-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2019Pulmonary hypertension (PH) comprises a group of complex and heterogenous conditions, characterised by elevated pulmonary artery pressure, and which left untreated leads... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pulmonary hypertension (PH) comprises a group of complex and heterogenous conditions, characterised by elevated pulmonary artery pressure, and which left untreated leads to right-heart failure and death. PH includes World Health Organisation (WHO) Group 1 pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH); Group 2 consists of PH due to left-heart disease (PH-LHD); Group 3 comprises PH as a result of lung diseases or hypoxia, or both; Group 4 includes PH due to chronic thromboembolic occlusion of pulmonary vasculature (CTEPH), and Group 5 consists of cases of PH due to unclear and/or multifactorial mechanisms including haematological, systemic, or metabolic disorders. Phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors increase vasodilation and inhibit proliferation.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy of PDE5 inhibitors for pulmonary hypertension in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science up to 26 September 2018. We handsearched review articles, clinical trial registries, and reference lists of retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that compared any PDE5 inhibitor versus placebo, or any other PAH disease-specific therapies, for at least 12 weeks. We include separate analyses for each PH group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We imported studies identified by the search into a reference manager database. We retrieved the full-text versions of relevant studies, and two review authors independently extracted data. Primary outcomes were: change in WHO functional class, six-minute walk distance (6MWD), and mortality. Secondary outcomes were haemodynamic parameters, quality of life/health status, dyspnoea, clinical worsening (hospitalisation/intervention), and adverse events. When appropriate, we performed meta-analyses and subgroup analyses by severity of lung function, connective tissue disease diagnosis, and radiological pattern of fibrosis. We assessed the evidence using the GRADE approach and created 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 36 studies with 2999 participants (with pulmonary hypertension from all causes) in the final review. Trials were conducted for 14 weeks on average, with some as long as 12 months. Two trials specifically included children.Nineteen trials included group 1 PAH participants. PAH participants treated with PDE5 inhibitors were more likely to improve their WHO functional class (odds ratio (OR) 8.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.95 to 18.72; 4 trials, 282 participants), to walk 48 metres further in 6MWD (95% CI 40 to 56; 8 trials, 880 participants), and were 22% less likely to die over a mean duration of 14 weeks (95% CI 0.07 to 0.68; 8 trials, 1119 participants) compared to placebo (high-certainty evidence). The number needed to treat to prevent one additional death was 32 participants. There was an increased risk of adverse events with PDE5 inhibitors, especially headache (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.92; 5 trials, 848 participants), gastrointestinal upset (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.48; 5 trials, 848 participants), flushing (OR 4.12, 95% CI 1.83 to 9.26; 3 trials, 748 participants), and muscle aches and joint pains (OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.59 to 3.99; 4 trials, 792 participants).Data comparing PDE5 inhibitors to placebo whilst on other PAH-specific therapy were limited by the small number of included trials. Those PAH participants on PDE5 inhibitors plus combination therapy walked 19.66 metres further in six minutes (95% CI 9 to 30; 4 trials, 509 participants) compared to placebo (moderate-certainty evidence). There were limited trials comparing PDE5 inhibitors directly with other PAH-specific therapy (endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs)). Those on PDE5 inhibitors walked 49 metres further than on ERAs (95% CI 4 to 95; 2 trials, 36 participants) (low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in WHO functional class or mortality across both treatments.Five trials compared PDE5 inhibitors to placebo in PH secondary to left-heart disease (PH-LHD). The quality of data were low due to imprecision and inconsistency across trials. In those with PH-LHD there were reduced odds of an improvement in WHO functional class using PDE5 inhibitors compared to placebo (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.87; 3 trials, 285 participants), and those using PDE5 inhibitors walked 34 metres further compared to placebo (95% CI 23 to 46; 3 trials, 284 participants). There was no evidence of a difference in mortality. Five trials compared PDE5 inhibitors to placebo in PH secondary to lung disease/hypoxia, mostly in COPD. Data were of low quality due to imprecision of effect and inconsistency across trials. There was a small improvement of 27 metres in 6MWD using PDE5 inhibitors compared to placebo in those with PH due to lung disease. There was no evidence of worsening hypoxia using PDE5 inhibitors, although data were limited. Three studies compared PDE5 inhibitors to placebo or other PAH-specific therapy in chronic thromboembolic disease. There was no significant difference in any outcomes. Data quality was low due to imprecision of effect and heterogeneity across trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
PDE5 inhibitors appear to have clear beneficial effects in group 1 PAH. Sildenafil, tadalafil and vardenafil are all efficacious in this clinical setting, and clinicians should consider the side-effect profile for each individual when choosing which PDE5 inhibitor to prescribe.While there appears to be some benefit for the use of PDE5 inhibitors in PH-left-heart disease, it is not clear based on the mostly small, short-term studies, which type of left-heart disease stands to benefit. These data suggest possible harm in valvular heart disease. There is no clear benefit for PDE5 inhibitors in pulmonary hypertension secondary to lung disease or chronic thromboembolic disease. Further research is required into the mechanisms of pulmonary hypertension secondary to left-heart disease, and cautious consideration of which subset of these patients may benefit from PDE5 inhibitors. Future trials in PH-LHD should be sufficiently powered, with long-term follow-up, and should include invasive haemodynamic data, WHO functional class, six-minute walk distance, and clinical worsening.
Topics: Adult; Child; Endothelin Receptor Antagonists; Humans; Hypertension, Pulmonary; Numbers Needed To Treat; Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors; Placebos; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Walk Test
PubMed: 30701543
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012621.pub2 -
Gastroenterology Aug 2018We performed a meta-analysis of individual patient data from 11 randomized controlled trials comparing corticosteroids, pentoxifylline, or their combination in patients... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Corticosteroids Reduce Risk of Death Within 28 Days for Patients With Severe Alcoholic Hepatitis, Compared With Pentoxifylline or Placebo-a Meta-analysis of Individual Data From Controlled Trials.
BACKGROUND & AIMS
We performed a meta-analysis of individual patient data from 11 randomized controlled trials comparing corticosteroids, pentoxifylline, or their combination in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis. We compared the effects of the treatments on survival for 28 days or 6 months, and response to treatment based on the Lille model.
METHODS
We searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic therapy for severe alcoholic hepatitis. Our final analysis comprised 11 studies, of 2111 patients. We performed 4 meta-analyses of the effects of corticosteroids vs placebo or control, corticosteroids vs pentoxifylline, corticosteroids and pentoxifylline vs corticosteroids and placebo or control, and pentoxifylline vs placebo. In each meta-analysis, the effect of treatment on the primary outcome (overall survival at 28 days, defined as the period from the first day of assigned treatment to 28 days) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model, including trials as random effect.
RESULTS
Corticosteroid treatment significantly decreased risk of death within 28 days compared with controls (hazard ratio [HR] 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48-0.86) or to pentoxifylline (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.43-0.95). In multiple-imputation and complete case analyses, the effect of corticosteroids compared with controls remained significant. When we compared corticosteroids vs pentoxifylline, the corticosteroid effect remained significant in the complete case analysis (HR 0.66; P = .04) but not in multiple-imputation analysis (HR 0.71; P = .08). There was no difference in 28-day mortality when patients were given a combination of corticosteroids and pentoxifylline vs corticosteroids alone or between patients given pentoxifylline vs control. In our analysis of secondary outcomes, we found no significant differences in 6-month mortality when any treatments or controls were compared. Corticosteroids were significantly associated with increased response to therapy compared with controls (relative risk 1.24; 95% CI 1.10-1.41) or pentoxifylline (relative risk 1.43; 95% CI 1.20-1.68). We found no difference in response to therapy between patients given a combination of corticosteroids and pentoxifylline vs corticosteroids alone or pentoxifylline vs controls.
CONCLUSIONS
In a meta-analysis of 4 controlled trials, we found corticosteroid use to reduce risk of death within 28 days of treatment, but not in the following 6 months. This loss of efficacy over time indicates a need for new therapeutic strategies to improve medium-term outcomes.
Topics: Drug Therapy, Combination; Glucocorticoids; Hepatitis, Alcoholic; Humans; Pentoxifylline; Placebos; Prednisolone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Survival Analysis; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29738698
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.05.011 -
Gastroenterology Apr 2020Increased levels of galectin 3 have been associated with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and contribute to toxin-induced liver fibrosis in mice. GR-MD-02... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Increased levels of galectin 3 have been associated with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and contribute to toxin-induced liver fibrosis in mice. GR-MD-02 (belapectin) is an inhibitor of galectin 3 that reduces liver fibrosis and portal hypertension in rats and was safe and well tolerated in phase 1 studies. We performed a phase 2b, randomized trial of the safety and efficacy of GR-MD-02 in patients with NASH, cirrhosis, and portal hypertension.
METHODS
Patients with NASH, cirrhosis, and portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient [HVPG] ≥ 6 mm Hg) from 36 centers were randomly assigned, in a double-blind manner, to groups that received biweekly infusions of belapectin 2 mg/kg (n = 54), 8 mg/kg (n = 54), or placebo (n = 54) for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in HVPG (Δ HVPG) at the end of the 52-week period compared with baseline. Secondary endpoints included changes in liver histology and development of liver-related outcomes.
RESULTS
We found no significant difference in ΔHVPG between the 2 mg/kg belapectin group and placebo group (-0.28 mm HG vs 0.10 mm HG, P = 1.0) or between the 8 mg/kg belapectin and placebo group (-0.25 mm HG vs 0.10 mm HG, P = 1.0). Belapectin had no significant effect on fibrosis or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score, and liver-related outcomes did not differ significantly among groups. In an analysis of a subgroup of patients without esophageal varices at baseline (n = 81), 2 mg/kg belapectin was associated with a reduction in HVPG at 52 weeks compared with baseline (P = .02) and reduced development of new varices (P = .03). Belapectin (2 mg/kg) was well tolerated and produced no safety signals.
CONCLUSIONS
In a phase 2b study of 162 patients with NASH, cirrhosis, and portal hypertension, 1 year of biweekly infusion of belapectin was safe but not associated with significant reduction in HVPG or fibrosis compared with placebo. However, in a subgroup analysis of patients without esophageal varices, 2 mg/kg belapectin did reduce HVPG and development of varices. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02462967.
Topics: Aged; Biopsy; Blood Proteins; Double-Blind Method; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Galectin 3; Galectins; Humans; Hypertension, Portal; Infusions, Intravenous; Liver; Liver Cirrhosis; Male; Middle Aged; Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; Pectins; Placebos; Portal Pressure; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31812510
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.11.296 -
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology... Jan 2022Hypoparathyroidism is characterized by insufficient levels of parathyroid hormone (PTH). TransCon PTH is an investigational long-acting prodrug of PTH(1-34) for the... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
CONTEXT
Hypoparathyroidism is characterized by insufficient levels of parathyroid hormone (PTH). TransCon PTH is an investigational long-acting prodrug of PTH(1-34) for the treatment of hypoparathyroidism.
OBJECTIVE
This work aimed to investigate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of daily TransCon PTH in adults with hypoparathyroidism.
METHODS
This phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 4-week trial with open-label extension enrolled 59 individuals with hypoparathyroidism. Interventions included TransCon PTH 15, 18, or 21 µg PTH(1-34)/day or placebo for 4 weeks, followed by a 22-week extension during which TransCon PTH dose was titrated (6-60 µg PTH[1-34]/day).
RESULTS
By Week 26, 91% of participants treated with TransCon PTH achieved independence from standard of care (SoC, defined as active vitamin D = 0 μg/day and calcium [Ca] ≤ 500 mg/day). Mean 24-hour urine Ca (uCa) decreased from a baseline mean of 415 mg/24h to 178 mg/24h by Week 26 (n = 44) while normal serum Ca (sCa) was maintained and serum phosphate and serum calcium-phosphate product fell within the normal range. By Week 26, mean scores on the generic 36-Item Short Form Health Survey domains increased from below normal at baseline to within the normal range. The Hypoparathyroidism Patient Experience Scale symptom and impact scores improved through 26 weeks. TransCon PTH was well tolerated with no treatment-related serious or severe adverse events.
CONCLUSION
TransCon PTH enabled independence from oral active vitamin D and reduced Ca supplements (≤ 500 mg/day) for most participants, achieving normal sCa, serum phosphate, uCa, serum calcium-phosphate product, and demonstrating improved health-related quality of life. These results support TransCon PTH as a potential hormone replacement therapy for adults with hypoparathyroidism.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Calcium; Delayed-Action Preparations; Double-Blind Method; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Hormone Replacement Therapy; Humans; Hypoparathyroidism; Male; Middle Aged; Parathyroid Hormone; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Placebos; Prodrugs; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome; Vitamin D
PubMed: 34347093
DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgab577 -
Journal of Dermatological Science May 2019Two phase 3 trials with identical design, LIBERTY AD SOLO 1 (NCT02277743) and LIBERTY AD SOLO 2 (NCT02277769), confirmed dupilumab efficacy and safety versus placebo in...
Efficacy and safety of dupilumab monotherapy in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: a pooled analysis of two phase 3 randomized trials (LIBERTY AD SOLO 1 and LIBERTY AD SOLO 2).
BACKGROUND
Two phase 3 trials with identical design, LIBERTY AD SOLO 1 (NCT02277743) and LIBERTY AD SOLO 2 (NCT02277769), confirmed dupilumab efficacy and safety versus placebo in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).
OBJECTIVES
To report a pooled analysis of these trials to further explore dupilumab's effects on AD clinical parameters, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), symptoms of anxiety/depression, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and safety.
METHODS
A pooled analysis of two 16-week phase 3 studies in adults with moderate-to-severe AD (N = 1379) inadequately controlled with/inadvisable for topical medications, randomized to dupilumab 300 mg once weekly (qw), every 2 weeks (q2w), or placebo.
RESULTS
Dupilumab significantly improved all pre-specified efficacy endpoints versus placebo (P < 0.0001), including clinical severity outcomes and PROs, symptoms of anxiety/depression, and HRQoL, consistent with previously published results. In post-hoc analyses, among patients reporting at least some baseline pain/discomfort on the EuroQoL-5D, no pain/discomfort at Week 16 was reported by 43%/46%/14% of dupilumab qw/q2w/placebo-treated patients (P < 0.0001). The distribution of dupilumab-treated patients within pre-defined score categories on the Investigator's Global Assessment (0-1/2/3/4) and Eczema Area and Severity Index (≥90%/≥75-<90%/≥50-<75%/<50%) steadily and consistently improved over time versus marginal changes with placebo. Dupilumab significantly improved pruritus within 1-3 days of treatment initiation. No new safety signals were observed. Injection-site reactions and conjunctivitis were more common with dupilumab; AD exacerbation and non-herpetic skin infections more frequent with placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Dupilumab versus placebo significantly improved objective AD signs, subjective PROs, symptoms of anxiety/depression, and HRQoL, with a favorable benefit-risk profile in adults with moderate-to-severe AD.
Topics: Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Anxiety; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Conjunctivitis; Depression; Dermatitis, Atopic; Female; Humans; Injection Site Reaction; Injections, Subcutaneous; Male; Middle Aged; Pain; Pain Measurement; Placebos; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31109652
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdermsci.2019.02.002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020Pain after caesarean sections (CS) can affect the well-being of the mother and her ability with her newborn. Conventional pain-relieving strategies are often underused... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pain after caesarean sections (CS) can affect the well-being of the mother and her ability with her newborn. Conventional pain-relieving strategies are often underused because of concerns about the adverse maternal and neonatal effects. Complementary alternative therapies (CAM) may offer an alternative for post-CS pain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of CAM for post-caesarean pain.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, LILACS, PEDro, CAMbase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (6 September 2019), and checked the reference lists of retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs, comparing CAM, alone or associated with other forms of pain relief, versus other treatments or placebo or no treatment, for the treatment of post-CS pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 37 studies (3076 women) which investigated eight different CAM therapies for post-CS pain relief. There is substantial heterogeneity among the trials. We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to small numbers of women participating in the trials and to risk of bias related to lack of blinding and inadequate reporting of randomisation processes. None of the trials reported pain at six weeks after discharge. Primary outcomes were pain and adverse effects, reported per intervention below. Secondary outcomes included vital signs, rescue analgesic requirement at six weeks after discharge; all of which were poorly reported, not reported, or we are uncertain as to the effect Acupuncture or acupressure We are very uncertain if acupuncture or acupressure (versus no treatment) or acupuncture or acupressure plus analgesia (versus placebo plus analgesia) has any effect on pain because the quality of evidence is very low. Acupuncture or acupressure plus analgesia (versus analgesia) may reduce pain at 12 hours (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.64 to 0.07; 130 women; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) and 24 hours (SMD -0.63, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.26; 2 studies; 130 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether acupuncture or acupressure (versus no treatment) or acupuncture or acupressure plus analgesia (versus analgesia) has any effect on the risk of adverse effects because the quality of evidence is very low. Aromatherapy Aromatherapy plus analgesia may reduce pain when compared with placebo plus analgesia at 12 hours (mean difference (MD) -2.63 visual analogue scale (VAS), 95% CI -3.48 to -1.77; 3 studies; 360 women; low-certainty evidence) and 24 hours (MD -3.38 VAS, 95% CI -3.85 to -2.91; 1 study; 200 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if aromatherapy plus analgesia has any effect on adverse effects (anxiety) compared with placebo plus analgesia. Electromagnetic therapy Electromagnetic therapy may reduce pain compared with placebo plus analgesia at 12 hours (MD -8.00, 95% CI -11.65 to -4.35; 1 study; 72 women; low-certainty evidence) and 24 hours (MD -13.00 VAS, 95% CI -17.13 to -8.87; 1 study; 72 women; low-certainty evidence). Massage We identified six studies (651 women), five of which were quasi-RCTs, comparing massage (foot and hand) plus analgesia versus analgesia. All the evidence relating to pain, adverse effects (anxiety), vital signs and rescue analgesic requirement was very low-certainty. Music Music plus analgesia may reduce pain when compared with placebo plus analgesia at one hour (SMD -0.84, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.46; participants = 115; studies = 2; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence), 24 hours (MD -1.79, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.91; 1 study; 38 women; low-certainty evidence), and also when compared with analgesia at one hour (MD -2.11, 95% CI -3.11 to -1.10; 1 study; 38 women; low-certainty evidence) and at 24 hours (MD -2.69, 95% CI -3.67 to -1.70; 1 study; 38 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether music plus analgesia has any effect on adverse effects (anxiety), when compared with placebo plus analgesia because the quality of evidence is very low. Reiki We are uncertain if Reiki plus analgesia compared with analgesia alone has any effect on pain, adverse effects, vital signs or rescue analgesic requirement because the quality of evidence is very low (one study, 90 women). Relaxation Relaxation may reduce pain compared with standard care at 24 hours (MD -0.53 VAS, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.01; 1 study; 60 women; low-certainty evidence). Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation TENS (versus no treatment) may reduce pain at one hour (MD -2.26, 95% CI -3.35 to -1.17; 1 study; 40 women; low-certainty evidence). TENS plus analgesia (versus placebo plus analgesia) may reduce pain compared with placebo plus analgesia at one hour (SMD -1.10 VAS, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.82; 3 studies; 238 women; low-certainty evidence) and at 24 hours (MD -0.70 VAS, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.53; 108 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). TENS plus analgesia (versus placebo plus analgesia) may reduce heart rate (MD -7.00 bpm, 95% CI -7.63 to -6.37; 108 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) and respiratory rate (MD -1.10 brpm, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.94; 108 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if TENS plus analgesia (versus analgesia) has any effect on pain at six hours or 24 hours, or vital signs because the quality of evidence is very low (two studies, 92 women).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Some CAM therapies may help reduce post-CS pain for up to 24 hours. The evidence on adverse events is too uncertain to make any judgements on safety and we have no evidence about the longer-term effects on pain. Since pain control is the most relevant outcome for post-CS women and their clinicians, it is important that future studies of CAM for post-CS pain measure pain as a primary outcome, preferably as the proportion of participants with at least moderate (30%) or substantial (50%) pain relief. Measuring pain as a dichotomous variable would improve the certainty of evidence and it is easy to understand for non-specialists. Future trials also need to be large enough to detect effects on clinical outcomes; measure other important outcomes as listed lin this review, and use validated scales.
Topics: Acupressure; Acupuncture Analgesia; Adolescent; Adult; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesics; Aromatherapy; Bias; Cesarean Section; Combined Modality Therapy; Complementary Therapies; Female; Humans; Massage; Music Therapy; Pain, Postoperative; Placebos; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Relaxation Therapy; Therapeutic Touch; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Young Adult
PubMed: 32871021
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011216.pub2 -
ELife Oct 2018Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) has agonist activity at various serotonin (5-HT) and dopamine receptors. Despite the therapeutic and scientific interest in LSD,... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) has agonist activity at various serotonin (5-HT) and dopamine receptors. Despite the therapeutic and scientific interest in LSD, specific receptor contributions to its neurobiological effects remain unknown.
METHODS
We therefore conducted a double-blind, randomized, counterbalanced, cross-over studyduring which 24 healthy human participants received either (i) placebo+placebo, (ii) placebo+LSD (100 µg po), or (iii) Ketanserin, a selective 5-HT2A receptor antagonist,+LSD. We quantified resting-state functional connectivity via a data-driven global brain connectivity method and compared it to cortical gene expression maps.
RESULTS
LSD reduced associative, but concurrently increased sensory-somatomotor brain-wide and thalamic connectivity. Ketanserin fully blocked the subjective and neural LSD effects. Whole-brain spatial patterns of LSD effects matched 5-HT2A receptor cortical gene expression in humans.
CONCLUSIONS
Together, these results strongly implicate the 5-HT2A receptor in LSD’s neuropharmacology. This study therefore pinpoints the critical role of 5-HT2A in LSD’s mechanism, which informs its neurobiology and guides rational development of psychedelic-based therapeutics.
FUNDING
Funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Neuromatrix Foundation, the Usona Institute, the NIH, the NIAA, the NARSAD Independent Investigator Grant, the Yale CTSA grant, and the Slovenian Research Agency.
CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER
NCT02451072
Topics: Adult; Cross-Over Studies; Double-Blind Method; Female; Hallucinogens; Healthy Volunteers; Humans; Lysergic Acid Diethylamide; Male; Neural Pathways; Placebos; Serotonin 5-HT2 Receptor Antagonists; Thalamus; Young Adult
PubMed: 30355445
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.35082 -
Journal of the European Academy of... Jun 2016Determining treatment response for patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) can be challenging due to limitations of current disease activity evaluations.
HiSCR (Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response): a novel clinical endpoint to evaluate therapeutic outcomes in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa from the placebo-controlled portion of a phase 2 adalimumab study.
BACKGROUND
Determining treatment response for patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) can be challenging due to limitations of current disease activity evaluations.
OBJECTIVE
Evaluate the novel, validated endpoint, Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) and its utility as an outcome measure.
METHODS
Patients with baseline total abscess and inflammatory nodule count (AN count) of at least three and draining fistula count of 20 or fewer comprised the post hoc subpopulation analysed. HiSCR (at least a 50% reduction in total AN count, with no increase in abscess count, and no increase in draining fistula count relative to baseline) and HS-PGA Response [Hidradenitis Suppurativa-Physician's Global Assessment score of clear, minimal, or mild, with at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline] were used to evaluate patient response after adalimumab treatment weekly, every other week, or placebo (1 : 1 : 1).
RESULTS
The subpopulation included 132 (85.7%) patients; 70.5% women and 73.5% white. At week 16, HiSCR was achieved by 54.5% receiving weekly adalimumab, 33.3% every other week, and 25.6% placebo and HS-PGA Response was achieved by 20.5% receiving weekly adalimumab, 6.7% every other week and 2.3% placebo.
CONCLUSION
HiSCR was more responsive to change than HS-PGA Response in this subpopulation.
Topics: Adalimumab; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Female; Hidradenitis Suppurativa; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Placebos; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26201313
DOI: 10.1111/jdv.13216 -
American Journal of Respiratory and... Mar 2020Oral treprostinil improves exercise capacity in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), but the effect on clinical outcomes was unknown. To evaluate the... (Clinical Trial)
Clinical Trial
Oral treprostinil improves exercise capacity in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), but the effect on clinical outcomes was unknown. To evaluate the effect of oral treprostinil compared with placebo on time to first adjudicated clinical worsening event in participants with PAH who recently began approved oral monotherapy. In this event-driven, double-blind study, we randomly allocated 690 participants (1:1 ratio) with PAH to receive placebo or oral treprostinil extended-release tablets three times daily. Eligible participants were using approved oral monotherapy for over 30 days before randomization and had a 6-minute-walk distance 150 m or greater. The primary endpoint was the time to first adjudicated clinical worsening event: death; hospitalization due to worsening PAH; initiation of inhaled or parenteral prostacyclin therapy; disease progression; or unsatisfactory long-term clinical response. Clinical worsening occurred in 26% of the oral treprostinil group compared with 36% of placebo participants (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.97; = 0.028). Key measures of disease status, including functional class, Borg dyspnea score, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, all favored oral treprostinil treatment at Week 24 and beyond. A noninvasive risk stratification analysis demonstrated that oral treprostinil-assigned participants had a substantially higher mortality risk at baseline but achieved a lower risk profile from Study Weeks 12-60. The most common adverse events in the oral treprostinil group were headache, diarrhea, flushing, nausea, and vomiting. In participants with PAH, addition of oral treprostinil to approved oral monotherapy reduced the risk of clinical worsening.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01560624).
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antihypertensive Agents; Double-Blind Method; Epoprostenol; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Placebos; Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension; Young Adult
PubMed: 31765604
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201908-1640OC -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis and is caused by degeneration of the joint cartilage and growth of new bone, cartilage and connective tissue. It... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis and is caused by degeneration of the joint cartilage and growth of new bone, cartilage and connective tissue. It is often associated with major disability and impaired quality of life. There is currently no consensus on the best treatment to improve OA symptoms. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical benefits (pain, function, quality of life) and safety (withdrawals due to adverse effects, serious adverse effects, overall discontinuation rates) of celecoxib in osteoarthritis (OA).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers up to April 11, 2017, as well as reference and citation lists of included studies. Pharmaceutical companies and authors of published articles were contacted.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included published studies (full reports in a peer reviewed journal) of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral celecoxib versus no intervention, placebo or another traditional NSAID (tNSAID) in participants with clinically- or radiologically-confirmed primary OA of the knee or hip, or both knee and hip.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently performed data extraction, quality assessment, and compared results. Main analyses for patient-reported outcomes of pain and physical function were conducted on studies with low risk of bias for sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding of participants and personnel.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 36 trials that provided data for 17,206 adults: 9402 participants received celecoxib 200 mg/day, and 7804 were assigned to receive either tNSAIDs (N = 1869) or placebo (N = 5935). Celecoxib was compared with placebo (32 trials), naproxen (6 trials) and diclofenac (3 trials). Studies were published between 1999 and 2014. Studies included participants with knee, hip or both knee and hip OA; mean OA duration was 7.9 years. Most studies included predominantly white participants whose mean age was 62 (± 10) years; most participants were women. There were no concerns about risk of bias for performance and detection bias, but selection bias was poorly reported in most trials. Most trials had high attrition bias, and there was evidence of selective reporting in a third of the studies. Celecoxib versus placeboCompared with placebo celecoxib slightly reduced pain on a 500-point Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scale, accounting for 3% absolute improvement (95% CI 2% to 5% improvement) or 12% relative improvement (95% CI 7% to 18% improvement) (4 studies, 1622 participants). This improvement may not be clinically significant (high quality evidence).Compared with placebo celecoxib slightly improved physical function on a 1700-point WOMAC scale, accounting for 4% absolute improvement (95% CI 2% to 6% improvement), 12% relative improvement (95% CI 5% to 19% improvement) (4 studies, 1622 participants). This improvement may not be clinically significant (high quality evidence).There was no evidence of an important difference for withdrawals due to adverse events (Peto OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.15) (moderate quality evidence due to study limitations).Results were inconclusive for numbers of participants experiencing any serious AEs (SAEs) (Peto OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.36), gastro-intestinal events (Peto OR 1.91, 95% CI 0.24 to 14.90) and cardiovascular events (Peto OR 3.40, 95% CI 0.73 to 15.88) (very low quality evidence due to serious imprecision and study limitations). However, regulatory agencies have warned of increased cardiovascular events for celecoxib. Celecoxib versus tNSAIDsThere were inconclusive results regarding the effect on pain between celecoxib and tNSAIDs on a 100-point visual analogue scale (VAS), showing 5% absolute improvement (95% CI 11% improvement to 2% worse), 11% relative improvement (95% CI 26% improvement to 4% worse) (2 studies, 1180 participants, moderate quality evidence due to publication bias).Compared to a tNSAID celecoxib slightly improved physical function on a 100-point WOMAC scale, showing 6% absolute improvement (95% CI 6% to 11% improvement) and 16% relative improvement (95% CI 2% to 30% improvement). This improvement may not be clinically significant (low quality evidence due to missing data and few participants) (1 study, 264 participants).Based on low or very low quality evidence (downgraded due to missing data, high risk of bias, few events and wide confidence intervals) results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to AEs (Peto OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.27), number of participants experiencing SAEs (Peto OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.28), gastro-intestinal events (Peto OR 0.61, 0.15 to 2.43) and cardiovascular events (Peto OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.25).In comparisons of celecoxib and placebo there were no differences in pooled analyses between our main analysis with low risk of bias and all eligible studies. In comparisons of celecoxib and tNSAIDs, only one outcome showed a difference between studies at low risk of bias and all eligible studies: physical function (6% absolute improvement in low risk of bias, no difference in all eligible studies).No studies included in the main comparisons measured quality of life. Of 36 studies, 34 reported funding by drug manufacturers and in 34 studies one or more study authors were employees of the sponsor.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are highly reserved about results due to pharmaceutical industry involvement and limited data. We were unable to obtain data from three studies, which included 15,539 participants, and classified as awaiting assessment. Current evidence indicates that celecoxib is slightly better than placebo and some tNSAIDs in reducing pain and improving physical function. We are uncertain if harms differ among celecoxib and placebo or tNSAIDs due to risk of bias, low quality evidence for many outcomes, and that some study authors and Pfizer declined to provide data from completed studies with large numbers of participants. To fill the evidence gap, we need to access existing data and new, independent clinical trials to investigate benefits and harms of celecoxib versus tNSAIDs for people with osteoarthritis, with longer follow-up and more direct head-to-head comparisons with other tNSAIDs.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Celecoxib; Diclofenac; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Naproxen; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain Measurement; Placebos; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28530031
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009865.pub2