2684 participants) but none of the studies used placebo as the comparator. Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events data were available from 43 studies (35,410 participants). Alemtuzumab probably results in a slight reduction of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.79; moderate-certainty evidence). Daclizumab (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.40 to 4.63; moderate-certainty evidence), fingolimod (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.57; moderate-certainty evidence), teriflunomide (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.79; moderate-certainty evidence), interferon beta-1a (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.20; moderate-certainty evidence), laquinimod (OR 1.49, 95 % CI 1.00 to 2.15; moderate-certainty evidence), natalizumab (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.05), and glatiramer acetate (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.14; moderate-certainty evidence) probably result in a slight increase in the number of people who discontinue treatment due to adverse events. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in 35 studies (33,998 participants). There was probably a trivial reduction in SAEs amongst people with RRMS treated with interferon beta-1b as compared to placebo (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.54; moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are highly confident that, compared to placebo, two-year treatment with natalizumab, cladribine, or alemtuzumab decreases relapses more than with other DMTs. We are moderately confident that a two-year treatment with natalizumab may slow disability progression. Compared to those on placebo, people with RRMS treated with most of the assessed DMTs showed a higher frequency of treatment discontinuation due to AEs: we are moderately confident that this could happen with fingolimod, teriflunomide, interferon beta-1a, laquinimod, natalizumab and daclizumab, while our certainty with other DMTs is lower. We are also moderately certain that treatment with alemtuzumab is associated with fewer discontinuations due to adverse events than placebo, and moderately certain that interferon beta-1b probably results in a slight reduction in people who experience serious adverse events, but our certainty with regard to other DMTs is lower. Insufficient evidence is available to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DMTs in a longer term than two years, and this is a relevant issue for a chronic condition like MS that develops over decades. More than half of the included studies were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and this may have influenced their results. Further studies should focus on direct comparison between active agents, with follow-up of at least three years, and assess other patient-relevant outcomes, such as quality of life and cognitive status, with particular focus on the impact of sex/gender on treatment effects.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting; Glatiramer Acetate; Interferon beta-1a; Fingolimod Hydrochloride; Natalizumab; Interferon beta-1b; Cladribine; Alemtuzumab; Dimethyl Fumarate; Daclizumab; Network Meta-Analysis; Immunologic Factors; Recurrence
PubMed: 38174776
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011381.pub3