-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015This is an updated version of the Cochrane review published in 2005 on selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for preventing migraine and tension-type... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane review published in 2005 on selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for preventing migraine and tension-type headache. The original review has been split in two parts and this review now only regards tension-type headache prevention. Another updated review covers migraine. Tension-type headache is the second most common disorder worldwide and has high social and economic relevance. As serotonin and other neurotransmitters may have a role in pain mechanisms, SSRIs and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) have been evaluated for the prevention of tension-type headache.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and tolerability of SSRIs and SNRIs compared to placebo and other active interventions in the prevention of episodic and chronic tension-type headache in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
For the original review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2003, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (1994 to May 2003), and Headache Quarterly (1990 to 2003). For this update, we revised the original search strategy to reflect the broader type of intervention (SSRIs and SNRIs). We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 10) on the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to November 2014), EMBASE (1980 to November 2014), and PsycINFO (1987 to November 2014). We also checked the reference lists of retrieved articles and searched trial registries for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing SSRIs or SNRIs with any type of control intervention in participants 18 years and older, of either sex, with tension-type headache.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data (headache frequency, index, intensity, and duration; use of symptomatic/analgesic medication; quality of life; and withdrawals) and assessed the risk of bias of trials. The primary outcome is tension-type headache frequency, measured by the number of headache attacks or the number of days with headache per evaluation period.
MAIN RESULTS
The original review included six studies on tension-type headache. We now include eight studies with a total of 412 participants with chronic forms of tension-type headache. These studies evaluated five SSRIs (citalopram, sertraline, fluoxetine, paroxetine, fluvoxamine) and one SNRI (venlafaxine). The two new studies included in this update are placebo controlled trials, one evaluated sertraline and one venlafaxine. Six studies, already included in the previous version of this review, compared SSRIs to other antidepressants (amitriptyline, desipramine, sulpiride, mianserin). Most of the included studies had methodological and/or reporting shortcomings and lacked adequate power. Follow-up ranged between two and four months.Six studies explored the effect of SSRIs or SNRIs on tension-type headache frequency, the primary endpoint. At eight weeks of follow-up, we found no difference when compared to placebo (two studies, N = 127; mean difference (MD) -0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.95 to 2.03; I(2)= 0%) or amitriptyline (two studies, N = 152; MD 0.76, 95% CI -2.05 to 3.57; I(2)= 44%).When considering secondary outcomes, SSRIs reduce the symptomatic/analgesic medication use for acute headache attacks compared to placebo (two studies, N = 118; MD -1.87, 95% CI -2.09 to -1.65; I(2)= 0%). However, amitriptyline appeared to reduce the intake of analgesic more efficiently than SSRIs (MD 4.98, 95% CI 1.12 to 8.84; I(2)= 0%). The studies supporting these findings were considered at unclear risk of bias. We found no differences compared to placebo or other antidepressants in headache duration and intensity.SSRIs or SNRI were generally more tolerable than tricyclics. However, the two groups did not differ in terms of number of participants who withdrew due to adverse events or for other reasons (four studies, N = 257; odds ratio (OR) 1.04; 95% CI 0.41 to 2.60; I(2)= 25% and OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.38; I(2)= 0%).We did not find any study comparing SSRIs or SNRIs with pharmacological treatments other than antidepressants (e.g. botulinum toxin) or non-drug therapies (e.g. psycho-behavioural treatments, manual therapy, acupuncture).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Since the last version of this review, the new included studies have not added high quality evidence to support the use of SSRIs or venlafaxine (a SNRI) as preventive drugs for tension-type headache. Over two months of treatment, SSRIs or venlafaxine are no more effective than placebo or amitriptyline in reducing headache frequency in patients with chronic tension-type headache. SSRIs seem to be less effective than tricyclic antidepressants in terms of intake of analgesic medications. Tricyclic antidepressants are associated with more adverse events; however, this did not cause a greater number of withdrawals. No reliable information is available at longer follow-up. Our conclusion is that the use of SSRIs and venlafaxine for the prevention of chronic tension-type headache is not supported by evidence.
Topics: Adrenergic Uptake Inhibitors; Adult; Citalopram; Cyclohexanols; Fluoxetine; Fluvoxamine; Humans; Norepinephrine; Paroxetine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Sertraline; Tension-Type Headache; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride
PubMed: 25931277
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011681 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2024Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) contribute to the treatment of patients with anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC). Although prospective clinical studies of TKIs exhibit...
BACKGROUND
Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) contribute to the treatment of patients with anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC). Although prospective clinical studies of TKIs exhibit limited efficacy, whether ATC patients benefit from TKI treatment in real-world clinical practice may enlighten future explorations. Therefore, we conducted this effective analysis based on real-world retrospective studies to illustrate the efficacy of TKI treatment in ATC patients.
METHODS
We systematically searched the online databases on September 03, 2023. Survival curves were collected and reconstructed to summarize the pooled curves. Responses were analyzed by using the "meta" package. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR).
RESULTS
12 studies involving 227 patients were enrolled in the study. Therapeutic strategies included: anlotinib, lenvatinib, dabrafenib plus trametinib, vemurafenib, pembrolizumab plus dabrafenib and trametinib, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, pembrolizumab plus trametinib, and sorafenib. The pooled median OS and PFS were 6.37 months (95% CI 4.19-10.33) and 5.50 months (95% CI 2.17-12.03). The integrated ORR and DCR were 32% (95% CI 23%-41%) and 40% (95% CI 12%-74%).
CONCLUSION
In real-world clinical practice, ATC patients could benefit from TKI therapy. In future studies, more basic experiments and clinical explorations are needed to enhance the effects of TKIs in the treatment of patients with ATC.
Topics: Humans; Thyroid Carcinoma, Anaplastic; Retrospective Studies; Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors; Prospective Studies; Thyroid Neoplasms; Imidazoles; Oximes; Phenylurea Compounds; Quinolines
PubMed: 38469143
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1345203 -
Journal of Personalized Medicine Oct 2021(1) Background: Treatment of cardiac arrhythmias and conduction disorders with the implantation of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) may lead to... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: Treatment of cardiac arrhythmias and conduction disorders with the implantation of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) may lead to complications. Cardiac device-related infective endocarditis (CDRIE) stands out as being one of the most challenging in terms of its diagnosis and management. Developing molecular imaging modalities may provide additional insights into CDRIE diagnosis. (2) Methods: We performed a systematic literature review to critically appraise the evidence for the diagnostic performance of the following hybrid techniques: single photon emission tomography with technetium99m-hexamethylpropyleneamine oxime-labeled autologous leukocytes (99mTc-HMPAO-SPECT/CT) and positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG PET/CT). An analysis was performed in accordance with PRISMA and GRADE criteria and included articles from PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases. (3) Results: Initially, there were 2131 records identified which had been published between 1971-2021. Finally, 18 studies were included presenting original data on the diagnostic value of 99mTc-HMPAO-SPECT/CT or 18F-FDG PET/CT in CDRIE. Analysis showed that these molecular imaging modalities provide high diagnostic accuracy and their inclusion in diagnostic criteria improves CDRIE work-up. (4) Conclusions: 99mTc-HMPAO-SPECT/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT provide high diagnostic value in the identification of patients at risk of CDRIE and should be considered for inclusion in the CDRIE diagnostic process.
PubMed: 34683157
DOI: 10.3390/jpm11101016 -
BMC Cancer Jan 2021Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies are approved for adjuvant treatment of patients with resected melanoma; however, they have not been compared in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies are approved for adjuvant treatment of patients with resected melanoma; however, they have not been compared in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nivolumab with other approved treatments using available evidence from RCTs in a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted through May 2019 to identify relevant RCTs evaluating approved adjuvant treatments. Outcomes of interest included recurrence-free survival (RFS)/disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), all-cause grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), discontinuations, and discontinuations due to AEs. Time-to-event outcomes (RFS/DFS and DMFS) were analyzed both assuming that hazard ratios (HRs) are constant over time and that they vary.
RESULTS
Of 26 identified RCTs, 19 were included in the NMA following a feasibility assessment. Based on HRs for RFS/DFS, the risk of recurrence with nivolumab was similar to that of pembrolizumab and lower than that of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg, or interferon. Risk of recurrence with nivolumab was similar to that of dabrafenib plus trametinib at 12 months, however, was lower beyond 12 months (HR [95% credible interval] at 24 months, 0.46 [0.27-0.78]; at 36 months, 0.28 [0.14-0.59]). Based on HRs for DMFS, the risk of developing distant metastases was lower with nivolumab than with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or interferon and was similar to dabrafenib plus trametinib.
CONCLUSION
Adjuvant therapy with nivolumab provides an effective treatment option with a promising risk-benefit profile.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bayes Theorem; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Imidazoles; Ipilimumab; Melanoma; Nivolumab; Oximes; Patient Safety; Pyridones; Pyrimidinones
PubMed: 33402121
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-07538-1 -
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness... Mar 2021The objective was to systematically review the literature and assess the relative efficacy of agents approved in first-line settings via network meta-analysis. A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The objective was to systematically review the literature and assess the relative efficacy of agents approved in first-line settings via network meta-analysis. A literature review was conducted via searching different medical databases. The eligibility criteria included Phase II or III randomized controlled trials that had enrolled treatment-naive adult patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma. The network meta-analysis results suggested that dabrafenib + trametinib significantly prolongs the survival outcomes compared with the monotherapies and had comparable efficacy profile compared with encorafenib + binimetinib and cobimetinib + vemurafenib. In comparison with immunotherapies, the results varied for progression-free survival and overall survival. Long-term survival data of dabrafenib + trametinib establishes the combination as one of the preferred treatment options for previously untreated melanoma patients.
Topics: Adult; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Imidazoles; Melanoma; Oximes; Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf; Pyridones; Pyrimidinones
PubMed: 33448878
DOI: 10.2217/cer-2020-0249 -
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy Dec 2023Fluvoxamine may be beneficial for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) because of its effect on the sigma-1 receptor. Available evidence from randomized... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Fluvoxamine may be beneficial for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) because of its effect on the sigma-1 receptor. Available evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) has shown conflicting results.
OBJECTIVE
This study sought to analyze the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine as an outpatient treatment for Covid-19.
METHODS
Using specific keywords, we comprehensively go through the potential articles on PubMed, Scopus, Europe PMC, and ClinicalTrials.gov sources until February 1, 2023. We collected all published clinical trials on fluvoxamine and Covid-19. We were using Review Manager 5.4 to conduct statistical analysis.
RESULTS
We include a total of 6 trials. Our pooled analysis revealed that fluvoxamine did not offer any significant benefit when compared with placebo in reducing the risk of clinical deterioration (risk ratio [RR] = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.65-1.06, = 0.14, = 29%), and hospitalization (RR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.62-1.04, = 0.09, = 0%) of Covid-19 outpatients. The serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study indicates that although safe, fluvoxamine was not effective for outpatient treatment of Covid-19. Until more evidence can be obtained from larger RCTs, our study did not encourage the use of fluvoxamine as routine management for patients with Covid-19.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Fluvoxamine; Outpatients; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Europe
PubMed: 37002592
DOI: 10.1177/10600280231162243 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is caused by a homozygous deletion of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene on chromosome 5, or a heterozygous deletion in combination... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is caused by a homozygous deletion of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene on chromosome 5, or a heterozygous deletion in combination with a point mutation in the second SMN1 allele. This results in degeneration of anterior horn cells, which leads to progressive muscle weakness. By definition, children with SMA type I are never able to sit without support and usually die or become ventilator dependent before the age of two years. There have until very recently been no drug treatments to influence the course of SMA. We undertook this updated review to evaluate new evidence on emerging treatments for SMA type I. The review was first published in 2009 and previously updated in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of any drug therapy designed to slow or arrest progression of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) type I.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ISI Web of Science conference proceedings in October 2018. We also searched two trials registries to identify unpublished trials (October 2018).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that examined the efficacy of drug treatment for SMA type I. Included participants had to fulfil clinical criteria and have a genetically confirmed deletion or mutation of the SMN1 gene (5q11.2-13.2). The primary outcome measure was age at death or full-time ventilation. Secondary outcome measures were acquisition of motor milestones, i.e. head control, rolling, sitting or standing, motor milestone response on disability scores within one year after the onset of treatment, and adverse events and serious adverse events attributable to treatment during the trial period. Treatment strategies involving SMN1 gene replacement with viral vectors are out of the scope of this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified two RCTs: one trial of intrathecal nusinersen in comparison to a sham (control) procedure in 121 randomised infants with SMA type I, which was newly included at this update, and one small trial comparing riluzole treatment to placebo in 10 children with SMA type I. The RCT of intrathecally-injected nusinersen was stopped early for efficacy (based on a predefined Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination-Section 2 (HINE-2) response). At the interim analyses after 183 days of treatment, 41% (21/51) of nusinersen-treated infants showed a predefined improvement on HINE-2, compared to 0% (0/27) of participants in the control group. This trial was largely at low risk of bias. Final analyses (ranging from 6 months to 13 months of treatment), showed that fewer participants died or required full-time ventilation (defined as more than 16 hours daily for 21 days or more) in the nusinersen-treated group than the control group (hazard ratio (HR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 0.89; N = 121; a 47% lower risk; moderate-certainty evidence). A proportion of infants in the nusinersen group and none of 37 infants in the control group achieved motor milestones: 37/73 nusinersen-treated infants (51%) achieved a motor milestone response on HINE-2 (risk ratio (RR) 38.51, 95% CI 2.43 to 610.14; N = 110; moderate-certainty evidence); 16/73 achieved head control (RR 16.95, 95% CI 1.04 to 274.84; moderate-certainty evidence); 6/73 achieved independent sitting (RR 6.68, 95% CI 0.39 to 115.38; moderate-certainty evidence); 7/73 achieved rolling over (RR 7.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 131.29); and 1/73 achieved standing (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.06 to 36.92; moderate-certainty evidence). Seventy-one per cent of nusinersen-treated infants versus 3% of infants in the control group were responders on the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Infant Test of Neuromuscular Disorders (CHOP INTEND) measure of motor disability (RR 26.36, 95% CI 3.79 to 183.18; N = 110; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events and serious adverse events occurred in the majority of infants but were no more frequent in the nusinersen-treated group than the control group (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.05 and RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89, respectively; N = 121; moderate-certainty evidence). In the riluzole trial, three of seven children treated with riluzole were still alive at the ages of 30, 48, and 64 months, whereas all three children in the placebo group died. None of the children in the riluzole or placebo group developed the ability to sit, which was the only milestone reported. There were no adverse effects. The certainty of the evidence for all measured outcomes from this study was very low, because the study was too small to detect or rule out an effect, and had serious limitations, including baseline differences. This trial was stopped prematurely because the pharmaceutical company withdrew funding. Various trials and studies investigating treatment strategies other than nusinersen, such as SMN2 augmentation by small molecules, are ongoing.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the very limited evidence currently available regarding drug treatments for SMA type 1, intrathecal nusinersen probably prolongs ventilation-free and overall survival in infants with SMA type I. It is also probable that a greater proportion of infants treated with nusinersen than with a sham procedure achieve motor milestones and can be classed as responders to treatment on clinical assessments (HINE-2 and CHOP INTEND). The proportion of children experiencing adverse events and serious adverse events on nusinersen is no higher with nusinersen treatment than with a sham procedure, based on evidence of moderate certainty. It is uncertain whether riluzole has any effect in patients with SMA type I, based on the limited available evidence. Future trials could provide more high-certainty, longer-term evidence to confirm this result, or focus on comparing new treatments to nusinersen or evaluate them as an add-on therapy to nusinersen.
Topics: Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Neuroprotective Agents; Oligonucleotides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Muscular Atrophies of Childhood
PubMed: 31825542
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006281.pub5 -
Journal of Infection and Public Health Nov 2022This meta-analysis investigated the use of fluvoxamine for the treatment of nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This meta-analysis investigated the use of fluvoxamine for the treatment of nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies published before June 25, 2022. Only clinical studies that compared the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine with other alternatives or placebos in the treatment of nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 were included.
RESULTS
Four studies with 1814 patients, of whom 912 received fluvoxamine, were included in this study. Compared with the control group receiving placebo or no therapy, the study group receiving fluvoxamine demonstrated a lower risk of hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visits (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95 % CI, 0.44-0.79; I = 26 %). In addition, the rate of hospitalization remained significantly lower in patients who received fluvoxamine than in the control group (OR, 0.69; 95 % CI, 0.51-0.94; I = 36 %). Although the study group demonstrated a lower risk of requirement of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit admission, and mortality than the control group, these differences were nonsignificant. Finally, fluvoxamine use was associated with a similar risk of adverse events as that observed in the control group.
CONCLUSION
Fluvoxamine can be safely used in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 and can reduce the hospitalization rate or ED visits in these patients.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Fluvoxamine; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Patients; Respiration, Artificial
PubMed: 36272390
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiph.2022.10.010 -
Cureus Mar 2020Introduction The benefits of atropine in the treatment of acute organophosphate (OP) poisoning has been well established, while that of oximes is still uncertain....
Introduction The benefits of atropine in the treatment of acute organophosphate (OP) poisoning has been well established, while that of oximes is still uncertain. Pralidoxime is the most often used oxime worldwide. In vitro experiments have consistently shown that oximes are effective reactivators of human acetylcholinesterase enzyme, inhibited by OP compounds. However, the clinical benefit of pralidoxime is still unclear. A recent meta-analysis has found that pralidoxime provides no significant improvement in outcome and rather may cause harm while increasing the economic burden in low-income communities where its use is the most prevalent. Objectives This study aimed to provide an updated evaluation of the efficacy of pralidoxime in addition to atropine alone in the treatment of patients with acute OP poisoning in terms of mortality, need for ventilator support, and the incidence of intermediate syndrome. The intermediate syndrome is a clinical syndrome that occurs 24 to 96 hours after the ingestion of an OP compound and is characterized by prominent weakness of neck flexors, muscles of respiration, and proximal limb muscles. Materials and methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases until January 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the English language that evaluated the use of pralidoxime in individuals of any age, gender or nationality presenting with an alleged history of OP intake. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes were the need for ventilator support and the incidence of intermediate syndrome. The risk of bias in included studies was assessed using the tool recommended by the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Review of Interventions. Treatment/control differences in these outcomes across included studies were combined using risk ratios (RR). Results Six randomized controlled trials (n = 646) fulfilled the inclusion criteria, including one further trial missed from the most recent systematic review. The risk of bias varied across studies, with Eddleston 2009 being of the lowest risk and Cherian 2005 being of high risk. The risk of mortality (RR = 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 2.41, P = 0.07) and the need for ventilator support (RR = 1.29, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.71, P = 0.08) were not significantly different between the pralidoxime and the control group. There was a significant increase in the incidence of intermediate syndrome in the pralidoxime group (RR = 1.63; 95% CI 1.01 to 2.62, P = 0.04). Conclusions Based on our meta-analysis of the available RCTs, pralidoxime was not shown to be beneficial in patients with acute OP poisoning. Our findings are consistent with the other literature.
PubMed: 32257715
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.7174 -
BMC Veterinary Research Jan 2019Canine generalised demodicosis is an inflammatory parasitic skin disease caused by an excessive proliferation of Demodex spp. Generalized demodicosis is a severe skin...
BACKGROUND
Canine generalised demodicosis is an inflammatory parasitic skin disease caused by an excessive proliferation of Demodex spp. Generalized demodicosis is a severe skin disease, that can be life threatening if not treated properly. Many of the current treatment options are not licensed for the treatment of generalised demodicosis, it have a low safety margin and may be poorly efficacious and time-consuming for the owner; there is a need for a safe, efficacious treatment for canine demodicosis. Our objective was to systematically review the literature to determine the most effective and safe topical or systemic therapy for canine generalised demodicosis. Single case reports and case series with fewer than five patients were not reviewed as they were considered to be poor quality evidence. A detailed literature search identified 21 relevant clinical trials and these were critically assessed.
RESULTS
The analysis of the best available evidence on March 5, 2018, suggests that six are the most effective and safe treatments for generalised canine demodicosis including (in alphabetical order): doramectin (oral or parenteral); fluralaner (oral); imidacloprid/moxidectin (topical); ivermectin (oral, not as first choice treatment); milbemycin oxime (oral); and sarolaner (oral). There was insufficient evidence to allow comment on the appropriateness of other treatment protocols for canine generalised demodicosis in this CAT.
CONCLUSIONS
In our critical appraisal of the best scientific literature, there is evidence for recommending the use of 6 therapeutic options against demodectic mange. Further, in vivo, controlled, randomized and blinded clinical trials are required, to evaluate new therapies.
Topics: Acaricides; Animals; Azetidines; Dog Diseases; Dogs; Isoxazoles; Ivermectin; Macrolides; Mite Infestations; Mites; Spiro Compounds
PubMed: 30616591
DOI: 10.1186/s12917-018-1767-7