-
Molecular Psychiatry Jan 2023A systematic review and random-effects model network meta-analysis were conducted to compare the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety of antidepressants to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and random-effects model network meta-analysis were conducted to compare the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety of antidepressants to treat adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) in the maintenance phase. This study searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases and included only double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials with an enrichment design: patients were stabilized on the antidepressant of interest during the open-label study and then randomized to receive the same antidepressant or placebo. The outcomes were the 6-month relapse rate (primary outcome, efficacy), all-cause discontinuation (acceptability), discontinuation due to adverse events (tolerability), and the incidence of individual adverse events. The risk ratio with a 95% credible interval was calculated. The meta-analysis comprised 34 studies (n = 9384, mean age = 43.80 years, and %females = 68.10%) on 20 antidepressants (agomelatine, amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, tianeptine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine) and a placebo. In terms of the 6-month relapse rate, amitriptyline, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, tianeptine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine outperformed placebo. Compared to placebo, desvenlafaxine, paroxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine had lower all-cause discontinuation; however, sertraline had a higher discontinuation rate due to adverse events. Compared to placebo, venlafaxine was associated with a lower incidence of dizziness, while desvenlafaxine, sertraline, and vortioxetine were associated with a higher incidence of nausea/vomiting. In conclusion, desvenlafaxine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine had reasonable efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability in the treatment of adults with stable MDD.
Topics: Female; Humans; Adult; Depressive Disorder, Major; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Sertraline; Citalopram; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Vortioxetine; Fluoxetine; Paroxetine; Mirtazapine; Amitriptyline; Desvenlafaxine Succinate; Fluvoxamine; Reboxetine; Network Meta-Analysis; Antidepressive Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36253442
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-022-01824-z -
Health Technology Assessment... Oct 2019Osteomyelitis is an infection of the bone. Medical imaging tests, such as radiography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), single-photon emission computed...
BACKGROUND
Osteomyelitis is an infection of the bone. Medical imaging tests, such as radiography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET), are often used to diagnose osteomyelitis.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the evidence on the diagnostic accuracy, inter-rater reliability and implementation of imaging tests to diagnose osteomyelitis.
DATA SOURCES
We conducted a systematic review of imaging tests to diagnose osteomyelitis. We searched MEDLINE and other databases from inception to July 2018.
REVIEW METHODS
Risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS-2 [quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (version 2)]. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using bivariate regression models. Imaging tests were compared. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the location and nature of the suspected osteomyelitis. Studies of children, inter-rater reliability and implementation outcomes were synthesised narratively.
RESULTS
Eighty-one studies were included (diagnostic accuracy: 77 studies; inter-rater reliability: 11 studies; implementation: one study; some studies were included in two reviews). One-quarter of diagnostic accuracy studies were rated as being at a high risk of bias. In adults, MRI had high diagnostic accuracy [95.6% sensitivity, 95% confidence interval (CI) 92.4% to 97.5%; 80.7% specificity, 95% CI 70.8% to 87.8%]. PET also had high accuracy (85.1% sensitivity, 95% CI 71.5% to 92.9%; 92.8% specificity, 95% CI 83.0% to 97.1%), as did SPECT (95.1% sensitivity, 95% CI 87.8% to 98.1%; 82.0% specificity, 95% CI 61.5% to 92.8%). There was similar diagnostic performance with MRI, PET and SPECT. Scintigraphy (83.6% sensitivity, 95% CI 71.8% to 91.1%; 70.6% specificity, 57.7% to 80.8%), computed tomography (69.7% sensitivity, 95% CI 40.1% to 88.7%; 90.2% specificity, 95% CI 57.6% to 98.4%) and radiography (70.4% sensitivity, 95% CI 61.6% to 77.8%; 81.5% specificity, 95% CI 69.6% to 89.5%) all had generally inferior diagnostic accuracy. Technetium-99m hexamethylpropyleneamine oxime white blood cell scintigraphy (87.3% sensitivity, 95% CI 75.1% to 94.0%; 94.7% specificity, 95% CI 84.9% to 98.3%) had higher diagnostic accuracy, similar to that of PET or MRI. There was no evidence that diagnostic accuracy varied by scan location or cause of osteomyelitis, although data on many scan locations were limited. Diagnostic accuracy in diabetic foot patients was similar to the overall results. Only three studies in children were identified; results were too limited to draw any conclusions. Eleven studies evaluated inter-rater reliability. MRI had acceptable inter-rater reliability. We found only one study on test implementation and no evidence on patient preferences or cost-effectiveness of imaging tests for osteomyelitis.
LIMITATIONS
Most studies included < 50 participants and were poorly reported. There was limited evidence for children, ultrasonography and on clinical factors other than diagnostic accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS
Osteomyelitis is reliably diagnosed by MRI, PET and SPECT. No clear reason to prefer one test over the other in terms of diagnostic accuracy was identified. The wider availability of MRI machines, and the fact that MRI does not expose patients to harmful ionising radiation, may mean that MRI is preferable in most cases. Diagnostic accuracy does not appear to vary with the potential cause of osteomyelitis or with the body part scanned. Considerable uncertainty remains over the diagnostic accuracy of imaging tests in children. Studies of diagnostic accuracy in children, particularly using MRI and ultrasound, are needed.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017068511.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 23, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Child; Child, Preschool; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Female; Humans; Infant; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Middle Aged; Osteomyelitis; Positron-Emission Tomography; Reproducibility of Results; Technology Assessment, Biomedical; Ultrasonography; Young Adult
PubMed: 31670644
DOI: 10.3310/hta23610 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Jun 2022To systematically examine the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically examine the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
METHODS
A systematic search was performed independently by two researchers based on Chinese Journal Net, WanFang, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE.
RESULTS
Seven studies (n = 92,947) including three retrospective studies (n = 91,083), two randomized clinical trials (RCTs, n = 1649), two prospective cohort study (n = 215) involving (n = 92,947) patients with COVID-19 were examined. For RCTs, fluvoxamine outperformed placebo in reducing clinical deterioration and hospitalisation for COVID-19 patients. For retrospective studies, antidepressants (2 studies) and fluoxetine (1 study) possibly reduced the risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19. Results from two remaining studies supported the superiority of fluvoxamine in reducing risk of mortality in COVID-19 patients. The two RCTs that examined the safety of fluvoxamine for COVID-19 patients found inconsistent results but no significant group differences in the dropout rate.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review found emerging evidence for fluvoxamine in reducing the risk of mortality and hospitalisation in COVID-19 patients, but inconsistent evidence for the safety of fluvoxamine in COVID-19 patients. More studies are needed to determine the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for the treatment of COVID-19.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; COVID-19; Fluvoxamine; Humans; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35339571
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2022.03.059 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Fluvoxamine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that has been approved for the treatment of depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and a variety of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fluvoxamine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that has been approved for the treatment of depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and a variety of anxiety disorders; it is available as an oral preparation. Fluvoxamine has not been approved for the treatment of infections, but has been used in the early treatment of people with mild to moderate COVID-19. As there are only a few effective therapies for people with COVID-19 in the community, a thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine as an anti-inflammatory and possible anti-viral treatment for COVID-19, based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs), is needed.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine in addition to standard care, compared to standard care (alone or with placebo), or any other active pharmacological comparator with proven efficacy for the treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on COVID-19 to identify completed and ongoing studies up to 1 February 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that compared fluvoxamine in addition to standard care (also including no intervention), with standard care (alone or with placebo), or any other active pharmacological comparator with proven efficacy in clinical trials for the treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, in both inpatients and outpatients. Co-interventions needed to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing fluvoxamine to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence to treat people with asymptomatic to severe COVID-19 for the primary outcomes including mortality, clinical deterioration, clinical improvement, quality of life, serious adverse events, adverse events of any grade, and suicide or suicide attempt.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified two completed studies with a total of 1649 symptomatic participants. One study was conducted in the USA (study with 152 participants, 80 and 72 participants per study arm) and the other study in Brazil (study with 1497 high-risk participants for progression to severe disease, 741 and 756 participants per study arm) among outpatients with mild COVID-19. Both studies were double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in which participants were prescribed 100 mg fluvoxamine two or three times daily for a maximum of 15 days. We identified five ongoing studies and two studies awaiting classification (due to translation issues, and due to missing published data). We found no published studies comparing fluvoxamine to other pharmacological interventions of proven efficacy. We assessed both included studies to have an overall high risk of bias. Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19 in inpatients We did not identify any completed studies of inpatients. Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19 in outpatients Fluvoxamine in addition to standard care may slightly reduce all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.27; risk difference (RD) 9 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may reduce clinical deterioration defined as all-cause hospital admission or death before hospital admission (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.89; RD 57 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain regarding the effect of fluvoxamine on serious adverse events (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.03; RD 54 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or adverse events of any grade (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.37; RD 7 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neither of the studies reported on symptom resolution (clinical improvement), quality of life or suicide/suicide attempt.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on a low-certainty evidence, fluvoxamine may slightly reduce all-cause mortality at day 28, and may reduce the risk of admission to hospital or death in outpatients with mild COVID-19. However, we are very uncertain regarding the effect of fluvoxamine on serious adverse events, or any adverse events. In accordance with the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials as they arise, to complete any gaps in the evidence.
Topics: Clinical Deterioration; Fluvoxamine; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 36103313
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015391 -
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia =... Apr 2023We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic test accuracy of ancillary investigations for declaration of death by neurologic criteria... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic test accuracy of ancillary investigations for declaration of death by neurologic criteria (DNC) in infants and children.
SOURCE
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from their inception to June 2021 for relevant randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and abstracts published in the last three years. We identified relevant studies using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis methodology and a two-stage review. We assessed the risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 tool, and applied Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to determine the certainty of evidence. A fixed-effects model was used to meta-analyze pooled sensitivity and specificity data for each ancillary investigation with at least two studies.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
Thirty-nine eligible manuscripts assessing 18 unique ancillary investigations (n = 866) were identified. The sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0.00 to 1.00 and 0.50 to 1.00, respectively. The quality of evidence was low to very low for all ancillary investigations, with the exception of radionuclide dynamic flow studies for which it was graded as moderate. Radionuclide scintigraphy using the lipophilic radiopharmaceutical Tc-hexamethylpropyleneamine oxime (HMPAO) with or without tomographic imaging were the most accurate ancillary investigations with a combined sensitivity of 0.99 (95% highest density interval [HDI], 0.89 to 1.00) and specificity of 0.97 (95% HDI, 0.65 to 1.00).
CONCLUSION
The ancillary investigation for DNC in infants and children with the greatest accuracy appears to be radionuclide scintigraphy using HMPAO with or without tomographic imaging; however, the certainty of the evidence is low. Nonimaging modalities performed at the bedside require further investigation.
STUDY REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42021278788); registered 16 October 2021.
Topics: Humans; Child; Infant; Bias; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 37131035
DOI: 10.1007/s12630-023-02418-1 -
European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy :... Jul 2021Dabrafenib, an inhibitor of mutated , has significant clinical activity in melanoma patients but is linked to a spectrum of cutaneous toxicities. Thus, our meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Dabrafenib, an inhibitor of mutated , has significant clinical activity in melanoma patients but is linked to a spectrum of cutaneous toxicities. Thus, our meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the type, incidence and risks of dermatological toxicities from dabrafenib.
METHODS
Systematic searches were performed using electronic databases such as Embase and PubMed and conference abstracts published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Eligible studies were limited to prospective phase I, II and III clinical trials and expanded-access (ie, outside clinical trials) programmes of melanoma patients receiving dabrafenib monotherapy (150 mg, twice daily) or combination therapy of dabrafenib (150 mg, twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg, once daily). The outcomes were mainly the incidence rate and risk of all-grade cutaneous toxicities associated with dabrafenib in melanoma patients.
RESULTS
Twenty trials comprising a total of 3359 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that the overall incidence of all-grade rash for melanoma patients assigned dabrafenib was 30.00% (95% CI 0.07 to 0.71), cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma (cSCC) 16.00% (95% CI 0.11 to 0.24), alopecia 21% (95% CI 0.11 to 0.37), keratoacanthoma (KA) 20.00% (95% CI 0.12 to 0.31), hyperkeratosis (HK) 14.00% (95% CI 0.09 to 0.22) and pruritus 8.00% (95% CI 0.05 to 0.12). All-grade rash occurred in 19.00% (95% CI 0.15 to 0.25), cSCC in 10.00% (95% CI 0.04 to 0.22), alopecia in 6.00% (95% CI 0.03 to 0.12), KA in 6.00% (95% CI 0.04 to 0.09) and pruritus in 2/1265 patients assigned dabrafenib plus trametinib. The summary risk ratio (RR) showed that the combination of dabrafenib with trametinib versus dabrafenib was associated with a significantly increased risk of all-grade rash (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.80) and a decreased risk of cSCC (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.89), alopecia (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.30) and HK (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.62).
CONCLUSION
In summary, the most frequent cutaneous adverse reactions from dabrafenib were rash, cSCC, alopecia, KA, HK and pruritus. There was a significantly decreased risk of cSCC, alopecia and HK with the combination of dabrafenib with trametinib versus dabrafenib alone. Clinicians should be aware of these risks and perform regular clinical monitoring.
Topics: Humans; Imidazoles; Incidence; Melanoma; Oximes; Prospective Studies; Skin Neoplasms
PubMed: 32883694
DOI: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2020-002347 -
International Journal of Molecular... Jan 2024Craniopharyngiomas present unique challenges in surgical management due to their proximity to critical neurovascular structures. This systematic review investigates... (Review)
Review
Craniopharyngiomas present unique challenges in surgical management due to their proximity to critical neurovascular structures. This systematic review investigates genetic and immunological markers as potential targets for therapy in craniopharyngiomas, assessing their involvement in tumorigenesis, and their influence on prognosis and treatment strategies. The systematic review adhered to PRISMA guidelines, with a thorough literature search conducted on PubMed, Ovid MED-LINE, and Ovid EMBASE. Employing MeSH terms and Boolean operators, the search focused on craniopharyngiomas, targeted or molecular therapy, and clinical outcomes or adverse events. Inclusion criteria encompassed English language studies, clinical trials (randomized or non-randomized), and investigations into adamantinomatous or papillary craniopharyngiomas. Targeted therapies, either standalone or combined with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, were examined if they included clinical outcomes or adverse event analysis. Primary outcomes assessed disease response through follow-up MRI scans, categorizing responses as follows: complete response (CR), near-complete response (NCR), partial response, and stable or progressive disease based on lesion regression percentages. Secondary outcomes included treatment type and duration, as well as adverse events. A total of 891 papers were initially identified, of which 26 studies spanning from 2000 to 2023 were finally included in the review. Two tables highlighted adamantinomatous and papillary craniopharyngiomas, encompassing 7 and 19 studies, respectively. For adamantinomatous craniopharyngiomas, Interferon-2α was the predominant targeted therapy (29%), whereas dabrafenib took precedence (70%) for papillary craniopharyngiomas. Treatment durations varied, ranging from 1.7 to 28 months. Positive responses, including CR or NCR, were observed in both types of craniopharyngiomas (29% CR for adamantinomatous; 32% CR for papillary). Adverse events, such as constitutional symptoms and skin changes, were reported, emphasizing the need for vigilant monitoring and personalized management to enhance treatment tolerability. Overall, the data highlighted a diverse landscape of targeted therapies with encouraging responses and manageable adverse events, underscoring the importance of ongoing research and individualized patient care in the exploration of treatment options for craniopharyngiomas. In the realm of targeted therapies for craniopharyngiomas, tocilizumab and dabrafenib emerged as prominent choices for adamantinomatous and papillary cases, respectively. While adverse events were common, their manageable nature underscored the importance of vigilant monitoring and personalized management. Acknowledging limitations, future research should prioritize larger, well-designed clinical trials and standardized treatment protocols to enhance our understanding of the impact of targeted therapies on craniopharyngioma patients.
Topics: Humans; Ameloblastoma; Craniopharyngioma; Imidazoles; Oximes; Pituitary Neoplasms
PubMed: 38255797
DOI: 10.3390/ijms25020723 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Endometriosis is defined as the presence of endometrial tissue (glands and stroma) outside the uterine cavity. This condition is oestrogen-dependent and thus is seen... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Endometriosis is defined as the presence of endometrial tissue (glands and stroma) outside the uterine cavity. This condition is oestrogen-dependent and thus is seen primarily during the reproductive years. Owing to their antiproliferative effects in the endometrium, progesterone receptor modulators (PRMs) have been advocated for treatment of endometriosis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of PRMs primarily in terms of pain relief as compared with other treatments or placebo or no treatment in women of reproductive age with endometriosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases, trial registers, and websites: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Central Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) platform, from inception to 28 November 2016. We handsearched reference lists of articles retrieved by the search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in all languages that examined effects of PRMs for treatment of symptomatic endometriosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. Primary outcomes included measures of pain and side effects.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 960 women. Two RCTs compared mifepristone versus placebo or versus a different dose of mifepristone, one RCT compared asoprisnil versus placebo, one compared ulipristal versus leuprolide acetate, and four compared gestrinone versus danazol, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues, or a different dose of gestrinone. The quality of evidence ranged from high to very low. The main limitations were serious risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods and high or unclear rates of attrition in most studies), very serious imprecision (associated with low event rates and wide confidence intervals), and indirectness (outcome assessed in a select subgroup of participants). Mifepristone versus placebo One study made this comparison and reported rates of painful symptoms among women who reported symptoms at baseline.At three months, the mifepristone group had lower rates of dysmenorrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.17; one RCT, n =352; moderate-quality evidence), suggesting that if 40% of women taking placebo experience dysmenorrhoea, then between 3% and 10% of women taking mifepristone will do so. The mifepristone group also had lower rates of dyspareunia (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.51; one RCT, n = 223; low-quality evidence). However, the mifepristone group had higher rates of side effects: Nearly 90% had amenorrhoea and 24% had hot flushes, although the placebo group reported only one event of each (1%) (high-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show differences in rates of nausea, vomiting, or fatigue, if present. Mifepristone dose comparisons Two studies compared doses of mifepristone and found insufficient evidence to show differences between different doses in terms of effectiveness or safety, if present. However, subgroup analysis of comparisons between mifepristone and placebo suggest that the 2.5 mg dose may be less effective than 5 mg or 10 mg for treating dysmenorrhoea or dyspareunia. Gestrinone comparisons Ons study compared gestrinone with danazol, and another study compared gestrinone with leuprolin.Evidence was insufficient to show differences, if present, between gestrinone and danazol in rate of pain relief (those reporting no or mild pelvic pain) (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.56; two RCTs, n = 230; very low-quality evidence), dysmenorrhoea (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.33; two RCTs, n = 214; very low-quality evidence), or dyspareunia (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.86; two RCTs, n = 222; very low-quality evidence). The gestrinone group had a higher rate of hirsutism (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.60 to 4.32; two RCTs, n = 302; very low-quality evidence) and a lower rate of decreased breast size (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.98; two RCTs, n = 302; low-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show differences between groups, if present, in rate of hot flushes (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.26; two RCTs, n = 302; very low-quality evidence) or acne (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.33; two RCTs, n = 302; low-quality evidence).When researchers compared gestrinone versus leuprolin through measurements on the 1 to 3 verbal rating scale (lower score denotes benefit), the mean dysmenorrhoea score was higher in the gestrinone group (MD 0.35 points, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58; one RCT, n = 55; low-quality evidence), but the mean dyspareunia score was lower in this group (MD 0.33 points, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.04; low-quality evidence). The gestrinone group had lower rates of amenorrhoea (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.38; one RCT, n = 49; low-quality evidence) and hot flushes (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.63; one study, n = 55; low quality evidence) but higher rates of spotting or bleeding (OR 22.92, 95% CI 2.64 to 198.66; one RCT, n = 49; low-quality evidence).Evidence was insufficient to show differences in effectiveness or safety between different doses of gestrinone, if present. Asoprisnil versus placebo One study (n = 130) made this comparison but did not report data suitable for analysis. Ulipristal versus leuprolide acetate One study (n = 38) made this comparison but did not report data suitable for analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Among women with endometriosis, moderate-quality evidence shows that mifepristone relieves dysmenorrhoea, and low-quality evidence suggests that this agent relieves dyspareunia, although amenorrhoea and hot flushes are common side effects. Data on dosage were inconclusive, although they suggest that the 2.5 mg dose of mifepristone may be less effective than higher doses. We found insufficient evidence to permit firm conclusions about the safety and effectiveness of other progesterone receptor modulators.
Topics: Danazol; Dysmenorrhea; Dyspareunia; Endometriosis; Estrenes; Female; Gestrinone; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Hormone Antagonists; Humans; Leuprolide; Mifepristone; Norpregnadienes; Oximes; Prevalence; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Progesterone
PubMed: 28742263
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009881.pub2 -
The American Journal of Psychiatry Feb 2016Previous studies suggested that the treatment response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in major depressive disorder follows a flat response curve... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Previous studies suggested that the treatment response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in major depressive disorder follows a flat response curve within the therapeutic dose range. The present study was designed to clarify the relationship between dosage and treatment response in major depressive disorder.
METHOD
The authors searched PubMed for randomized placebo-controlled trials examining the efficacy of SSRIs for treating adults with major depressive disorder. Trials were also required to assess improvement in depression severity at multiple time points. Additional data were collected on treatment response and all-cause and side effect-related discontinuation. All medication doses were transformed into imipramine-equivalent doses. The longitudinal data were analyzed with a mixed-regression model. Endpoint and tolerability analyses were analyzed using meta-regression and stratified subgroup analysis by predefined SSRI dose categories in order to assess the effect of SSRI dosing on the efficacy and tolerability of SSRIs for major depressive disorder.
RESULTS
Forty studies involving 10,039 participants were included. Longitudinal modeling (dose-by-time interaction=0.0007, 95% CI=0.0001-0.0013) and endpoint analysis (meta-regression: β=0.00053, 95% CI=0.00018-0.00088, z=2.98) demonstrated a small but statistically significant positive association between SSRI dose and efficacy. Higher doses of SSRIs were associated with an increased likelihood of dropouts due to side effects (meta-regression: β=0.00207, 95% CI=0.00071-0.00342, z=2.98) and decreased likelihood of all-cause dropout (meta-regression: β=-0.00093, 95% CI=-0.00165 to -0.00021, z=-2.54).
CONCLUSIONS
Higher doses of SSRIs appear slightly more effective in major depressive disorder. This benefit appears to plateau at around 250 mg of imipramine equivalents (50 mg of fluoxetine). The slightly increased benefits of SSRIs at higher doses are somewhat offset by decreased tolerability at high doses.
Topics: Citalopram; Depressive Disorder, Major; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Fluoxetine; Fluvoxamine; Humans; Paroxetine; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Sertraline; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26552940
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.15030331 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... May 2023The efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of acute COVID-19 is still under investigation, with conflicting results reported from... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of acute COVID-19 is still under investigation, with conflicting results reported from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Different dosing regimens may have contributed to the contradictory findings.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of SSRIs and the effect of different dosing regimens on the treatment of acute COVID-19.
DATA SOURCES
Seven databases were searched from January 2020 to December 2022. Trial registries, previous reviews, and preprint servers were hand-searched.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
RCTs and observational studies with no language restrictions.
PARTICIPANTS
COVID-19 inpatients/outpatients.
INTERVENTIONS
SSRIs prescribed after diagnosis were compared against a placebo or standard of care.
ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS
Risk of bias was rated using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials version 2.0 and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions.
METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS
Outcomes were mortality, hospitalization, composite of hospitalization/emergency room visits, hypoxemia, requirement for supplemental oxygen, ventilator support, and serious adverse events. RCT data were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. Observational findings were narratively described. Subgroup analyses were performed on the basis of SSRI dose, and sensitivity analyses were performed excluding studies with a high risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework was used to assess the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
Six RCTs (N = 4197) and five observational studies (N = 1156) were included. Meta-analyses associated fluvoxamine with reduced mortality (risk ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.63-0.82) and hospitalization (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.99) on the basis of moderate quality of evidence. Medium-dose fluvoxamine (100 mg twice a day) was associated with reduced mortality, hospitalization, and composite of hospitalization/emergency room visits, but low-dose fluvoxamine (50 mg twice a day) was not. Fluvoxamine was not associated with increased serious adverse events. Observational studies support the use of fluvoxamine and highlight fluoxetine as a possible alternative to SSRIs for the treatment of COVID-19.
DISCUSSION
Fluvoxamine remains a candidate pharmacotherapy for treating COVID-19 in outpatients. Medium-dose fluvoxamine may be preferable over low-dose fluvoxamine.
Topics: Humans; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; COVID-19; Fluoxetine; Fluvoxamine
PubMed: 36657488
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2023.01.010