-
PloS One 2024Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a complex cardiac condition characterized by hypercontractility of cardiac muscle leading to a dynamic obstruction of left... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Evaluating the efficacy and safety of mavacamten in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on qualitative assessment, biomarkers, and cardiac imaging.
BACKGROUND
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a complex cardiac condition characterized by hypercontractility of cardiac muscle leading to a dynamic obstruction of left ventricular outlet tract (LVOT). Mavacamten, a first-in-class cardiac myosin inhibitor, is increasingly being studied in randomized controlled trials. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety profile of Mavacamten compared to placebo in patients of HCM.
METHOD
We carried out a comprehensive search in PubMed, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov to analyze the efficacy and safety of mavacamten compared to placebo from 2010 to 2023. To calculate pooled odds ratio (OR) or risk ratio (RR) at 95% confidence interval (CI), the Mantel-Haenszel formula with random effect was used and Generic Inverse Variance method assessed pooled mean difference value at a 95% CI. RevMan was used for analysis. P<0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS
We analyzed five phase 3 RCTs including 609 patients to compare mavacamten with a placebo. New York Heart Association (NYHA) grade improvement and KCCQ score showed the odds ratio as 4.94 and 7.93 with p<0.00001 at random effect, respectively. Cardiac imaging which included LAVI, LVOT at rest, LVOT post valsalva, LVOT post-exercise, and reduction in LVEF showed the pooled mean differences for change as -5.29, -49.72, -57.45, -36.11, and -3.00 respectively. Changes in LVEDV and LVMI were not statistically significant. The pooled mean difference for change in NT-proBNP and Cardiac troponin-I showed 0.20 and 0.57 with p<0.00001. The efficacy was evaluated in 1) A composite score, which was defined as either 1·5 mL/kg per min or greater increase in peak oxygen consumption (pVO2) and at least one NYHA class reduction, or a 3·0 mL/kg per min or greater pVO2 increase without NYHA class worsening and 2) changes in pVO2, which was not statistically significant. Similarly, any treatment-associated emergent adverse effects (TEAE), treatment-associated serious adverse effects (TSAE), and cardiac-related adverse effects were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION
Mavacamten influences diverse facets of HCM comprehensively. Notably, our study delved into the drug's impact on the heart's structural and functional aspects, providing insights that complement prior findings. Further large-scale trials are needed to evaluate the safety profile of Mavacamten.
Topics: Humans; Cardiomyopathy, Hypertrophic; Heart; Benzylamines; Biomarkers; Uracil
PubMed: 38635724
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301704 -
Medicine Sep 2015Several reports suggest that gemcitabine (GEM) plus S-1 combination (GS) is associated to prolong the survival in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer (PC). We... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Several reports suggest that gemcitabine (GEM) plus S-1 combination (GS) is associated to prolong the survival in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer (PC). We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the safety and efficacy of GS versus GEM.Summary data from randomized trials and retrospective studies were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Statistical analyses were conducted to calculate the hazard ratios (HRs) and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses based on the chemotherapy cycles were performed to explore the efficacy and toxicity for therapy. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by removing specific studies to assess the effects of study quality.Between January 2004 and August 2012, 4 RCTs and 2 retrospective studies including a total of 1025 cases were identified. The overall survival (OS) (HR: 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.96; P = 0.01) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR: 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.77; P < 0.001) for the GS arm were significantly longer than the GEM arm. The differences in objective response rate (ORR) (RR: 1.24; 95% CI, 1.17-1.33; P < 0.001) and disease control rate (DCR) were also better in the GS arm (RR: 1.37; 95% CI, 1.19-1.59; P < 0.001). Grades 3 to 4 toxicities in both the groups were similar except neutropenia and diarrhea, which were more frequent in the GS arm (P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the cycle for chemotherapy every 4 weeks has equivalent efficacy and less toxicity than regimens every 3 weeks in the GS arm.The current meta-analysis suggested that GEM significantly prolonged OS and PFS when added to S-1 combination in patients with unresectable PC. GS therapy also offers better ORR and DCR than GEM monotherapy and no unexpected toxicity was evident.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic; Deoxycytidine; Drug Combinations; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Oxonic Acid; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Survival Rate; Tegafur; Treatment Outcome; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 26334891
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001345 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Jul 2018Pancreatic cancer is one of the most fatal cancers. Cytotoxic chemotherapy remains the mainstream treatment for unresectable pancreatic cancer. This systematic review...
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Pancreatic cancer is one of the most fatal cancers. Cytotoxic chemotherapy remains the mainstream treatment for unresectable pancreatic cancer. This systematic review evaluated and compared the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes obtained from recent phase 2 and 3 clinical trials of pancreatic cancer chemotherapy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Thirty-two studies were included and compared based on chemotherapy agents or combinations used. Additionally, outcomes of first-line versus second-line chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer were compared.
RESULTS
In studies that investigated the treatments in adjuvant settings, the highest OS reported was for S-1 in patients, who received prior surgical resection (46.5 months). In neoadjuvant settings, the combination of gemcitabine, docetaxel, and capecitabine prior to the surgical resection had promising outcomes (OS of 32.5 months). In non-adjuvant settings, the highest OS reported was for the combination of temsirolimus plus bevacizumab (34.0 months). Amongst studies that investigated second-line treatment, the highest OS reported was for the combination of gemcitabine plus cisplatin (35.5 months), then temsirolimus plus bevacizumab (34.0 months).
CONCLUSIONS
There is a need to develop further strategies besides chemotherapy to improve the outcomes in pancreatic cancer treatment. Future studies should consider surgical interventions, combination chemotherapy, and individualized second-line treatment based on the prior chemotherapy.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Capecitabine; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Deoxycytidine; Disease-Free Survival; Docetaxel; Female; Humans; Male; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 30344279
DOI: 10.3390/medicina54030048 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Oct 2014Major adjuvant therapies for biliary tract cancer (BTC) include fluorouracil, gemcitabine and chemoradiation (CRT), but the optimum regimen remains inconclusive. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Major adjuvant therapies for biliary tract cancer (BTC) include fluorouracil, gemcitabine and chemoradiation (CRT), but the optimum regimen remains inconclusive.
AIM
To compare these therapies in terms of patient survival rates after resection and toxic effects.
METHODS
We searched PubMed for controlled trials comparing the above three therapies with each other or observation alone until 31 January 2014. We estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) for death and odds ratios (ORs) for toxic effects among different therapies. Subgroup analyses based on positive lymph node or resection margin were also performed.
RESULTS
Twelve eligible articles were included. Gemcitabine improved 5-year survival (HR 2.12, 95% CI, confidence interval 1.23-4.02, P = 0.01), whereas fluorouracil (HR 1.61, 95% CI 0.74-3.67) and CRT (HR 1.55, 95% CI 0.82-3.32) provided a poorer survival outcome compared with gemcitabine after 1 year. Similarly, for 5-year survival rates, although differing, CRT did not provide a significant improvement in survival (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.20-0.97) compared with gemcitabine. Fluorouracil did not appear to provide benefit over gemcitabine (HR 1.56, 95% CI 0.77-3.35). CRT was ranked highest for toxic effects including haematological (OR 5.45, 95% CI 0.01-483.85) and nonhaematological (OR 5.77, 95% CI 0.01-3807.40).
CONCLUSIONS
Chemotherapy with gemcitabine is the optimum adjuvant treatment with a balanced benefit-toxicity ratio for resected biliary tract cancer. Chemoradiation was more likely to cause toxic effects.
Topics: Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic; Biliary Tract Neoplasms; Chemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant; Deoxycytidine; Fluorouracil; Humans; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 25099956
DOI: 10.1111/apt.12900 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2016Fluphenazine is a typical antipsychotic drug from the phenothiazine group of antipsychotics. It has been commonly used in the treatment of schizophrenia, however, with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fluphenazine is a typical antipsychotic drug from the phenothiazine group of antipsychotics. It has been commonly used in the treatment of schizophrenia, however, with the advent of atypical antipsychotic medications, use has declined over the years.
OBJECTIVES
To measure the outcomes (both beneficial and harmful) of the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of oral fluphenazine versus atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Studies (25 April 2013). For the economic search, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Health Economic Database (CSzGHED) on 31 January 2014 SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fluphenazine (oral) with any other oral atypical antipsychotics.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors worked independently to inspect citations and assess the quality of the studies and to extract data. For homogeneous dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), and calculated the mean differences (MDs) for continuous data. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to rate the quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Four studies randomising a total of 202 people with schizophrenia are included. Oral fluphenazine was compared with oral amisulpride, risperidone, quetiapine and olanzapine.Comparing oral fluphenazine with amisulpride, there was no difference between groups for mental state using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) (1 RCT, n = 57, MD 5.10 95% CI -2.35 to 12.55, very low-quality evidence), nor was there any difference in numbers leaving the study early for any reason (2 RCTs, n = 98, RR 1.19 95% CI 0.63 to 2.28, very low-quality evidence). More people required concomitant anticholinergic medication in the fluphenazine group compared to amisulpride (1 RCT, n = 36, RR 7.82 95% CI 1.07 to 57.26, very low-quality evidence). No data were reported for important outcomes including relapse, changes in life skills, quality of life or cost-effectiveness.Comparing oral fluphenazine with risperidone, data showed no difference between groups for 'clinically important response' (1 RCT, n = 26, RR 0.67 95% CI 0.13 to 3.35, very low-quality evidence) nor leaving the study early due to inefficacy (1 RCT, n = 25, RR 1.08 95% CI 0.08 to 15.46, very low-quality evidence). No data were reported data for relapse; change in life skills; quality of life; extrapyramidal adverse effects; or cost-effectiveness.Once again there was no difference when oral fluphenazine was compared with quetiapine for clinically important response (1 RCT, n = 25, RR 0.62 95% CI 0.12 to 3.07, very low-quality evidence), nor leaving the study early for any reason (1 RCT, n = 25, RR 0.46 95% CI 0.05 to 4.46, very low-quality evidence). No data were reported for relapse; clinically important change in life skills; quality of life; extrapyramidal adverse effects; or cost-effectiveness.Compared to olanzapine, fluphenazine showed no superiority for clinically important response (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 1.33 95% CI 0.86 to 2.07, very low-quality evidence), in incidence of akathisia (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 3.00 95% CI 0.90 to 10.01, very low-quality evidence) or in people leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 3.00 95% CI 0.33 to 27.23, very low-quality evidence). No data were reported for relapse; change in life skills; quality of life; or cost-effectiveness.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Measures of clinical response and mental state do not highlight differences between fluphenazine and amisulpride, risperidone, quetiapine or olanzapine. Largely measures of adverse effects are also unconvincing for substantive differences between fluphenazine and the newer drugs. All included trials carry a substantial risk of bias regarding reporting of adverse effects and this bias would have favoured the newer drugs. The four small short included studies do not provide much clear information about the relative merits or disadvantages of oral fluphenazine compared with newer atypical antipsychotics.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Amisulpride; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Fluphenazine; Humans; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone; Schizophrenia; Sulpiride; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27370402
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010832.pub2 -
PloS One 2014A network meta-analysis can provide estimates of relative efficacy for treatments not directly studied in head-to-head randomized controlled trials. We estimated the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
48-week efficacy and safety of dolutegravir relative to commonly used third agents in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
A network meta-analysis can provide estimates of relative efficacy for treatments not directly studied in head-to-head randomized controlled trials. We estimated the relative efficacy and safety of dolutegravir (DTG) versus third agents currently recommended by guidelines, including ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATV/r), ritonavir-boosted darunavir (DRV/r), efavirenz (EFV), cobicistat-boosted elvitegravir (EVG/c), ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r), raltegravir (RAL), and rilpivirine (RPV), in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients.
METHODS
A systematic review of published literature was conducted to identify phase 3/4 randomized controlled clinical trials (up to August 2013) including at least one third agent of interest in combination with a backbone nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) regimen. Bayesian fixed-effect network meta-analysis models adjusting for the type of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine [TDF/FTC] or abacavir/lamivudine [ABC/3TC]) were used to evaluate week 48 efficacy (HIV-RNA suppression to <50 copies/mL and change in CD4+ cells/µL) and safety (lipid changes, adverse events, and discontinuations due to adverse events) of DTG relative to all other treatments. Sensitivity analyses assessing the impact of NRTI treatment adjustment and random-effects models were performed.
RESULTS
Thirty-one studies including 17,000 patients were combined in the analysis. Adjusting for the effect of NRTI backbone, treatment with DTG resulted in significantly higher odds of virologic suppression (HIV RNA<50 copies/mL) and increase in CD4+ cells/µL versus ATV/r, DRV/r, EFV, LPV/r, and RPV. Dolutegravir had better or equivalent changes in total cholesterol, LDL, triglycerides, and lower odds of adverse events and discontinuation due to adverse events compared to all treatments. Random-effects and unadjusted models resulted in similar conclusions.
CONCLUSION
Three clinical trials of DTG have demonstrated comparable or superior efficacy and safety to DRV, RAL, and EFV in HIV-1-infected treatment-naive patients. This network meta-analysis suggests DTG is also favorable or comparable to other commonly used third agents (ATV/r, LPV/r, RPV, and EVG/c).
Topics: Adenine; Anti-HIV Agents; Antiretroviral Therapy, Highly Active; CD4 Lymphocyte Count; Deoxycytidine; Dideoxynucleosides; Drug Combinations; Emtricitabine; HIV Infections; HIV-1; Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring; Humans; Lamivudine; Lipids; Lopinavir; Nitriles; Organophosphonates; Oxazines; Piperazines; Pyridones; Pyrimidines; Pyrrolidinones; Raltegravir Potassium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rilpivirine; Ritonavir; Tenofovir; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Viral Load
PubMed: 25188312
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105653 -
International Journal of Antimicrobial... Mar 2024This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of small-molecule antivirals for treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of small-molecule antivirals for treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
METHODS
Seven databases were searched from their inception to 01 June 2023. The risk of bias in randomised controlled trials and retrospective studies was evaluated individually using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
In total, 160 studies involving 933 409 COVID-19 patients were evaluated. Compared with placebo or standard of care, proxalutamide demonstrated remarkable efficacy in reducing mortality rates, hospitalisation rates, serious adverse events, and the need for mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, it significantly enhanced both the rate of clinical improvement and expedited the duration of clinical recovery when compared with control groups. In patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, proxalutamide exhibited the above advantages, except for mortality reduction. Triazavirin was the most effective treatment for reducing the time required for viral clearance and improving the discharge rate. Leritrelvir and VV116 were ranked first in terms of enhancing the viral clearance rate on days 7 and 14, respectively. Molnupiravir was the most effective treatment for reducing the need for oxygen support. Overall, these findings remained consistent across the various subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS
A thorough evaluation of effectiveness, applicable to both mild-to-moderate and unstratified populations, highlights the specific advantages of proxalutamide, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, triazavirin, azvudine, molnupiravir, and VV116 in combating COVID-19. Additional clinical data are required to confirm the efficacy and safety of simnotrelvir/ritonavir and leritrelvir. The safety profiles of these antivirals were deemed acceptable.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; COVID-19; Retrospective Studies; Ritonavir; Antiviral Agents; Cytidine; Hydroxylamines
PubMed: 38244811
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2024.107096 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015This is an updated version of a review first published in theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4, in 2011. Vulval intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) is a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of a review first published in theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4, in 2011. Vulval intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) is a pre-cancerous condition of the vulval skin and its incidence is increasing in women under 50 years. High-grade VIN (also called usual-type VIN (uVIN) or VIN 2/3 or high-grade vulval intraepithelial lesion) is associated with human papilloma virus (HPV) infection and may progress to vulval cancer, therefore is usually actively managed. There is no consensus on the optimal management of high-grade VIN; and the high morbidity and relapse rates associated with surgical interventions make less invasive interventions highly desirable.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of medical (non-surgical) interventions for high-grade VIN.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE and EMBASE (up to 30 March 2015). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed non-surgical interventions in women diagnosed with high-grade VIN.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used Cochrane methodology with two review authors independently abstracting data and assessing risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised data in meta-analyses using random effects methods.
MAIN RESULTS
Five trials involving 297 women with high-grade VIN (defined by trial investigators as VIN 2/3 or VIN 3 or 'high-grade' lesions) met our inclusion criteria: three trials assessed the effectiveness of topical imiquimod versus placebo; one assessed topical cidofovir versus topical imiquimod; and one assessed low- versus high-dose indole-3-carbinol in similar types of participants. Three trials were at a moderate to low risk of bias, two were at a potentially high risk of bias.Meta-analysis of the three trials comparing topical imiquimod 5% cream to placebo found that women in the active treatment group were more likely to show an overall response (complete and partial response) to treatment at five to six months compared with the placebo group (Risk Ratio (RR) 11.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.21 to 44.51; participants = 104; studies = 3; I(2) = 0%; high-quality evidence). A complete response at five to six months occurred in 36/62 (58%) and 0/42 (0%) participants in the active and placebo groups, respectively (RR 14.40, 95% CI 2.97 to 69.80; participants = 104; studies = 3; I(2) = 0%). A single trial reported 12-month follow-up, which revealed a sustained effect in overall response in favour of the active treatment arm at 12 months (RR 9.10, 95% CI 2.38 to 34.77; moderate-quality evidence), with 9/24 (38%) and 0/23 (0%) complete responses recorded in the active and placebo groups respectively. Progression to vulval cancer was also documented in this trial (one versus two participants in the active and placebo groups, respectively) and we assessed this evidence as low-quality. Only one trial reported adverse events, including erythema, erosion, pain and pruritis at the site of the lesion, which were more common in the imiquimod group. Dose reductions occurred more frequently in the active treatment group compared with the placebo group (19/47 versus 1/36 participants; RR 7.77, 95% CI 1.61 to 37.36; participants = 83; studies = 2; I(2) = 0%; high-quality evidence). Only one trial reported quality of life (QoL) and there were no significant differences between the imiquimod and placebo groups.For the imiquimod versus cidofovir trial, 180 women contributed data. The overall response at six months was similar for the imiquimod and cidofovir treatment groups with 52/91 (57%) versus 55/89 (62%) participants responding, respectively (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18). A complete response occurred in 41 women in each group (45% and 46%, respectively; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.37). Although not statistically different, total adverse events were slightly more common in the imiquimod group of this trial with slightly more discontinuations occurring in this group. Longer term response data from this trial are expected.The small trial comparing two doses of indole-3-carbinol contributed limited data. We identified five ongoing randomised trials of various interventions for VIN.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Topical imiquimod appears to be a safe and effective treatment for high-grade VIN (uVIN), even though local side-effects may necessitate dose reductions. However, longer term follow-up data are needed to corroborate the limited evidence that response to treatment is sustained, and to assess any effect on progression to vulval cancer. Available evidence suggests that topical cidofovir may be a good alternative to imiquimod; however, more evidence is needed, particularly regarding the relative effectiveness on longer term response and progression. We await the longer-term response data and the results of the five ongoing trials.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Adult; Aminoquinolines; Anticarcinogenic Agents; Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma in Situ; Cidofovir; Cytosine; Female; Humans; Imiquimod; Indoles; Organophosphonates; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vulvar Neoplasms
PubMed: 26284429
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007924.pub3 -
BMJ Open Mar 2022To summarise specific adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To summarise specific adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19.
METHODS
We searched 32 databases through 27 October 2020. We included randomised trials comparing any of the drugs of interest to placebo or standard care, or against each other. We conducted fixed-effects pairwise meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation approach.
RESULTS
We included 16 randomised trials which enrolled 8152 patients. For most interventions and outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low to low except for gastrointestinal adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine, which was moderate certainty. Compared with standard care or placebo, low certainty evidence suggests that remdesivir may not have an important effect on acute kidney injury (risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 21 more) or cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 12 fewer to 19 more). Low certainty evidence suggests that hydroxychloroquine may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity (RD 10 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 more to 30 more) and cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 33 more per 1000, 95% CI 18 fewer to 84 more), whereas moderate certainty evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea (RD 106 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 175 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 62 more per 1000, 95% CI 23 more to 110 more) compared with standard care or placebo. Low certainty evidence suggests lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea (RD 168 more per 1000, 95% CI 58 more to 330 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 160 more per 1000, 95% CI 100 more to 210 more) compared with standard care or placebo.
DISCUSSION
Hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting and may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity and cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting. Remdesivir may have no important effect on risk of acute kidney injury or cognitive dysfunction/delirium. These findings provide important information to support the development of evidence-based management strategies for patients with COVID-19.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Alanine; Drug Combinations; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Lopinavir; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35236729
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048502 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Aggressive, agitated or violent behaviour due to psychosis constitutes an emergency psychiatric treatment where fast-acting interventions are required. Risperidone is a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Aggressive, agitated or violent behaviour due to psychosis constitutes an emergency psychiatric treatment where fast-acting interventions are required. Risperidone is a widely accessible antipsychotic that can be used to manage psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.
OBJECTIVES
To examine whether oral risperidone alone is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (up to April 2017); this register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rapid use of risperidone and other drugs, combinations of drugs or placebo for people exhibiting aggression or agitation (or both) thought to be due to psychosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently inspected all citations from searches, identified relevant abstracts, and independently extracted data from all included studies. For binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated mean difference (MD), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and used a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and used the GRADE approach to produce a 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
The review now contains data from nine trials (total n = 582) reporting on five comparisons. Due to risk of bias, small size of trials, indirectness of outcome measures and a paucity of investigated and reported 'pragmatic' outcomes, evidence was graded as very-low quality. None of the included studies provided useable data on our primary outcome 'tranquillisation or asleep' by 30 minutes, repeated need for tranquillisation or any economic outcomes. Data were available for our other main outcomes of agitation or aggression, needing restraint, and incidence of adverse effects.Risperidone versus haloperidol (up to 24 hours follow-up)For the outcome, specific behaviour - agitation, no clear difference was found between risperidone and haloperidol in terms of efficacy, measured as at least 50% reduction in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Psychotic Agitation Sub-score (PANSS-PAS) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.26; participants = 124; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) and no effect was observed for need to use restraints (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.21; participants = 28; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). Incidence of adverse effects was similar between treatment groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.66; participants = 124; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence).Risperidone versus olanzapineOne small trial (n = 29) reported useable data for the comparison risperidone versus olanzapine. No effect was observed for agitation measured as PANSS-PAS endpoint score at two hours (MD 2.50, 95% CI -2.46 to 7.46; very low-quality evidence); need to use restraints at four days (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.39 to 5.28; very-low quality evidence); specific movement disorders measured as Behavioural Activity Rating Scale (BARS) endpoint score at four days (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.83; very low-quality evidence).Risperidone versus quetiapineOne trial reported (n = 40) useable data for the comparison risperidone versus quetiapine. Aggression was measured using the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) endpoint score at two weeks. A clear difference, favouring quetiapine was observed (MD 1.80, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.40; very-low quality evidence). No evidence of a difference between treatment groups could be observed for incidence of akathisia after 24 hours (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 6.06; very low-quality evidence). Two participants allocated to risperidone and one allocated to quetiapine experienced myocardial ischaemia during the trial.Risperidone versus risperidone + oxcarbazepineOne trial (n = 68) measured agitation using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Excited Component.(PANSS-EC) endpoint score and found a clear difference, favouring the combination treatment at one week (MD 2.70, 95% CI 0.42 to 4.98; very low-quality evidence), but no effect was observed for global state using Clinical Global Impression - Improvement (CGI-I) endpoint score at one week (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.21; very-low quality evidence). Incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms after 24 hours was similar between treatment groups (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.14; very-low quality evidence).Risperidone versus risperidone + valproic acidTwo trials compared risperidone with a combination of risperidone plus valproic acid. No clear differences between the treatment groups were observed for aggression (MOAS endpoint score at three days: MD 1.07, 95% CI -0.20 to 2.34; participants = 54; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) or incidence of akathisia after 24 hours: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.03; participants = 122; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, results for the main outcomes show no real effect for risperidone. The only data available for use in this review are from nine under-sampled trials and the evidence available is of very low quality. This casts uncertainty on the role of risperidone in rapid tranquillisation for people with psychosis-induced aggression. High-quality pragmatic RCTs are feasible and are needed before clear recommendations can be drawn on the use of risperidone for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Aggression; Antipsychotic Agents; Carbamazepine; Humans; Oxcarbazepine; Psychomotor Agitation; Psychotic Disorders; Quetiapine Fumarate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone; Tranquilizing Agents; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 29634083
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009412.pub2