-
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Oct 2023Ulcerative proctitis (UP) is a common highly symptomatic form of ulcerative colitis that can be difficult to treat. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ulcerative proctitis (UP) is a common highly symptomatic form of ulcerative colitis that can be difficult to treat.
AIM
To assess the efficacy of medical treatments for UP.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL on 23 November 2022 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of medical therapy for adults with UP. Primary outcomes included induction and maintenance of clinical remission. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each outcome.
RESULTS
We included 53 RCTs (n = 4096) including 46 induction studies (n = 3731) and seven maintenance studies (n = 365). First-line therapies included topical 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA), conventional corticosteroids, budesonide, and oral 5-ASA. Therapy for refractory UP included topical tacrolimus and small molecules. Topical 5-ASA was superior to placebo for induction (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.94-3.82) and maintenance of remission (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.26-3.46). Topical corticosteroids were superior to placebo for induction of remission (RR 2.83, 95% CI 1.62-4.92). Topical budesonide was superior to placebo for induction of remission (RR 2.34, 95% CI 1.44-3.81). Combination therapy with topical 5-ASA and topical corticosteroids was superior to topical monotherapy with either agent. Topical tacrolimus was superior to placebo. Etrasimod was superior to placebo for induction (RR 4.71, 95% CI 1.2-18.49) and maintenance of remission (RR 2.08, 95% CI 1.31-3.32).
CONCLUSIONS
Topical 5-ASA and corticosteroids are effective for active UP. Topical 5-ASA may be effective for maintenance of remission. Tacrolimus may be effective for induction of remission. Etrasimod may be effective for induction and for maintenance of remission. Trials should include UP to expand the evidence base for this under-represented population.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Administration, Oral; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Budesonide; Colitis, Ulcerative; Mesalamine; Proctitis; Remission Induction; Tacrolimus
PubMed: 37589498
DOI: 10.1111/apt.17666 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023Various immunosuppressive regimens have been developed for the treatment of lupus nephritis (LN). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Various immunosuppressive regimens have been developed for the treatment of lupus nephritis (LN). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of immunosuppressive regimens in adults with LN.
METHODS
We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, including conference proceedings, trial registries, and reference lists, from inception until July 10, 2022. The effects of treatment were compared and ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). The primary endpoint was total remission. The secondary endpoints were complete remission, systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index (SLEDAI), relapse, all-cause mortality, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), infection, herpes zoster, ovarian failure, myelosuppression, and cancer.
RESULTS
Sixty-two trials reported in 172 studies involving 6,936 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. The combination of tacrolimus (TAC), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and glucocorticoid (GC) provided the best result for the total remission rate (SUCRA, 86.63%) and SLEDAI (SUCRA, 91.00%), while the combination of voclosporin (VCS) , MMF and GC gave the best improvement in the complete remission rate (SUCRA, 90.71%). The combination of cyclophosphamide (CYC), MMF and GC was associated with the lowest risk of relapse (SUCRA, 85.57%) and cancer (SUCRA, 85.14%), while the combination of obinutuzumab (OTB), MMF and GC was associated with the lowest risk of all-cause mortality (SUCRA, 84.07%). Rituximab (RTX) plus MMF plus GC was associated with the lowest risk of ESRD (SUCRA, 83.11%), while the risk of infection was lowest in patients treated with azathioprine (AZA) plus CYC plus GC (SUCRA, 68.59%). TAC plus GC was associated with the lowest risk of herpes zoster (SUCRA, 87.67%) and ovarian failure (SUCRA, 73.60%). Cyclosporine (CsA) plus GC was associated with the lowest risk of myelosuppression (SUCRA, 79.50%), while AZA plus GC was associated with the highest risk of myelosuppression (SUCRA, 16.25%).
DISCUSSION
This study showed that a combination of TAC, MMF and GC was the best regimen for improving the total remission rate. The optimal regimen for specific outcomes should be highlighted for high-risk patients.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Immunosuppressive Agents; Lupus Nephritis; Network Meta-Analysis; Treatment Outcome; Cyclophosphamide; Tacrolimus; Azathioprine; Mycophenolic Acid; Glucocorticoids; Bone Marrow Diseases; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Recurrence; Herpes Zoster; Neoplasms
PubMed: 37901212
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1232244 -
A systematic review and meta-analysis of macrolides in the management of adult patients with asthma.Allergology International : Official... Jul 2024The efficacy of macrolides in the management of asthma has been studied but remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of macrolides in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of macrolides in the management of asthma has been studied but remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of macrolides in the management of adult patients with asthma.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials of macrolides used in adult patients with asthma were searched for in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases to evaluate the efficacy and safety of macrolides.
RESULTS
Seventeen reports with macrolide treatment durations ranging from 6 to 48 weeks were included. Macrolides did not reduce exacerbations requiring hospitalization, severe exacerbations, or rescue use of short-acting beta-2 agonist inhalers; improve lung function; decrease peripheral blood or sputum neutrophil counts; or decrease fractional exhaled nitric oxide compared to placebo. Macrolides statistically improved asthma control and quality of life but by less than the minimal clinically important difference. Peripheral blood eosinophil counts as well as serum and sputum eosinophilic cationic protein concentrations were significantly decreased with macrolides compared to placebo. The improvement of asthma symptoms and airway hyperresponsiveness varied by study. The safety profile of macrolides was comparable to that of placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Although macrolides have some useful clinical aspects, there is not sufficient evidence to recommend their use in the management of adult patients with asthma.
Topics: Humans; Asthma; Macrolides; Adult; Treatment Outcome; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Quality of Life
PubMed: 38296770
DOI: 10.1016/j.alit.2024.01.002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2024Leptospirosis is a global zoonotic and waterborne disease caused by pathogenic Leptospira species. Antibiotics are used as a strategy for prevention of leptospirosis, in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Leptospirosis is a global zoonotic and waterborne disease caused by pathogenic Leptospira species. Antibiotics are used as a strategy for prevention of leptospirosis, in particular in travellers and high-risk groups. However, the clinical benefits are unknown, especially when considering possible treatment-associated adverse effects. This review assesses the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in leptospirosis and is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Library (2009, Issue 3).
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylaxis for human leptospirosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified randomised clinical trials through electronic searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and other resources. We searched online clinical trial registries to identify unpublished or ongoing trials. We checked reference lists of the retrieved studies for further trials. The last date of search was 17 April 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised clinical trials of any trial design, assessing antibiotics for prevention of leptospirosis, and with no restrictions on age, sex, occupation, or comorbidity of trial participants. We looked for trials assessing antibiotics irrespective of route of administration, dosage, and schedule versus placebo or no intervention. We also included trials assessing antibiotics versus other antibiotics using these criteria, or the same antibiotic but with another dose or schedule.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed Cochrane methodology. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis regardless of the presence of an identified clinical syndrome (inclusive of asymptomatic cases), clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of the presence of laboratory confirmation, clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis confirmed by laboratory diagnosis (exclusive of asymptomatic cases), and serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were quality of life and the proportion of people with non-serious adverse events. We assessed the risk of bias of the included trials using the RoB 2 tool and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We presented dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD), with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used a random-effects model for our main analyses and the fixed-effect model for sensitivity analyses. Our primary outcome analyses included trial data at the longest follow-up.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five randomised clinical trials comprising 2593 participants that compared antibiotics (doxycycline, azithromycin, or penicillin) with placebo, or one antibiotic compared with another. Four trials assessed doxycycline with different durations, one trial assessed azithromycin, and one trial assessed penicillin. One trial had three intervention groups: doxycycline, azithromycin, and placebo. Three trials assessed pre-exposure prophylaxis, one trial assessed postexposure prophylaxis, and one did not report this clearly. Four trials recruited residents in endemic areas, and one trial recruited soldiers who experienced limited time exposure. The participants' ages in the included trials were 10 to 80 years. Follow-up ranged from one to three months. Antibiotics versus placebo Doxycycline compared with placebo may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.83; 1 trial, 782 participants; low-certainty evidence). Prophylactic antibiotics may have little to no effect on laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.26; 5 trials, 2593 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics may result in little to no difference in the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of laboratory confirmation (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.08; 4 trials, 1653 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis with laboratory confirmation (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.26; 4 trials, 1653 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics compared with placebo may increase non-serious adverse events, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 10.13, 95% CI 2.40 to 42.71; 3 trials, 1909 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One antibiotic versus another antibiotic One trial assessed doxycycline versus azithromycin but did not report mortality. Compared to azithromycin, doxycycline may have little to no effect on laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis regardless of the presence of an identified clinical syndrome (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.51 to 4.32; 1 trial, 137 participants), on the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of the presence of laboratory confirmation (RR 4.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 18.66; 1 trial, 137 participants), on the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis confirmed by laboratory diagnosis (RR 4.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 18.66; 1 trial, 137 participants), and on non-serious adverse events (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.48; 1 trial, 137 participants), but the evidence is very uncertain. The certainty of evidence for all the outcomes was very low. None of the five included trials reported serious adverse events or assessed quality of life. One study is awaiting classification. Funding Four of the five trials included statements disclosing their funding/supporting sources, and the remaining trial did not include this. Three of the four trials that disclosed their supporting sources received the supply of trial drugs directly from the same pharmaceutical company, and the remaining trial received financial support from a governmental source.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We do not know if antibiotics versus placebo or another antibiotic has little or have no effect on all-cause mortality or leptospirosis infection because the certainty of evidence is low or very low. We do not know if antibiotics versus placebo may increase the overall risk of non-serious adverse events because of very low-certainty evidence. We lack definitive rigorous data from randomised trials to support the use of antibiotics for the prophylaxis of leptospirosis infection. We lack trials reporting data on clinically relevant outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Doxycycline; Azithromycin; Quality of Life; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Penicillins; Leptospirosis
PubMed: 38483067
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014959.pub2 -
EClinicalMedicine May 2024The escalating resistance of to macrolides has become a significant global health concern, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Although...
BACKGROUND
The escalating resistance of to macrolides has become a significant global health concern, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Although tetracyclines and quinolones have been proposed as alternative therapeutic options, concerns regarding age-specific safety issues and the lack of consensus in recommendations across various national guidelines prevail. Thus, the primary objective of this study is to ascertain the most efficacious interventions for second-line treatment of . infection while considering the age-specific safety issues associated with these interventions.
METHODS
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis we searched PubMed, Embase, CNKI, and WanFang Data, from inception up to November 11th, 2023. Studies of quinolones or tetracyclines for the treatment of people with infection were collected and screened by reading published reports, with any type of study included, and no individual patient-level data requested. A systematic review and direct meta-analysis compared the efficacy of tetracyclines and quinolones regarding time to defervescence (TTD) and the rates of fever disappearance within 24 h and 48 h of antibiotic administration, for managing . infection. Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was employed to indirectly assess the relative effectiveness of different interventions in people with . infection and the safety profile of medication in paediatric patients. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023478383.
FINDINGS
The systematic review and direct meta-analysis included a total of 4 articles involving 246 patients, while the NMA encompassed 85 articles involving a substantial cohort of 7095 patients. The NMA measured the effectiveness across all ages and included 7043 patients, with a mean age of 37.80 ± 3.91 years. Of the 85 included studies, 14 (16.5%) were at low risk of bias, 71 (83.5%) were at moderate risk, and no studies were rated as having a high risk of bias. In the direct meta-analysis, no statistically significant differences were found between tetracyclines and quinolones concerning TTD (mean difference: -0.40, 95% CI: -1.43 to 0.63; = 0%), fever disappearance rate within 24 h of antibiotic administration (OR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.08-1.79; = 58%), and fever disappearance rate within 48 h of antibiotic administration (OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.30-3.98; = 59%). However, the comprehensive NMA analysis of clinical response (in 70 studies; n = 6143 patients), shortening of TTD (in 52 studies; n = 4363 patients), shortening length of cough relief or disappearance (in 39 studies; n = 3235 patients), fever disappearance rate at 48 h (in four studies; n = 418 patients) revealed that minocycline exhibited the most favourable outcomes across these various parameters, and the analysis of fever disappearance rate at 24 h (in three studies; n = 145 patients) revealed that levofloxacin may be the most effective, as indicated by the rank probabilities and surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) value. Moxifloxacin ranked second in clinical response and in shortening the length of cough relief or disappearance, and third in shortening TTD. Notably, when evaluating the occurrence of adverse reactions in paediatric patients (in four studies; n = 239 children), levofloxacin was associated with the highest SUCRA value rankings for the rate of adverse events.
INTERPRETATION
Our findings suggest that tetracyclines and quinolones may be equally effective. Based on the age of participants in the included studies, minocycline may be the most effective intervention for children over eight years of age when all preventive measures are considered, whereas moxifloxacin may benefit people under eight years of age. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, given the limited number of studies and patients included, and the heterogeneity between included studies. Based on a limited number of studies in children, levofloxacin is likely to have one of the highest rates of adverse reactions. The majority of the studies included in the NMA were from the Asian region, and more randomised controlled trials comparing different therapeutic strategies in patients with . are warranted. This comparative study provides clinical pharmacists and clinicians with important information to enable them to make informed decisions about treatment options, considering drug efficacy and safety.
FUNDING
The Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province, China.
PubMed: 38596615
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102589 -
BJOG : An International Journal of... Feb 2024A systematic review with met-analysis was performed to summarise the evidence on the effect of intrapartum azithromycin on maternal and neonatal infections and deaths. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
A systematic review with met-analysis was performed to summarise the evidence on the effect of intrapartum azithromycin on maternal and neonatal infections and deaths.
SEARCH STRATEGY
PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched in March 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing intrapartum single-dose of azithromycin with placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Maternal infections, maternal mortality, neonatal sepsis, neonatal mortality. We used the random-effects Mantel-Haenszel method to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We assessed risk of bias of the included studies and estimated the evidence certainty using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
After screening 410 abstracts, five studies with 44 190 women and 44 565 neonates were included. The risk of bias was low in four and had some concerns in one of the studies. The risk of endometritis was 1.5% in the azithromycin group and 2.3% in the placebo group (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55-0.75), and the evidence certainty was high. The respective risk for chorioamnionitis was 0.05% and 0.1% (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22-1.18; evidence certainty moderate). The wound infection rate was lower in the azithromycin group (1.6%) than in the placebo group (2.5%), RR 0.52 (95% CI 0.30-0.89; moderate certainty evidence). The maternal sepsis rate was 1.1% in the azithromycin group and 1.7% in the placebo group (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.56-0.77; evidence certainty high). Mortality rates did not show evidence of a difference (0.09% versus 0.08%; RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.65-2.42; moderate certainty evidence). The neonatal mortality rate was 0.7% in the azithromycin group and 0.8% in the placebo group (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76-1.16; moderate certainty evidence). The neonatal sepsis rate was 7.6% in the azithromycin group and 7.4% in the placebo group (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96-1.09; moderate certainty evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
Intrapartum administration of azithromycin to the mother reduces maternal postpartum infections, including sepsis. Impact on maternal mortality remains undecided. Azithromycin does not reduce neonatal sepsis or mortality rates.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Azithromycin; Chorioamnionitis; Neonatal Sepsis; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Sepsis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Peripartum Period
PubMed: 37691261
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.17655 -
Journal of Reproductive Immunology Dec 2023Recurrent miscarriage (RM) affects up to 2.5% of couples of reproductive age. Up to 10% of couples using assisted reproductive technology experience recurrent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Recurrent miscarriage (RM) affects up to 2.5% of couples of reproductive age. Up to 10% of couples using assisted reproductive technology experience recurrent implantation failure (RIF). Immunosuppressive drugs, such as calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs), has been proposed for RM and RIF management. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CNIs in RM and RIF treatment. We searched in the three databases. Review Manager 5.4.1 was used for statistical analysis. This review included 8 studies involving 1042 women (485 women in the CNIs group and 557 women in the control group). CNI treatment (cyclosporine [CsA] and tacrolimus [TAC]) increases live birth rate (LBR, odds ratio [OR]: 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.93-3.28, p < 0.00001) and clinical pregnancy rate (OR: 2.25; 95% CI: 1.54-4.40, p < 0.0001) and decreases miscarriage rate (OR: 0.45 95% CI: 0.32-0.63, p < 0.00001) when compared to the control. Side effects and obstetric and neonatal complications was similar in both groups. In conclusion, CNIs increased LBR in women with RM and RIF but there is a moderate risk of bias. Subgroup analysis revealed that CNIs improved LBR in women with RM with a low risk of bias. However, in women with RIF, with moderate to high risk of bias. The use of CsA and TAC, in low doses and for a short period, for managing reproductive failures in women seems to be safe, not causing serious side effects nor increasing the risk of obstetric and neonatal complications.
Topics: Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Calcineurin Inhibitors; Abortion, Habitual; Pregnancy Rate; Immunosuppressive Agents; Birth Rate; Tacrolimus
PubMed: 37813069
DOI: 10.1016/j.jri.2023.104157 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Potential benefits of rapamycin or rapalogs for treating people with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) have been shown. Currently everolimus (a rapalog) is only approved... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Potential benefits of rapamycin or rapalogs for treating people with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) have been shown. Currently everolimus (a rapalog) is only approved for TSC-associated renal angiomyolipoma and subependymal giant cell astrocytoma (SEGA), but not other manifestations of TSC. A systematic review needs to establish evidence for rapamycin or rapalogs for various manifestations in TSC. This is an updated review.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of rapamycin or rapalogs in people with TSC for decreasing tumour size and other manifestations and to assess the safety of rapamycin or rapalogs in relation to their adverse effects.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified relevant studies from the Cochrane-Central-Register-of-Controlled-Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE and ongoing trials registries with no language restrictions. We searched conference proceedings and abstract books of conferences. Date of the last searches: 15 July 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of rapamycin or rapalogs in people with TSC.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each study; a third review author verified the extracted data and risk of bias decisions. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
The current update added seven RCTs, bringing the total number to 10 RCTs (with 1008 participants aged 3 months to 65 years; 484 males). All TSC diagnoses were by consensus criteria as a minimum. In parallel studies, 645 participants received active interventions and 340 placebo. Evidence is low-to-high certainty and study quality is mixed; mostly a low risk of bias across domains, but one study had a high risk of performance bias (lack of blinding) and three studies had a high risk of attrition bias. Manufacturers of the investigational products supported eight studies. Systemic administration Six studies (703 participants) administered everolimus (rapalog) orally. More participants in the intervention arm reduced renal angiomyolipoma size by 50% (risk ratio (RR) 24.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.51 to 173.41; P = 0.001; 2 studies, 162 participants, high-certainty evidence). In the intervention arm, more participants in the intervention arm reduced SEGA tumour size by 50% (RR 27.85, 95% CI 1.74 to 444.82; P = 0.02; 1 study; 117 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) ,and reported more skin responses (RR 5.78, 95% CI 2.30 to 14.52; P = 0.0002; 2 studies; 224 participants; high-certainty evidence). In one 18-week study (366 participants), the intervention led to 25% fewer seizures (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.09; P = 0.0001) or 50% fewer seizures (RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.60; P = 0.0004); but there was no difference in numbers being seizure-free (RR 5.30, 95% CI 0.69 to 40.57; P = 0.11) (moderate-certainty evidence). One study (42 participants) showed no difference in neurocognitive, neuropsychiatry, behavioural, sensory and motor development (low-certainty evidence). Total adverse events (AEs) did not differ between groups (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.22; P = 0.16; 5 studies; 680 participants; high-certainty evidence). However, the intervention group experienced more AEs resulting in withdrawal, interruption of treatment, or reduced dose (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.58 to 4.33; P = 0.0002; 4 studies; 633 participants; high-certainty evidence and also reported more severe AEs (RR 2.35, 95% CI 0.99 to 5.58; P = 0.05; 2 studies; 413 participants; high-certainty evidence). Topical (skin) administration Four studies (305 participants) administered rapamycin topically. More participants in the intervention arm showed a response to skin lesions (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.76 to 4.18; P < 0.00001; 2 studies; 187 participants; high-certainty evidence) and more participants in the placebo arm reported a deterioration of skin lesions (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.49; 1 study; 164 participants; high-certainty evidence). More participants in the intervention arm responded to facial angiofibroma at one to three months (RR 28.74, 95% CI 1.78 to 463.19; P = 0.02) and three to six months (RR 39.39, 95% CI 2.48 to 626.00; P = 0.009; low-certainty evidence). Similar results were noted for cephalic plaques at one to three months (RR 10.93, 95% CI 0.64 to 186.08; P = 0.10) and three to six months (RR 7.38, 95% CI 1.01 to 53.83; P = 0.05; low-certainty evidence). More participants on placebo showed a deterioration of skin lesions (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.49; P < 0.0001; 1 study; 164 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The intervention arm reported a higher general improvement score (MD -1.01, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.34; P < 0.0001), but no difference specifically in the adult subgroup (MD -0.75, 95% CI -1.58 to 0.08; P = 0.08; 1 study; 36 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants in the intervention arm reported higher satisfaction than with placebo (MD -0.92, 95% CI -1.79 to -0.05; P = 0.04; 1 study; 36 participants; low-certainty evidence), although again with no difference among adults (MD -0.25, 95% CI -1.52 to 1.02; P = 0.70; 1 study; 18 participants; low-certainty evidence). Groups did not differ in change in quality of life at six months (MD 0.30, 95% CI -1.01 to 1.61; P = 0.65; 1 study; 62 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment led to a higher risk of any AE compared to placebo (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.10, 2.67; P = 0.02; 3 studies; 277 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but no difference between groups in severe AEs (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.15; P = 0.73; 1 study; 179 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Oral everolimus reduces the size of SEGA and renal angiomyolipoma by 50%, reduces seizure frequency by 25% and 50% and implements beneficial effects on skin lesions with no difference in the total number of AEs compared to placebo; however, more participants in the treatment group required a dose reduction, interruption or withdrawal and marginally more experienced serious AEs compared to placebo. Topical rapamycin increases the response to skin lesions and facial angiofibroma, an improvement score, satisfaction and the risk of any AE, but not severe adverse events. With caution regarding the risk of severe AEs, this review supports oral everolimus for renal angiomyolipoma, SEGA, seizure, and skin lesions, and topical rapamycin for facial angiofibroma.
Topics: Adult; Male; Humans; MTOR Inhibitors; Sirolimus; Everolimus; Angiofibroma; Angiomyolipoma; Tuberous Sclerosis; Astrocytoma; Kidney Neoplasms
PubMed: 37432030
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011272.pub3 -
Radiotherapy and Oncology : Journal of... Sep 2023In recent years, the treatment landscape for breast cancer has undergone significant advancements, with the introduction of several new anticancer agents. One such agent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
In recent years, the treatment landscape for breast cancer has undergone significant advancements, with the introduction of several new anticancer agents. One such agent is trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1), an antibody drug conjugate that has shown improved outcomes in both early and advanced breast cancer. However, there is currently a lack of comprehensive evidence regarding the safety profile of combining T-DM1 with radiation therapy (RT). In this study, we aim to provide a summary of the available data on the safety of combining RT with T-DM1 in both early and metastatic breast cancer settings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis project is part of the consensus recommendations by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) Guidelines Committee on integrating RT with targeted treatments for breast cancer. A thorough literature search was conducted using the PUBMED/MedLine, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify original studies focusing on the safety profile of combining T-DM1 with RT.
RESULTS
After applying eligibility criteria, nine articles were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled data from these studies revealed a high incidence of grade 3 + radionecrosis (17%), while the rates of grade 3 + radiation-related pneumonitis (<1%) and skin toxicity (1%) were found to be very low.
CONCLUSION
Although there is some concern regarding a slight increase in pneumonitis when combining T-DM1 with postoperative RT, the safety profile of this combination was deemed acceptable for locoregional treatment in non-metastatic breast cancer. However, caution is advised when irradiating intracranial sites concurrently with T-DM1. There is a pressing need for international consensus guidelines regarding the safety considerations of combining T-DM1 and RT for breast cancer.
Topics: Humans; Female; Ado-Trastuzumab Emtansine; Trastuzumab; Receptor, ErbB-2; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Maytansine; Treatment Outcome; Breast Neoplasms
PubMed: 37437610
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109805 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2024Leptospirosis is a disease transmitted from animals to humans through water, soil, or food contaminated with the urine of infected animals, caused by pathogenic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Leptospirosis is a disease transmitted from animals to humans through water, soil, or food contaminated with the urine of infected animals, caused by pathogenic Leptospira species. Antibiotics are commonly prescribed for the management of leptospirosis. Despite the widespread use of antibiotic treatment for leptospirosis, there seems to be insufficient evidence to determine its effectiveness or to recommend antibiotic use as a standard practice. This updated systematic review evaluated the available evidence regarding the use of antibiotics in treating leptospirosis, building upon a previously published Cochrane review.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of antibiotics versus placebo, no intervention, or another antibiotic for the treatment of people with leptospirosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified randomised clinical trials following standard Cochrane procedures. The date of the last search was 27 March 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised clinical trials of various designs that examined the use of antibiotics for treating leptospirosis. We did not impose any restrictions based on the age, sex, occupation, or comorbidities of the participants involved in the trials. Our search encompassed trials that evaluated antibiotics, regardless of the method of administration, dosage, and schedule, and compared them with placebo or no intervention, or compared different antibiotics. We included trials regardless of the outcomes reported.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
During the preparation of this review, we adhered to the Cochrane methodology and used Review Manager. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events (nosocomial infection). Our secondary outcomes were quality of life, proportion of people with adverse events considered non-serious, and days of hospitalisation. To assess the risk of bias of the included trials, we used the RoB 2 tool, and for evaluating the certainty of evidence we used GRADEpro GDT software. We presented dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MD), both accompanied by their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the random-effects model for all our main analyses and the fixed-effect model for sensitivity analyses. For our primary outcome analyses, we included trial data from the longest follow-up period.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified nine randomised clinical trials comprising 1019 participants. Seven trials compared two intervention groups and two trials compared three intervention groups. Amongst the trials comparing antibiotics versus placebos, four trials assessed penicillin and one trial assessed doxycycline. In the trials comparing different antibiotics, one trial evaluated doxycycline versus azithromycin, one trial assessed penicillin versus doxycycline versus cefotaxime, and one trial evaluated ceftriaxone versus penicillin. One trial assessed penicillin with chloramphenicol and no intervention. Apart from two trials that recruited military personnel stationed in endemic areas or military personnel returning from training courses in endemic areas, the remaining trials recruited people from the general population presenting to the hospital with fever in an endemic area. The participants' ages in the included trials was 13 to 92 years. The treatment duration was seven days for penicillin, doxycycline, and cephalosporins; five days for chloramphenicol; and three days for azithromycin. The follow-up durations varied across trials, with three trials not specifying their follow-up periods. Three trials were excluded from quantitative synthesis; one reported zero events for a prespecified outcome, and two did not provide data for any prespecified outcomes. Antibiotics versus placebo or no intervention The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of penicillin versus placebo on all-cause mortality (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.79; I = 8%; 3 trials, 367 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of penicillin or chloramphenicol versus placebo on adverse events considered non-serious (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.17; I = 0%; 2 trials, 162 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included trials assessed serious adverse events. Antibiotics versus another antibiotic The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of penicillin versus cephalosporin on all-cause mortality (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.47 to 4.04; I = 0%; 2 trials, 348 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or versus doxycycline (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.46; 1 trial, 168 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of cefotaxime versus doxycycline on all-cause mortality (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.78; 1 trial, 169 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of penicillin versus doxycycline on serious adverse events (nosocomial infection) (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.62; 1 trial, 168 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or versus cefotaxime (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.15 to 7.02; 1 trial, 175 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of doxycycline versus cefotaxime on serious adverse events (nosocomial infection) (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.15 to 7.02; 1 trial, 175 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of penicillin versus cefotaxime (RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.13 to 73.47; 1 trial, 175 participants; very low-certainty evidence), versus doxycycline (RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.12 to 67.66; 1 trial, 175 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or versus chloramphenicol on adverse events considered non-serious (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.15 to 3.67; 1 trial, 52 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Funding Six of the nine trials included statements disclosing their funding/supporting sources and three trials did not mention funding source. Four of the six trials mentioning sources received funds from public or governmental sources or from international charitable sources, and the remaining two, in addition to public or governmental sources, received support in the form of trial drug supply directly from pharmaceutical companies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
As the certainty of evidence is very low, we do not know if antibiotics provide little to no effect on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, or adverse events considered non-serious. There is a lack of definitive rigorous data from randomised trials to support the use of antibiotics for treating leptospirosis infection, and the absence of trials reporting data on clinically relevant outcomes further adds to this limitation.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Doxycycline; Azithromycin; Quality of Life; Chloramphenicol; Penicillins; Cephalosporins; Cefotaxime; Leptospirosis; Cross Infection
PubMed: 38483092
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014960.pub2