-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic auto-immune disorder, involving persistent joint inflammation. NSAIDs are used to control the symptoms of RA, but are associated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic auto-immune disorder, involving persistent joint inflammation. NSAIDs are used to control the symptoms of RA, but are associated with significant gastro-intestinal toxicity, including a risk of potentially life threatening gastroduodenal perforations, ulcers and bleeds. The NSAIDs known as the selective Cox II inhibitors, of which celecoxib is a member, were developed in order to reduce the GI toxicity, but are more expensive.
OBJECTIVES
To establish the efficacy and safety of celecoxib in the management of RA by systematic review of available evidence.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to August 2002: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, National Research Register, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment Database. The bibliographies of retrieved papers and content experts were consulted for additional references.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. No unpublished RCTs were included in this edition of the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers. Data was analysed using a fixed effects model. A validated checklist was used to score the quality of the RCTs. The planned analysis was to pool, where appropriate continuous outcomes using mean differences and dichotomous outcomes using relative risk ratios. This was not however possible due to the lack of data.
MAIN RESULTS
Five RCTs were included (4465 participants); three of the studies also enrolled individuals with OA. The comparators were placebo, naproxen, diclofenac and ibuprofen. The evidence reviewed suggests that celecoxib controls the symptoms of RA to a similar degree to that of the active comparators examined (naproxen, diclofenac and ibuprofen). When compared to placebo, the percentage of patients showing improvement according to ACR 20 criteria at week 4 were 42/82 (51%) in the twice daily celecoxib 200mg group and 43/82 (52%) in the twice daily celecoxib 400mg group; these were significantly different from the placebo group in which 25/85 (29%) improved. The six month data reviewed support a reduced rate of UGI complications with celecoxib but there is also evidence to suggest that these benefits may not be evident in the long-term and that celecoxib offers no additional benefit in patients who are also receiving cardio-prophylactic low dose aspirin.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For an individual with RA the potential benefits of celecoxib need to be balanced against the uncertainty that the short-term reduced incidence of upper GI complications are maintained in the long-term and its increased cost in comparison to traditional NSAIDs.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Celecoxib; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfonamides
PubMed: 28598564
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003831.pub2 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2024Clinicians and healthcare policymakers have been drenched with a deluge of overlapping meta-analyses (MAs), and the necessity for comprehensive and clearly defined...
BACKGROUND
Clinicians and healthcare policymakers have been drenched with a deluge of overlapping meta-analyses (MAs), and the necessity for comprehensive and clearly defined evidence of Janus kinase inhibitors (JKIs) in atopic dermatitis (AD) is urgent.
METHODS
Six databases were searched for MAs published until October 2023. Qualitative description of MAs was mainly used, and Investigator's Global Assessment response (IGA response), the 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index (the EASI75), peak pruritus Numerical rating score (PP-NRS), and adverse effects were cited to describe the efficacy and safety of JKIs. The methodological quality of the included MAs was assessed by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews II (AMSTAR II), and the quality of evidence was evaluated by the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE).
RESULTS
Sixteen MAs were pooled in this review, of which five studies appraised JKIs, five appraised systemic JKIs, five papers assessed abrocitinib only, and one assessed baricitinib. Two studies were of "high" methodological quality and 14 MAs were of "moderate" quality. Eleven MAs integrated the results of JKIs and reported that JKIs provide faster onset of IGA response (RR=2.83, 95% CI [2.25, 3.56], high-quality evidence). Similarly, 10 MAs showed that JAK inhibitors were more effective in improving the EASI75 (RR=2.84, 95% CI [2.2, 3.67], high-quality evidence). Results from 12 MAs showed JKIs were active in reducing the PP-NRS (SMD=-0.49, 95% CI [-0.67, -0.32]). All MAs affirmed JKIs added no adverse effects leading to discontinuation and serious adverse events (P<0.05). However, 200mg of abrocitinib had a higher risk of acne (RR=4.34, 95% CI [1.61, 11.71), herpes zoster (RR=1.64, 95% CI [0.42, 6.39]), headache (RR=1.76, 95% CI [1.03, 3]), and nausea (RR=7.81, 95% CI [3.84, 15.87]). Upadacitinib was known to increase acne (RR=6.23, 95% CI [4.08, 9.49]), nasopharyngitis (RR=1.36, 95% CI [1.03, 1.8]) and blood creatine phosphokinase (blood CPK) (RR=2.41, 95% CI [1.47, 3.95]). Baricitinib at 2mg was associated with increased blood CPK (RR=2.25, 95% CI [1.1, 2.97]).
CONCLUSION
Compared to placebo or dupilumab, the administration of JKIs can ameliorate IGA response more effectively, improve the EASI75, and relieve pruritus without severe adverse effect, while accompanied by more acne, nasopharyngitis, headache, and digestive disturbances. The curative effect of 200 mg of abrocitinib is significant and more caution should be given in patients with gastrointestinal dysfunction, herpes zoster, and those who are acne-prone. Baricitinib and upadacitinib should be avoided in populations at high risk for cardiovascular events.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=369369, PROSPERO (CRD42022369369).
Topics: Humans; Dermatitis, Atopic; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Nasopharyngitis; Pruritus; Acne Vulgaris; Headache; Herpes Zoster; Immunoglobulin A; Purines; Sulfonamides; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Azetidines
PubMed: 38464512
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1342810 -
Arquivos de Neuro-psiquiatria Jun 2023Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global health problem, and gabapentin and pregabalin are often used in the treatment of patients without associated radiculopathy or...
BACKGROUND
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global health problem, and gabapentin and pregabalin are often used in the treatment of patients without associated radiculopathy or neuropathy. Therefore, determining their efficacy and safety is of enormous value.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the efficacy and safety of using gabapentin and pregabalin for CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy.
METHODS
We performed a search on the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and Web of Science data bases for clinical trials, cohorts, and case-control studies that evaluated patients with CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy for at least eight weeks. The data were extracted and inserted into a previously-prepared Microsoft Excel spreadsheet; the outcomes were evaluated using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and the quality of evidence, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.
RESULTS
Of the 2,230 articles identified, only 5 were included, totaling 242 participants. In them, pregabalin was slightly less efficacious than amitriptyline, the combination of tramadol/acetaminophen, and celecoxib, and pregabalin added to celecoxib showed no benefit when compared to celecoxib alone (very low evidence for all). On the other hand, although one study with gabapentin did not support its use in a general sample of patients with low back pain, another found a reduction in the pain scale and improved mobility (moderate evidence). No serious adverse events were observed in any of the studies.
CONCLUSION
Quality information to support the use of pregabalin or gabapentin in the treatment of CLBP without radiculopathy or neuropathy is lacking, although results may suggest gabapentin as a viable option. More data is needed to fill this current gap in knowledge.
Topics: Humans; Radiculopathy; Gabapentin; Pregabalin; Low Back Pain; Celecoxib
PubMed: 37379868
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1764414 -
BMC Neurology Jun 2023Many drugs are prescribed in relieving acute migraine attacks, we aim to compare metoclopramide with other antimigraine drugs. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficacy and safety of metoclopramide in relieving acute migraine attacks compared with other anti-migraine drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Many drugs are prescribed in relieving acute migraine attacks, we aim to compare metoclopramide with other antimigraine drugs.
METHODS
We searched online databases like PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science till June 2022 for RCTs that compared metoclopramide alone with placebo or active drugs. The main outcomes were the mean change in headache score and complete headache relief. The secondary outcomes were the rescue medications need, side effects, nausea and recurrence rate. We qualitatively reviewed the outcomes. Then, we performed the network meta-analyses (NMAs) when it was possible. which were done by the Frequentist method using the MetaInsight online software.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included with a total of 1934 patients: 826 received metoclopramide, 302 received placebo, and 806 received other active drugs. Metoclopramide was effective in reducing headache outcomes even for 24 h. The intravenous route was the most chosen route in the included studies and showed significant positive results regarding headache outcomes; however, the best route whether intramuscular, intravenous, or suppository was not compared in the previous studies. Also, both 10 and 20 mg doses of metoclopramide were effective in improving headache outcomes; however, there was no direct comparison between both doses and the 10 mg dose was the most frequently used dosage. In NMA of headache change after 30 min or 1 h, metoclopramide effect came after granisetron, ketorolac, chlorpromazine, and Dexketoprofen trometamol. Only granisetron's effect was significantly higher than metoclopramide's effect which was only significantly higher than placebo and sumatriptan. In headache-free symptoms, only prochlorperazine was non-significantly higher than metoclopramide which was higher than other medications and showed significantly higher effects only with placebo. In rescue medication, metoclopramide's effect was only non-significantly lower than prochlorperazine and chlorpromazine while its effect was higher than other drugs and showed higher significant effects only than placebo and valproate. In the recurrence rate, studies showed no significant difference between metoclopramide and other drugs. Metoclopramide significantly decreased nausea more than the placebo. Regarding side effects, metoclopramide showed a lower incidence of mild side effects than pethidine and chlorpromazine and showed a higher incidence of mild side effects than placebo, dexamethasone, and ketorolac. The reported extrapyramidal symptoms with metoclopramide were dystonia or akathisia.
CONCLUSION
A dose of 10 mg IV Metoclopramide was effective in relieving migraine attacks with minimal side effects. Compared to other active drugs, it only showed a lower significant effect compared with granisetron regarding headache change while it showed significantly higher effects only with placebo in both rescue medication needs and headache-free symptoms and valproate in only rescue medication need. Also, it significantly decreased headache scores more than placebo and sumatriptan. However, more studies are needed to support our results.
Topics: Humans; Metoclopramide; Sumatriptan; Network Meta-Analysis; Prochlorperazine; Chlorpromazine; Granisetron; Valproic Acid; Ketorolac; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Migraine Disorders; Nausea; Headache
PubMed: 37291500
DOI: 10.1186/s12883-023-03259-7 -
Daru : Journal of Faculty of Pharmacy,... Dec 2022Since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved ibrutinib to treat patients with refractory/relapsed mantle cell lymphoma (R/R MCL), it is used in clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved ibrutinib to treat patients with refractory/relapsed mantle cell lymphoma (R/R MCL), it is used in clinical trials, whether as a single agent or in combination with other chemotherapy agents. The efficacy and safety of ibrutinib administration alone or in combinations have not been studied systematically. This study systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib-containing regimens for the treatment of patients with MCL.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. Then, a team of independent reviewers selected relevant studies and extracted the data.
RESULTS
From a total of 1,436 studies, 12 trials were eligible. The overall response rates (ORRs) of patients with R/R MCL receiving single-agent ibrutinib ranged between 62.7% to 93.8%, and the ORRs of ibrutinib combinations ranged from 74 to 88%. In patients with newly diagnosed MCL receiving ibrutinib and rituximab, ORR ranged from 84 to 100%. The highest progression-free survival (PFS) was reported in patients receiving ibrutinib and rituximab (43 months). The meta-analysis performed on adverse events (AEs) demonstrated that single-agent ibrutinib had a high risk of bleeding, nausea, and diarrhea.
CONCLUSION
Single-agent ibrutinib showed acceptable efficacy and safety in the treatment of patients with MCL. Moreover, combining ibrutinib with other agents such as rituximab, venetoclax, and ublituximab can increase its efficacy and reduce chemotherapy-induced resistance in most cases; however, in the case of combination therapy, patients need to be monitored more strictly in terms of AEs. In our review, the ibrutinib and rituximab combination showed promising results in patients with R/R MCL. Also, this combination showed favorable efficacy and safety in patients with newly diagnosed untreated MCL, making it a great candidate to be studied more in large and well-designed trials.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Lymphoma, Mantle-Cell; Rituximab; Pyrimidines; Pyrazoles
PubMed: 36057010
DOI: 10.1007/s40199-022-00444-w -
Journal For Immunotherapy of Cancer Jan 2024Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment has become an important therapeutic option for various cancer types. Although the treatment is effective, ICI can...
Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment has become an important therapeutic option for various cancer types. Although the treatment is effective, ICI can overstimulate the patient's immune system, leading to potentially severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including hepatitis, colitis, pneumonitis and myocarditis. The initial mainstay of treatments includes the administration of corticosteroids. There is little evidence how to treat steroid-resistant (sr) irAEs. It is mainly based on small case series or single case reports. This systematic review summarizes available evidence about sr-irAEs. We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed. Additionally, we included European Society for Medical Oncology, Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Society of Clinical Oncology Guidelines for irAEs in our assessment. The study population of all selected publications had to include patients with cancer who developed hepatitis, colitis, pneumonitis or myocarditis during or after an immunotherapy treatment and for whom corticosteroid therapy was not sufficient. Our literature search was not restricted to any specific cancer diagnosis. Case reports were also included. There is limited data regarding life-threatening sr-irAEs of colon/liver/lung/heart and the majority of publications are single case reports. Most publications investigated sr colitis (n=26), followed by hepatitis (n=21), pneumonitis (n=17) and myocarditis (n=15). There is most data for mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) to treat sr hepatitis and for infliximab, followed by vedolizumab, to treat sr colitis. Regarding sr pneumonitis there is most data for MMF and intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) while data regarding infliximab are conflicting. In sr myocarditis, most evidence is available for the use of abatacept or anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) (both with or without MMF) or ruxolitinib with abatacept. This review highlights the need for prompt recognition and treatment of sr hepatitis, colitis, pneumonitis and myocarditis. Guideline recommendations for sr situations are not defined precisely. Based on our search, we recommend-as first line treatment-(1) MMF for sr hepatitis, (2) infliximab for sr colitis, followed by vedolizumab, (3) MMF and IVIG for sr pneumonitis and (4) abatacept or ATG (both with or without MMF) or ruxolitinib with abatacept for sr myocarditis. These additional immunosuppressive agents should be initiated promptly if there is no sufficient response to corticosteroids within 3 days.
Topics: Humans; Abatacept; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Colitis; Hepatitis; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Infliximab; Mycophenolic Acid; Myocarditis; Neoplasms; Nitriles; Pneumonia; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines
PubMed: 38233099
DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2023-007409 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths. Presently, there is no cure for rheumatoid arthritis and treatment focuses on managing symptoms such as pain, stiffness and mobility, with the aim of achieving stable remission and improving mobility. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used for treatment of people with rheumatoid arthritis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of celecoxib in people with rheumatoid arthritis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization trials portal) to May 18, 2017. We also searched the reference and citation lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral celecoxib (200 mg and 400 mg daily) versus no intervention, placebo or a traditional NSAID (tNSAID) in people with confirmed rheumatoid arthritis, of any age and either sex. We excluded studies with fewer than 50 participants in each arm or had durations of fewer than four weeks treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs with durations of 4 to 24 weeks, published between 1998 and 2014 that involved a total of 3988 adults (mean age = 54 years), most of whom were women (73%). Participants had rheumatoid arthritis for an average of 9.2 years. All studies were assessed at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Overall, evidence was assessed as moderate-to-low quality. Five studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Celecoxib versus placeboWe included two studies (N = 873) in which participants received 200 mg daily or 400 mg daily or placebo. Participants who received celecoxib showed significant clinical improvement compared with those receiving placebo (15% absolute improvement; 95% CI 7% to 25%; RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.86; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 7, 95% CI 5 to 13; 2 studies, 873 participants; moderate to low quality evidence).Participants who received celecoxib reported less pain than placebo-treated people (11% absolute improvement; 95% CI 8% to 14%; NNTB = 4, 95% CI 3 to 6; 1 study, 706 participants) but results were inconclusive for improvement in physical function (MD -0.10, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.10; 1 study, 706 participants).In the celecoxib group, 15/293 participants developed ulcers, compared with 4/99 in the placebo group (Peto OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.63; 1 study, 392 participants; low quality evidence). Nine (of 475) participants in the celecoxib group developed short-term serious adverse events, compared with five (of 231) in the placebo group (Peto OR 0.87 (0.28 to 2.69; 1 study, 706 participants; low quality evidence).There were fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (163/475) compared with placebo (130/231) (22% absolute change; 95% CI 16% to 27%; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72; 1 study, 706 participants).Cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke) were not reported. However, regulatory agencies warn of increased cardiovascular event risk associated with celecoxib. Celecoxib versus tNSAIDsSeven studies (N = 2930) compared celecoxib and tNSAIDs (amtolmetin guacyl, diclofenac, ibuprofen, meloxicam, nabumetone, naproxen, pelubiprofen); one study included comparisons of both placebo and tNSAIDs (N = 1149).There was a small improvement, which may not be clinically significant, in numbers of participants achieving ACR20 criteria response in the celecoxib group compared to tNSAIDs (4% absolute improvement; 95% CI 0% less improvement to 8% more improvement; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.23; 4 studies, 1981 participants). There was a lack of evidence of difference between participants in the celecoxib and tNSAID groups in terms of pain or physical function. Results were assessed at moderate-to-low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency).People who received celecoxib had a lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers ≥ 3 mm (34/870) compared with those who received tNSAIDs (116/698). This corresponded to 12% absolute change (95% CI 11% to 13%; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.32; 5 studies, 1568 participants; moderate quality evidence). There were 7% fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (95% CI 4% to 9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.86; 6 studies, 2639 participants).Results were inconclusive for short-term serious adverse events and cardiovascular events (low quality evidence). There were 17/918 serious adverse events in people taking celecoxib compared to 42/1236 among people who received placebo (Peto OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.28; 5 studies, 2154 participants). Cardiovascular events were reported in both celecoxib and placebo groups in one study (149 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Celecoxib may improve clinical symptoms, alleviate pain and contribute to little or no difference in physical function compared with placebo. Celecoxib was associated with fewer numbers of participant withdrawals. Results for incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and short-term serious adverse events were uncertain; however, there were few reported events for either.Celecoxib may slightly improve clinical symptoms compared with tNSAIDs. Results for reduced pain and improved physical function were uncertain. Particpants taking celecoxib had lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and there were fewer withdrawals from trials. Results for cardiovascular events and short-term serious adverse events were also uncertain.Uncertainty about the rate of cardiovascular events between celecoxib and tNSAIDs could be due to risk of bias; another factor is that these were small, short-term trials. It has been reported previously that both celecoxib and tNSAIDs increase cardiovascular event rates. Our confidence in results about harms is therefore low. Larger head-to-head clinical trials comparing celecoxib to other tNSAIDs is needed to better inform clinical practice.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Celecoxib; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomach Ulcer; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28597983
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012095.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2014The original authors of this review are unable to update it. The Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group (PaPaS) is seeking new authors to update and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The original authors of this review are unable to update it. The Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group (PaPaS) is seeking new authors to update and split the review into two separate reviews on migraine and tension‐type headache. If you are interested, please contact the Managing Editor of PaPaS (contact details provided under 'Contact Person'). At July 2014, this review has been withdrawn. This review is out of date although it is correct as of the date of publication. The latest version is available in the ‘Other versions’ tab on The Cochrane Library, and may still be useful to readers. The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Dipyrone; Headache Disorders, Primary; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25019294
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004842.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021This is the third update of this review, first published in July 2009. All major guidelines on treatment of hypertension recommend weight loss; anti-obesity drugs may be... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This is the third update of this review, first published in July 2009. All major guidelines on treatment of hypertension recommend weight loss; anti-obesity drugs may be able to help in this respect.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objectives: To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically-induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and adverse events (including total serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, and total non-serious adverse events).. Secondary objectives: To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically-induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on change from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and on body weight reduction.
SEARCH METHODS
For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to March 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The searches had no language restrictions. We contacted authors of relevant papers about further published and unpublished work.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of at least 24 weeks' duration in adults with hypertension that compared approved long-term weight-loss medications to placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, and extracted data. Where appropriate and in the absence of significant heterogeneity between studies (P > 0.1), we pooled studies using a fixed-effect meta-analysis. When heterogeneity was present, we used the random-effects method and investigated the cause of the heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
This third update of the review added one new trial, investigating the combination of naltrexone/bupropion versus placebo. Two medications, which were included in the previous versions of this review (rimonabant and sibutramine) are no longer considered relevant for this update, since their marketing approval was withdrawn in 2010 and 2009, respectively. The number of included studies in this review update is therefore six (12,724 participants in total): four RCTs comparing orlistat to placebo, involving a total of 3132 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 46 to 55 years; one trial comparing phentermine/topiramate to placebo, involving 1305 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 53 years; and one trial comparing naltrexone/bupropion to placebo, involving 8283 participants with hypertension and a mean age of 62 years. We judged the risks of bias to be unclear for the trials investigating orlistat or naltrexone/bupropion. and low for the trial investigating phentermine/topiramate. Only the study of naltrexone/bupropion included cardiovascular mortality and morbidity as predefined outcomes. There were no differences in the rates of all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, major cardiovascular events, or serious adverse events between naltrexone/bupropion and placebo. The incidence of overall adverse events was significantly higher in participants treated with naltrexone/bupropion. For orlistat, the incidence of gastrointestinal side effects was consistently higher compared to placebo. The most frequent side effects with phentermine/topiramate were dry mouth and paraesthesia. After six to 12 months, orlistat reduced systolic blood pressure compared to placebo by mean difference (MD) -2.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.8 to -1.4 mm Hg; 4 trials, 2058 participants) and diastolic blood pressure by MD -2.0 mm Hg (95% CI -2.7 to -1.2 mm Hg; 4 trials, 2058 participants). After 13 months of follow-up, phentermine/topiramate decreased systolic blood pressure compared to placebo by -2.0 to -4.2 mm Hg (1 trial, 1030 participants) (depending on drug dosage), and diastolic blood pressure by -1.3 to -1.9 mm Hg (1 trial, 1030 participants) (depending on drug dosage). There was no difference in the change in systolic or diastolic blood pressure between naltrexone/bupropion and placebo (1 trial, 8283 participants). We identified no relevant studies investigating liraglutide or lorcaserin in people with hypertension.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In people with elevated blood pressure, orlistat, phentermine/topiramate and naltrexone/bupropion reduced body weight; the magnitude of the effect was greatest with phentermine/topiramate. In the same trials, orlistat and phentermine/topiramate, but not naltrexone/bupropion, reduced blood pressure. One RCT of naltrexone/bupropion versus placebo showed no differences in all-cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality or morbidity after two years. The European Medicines Agency refused marketing authorisation for phentermine/topiramate due to safety concerns, while for lorcaserin the application for European marketing authorisation was withdrawn due to a negative overall benefit/risk balance. In 2020 lorcaserin was also withdrawn from the US market. Two other medications (rimonabant and sibutramine) had already been withdrawn from the market in 2009 and 2010, respectively.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Obesity Agents; Appetite Depressants; Bias; Blood Pressure; Body Weight; Bupropion; Diet, Reducing; Drug Combinations; Female; Fructose; Humans; Hypertension; Lactones; Male; Middle Aged; Naltrexone; Orlistat; Phentermine; Piperidines; Pyrazoles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Safety-Based Drug Withdrawals; Time; Topiramate
PubMed: 33454957
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007654.pub5 -
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and... Dec 2023Cancer cachexia (CC) is a multifactorial syndrome driven by inflammation, defined by ongoing loss of skeletal muscle mass (with or without loss of fat mass) that cannot... (Review)
Review
Cancer cachexia (CC) is a multifactorial syndrome driven by inflammation, defined by ongoing loss of skeletal muscle mass (with or without loss of fat mass) that cannot be fully reversed by conventional nutritional support. CC leads to progressive functional impairment, with its clinical management complicated and limited therapeutic options available. The objective of this review was to assess the efficacy and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on patient-centred outcomes in patients with CC. In 2013, two systematic reviews concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend NSAIDs for clinical management of CC outside of clinical trials. However, clinical trials of multi-component CC interventions have included NSAIDs as an intervention component, so an up-to-date assessment of the evidence for NSAIDs in the treatment of CC is warranted. Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL) and three trial registers (clinicaltrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and ISRCTN) were searched on 16 December 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any NSAID (any dose or duration) with a control arm, in adult patients with CC, reporting measures of body weight, body composition, nutrition impact symptoms, inflammation, physical function or fatigue, were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes (determined with patient involvement) were survival, changes in muscle strength, body composition, body weight and quality of life. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. Five studies were included, which investigated Indomethacin (n = 1), Ibuprofen (n = 1) and Celecoxib (n = 3). Four studies were judged to be at high risk of bias for all outcomes, with one study raising concerns for most outcomes. Considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity amongst the studies meant that meta-analysis was not appropriate. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether Indomethacin or Ibuprofen is effective or safe for use in patients with CC; RCTs with lower risk of bias are needed. Celecoxib studies indicated it was safe for use in this population at the doses tested (200-400 mg/day) but found contrasting results regarding efficacy, potentially reflecting heterogeneity amongst the studies. There is inadequate evidence to recommend any NSAID for CC. While current clinical trials for CC treatments are shifting towards multi-component interventions, further research to determine the efficacy and safety of NSAIDs alone is necessary if they are to be included in such multi-component interventions. Furthermore, the lack of data on patient-determined primary outcomes in this review highlights the need for patient involvement in clinical trials for CC.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Ibuprofen; Celecoxib; Cachexia; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Indomethacin; Inflammation; Neoplasms
PubMed: 37750475
DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.13327