-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Schizophrenia and related disorders such as schizophreniform and schizoaffective disorder are serious mental illnesses characterised by profound disruptions in thinking... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Schizophrenia and related disorders such as schizophreniform and schizoaffective disorder are serious mental illnesses characterised by profound disruptions in thinking and speech, emotional processes, behaviour and sense of self. Clozapine is useful in the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders, particularly when other antipsychotic medications have failed. It improves positive symptoms (such as delusions and hallucinations) and negative symptoms (such as withdrawal and poverty of speech). However, it is unclear what dose of clozapine is most effective with the least side effects.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and tolerability of clozapine at different doses and to identify the optimal dose of clozapine in the treatment of schizophrenia, schizophreniform and schizoaffective disorders.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (August 2011 and 8 December 2016).
SELECTION CRITERIA
All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of blinding status or language, that compared the effects of clozapine at different doses in people with schizophrenia and related disorders, diagnosed by any criteria.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently inspected citations from the searches, identified relevant abstracts, obtained full articles of relevant abstracts, and classified trials as included or excluded. We included trials that met our inclusion criteria and reported useable data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the relative risk (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) again based on a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five studies that could be included. Each compared the effects of clozapine at very low dose (up to 149 mg/day), low dose (150 mg/day to 300 mg/day) and standard dose (301 mg/day to 600 mg/day). Four of the five included studies were based on a small number of participants. We rated all the evidence reported for the main outcomes of interest as low or very low quality. No data were available for the main outcomes of global state, service use or quality of life. Very low dose compared to low doseWe found no evidence of effect on mental state between low and very low doses of clozapine in terms of average Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-Anchored (BPRS-A) endpoint score (1 RCT, n = 31, MD 3.55, 95% CI -4.50 to 11.60, very low quality evidence). One study found no difference between groups in body mass index (BMI) in the short term (1 RCT, n = 59, MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.95 to 0.75, low-quality evidence). Very low dose compared to standard doseWe found no evidence of effect on mental state between very low doses and standard doses of clozapine in terms of average BPRS-A endpoint score (1 RCT, n = 31, MD 6.67, 95% CI -2.09 to 15.43, very low quality evidence). One study found no difference between groups in BMI in the short term (1 RCT, n = 58, MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.76 to 0.96, low-quality evidence) Low dose compared to standard doseWe found no evidence of effect on mental state between low doses and standard doses of clozapine in terms of both clinician-assessed clinical improvement (2 RCTs, n = 141, RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.61, medium-quality evidence) and clinically important response as more than 30% change in BPRS score (1 RCT, n = 176, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.10, medium-quality evidence). One study found no difference between groups in BMI in the short term (1 RCT, n = 57, MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.84 to 1.24, low-quality evidence).We found some evidence of effect for other adverse effect outcomes; however, the data were again limited. Very low dose compared to low doseThere was limited evidence that serum triglycerides were lower at low-dose clozapine compared to very low dose in the short term (1 RCT, n = 59, MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.49). Low dose compared to standard doseWeight gain was lower at very low dose compared to standard dose (1 RCT, n = 27, MD -2.70, 95% CI -5.38 to -0.02). Glucose level one hour after meal was also lower at very lose dose (1 RCT, n = 58, MD -1.60, 95% CI -2.90 to -0.30). Total cholesterol levels were higher at very low compared to standard dose (1 RCT, n = 58, n = 58, MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.80). Low dose compared to standard doseThere was evidence of fewer adverse effects, measured as lower TESS scores, in the low-dose group in the short term (2 RCTs, n = 266, MD -3.99, 95% CI -5.75 to -2.24); and in one study there was evidence that the incidence of lethargy (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.97), hypersalivation (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.84), dizziness (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.81) and tachycardia (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.71) was less at low dose compared to standard dose.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no evidence of effect on mental state between standard, low and very low dose regimes, but we did not identify any trials on high or very high doses of clozapine. BMI measurements were similar between groups in the short term, although weight gain was less at very low dose compared to standard dose in one study. There was limited evidence that the incidence of some adverse effects was greater at standard dose compared to lower dose regimes. We found very little useful data and the evidence available is generally of low or very low quality. More studies are needed to validate our findings and report on outcomes such as relapse, remission, social functioning, service utilisation, cost-effectiveness, satisfaction with care, and quality of life. There is a particular lack of medium- or long-term outcome data, and on dose regimes above the standard rate.
Topics: Agranulocytosis; Antipsychotic Agents; Clozapine; Humans; Psychotic Disorders; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 28613395
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009555.pub2 -
Chinese Neurosurgical Journal Sep 2022TTFields is a novel treating modality of glioblastoma (GBM) which can significantly prolong the overall survival (OS) of newly diagnosed or recurrent glioblastoma. Some... (Review)
Review
TTFields is a novel treating modality of glioblastoma (GBM) which can significantly prolong the overall survival (OS) of newly diagnosed or recurrent glioblastoma. Some researchers have revealed that a variety of factors can affect the efficacy of TTFields. So, we review the available literature about the influencing factors on efficacy of TTFields and then choose two experimentally supported factors: the dose of dexamethasone and compliance of TTFields to perform a meta-analysis. The PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library are searched. Five articles are identified between 2014 and 2017. Three articles are about the compliance of TTFields. Two articles are about the dose of dexamethasone. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) is used as an assessment tool to evaluate the methodological quality of all included trials. The scale's range varies from 0 to 9 stars. According to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, articles are graded in six items to evaluate the risk of bias. Two reviewers rate the studies independently and the final decision is reached by consensus.Our data shows that the median OS is conspicuously longer in the TTFields group in which the dose of dexamethasone is ≤ 4.1 mg, WMD = 9.23 [95% CI 5.69-12.78]; P < 0.05). And the patients whose compliance of TTFields treatment ≥ 75% (≥ 18 h per day) have a significant lower overall survival risk than the patients whose compliance of TTFields treatment < 75% (HR = 0.57 [95% CI 0.46-0.70]; P < 0.00001).TTFields is a safe and efficient novel treatment modality. The dose of dexamethasone ≤ 4.1 mg of TTFields treatment and the compliance of TTFields treatment ≥ 75%, ≥ 18 h per day are beneficial to the prognosis of the glioblastoma patients.
PubMed: 36056409
DOI: 10.1186/s41016-022-00294-0 -
Journal of Contemporary Brachytherapy Aug 2021High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy as primary therapy (monotherapy) is a standard National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) endorsed treatment option for patients...
PURPOSE
High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy as primary therapy (monotherapy) is a standard National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) endorsed treatment option for patients with localized prostate cancer. Thus far, most data are limited to single-institution experiences. Accordingly, we sought to systematically review rates of biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) and toxicity associated with fractionated HDR monotherapy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic review was performed using PubMed and Embase databases for relevant articles published between January 1999 and December 2019, according to preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Included studies were limited to fractionated HDR monotherapy publications in full manuscript form with at least 5-year median follow-up, at least 80 patients included, and adequate reporting of bRFS and toxicity data. Meta-analyses were performed with random-effect modeling. Extent of heterogeneity between studies was determined using and Cochran's Q tests.
RESULTS
Seven unique studies were identified, including 2,123 patients. NCCN low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients comprised 40%, 40%, and 20% of patients, respectively. Median follow-up at the study group level was 74 months (range, 60-131 months). The 5-year bRFS rate was 95% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 93-96%), and after adjusting to control for publication bias, it was 96% (95% CI: 94-99%). Estimated adjusted late grade ≥ 3 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity rates were 2% (95% CI: 1-4%) and 0.3% (95% CI: 0-1.1%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Fractionated HDR monotherapy is associated with high rates of disease control and low rates of toxicity. Future studies are needed to better define the value of this treatment modality relative to other options.
PubMed: 34484350
DOI: 10.5114/jcb.2021.108590 -
Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis Oct 2022Arterial and venous thrombotic events in COVID-19 cause significant morbidity and mortality among patients. Although international guidelines agree on the need for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy and safety of heparin full-dose anticoagulation in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis of multicenter randomized controlled trials.
Arterial and venous thrombotic events in COVID-19 cause significant morbidity and mortality among patients. Although international guidelines agree on the need for anticoagulation, it is unclear whether full-dose heparin anticoagulation confers additional benefits over prophylactic-dose anticoagulation. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of heparin full-dose anticoagulation in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. We searched Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov, medRxiv.org and Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials dated up to April 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing full-dose heparin anticoagulation to prophylactic-dose anticoagulation or standard treatment in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients were included in our pooled analysis. The primary endpoint was the rate of major thrombotic events and the co-primary endpoint was the rate of major bleeding events. We identified 4 studies, all of them multicenter, randomizing 2926 patients. Major thrombotic events were 23/1524 (1.5%) in full-dose heparin anticoagulation versus 57/1402 (4.0%) in prophylactic-dose [relative risk (RR) 0.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-0.62; p˂0.01; I = 0%]. Clinical relevant bleeding events occurred in 1.7% (26/1524) among patients treated with heparin full anticoagulation dose compared to 1.1% (15/1403) in prophylactic-dose group (RR 1.60; 95% CI 0.85-3.03; p = 0.15; I = 20%). Mortality was 6.6% (101/1524) versus 8.6% (121/1402) (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.33-1.19; p = 0.15). In this meta-analysis of high quality multicenter randomized trials, full-dose anticoagulation with heparin was associated with lower rate of major thrombotic events without differences in bleeding risk and mortality in hospitalized non critically ill COVID-19 patients.Study registration PROSPERO, review no. CRD42022301874.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Hemorrhage; Heparin; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thrombosis; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35922578
DOI: 10.1007/s11239-022-02681-x -
Cureus Jun 2023There has been increased use of cefepime due to concerns about the nephrotoxic effects of the combined use of vancomycin and Zosyn. However, cefepime is associated with... (Review)
Review
There has been increased use of cefepime due to concerns about the nephrotoxic effects of the combined use of vancomycin and Zosyn. However, cefepime is associated with neurotoxicity. We conducted a systematic review using online data to explore the trend of cefepime-induced neurotoxicity over the last 10 years. Forty-six articles met our inclusion criteria, including 73 cases of cefepime-induced neurotoxicity. We noticed a steady increase in the reports of cefepime-induced neurotoxicity, from one case in 2013 to 11 cases in 2022. Individuals aged 65 and older accounted for most cefepime-induced neurotoxicity cases (52%). The top three indications for cefepime administration included bone and joint infections (25%), urinary tract infections (22.7%), and pneumonia (22.7%). Most patients with renal impairment have never had a renal adjustment of their cefepime dosage (either 2 g 12 hours a day or 2 g eight hours a day). Most cases of cefepime-induced neurotoxicity occurred between days two and five (n=29, 71%), while most resolution occurred between days one and five (n=29, 85%). While cefepime continues to be a popularly used and effective antibiotic against gram-negative bacteria like , its dosage needs to be adjusted in patients with renal impairment to avoid neurotoxicity.
PubMed: 37503476
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.40980 -
International Journal of Antimicrobial... Sep 2023Pyrazinamide (PZA) is a first-line antituberculosis drug with potent sterilising activity. Variability in drug exposure may translate into suboptimal treatment... (Review)
Review
Pyrazinamide (PZA) is a first-line antituberculosis drug with potent sterilising activity. Variability in drug exposure may translate into suboptimal treatment responses. This systematic review, conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, aimed to evaluate the concentration-effect relationship. In vitro/in vivo studies had to contain information on the infection model, PZA dose and concentration, and microbiological outcome. Human studies had to present information on PZA dose, measures of drug exposure and maximum concentration, and microbiological response parameter or overall treatment outcome. A total of 34 studies were assessed, including in vitro (n = 2), in vivo (n = 3) and clinical studies (n = 29). Intracellular and extracellular models demonstrated a direct correlation between PZA dose of 15-50 mg/kg/day and reduction in bacterial count between 0.50-27.7 log CFU/mL. Consistent with this, higher PZA doses (>150 mg/kg) were associated with a greater reduction in bacterial burden in BALB/c mice models. Human pharmacokinetic studies displayed a linear positive correlation between PZA dose (i.e. 21.4-35.7 mg/kg/day) and drug exposure (AUC range 220.6-514.5 mg·h/L). Additionally, human studies confirmed a dose-effect relationship, with an increased 2-month sputum culture conversion rate at AUC/MIC targets of 8.4-11.3 with higher exposure/susceptibility ratios leading to greater efficacy. A 5-fold variability in AUC was observed at PZA dose of 25 mg/kg. A direct concentration-effect relationship and increased treatment efficacy with higher PZA exposure to susceptibility ratios was observed. Taking into account variability in drug exposure and treatment response, further studies on dose optimisation are justified.
Topics: Animals; Mice; Humans; Pyrazinamide; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Tuberculosis; Antitubercular Agents; Mice, Inbred BALB C; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 37419292
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2023.106914 -
BMC Pharmacology & Toxicology Apr 2023Standard doses of second-generation H-antihistamines (sgAHs) as first-line treatment are not always effective in treating chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), and hence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Standard doses of second-generation H-antihistamines (sgAHs) as first-line treatment are not always effective in treating chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), and hence an increase in the dose of sgAHs is recommended. However, literature evaluating the efficacy and safety of this treatment remains inconclusive, highlighting the need for a systematic review and meta-analysis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of high-dose sgAHs compared with standard-dose sgAHs in treating CSU.
METHODS
A systematic literature search of double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCT) utilizing multiple doses of sgAHs was performed by searching the electronic databases Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane databases, and Web of Science. Bibliographies were also manually searched. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for assessing risk of bias was used to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias independently. The response rate, the number of adverse events, somnolence, and withdrawal due to adverse events were extracted from each article. The data were combined and analyzed to quantify the safety and efficacy of the treatment. RevMan (V5.3) software was used for data synthesis.
RESULTS
A total of 13 studies were identified, seven of which met the eligibility criteria for the meta-analysis. Our pooled meta-analyses showed that high-dose sgAHs was associated with a significantly higher response rate than standard-dose (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.26; P = 0.02). Conversely, high doses of sgAHs were associated with significantly higher somnolence rates than standard dose (RD 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in adverse events or withdrawal due to adverse events between standard- and high-dose treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
Our analyses showed that a high dose of sgAHs (up to two times the standard dose) might be more effective than a standard dose in CSU treatment. High-dose and standard-dose sgAHs showed similar adverse events, except for somnolence, where incidence was found to be dose-dependent in some studies. However, given the limited number of studies, our meta-analysis results should be interpreted with caution.
Topics: Humans; Sleepiness; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Chronic Urticaria; Histamine H1 Antagonists, Non-Sedating; Histamine Antagonists
PubMed: 37024900
DOI: 10.1186/s40360-023-00665-y -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2016This is an update of the Cochrane review "Teriflunomide for multiple sclerosis" (first published in The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12).Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of the Cochrane review "Teriflunomide for multiple sclerosis" (first published in The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12).Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic immune-mediated disease of the central nervous system. It is clinically characterized by recurrent relapses or progression, or both, often leading to severe neurological disability and a serious decline in quality of life. Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS aim to prevent occurrence of relapses and disability progression. Teriflunomide is a pyrimidine synthesis inhibitor approved by both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as a DMT for adults with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the absolute and comparative effectiveness and safety of teriflunomide as monotherapy or combination therapy versus placebo or other disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) (interferon beta (IFNβ), glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, alemtuzumab) for modifying the disease course in people with MS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group Specialised Trials Register (30 September 2015). We checked reference lists of published reviews and retrieved articles and searched reports (2004 to September 2015) from the MS societies in Europe and America. We also communicated with investigators participating in trials of teriflunomide and the pharmaceutical company, Sanofi-Aventis.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized, controlled, parallel-group clinical trials with a length of follow-up of one year or greater evaluating teriflunomide, as monotherapy or combination therapy, versus placebo or other approved DMDs for people with MS without restrictions regarding dose, administration frequency and duration of treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures of Cochrane. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by consensus among the review authors. We contacted the principal investigators of included studies for additional data or confirmation of data.
MAIN RESULTS
Five studies involving 3231 people evaluated the efficacy and safety of teriflunomide 7 mg and 14 mg, alone or with add-on IFNβ, versus placebo or IFNβ-1a for adults with relapsing forms of MS and an entry Expanded Disability Status Scale score of less than 5.5.Overall, there were obvious clinical heterogeneities due to diversities in study designs or interventions and methodological heterogeneities across studies. All studies had a high risk of detection bias for relapse assessment and a high risk of bias due to conflicts of interest. Among them, three studies additionally had a high risk of attrition bias due to a high dropout rate and two studies had an unclear risk of attrition bias. The studies of combination therapy with IFNβ (650 participants) and the study with IFNβ-1a as controls (324 participants) also had a high risk for performance bias and a lack of power due to the limited sample.Two studies evaluated the benefit and the safety of teriflunomide as monotherapy versus placebo over a period of one year (1169 participants) or two years (1088 participants). A meta-analysis was not conducted. Compared to placebo, administration of teriflunomide at a dose of 7 mg/day or 14 mg/day as monotherapy reduced the number of participants with at least one relapse over one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.87, P value = 0.001 with 7 mg/day and RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.75, P value < 0.00001 with 14 mg/day) or two years (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98, P value = 0.03 with 7 mg/day and RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.93, P value = 0.004 with 14 days). Only teriflunomide at a dose of 14 mg/day reduced the number of participants with disability progression over one year (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84, P value = 0.006) or two years (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96, P value = 0.02). When taking the effect of drop-outs into consideration, the likely-case scenario analyses still showed a benefit in reducing the number of participants with at least one relapse, but not for the number of participants with disability progression. Both doses also reduced the annualized relapse rate and the number of gadolinium-enhancing T1-weighted lesions over two years. Quality of evidence for relapse outcomes at one year or at two years was low, while for disability progression at one year or at two years was very low.When compared to IFNβ-1a, teriflunomide at a dose of 14 mg/day had a similar efficacy to IFNβ-1a in reducing the proportion of participants with at least one relapse over one year, while teriflunomide at a dose of 7 mg/day was inferior to IFNβ-1a (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.67, P value = 0.14; 215 participants with 14 mg/day and RR 2.74, 95% CI 1.66 to 4.53, P value < 0.0001; 213 participants with 7 mg/day). However, the quality of evidence was very low.In terms of safety profile, the most common adverse events associated with teriflunomide were diarrhoea, nausea, hair thinning, elevated alanine aminotransferase, neutropenia and lymphopenia. These adverse events had a dose-related effects and rarely led to treatment discontinuation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was low-quality evidence to support that teriflunomide at a dose of 7 mg/day or 14 mg/day as monotherapy reduces both the number of participants with at least one relapse and the annualized relapse rate over one year or two years of treatment in comparison with placebo. Only teriflunomide at a dose of 14 mg/day reduced the number of participants with disability progression and delayed the progression of disability over one year or two years, but the quality of the evidence was very low. The quality of available data was too low to evaluate the benefit teriflunomide as monotherapy versus IFNβ-1a or as combination therapy with IFNβ. The common adverse effects were diarrhoea, nausea, hair thinning, elevated alanine aminotransferase, neutropenia and lymphopenia. These adverse effects were mostly mild-to-moderate in severity, but had a dose-related effect. New studies of high quality and longer follow-up are needed to evaluate the comparative benefit of teriflunomide on these outcomes and the safety in comparison with other DMTs.
Topics: Adult; Crotonates; Humans; Hydroxybutyrates; Immunologic Factors; Immunosuppressive Agents; Interferon-beta; Middle Aged; Multiple Sclerosis, Chronic Progressive; Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting; Nitriles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Toluidines; Young Adult
PubMed: 27003123
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009882.pub3 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Dec 2023Currently, some meta-analyses on COVID-19 have suggested that glucocorticoids use can reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients, utilization rate of invasive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Currently, some meta-analyses on COVID-19 have suggested that glucocorticoids use can reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients, utilization rate of invasive ventilation, and improve the prognosis of patients. However, optimal regimen and dosages of glucocorticoid remain unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this network meta-analysis is to analyze the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids in treating COVID-19 at regimens.
METHODS
This meta-analysis retrieved randomized controlled trials from the earliest records to December 30, 2022, published in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI Database and Wanfang Database, which compared glucocorticoids with placebos for their efficacy and safety in the treatment of COVID-19, Effects of different treatment regimens, types and dosages (high-dose methylprednisolone, very high-dose methylprednisolone, Pulse therapy methylprednisolone, medium-dose hydrocortisone, high-dose hydrocortisone, high-dose dexamethasone, very high-dose dexamethasone and placebo) on 28-day all-caused hospitalization mortality, hospitalization duration, mechanical ventilation requirement, ICU admission and safety outcome were compared.
RESULTS
In this network meta-analysis, a total of 10,544 patients from 19 randomized controlled trials were finally included, involving a total of 9 glucocorticoid treatment regimens of different types and dosages. According to the analysis results, the 28-day all-cause mortality rate was the lowest in the treatment with pulse therapy methylprednisolone (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02, 0.42), but the use of high-dose methylprednisolone (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59, 1.22), very high-dose dexamethasone (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.67, 1.35), high-dose hydrocortisone (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.34, 1.22), medium-dose hydrocortisone (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49, 1.31) showed no benefit in prolonging the 28-day survival of patient. Compared with placebo, the treatment with very high-dose methylprednisolone (MD = -3.09;95%CI: -4.10, -2.08) had the shortest length of hospital stay, while high-dose dexamethasone (MD = -1.55;95%CI: -3.13,0.03) and very high-dose dexamethasone (MD = -1.06;95%CI: -2.78,0.67) did not benefit patients in terms of length of stay.
CONCLUSIONS
Considering the available evidence, this network meta‑analysis suggests that the prognostic impact of glucocorticoids in patients with COVID-19 may depend on the regimens of glucocorticoids. It is suggested that pulse therapy methylprednisolone is associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality, very high-dose methylprednisolone had the shortest length of hospital stay in patients with COVID-19.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42022350407 (22/08/2022).
Topics: Humans; Glucocorticoids; COVID-19; Hydrocortisone; Network Meta-Analysis; Methylprednisolone; Dexamethasone
PubMed: 38124031
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08874-w -
Physiological Reports Aug 2023Dietary protein ingestion augments post (resistance) exercise muscle protein synthesis (MPS) rates. It is thought that the dose of leucine ingested within the protein... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dietary protein ingestion augments post (resistance) exercise muscle protein synthesis (MPS) rates. It is thought that the dose of leucine ingested within the protein (leucine threshold hypothesis) and the subsequent plasma leucine variables (leucine trigger hypothesis; peak magnitude, rate of rise, and total availability) determine the magnitude of the postprandial postexercise MPS response.
METHODS
A quantitative systematic review was performed extracting data from studies that recruited healthy adults, applied a bout of resistance exercise, ingested a bolus of protein within an hour of exercise, and measured plasma leucine concentrations and MPS rates (delta change from basal).
RESULTS
Ingested leucine dose was associated with the magnitude of the MPS response in older, but not younger, adults over acute (0-2 h, r = 0.64, p = 0.02) and the entire postprandial (>2 h, r = 0.18, p = 0.01) period. However, no single plasma leucine variable possessed substantial predictive capacity over the magnitude of MPS rates in younger or older adults.
CONCLUSION
Our data provide support that leucine dose provides predictive capacity over postprandial postexercise MPS responses in older adults. However, no threshold in older adults and no plasma leucine variable was correlated with the magnitude of the postexercise anabolic response.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Leucine; Muscle Proteins; Diet; Muscle, Skeletal; Dietary Proteins; Postprandial Period
PubMed: 37537134
DOI: 10.14814/phy2.15775