-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015The therapeutic role of 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) and azathioprine (AZA) remains controversial due to their perceived relatively slow-acting effect and adverse effects. An... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The therapeutic role of 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) and azathioprine (AZA) remains controversial due to their perceived relatively slow-acting effect and adverse effects. An updated meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of these agents for the maintenance of remission in quiescent Crohn's disease.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of AZA and 6-MP for maintenance of remission in quiescent Crohn's disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to June 30, 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials of oral azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine compared to placebo or active therapy involving adult patients (> 18 years) with quiescent Crohn's disease were considered for inclusion. Patients with surgically-induced remission were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary outcomes was maintenance of remission. Secondary outcomes included steroid sparing, adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events. All data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary outcome and selected secondary outcomes was assessed using the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
Eleven studies (881 participants) were included. Comparisons included AZA versus placebo (7 studies, 532 participants), AZA or 6-MP versus mesalazine or sulfasalazine (2 studies, 166 participants), AZA versus budesonide (1 study, 77 participants), AZA and infliximab versus infliximab (1 study, 36 patients), 6-MP versus methotrexate (1 study, 31 patients), and early AZA versus conventional management (1 study, 147 participants). Two studies were rated as low risk of bias. Three studies were rated as high risk of bias for being non-blinded. Six studies were rated as unclear risk of bias. A pooled analysis of six studies (489 participants) showed that AZA (1.0 to 2.5 mg/kg/day) was significantly superior to placebo for maintenance of remission over a 6 to 18 month period. Seventy-three per cent of patients in the AZA group maintained remission compared to 62% of placebo patients (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.34). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome was nine. A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to sparse data (327 events) and unclear risk of bias. A pooled analysis of two studies (166 participants) showed no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who maintained remission between AZA (1.0 to 2.5 mg/kg/day) or 6-MP (1.0 mg/day) and mesalazine (3 g/day) sulphasalazine (0.5 g/15 kg) therapy. Sixty-nine per cent of patients in the AZA/6-MP group maintained remission compared to 67% of mesalazine/sulphasalazine patients (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.34). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to sparse data (113 events) and high or unclear risk of bias. One small study found AZA (2.0 to 2.5 mg/kg/day) to be superior to budesonide (6 to 9 mg/day) for maintenance of remission at one year. Seventy-six per cent (29/38) of AZA patients maintained remission compared to 46% (18/39) of budesonide patients (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.42). GRADE indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to sparse data (47 events) and high risk of bias. One small study found no difference in maintenance of remission rates at one year between combination therapy with AZA (2.5 mg/kg) and infliximab (5 mg/kg every 8 weeks) compared to infliximab monotherapy. Eighty-one per cent (13/16) of patients in the combination therapy group maintained remission compared to 80% (16/20) of patients in the infliximab group (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.40). GRADE indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to very sparse data (29 events) and unclear risk of bias. One small study found no difference in maintenance of remission rates at one year between 6-MP (1 mg/day) and methotrexate (10 mg/week). Fifty per cent (8/16) of 6-MP patients maintained remission at one year compared to 53% (8/15) of methotrexate patients (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.85). GRADE indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to very sparse data (16 events) and high risk of bias. One study (147 participants) failed to show any significant benefit for early azathioprine treatment over a conventional management strategy. In the early azathioprine treatment group 67% (11-85%) of the trimesters were spent in remission compared to 56% (29-73%) in the conventional management group. AZA when compared to placebo had significantly increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.64), withdrawal due to adverse events (3.12, 95% CI 1.59 to 6.09) and serious adverse events (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 4.90). AZA/6-MP also demonstrated a significantly higher risk of serious adverse events when compared to mesalazine or sulphasalazine (RR 9.37, 95% CI 1.84 to 47.7). AZA/6-MP did not differ significantly from other active therapies with respect to adverse event data. Common adverse events included pancreatitis, leukopenia, nausea, allergic reaction and infection.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low quality evidence suggests that AZA is more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. Although AZA may be effective for maintenance of remission its use is limited by adverse effects. Low quality evidence suggests that AZA may be superior to budesonide for maintenance of remission but because of small study size and high risk of bias, this result should be interpreted with caution. No conclusions can be drawn from the other active comparator studies because of low and very low quality evidence. Adequately powered trials are needed to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of AZA and 6-MP compared to other active maintenance therapies. Further research is needed to assess the efficacy and safety of the use of AZA with infliximab and other biologics and to determine the optimal management strategy for patients quiescent Crohn's disease.
Topics: Azathioprine; Crohn Disease; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Mercaptopurine; Prodrugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26517527
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000067.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Early intervention for those with high cardiovascular risk is crucial in improving... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Early intervention for those with high cardiovascular risk is crucial in improving patient outcomes. Traditional prevention strategies for CVD have focused on conventional risk factors, such as overweight, dyslipidaemia, diabetes, and hypertension, which may reflect the potential for cardiovascular insult. Natriuretic peptides (NPs), including B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), are well-established biomarkers for the detection and diagnostic evaluation of heart failure. They are of interest for CVD prevention because they are secreted by the heart as a protective response to cardiovascular stress, strain, and damage. Therefore, measuring NP levels in patients without heart failure may be valuable for risk stratification, to identify those at highest risk of CVD who would benefit most from intensive risk reduction measures.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of natriuretic peptide (NP)-guided treatment for people with cardiovascular risk factors and without heart failure.
SEARCH METHODS
Searches of the following bibliographic databases were conducted up to 9 July 2019: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. Three clinical trial registries were also searched in July 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials enrolling adults with one or more cardiovascular risk factors and without heart failure, which compared NP-based screening and subsequent NP-guided treatment versus standard care in all settings (i.e. community, hospital).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous data. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing data and to verify crucial study characteristics. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, two review authors independently assessed the quality of the evidence and GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager to create a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two randomised controlled trials (three reports) with 1674 participants, with mean age between 64.1 and 67.8 years. Follow-up ranged from 2 years to mean 4.3 years.For primary outcome measures, effect estimates from a single study showed uncertainty for the effect of NP-guided treatment on cardiovascular mortality in patients with cardiovascular risk factors and without heart failure (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.17; 1 study; 300 participants; low-quality evidence). Pooled analysis demonstrated that in comparison to standard care, NP-guided treatment probably reduces the risk of cardiovascular hospitalisation (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.68; 2 studies; 1674 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This corresponds to a risk of 163 per 1000 in the control group and 85 (95% CI 65 to 111) per 1000 in the NP-guided treatment group.When secondary outcome measures were evaluated, evidence from a pooled analysis showed uncertainty for the effect of NP-guided treatment on all-cause mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.35; 2 studies; 1354 participants; low-quality evidence). Pooled analysis indicates that NP-guided treatment probably reduces the risk of all-cause hospitalisation (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.92; 2 studies; 1354 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This corresponds to a risk of 601 per 1000 in the control group and 499 (95% CI 457 to 553) per 1000 in the NP-guided treatment group. The effect estimate from a single study indicates that NP-guided treatment reduced the risk of ventricular dysfunction (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.91; 1374 participants; high-quality evidence). The risk in this study's control group was 87 per 1000, compared with 53 (95% CI 36 to 79) per 1000 with NP-guided treatment. Results from the same study show that NP-guided treatment does not affect change in NP level at the end of follow-up, relative to standard care (MD -4.06 pg/mL, 95% CI -15.07 to 6.95; 1 study; 1374 participants; moderate-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review shows that NP-guided treatment is likely to reduce ventricular dysfunction and cardiovascular and all-cause hospitalisation for patients who have cardiovascular risk factors and who do not have heart failure. Effects on mortality and natriuretic peptide levels are less certain. Neither of the included studies were powered to evaluate mortality. Available evidence shows uncertainty regarding the effects of NP-guided treatment on both cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality; very low event numbers resulted in a high degree of imprecision in these effect estimates. Evidence also shows that NP-guided treatment may not affect NP level at the end of follow-up.As both trials included in our review were pragmatic studies, non-blinding of patients and practices may have biased results towards a finding of equivalence. Further studies with more adequately powered sample sizes and longer duration of follow-up are required to evaluate the effect of NP-guided treatment on mortality. As two trials are ongoing, one of which is a large multi-centre trial, it is hoped that future iterations of this review will benefit from larger sample sizes across a wider geographical area.
PubMed: 31613983
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013015.pub2 -
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... Jul 2021Ketoprofen (K) was synthesized in 1968. K belongs to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and has analgesic, anti-inflammatory and antipyretic properties. K is...
INTRODUCTION
Ketoprofen (K) was synthesized in 1968. K belongs to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and has analgesic, anti-inflammatory and antipyretic properties. K is commonly used due to rapid absorption, simple metabolism, high antinociceptive activity and fast blood brain barrier crossing. However, this substance causes various side effects which are the major factors affecting its' popularity. Many researchers have modified this drug to discover an improved and safe NSAID.
AIM
The aim of the review was to find in recent publications data bout future prospects of K of improved safety for the gastric mucosa after oral administration.
METHOD
Systematic literature review was conducted in March 2021 (2015 onwards). We selected 22 articles from PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline Complete databases.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Many studies aimed at obtaining K with lower ulcerogenic properties. This article describes K with lysine, new K delivery systems, K in form of hydrogels, prodrugs and codrugs of K, K as ATB-352, K with zinc, K encapsulated as proliposomal powders and several substances that reduce the gastric side effects of K described after 2015.
CONCLUSION
Our review confirms that modifications of K maintain its' desirable actions and decrease ulcer producing side effect. Some new forms of K were also found to have better activity profile compared to the parent drug.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Gastric Mucosa; Humans; Ketoprofen; Stomach Ulcer
PubMed: 33932737
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2021.111608 -
Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2022The rising outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 continues to unfold all over the world. The development of novel effective antiviral drugs to fight against SARS-CoV-2 is a time cost....
The rising outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 continues to unfold all over the world. The development of novel effective antiviral drugs to fight against SARS-CoV-2 is a time cost. As a result, some specific FDA-approved drugs have already been repurposed and authorized for COVID-19 treatment. The repurposed drugs used were either antiviral or non-antiviral drugs. Accordingly, the present review thoroughly focuses on the repurposing efficacy of these drugs including clinical trials experienced, the combination therapies used, the novel methods followed for treatment, and their future perspective. Therefore, drug repurposing was regarded as an effective avenue for COVID-19 treatment. Recently, molnupiravir is a prodrug antiviral medication that was approved in the United Kingdom in November 2021 for the treatment of COVID-19. On the other hand, PF-07321332 is an oral antiviral drug developed by Pfizer. For the treatment of COVID-19, the PF-07321332/ritonavir combination medication is used in Phase III studies and was marketed as Paxlovid. Herein, we represented the almost history of combating COVID-19 from repurposing to the recently available oral anti-SARS-CoV-2 candidates, as a new hope to end the current pandemic.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Cytidine; Drug Approval; Drug Repositioning; Humans; Hydroxylamines; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35321497
DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S354841