-
The Canadian Journal of Hospital... 2022Status epilepticus (SE) is a neurologic emergency with potential for substantial mortality and morbidity. Parenteral benzodiazepine is the established first-line... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Status epilepticus (SE) is a neurologic emergency with potential for substantial mortality and morbidity. Parenteral benzodiazepine is the established first-line treatment but fails to control SE in about one-third of patients. Levetiracetam may be used for SE that is refractory to benzodiazepine therapy.
OBJECTIVE
To examine, by means of a systematic review, the role of IV levetiracetam for the treatment of SE in adults.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases were searched, from inception to August 18, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
Included in this review were prospective randomized controlled trials comparing levetiracetam with another antiepileptic drug, given with or after a benzodiazepine, in adult patients with SE. The primary outcome was cessation of SE. Quality of evidence was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Characteristics of the included studies were reported using descriptive statistics.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Five studies compared IV levetiracetam with valproic acid, phenytoin (or its prodrug fosphenytoin), or both. All 5 studies found no statistically significant differences in efficacy or safety end points. There were numerically more cases of hypotension and respiratory failure with phenytoin, and more cases of psychiatric adverse effects (e.g., post-ictal psychosis) with levetiracetam.
CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence suggests that levetiracetam is as effective as valproic acid or phenytoin for the cessation of SE in adults. Other factors should therefore dictate the choice of antiepileptic drug for patients with SE, such as adverse effect profile, logistics of administration, drug cost, inclusion on hospital formularies, and drug availability.
PubMed: 34987263
DOI: 10.4212/cjhp.v75i1.3254 -
Cureus Jun 2022Actinic keratoses (AKs) are the most common neoplastic lesions and are recognized as a precursor to squamous cell skin cancer. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a... (Review)
Review
Actinic keratoses (AKs) are the most common neoplastic lesions and are recognized as a precursor to squamous cell skin cancer. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a therapeutic option for multiple AKs in line with field cancerization. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of PDT on patients with AKs using a meta-analysis, in order to evaluate the possible superiority of one treatment over the others. For this purpose, the PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, OVID, Science Direct, British Journal of Dermatology, Research Gate, and Embase databases were searched in March 2022. The search terms used were 'photodynamic therapy' and 'actinic keratosis'. We utilized the random-effects meta-analysis model to compare methyl aminolevulinate PDT (MAL-PDT) and the combination of a nanoscale-lipid vesicle formulation with the prodrug 5-aminolevulinic acid (BF-200 ALA) on a complete response (CR) of the lesions. Our meta-analysis indicated that the comparison of BF-200 ALA versus MAL-PDT showed marginally higher CRs than MAL-PDT.
PubMed: 35911353
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.26390 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2016Herpes zoster ophthalmicus affects the eye and vision, and is caused by the reactivation of the varicella zoster virus in the distribution of the first division of the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Herpes zoster ophthalmicus affects the eye and vision, and is caused by the reactivation of the varicella zoster virus in the distribution of the first division of the trigeminal nerve. An aggressive management of acute herpes zoster ophthalmicus with systemic antiviral medication is generally recommended as the standard first-line treatment for herpes zoster ophthalmicus infections. Both acyclovir and its prodrug valacyclovir are medications that are approved for the systemic treatment of herpes zoster. Although it is known that valacyclovir has an improved bioavailability and steadier plasma concentration, it is currently unclear as to whether this leads to better treatment results and less ocular complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of valacyclovir versus acyclovir for the systemic antiviral treatment of herpes zoster ophthalmicus in immunocompetent patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2016, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2016), Embase (January 1980 to June 2016), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S; January 1990 to June 2016), BIOSIS Previews (January 1969 to June 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 13 June 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which systemic valacyclovir was compared to systemic acyclovir medication for treatment of herpes zoster ophthalmicus. There were no language restrictions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials, evaluated the risk of bias in included trials, and extracted and analysed data. We did not conduct a meta-analysis, as only one study was included. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the selected outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
One study fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In this multicentre, randomised double-masked study carried out in France, 110 immunocompetent people with herpes zoster ophthalmicus, diagnosed within 72 hours of skin eruption, were treated, with 56 participants allocated to the valacyclovir group and 54 to the acyclovir group. The study was poorly reported and we judged it to be unclear risk of bias for most domains.Persistent ocular lesions after 6 months were observed in 2/56 people in the valacyclovir group compared with 1/54 people in the acyclovir group (risk ratio (RR) 1.93 (95% CI 0.18 to 20.65); very low certainty evidence. Dendritic ulcer appeared in 3/56 patients treated with valacyclovir, while 1/54 suffered in the acyclovir group (RR 2.89; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 26.96); very low certainty evidence), uveitis in 7/56 people in the valacyclovir group compared with 9/54 in the acyclovir group (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.57); very low certainty evidence). Similarly, there was uncertainty as to the comparative effects of these two treatments on post-herpetic pain, and side effects (vomiting, eyelid or facial edema, disseminated zoster). Due to concerns about imprecision (small number of events and large confidence intervals) and study limitations, the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach was rated as low to very low for the use of valacyclovir compared to acyclovir.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review included data from only one study, which had methodological limitations. As such, our results indicated uncertainty of the relative benefits and harms of valacyclovir over acyclovir in herpes zoster ophthalmicus, despite its widespread use for this condition. Further well-designed and adequately powered trials are needed. These trials should include outcomes important to patients, including compliance.
Topics: Acyclovir; Antiviral Agents; Herpes Zoster Ophthalmicus; Humans; Immunocompetence; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Valacyclovir; Valine
PubMed: 27841441
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011503.pub2 -
Europace : European Pacing,... Jul 2022Vasovagal syncope (VVS) is a common clinical condition that lacks effective medical therapies despite being associated with significant morbidity. Current guidelines... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
Vasovagal syncope (VVS) is a common clinical condition that lacks effective medical therapies despite being associated with significant morbidity. Current guidelines suggest that midodrine, a prodrug for an α1-adrenergic receptor agonist, might suppress VVS but supporting studies have utilized heterogeneous methods and yielded inconsistent results. To evaluate the efficacy of midodrine to prevent syncope in patients with recurrent VVS by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies.
METHODS AND RESULTS
Relevant randomized controlled trials were identified from the MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases without language restriction from inception to June 2021. All studies were conducted in clinical syncope populations and compared the benefit of midodrine vs. placebo or non-pharmacological standard care. Weighted relative risks (RRs) were estimated using random effects meta-analysis techniques. Seven studies (n = 315) met inclusion criteria. Patients were 33 ± 17 years of age and 31% male. Midodrine was found to substantially reduce the likelihood of positive head-up-tilt (HUT) test outcomes [RR = 0.37 (0.23-0.59), P < 0.001]. In contrast, the pooled results of single- and double-blind clinical trials (I2 = 54%) suggested a more modest benefit from midodrine for the prevention of clinical syncope [RR = 0.51 (0.33-0.79), P = 0.003]. The two rigorous double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials included 179 VVS patients with minimal between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 0%) and reported a risk reduction with midodrine [RR = 0.71 (0.53-0.95), P = 0.02].
CONCLUSIONS
Midodrine is effective in preventing syncope induced by HUT testing and less, but still significant, RR reduction in randomized, double-blinded clinical trials.
Topics: Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Male; Midodrine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Syncope; Syncope, Vasovagal; Tilt-Table Test
PubMed: 35025999
DOI: 10.1093/europace/euab323 -
Contemporary Clinical Trials Feb 2021The nucleotide analogue prodrug remdesivir was among the first antiviral therapies to be tested in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for COVID-19. We performed a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The nucleotide analogue prodrug remdesivir was among the first antiviral therapies to be tested in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for COVID-19. We performed a meta-analysis to understand efficacy and safety.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases (from January 1, 2020 to November 5, 2020). We included RCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of remdesivir to control/placebo in COVID-19. Two independent investigators abstracted data, assessed the quality of evidence, and rated the certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
A total of 4 RCTs with 7334 patients with COVID-19 were included. At a follow-up of 28-29 days from randomization, very low certainty evidence showed that use of remdesivir compared with control group (placebo and/or standard of care) was not associated with a significant decrease in time to clinical improvement (standardized mean difference -0.80 day; [CI, -2.12, 0.53]). However, moderate certainty of evidence showed that remdesivir was associated with higher rates of recovered patients (risk difference [RD] 0.07 [0.05, 0.08]) and discharged patients (RD 0.07 [0.03, 0.11]) and lower rates of developing serious adverse events (RD -0.05 [-0.10, -0.01]) compared with control. Moderate and very low certainty of evidence showed there was no significant difference in deaths at 28-29 days follow-up (RD -0.01 [-0.03, 0.01]) and developing any adverse events (RD 0.01 [-0.17, 0.19]) between both groups, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Patients given remdesivir are more likely to demonstrate recovery and were associated with higher rates of hospital discharge, but not with significant reduction in mean time to clinical improvement or mortality.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Alanine; Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33422642
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2021.106272 -
Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) Jun 2022Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a common, painful, and long-term complication of herpes zoster (HZ). PHN increases the demand for healthcare services and, previous... (Review)
Review
Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a common, painful, and long-term complication of herpes zoster (HZ). PHN increases the demand for healthcare services and, previous studies showed that patients who received antiviral agents were less likely to develop PHN. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of prodrugs and acyclovir in treating PHN among patients with HZ. The search included the PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Center of Register of Controlled Trails databases through February 2022. Clinical trials and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving antiviral agent intervention for HZ patients diagnosed with PHN were eligible for inclusion. A meta-analysis was conducted to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with a fix-effect model. Five RCTs with 1147 HZ patients met our eligibility criteria. Our meta-analysis found that there was a significantly lower risk of PHN for members of the prodrugs group (famciclovir and valaciclovir) compared with those who received acyclovir (RR = 0.86, 95%, CI: 0.75 to 0.98, = 0.03). The review of studies indicated that the efficacy of prodrugs was better than acyclovir for reliving PHN.
PubMed: 35885708
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10071181 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 10, 2011. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is the most commonly prescribed analgesic for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 10, 2011. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is the most commonly prescribed analgesic for the treatment of acute pain. It may be administered orally, rectally, or intravenously. The efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) formulations of paracetamol, IV paracetamol, and IV propacetamol (a prodrug that is metabolized to paracetamol), compared with placebo and other analgesics, is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of IV formulations of paracetamol for the treatment of postoperative pain in both adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We ran the search for the previous review in May 2010. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (May 2010 to 16 February 2016), EMBASE (May 2010 to 16 February 2016), LILACS (2010 to 2016), a clinical trials registry, and reference lists of reviews for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any language and we retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled single dose clinical trials of IV paracetamol or IV propacetamol for acute postoperative pain in adults or children.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data, which included demographic variables, type of surgery, interventions, efficacy, and adverse events. We contacted study authors for additional information. We graded each included study for methodological quality by assessing risk of bias and employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 75 studies (36 from the original review and 39 from our updated review) enrolling a total of 7200 participants.Among primary outcomes, 36% of participants receiving IV paracetamol/propacetamol experienced at least 50% pain relief over four hours compared with 16% of those receiving placebo (number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) = 5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.7 to 5.6, high quality evidence). The proportion of participants in IV paracetamol/propacetamol groups experiencing at least 50% pain relief diminished over six hours, as reflected in a higher NNT of 6 (4.6 to 7.1, moderate quality evidence). Mean pain intensity at four hours was similar when comparing IV paracetamol and placebo, but was seven points lower on a 0 to 100 visual analog scale (0 = no pain, 100 = worst pain imaginable, 95% CI -9 to -6, low quality evidence) in those receiving paracetamol at six hours.For secondary outcomes, participants receiving IV paracetamol/propacetamol required 26% less opioid over four hours and 16% less over six hours (moderate quality evidence) than those receiving placebo. However, this did not translate to a clinically meaningful reduction in opioid-induced adverse events.Meta-analysis of efficacy comparisons between IV paracetamol/propacetamol and active comparators (e.g., opioids or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) were either not statistically significant, not clinically significant, or both.Adverse events occurred at similar rates with IV paracetamol or IV propacetamol and placebo. However, pain on infusion occurred more frequently in those receiving IV propacetamol versus placebo (23% versus 1%). Meta-analysis did not demonstrate clinically meaningful differences between IV paracetamol/propacetamol and active comparators for any adverse event.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Since the last version of this review, we have found 39 new studies providing additional information. Most included studies evaluated adults only. We reanalyzed the data but the results did not substantially alter any of our previously published conclusions. This review provides high quality evidence that a single dose of either IV paracetamol or IV propacetamol provides around four hours of effective analgesia for about 36% of patients with acute postoperative pain. Low to very low quality evidence demonstrates that both formulations are associated with few adverse events, although patients receiving IV propacetamol have a higher incidence of pain on infusion than both placebo and IV paracetamol.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics; Child; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 27213715
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007126.pub3 -
The Western Journal of Emergency... May 2020In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the spread of SARS-CoV-2 a global pandemic. To date, coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has spread to over 200...
In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the spread of SARS-CoV-2 a global pandemic. To date, coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has spread to over 200 countries, leading to over 1.6 million cases and over 99,000 deaths. Given that there is neither a vaccine nor proven treatment for COVID-19, there is currently an urgent need for effective pharmacotherapy. To address the need for an effective treatment of SARS-CoV-2 during the worldwide pandemic, this systematic review of intravenous (IV) remdesivir was performed. Remdesivir, an anti-viral prodrug originally developed to treat Ebola virus disease, has shown broad spectrum activity against the Coronavirus family. A recent case report reported improvement of clinical symptoms with remdesivir in a patient with COVID-19. After conducting a systematic search of 18 clinical trial registries and three large scientific databases, we identified 86 potentially eligible items. Following removal of duplicates (n = 21), eligible studies were reviewed independently by two authors. After the first round of screening, inter-rater agreement was 98.5% (κ = 0.925). After the second round of full-text screening, inter-rater agreement was 100%. A total of seven ongoing and recruiting clinical trials of remdesivir (100-200 milligrams, intravenous [IV]) were included. We identified the following primary outcomes: patients discharged (n = 2); time to clinical status improvement (n = 2); improved O2 saturation (n = 2); body temperature normalization (n = 2); and clinical status (n = 1). Secondary outcomes in all identified studies included documentation of adverse events. Phase 3 trials are expected to be completed between April 2020-2023. Therefore, despite supportive data from in vitro and in vivo studies, the clinical effectiveness of IV remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19 and potential side effects remain incompletely defined in the human population.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Administration, Intravenous; Alanine; Antiviral Agents; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Clinical Trials as Topic; Coronavirus Infections; Humans; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 32726230
DOI: 10.5811/westjem.2020.5.47658 -
Clinical Pharmacokinetics Oct 2019Enzyme-mediated biotransformation of pharmacological agents is a crucial step in xenobiotic detoxification and drug disposition. Herein, we investigated the metabolism...
Physicochemical Properties, Biotransformation, and Transport Pathways of Established and Newly Approved Medications: A Systematic Review of the Top 200 Most Prescribed Drugs vs. the FDA-Approved Drugs Between 2005 and 2016.
BACKGROUND
Enzyme-mediated biotransformation of pharmacological agents is a crucial step in xenobiotic detoxification and drug disposition. Herein, we investigated the metabolism and physicochemical properties of the top 200 most prescribed drugs (established) as well as drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2005 and 2016 (newly approved).
OBJECTIVE
Our objective was to capture the changing trends in the routes of administration, physicochemical properties, and prodrug medications, as well as the contributions of drug-metabolizing enzymes and transporters to drug clearance.
METHODS
The University of Washington Drug Interaction Database (DIDB) as well as other online resources (e.g., CenterWatch.com, Drugs.com, DrugBank.ca, and PubChem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) was used to collect and stratify the dataset required for exploring the above-mentioned trends.
RESULTS
Analyses revealed that ~ 90% of all drugs in the established and newly approved drug lists were administered systemically (oral or intravenous). Meanwhile, the portion of biologics (molecular weight > 1 kDa) was 15 times greater in the newly approved list than established drugs. Additionally, there was a 4.5-fold increase in the number of compounds with a high calculated partition coefficient (cLogP > 3) and a high total polar surface area (> 75 Å) in the newly approved drug vs. the established category. Further, prodrugs in established or newly approved lists were found to be converted to active compounds via hydrolysis, demethylases, and kinases. The contribution of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4, as the major biotransformation pathway, has increased from 40% in the established drug list to 64% in the newly approved drug list. Moreover, the role of CYP1A2, CYP2C19, and CYP2D6 were decreased as major metabolizing enzymes among the newly approved medications. Among non-CYP major metabolizers, the contribution of alcohol dehydrogenases/aldehyde dehydrogenases (ADH/ALDH) and sulfotransferases decreased in the newly approved drugs compared with the established list. Furthermore, the highest contribution among uptake and efflux transporters was found for Organic Anion Transporting Polypeptide 1B1 (OATP1B1) and P-glycoprotein (P-gp), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The higher portion of biologics in the newly approved drugs compared with the established list confirmed the growing demands for protein- and antibody-based therapies. Moreover, the larger number of hydrophilic drugs found in the newly approved list suggests that the probability of toxicity is likely to decrease. With regard to CYP-mediated major metabolism, CYP3A5 showed an increased involvement owing to the identification of unique probe substrates to differentiate CYP3As. Furthermore, the contribution of OATP1B1 and P-gp did not show a significant shift in the newly approved drugs as compared to the established list because of their broad substrate specificity.
Topics: Animals; Biological Transport; Biotransformation; Drug Approval; Humans; Prescription Drugs; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 30972694
DOI: 10.1007/s40262-019-00750-8 -
Annals of Medicine and Surgery (2012) Feb 2024Hypertension has significantly contributed to morbidity and mortality, necessitating effective management. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have emerged as a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hypertension has significantly contributed to morbidity and mortality, necessitating effective management. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have emerged as a cornerstone in hypertension treatment. Azilsartan, a relatively recent addition to the ARB family, offers unique characteristics, including prodrug activation. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate Azilsartan's role in reducing clinical blood pressure compared to other ARBs and determine the most effective dosage.
METHODS
Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted in Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov. Eligible studies included adult hypertensive patients receiving Azilsartan compared to other ARBs, with clinical systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) outcomes. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed, and statistical analysis employed comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA) software.
RESULTS
Eleven randomized controlled trials encompassing 18 studies involving 6024 patients were included. Azilsartan demonstrated significant reductions in clinical SBP (mean difference=-2.85 mmHg) and DBP (mean difference=-2.095 mmHg) compared to other ARBs. Higher doses of Azilsartan showed greater efficacy, with 80 mg exhibiting the most substantial reduction in SBP. The analysis emphasized the need for more studies investigating lower Azilsartan doses (10 and 20 mg).
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis underscore Azilsartan's effectiveness in reducing SBP and DBP. Dose-dependent effects emphasize the importance of optimal dosing when prescribing Azilsartan. These findings provide valuable insights for clinicians in managing hypertension effectively and call for further research, primarily focusing on lower Azilsartan doses and a more diverse patient population.
PubMed: 38333313
DOI: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000001547