-
Psychiatry Research Oct 2023Positive allosteric modulators of γ-aminobutyric acid-A (GABA) receptors, or GABAkines, play important roles in the treatment of depression, epilepsy, insomnia, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Positive allosteric modulators of γ-aminobutyric acid-A (GABA) receptors, or GABAkines, play important roles in the treatment of depression, epilepsy, insomnia, and other disorders. Recently, some new GABAkines (zuranolone and brexanolone) have been administrated to patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) or postpartum depression (PPD) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study aims to systematically review and examine the efficacy and safety of zuranolone or brexanolone for treatment of depression. A systematic literature retrieval was conducted through August 20, 2023. RCTs evaluating the efficacy and safety of zuranolone or brexanolone for treatment of depression were included. Eight studies (nine reports) were identified in the study. The percentages of patients with PPD achieving Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) response and remission were significantly higher after brexanolone or zuranolone administration compared with placebo at different points. The percentages of patients with MDD achieving HAM-D response and remission were significantly increased during the zuranolone treatment period compared with placebo. In addition, zuranolone caused more adverse events in patients with MDD compared with placebo. Our findings support the effects of brexanolone on improving the core symptoms of depression in patients with PPD, and the potential of zuranolone in treating patients with MDD or PPD.
Topics: Female; Humans; Antidepressive Agents; Depression, Postpartum; Depression; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Depressive Disorder, Major
PubMed: 37683318
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2023.115450 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Hepatic encephalopathy describes the spectrum of neuropsychiatric changes that may complicate the course of cirrhosis and detrimentally affect outcomes. Ammonia plays a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hepatic encephalopathy describes the spectrum of neuropsychiatric changes that may complicate the course of cirrhosis and detrimentally affect outcomes. Ammonia plays a key role in its development. Rifaximin is a non-absorbable antibiotic that inhibits urease-producing bacteria and reduces absorption of dietary and bacterial ammonia.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of rifaximin versus placebo, no intervention, or non-absorbable disaccharides for: (i) the prevention of hepatic encephalopathy, and (ii) the treatment of minimal and overt hepatic encephalopathy, in people with cirrhosis, both when used alone and when combined with a non-absorbable disaccharide.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Clinical Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, the reference lists of identified papers, and relevant conference proceedings. We wrote to authors and pharmaceutical companies for information on other published, unpublished, or ongoing trials. Searches were performed to January 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised clinical trials assessing prevention or treatment of hepatic encephalopathy with rifaximin alone, or with a non-absorbable disaccharide, versus placebo/no intervention, or a non-absorbable disaccharide alone.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Six authors independently searched for studies, extracted data, and validated findings. We assessed the design, bias risk, and participant/intervention characteristics of the included studies. We assessed mortality, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, hepatic encephalopathy, non-serious adverse events, blood ammonia, Number Connection Test-A, and length of hospital stay.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 41 trials involving 4545 people with, or at risk for, developing hepatic encephalopathy. We excluded 89 trials and identified 13 ongoing studies. Some trials involved participants with more than one type of hepatic encephalopathy or more than one treatment comparison. Hepatic encephalopathy was classed as acute (13 trials), chronic (7 trials), or minimal (8 trials), or else participants were considered at risk for its development (13 trials). The control groups received placebo (12 trials), no/standard treatment (1 trial), or a non-absorbable disaccharide (14 trials). Eighteen trials assessed rifaximin plus a non-absorbable disaccharide versus a non-absorbable disaccharide alone. We classified 11 trials as at high risk of overall bias for mortality and 28 for non-mortality outcomes, mainly due to lack of blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting. Compared to placebo/no intervention, rifaximin likely has no overall effect on mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.38; P = 48, I = 0%; 13 trials, 1007 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and there may be no overall effect when compared to non-absorbable disaccharides (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.97; P = 0.97, I = 0%; 10 trials, 786 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there is likely a reduction in the overall risk of mortality when comparing rifaximin plus a non-absorbable disaccharide to a non-absorbable disaccharide alone (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.86; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 22; P = 0.001, I = 0%; 14 trials, 1946 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is likely no effect on the overall risk of serious adverse events when comparing rifaximin to placebo/no intervention (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.32; P = 68, I = 0%; 9 trials, 801 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and there may be no overall effect when compared to non-absorbable disaccharides (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.40; P = 85, I = 0%; 8 trials, 681 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there was very low-certainty evidence that use of rifaximin plus a non-absorbable disaccharide may be associated with a lower risk of serious adverse events than use of a non-absorbable disaccharide alone (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.98; P = 0.04, I = 60%; 7 trials, 1076 participants). Rifaximin likely results in an overall effect on health-related quality of life when compared to placebo/no intervention (mean difference (MD) -1.43, 95% CI -2.87 to 0.02; P = 0.05, I = 81%; 4 trials, 214 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may benefit health-related quality of life in people with minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MD -2.07, 95% CI -2.79 to -1.35; P < 0.001, I = 0%; 3 trials, 176 participants). The overall effect on health-related quality of life when comparing rifaximin to non-absorbable disaccharides is very uncertain (MD -0.33, 95% CI -1.65 to 0.98; P = 0.62, I = 0%; 2 trials, 249 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the combined rifaximin/non-absorbable disaccharide trials reported on this outcome. There is likely an overall beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy when comparing rifaximin to placebo/no intervention (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.77; NNTB = 5; P < 0.001, I = 68%; 13 trials, 1009 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This effect may be more marked in people with minimal hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.52; NNTB = 3; P < 0.001, I = 10%; 6 trials, 364 participants) and in prevention trials (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.91; NNTB = 10; P = 0.007, I = 36%; 4 trials, 474 participants). There may be little overall effect on hepatic encephalopathy when comparing rifaximin to non-absorbable disaccharides (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; P = 0.13, I = 0%; 13 trials, 921 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there may be an overall beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy when comparing rifaximin plus a non-absorbable disaccharide to a non-absorbable disaccharide alone (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.71; NNTB = 5; P < 0.001, I = 62%; 17 trials, 2332 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to placebo/no intervention, rifaximin likely improves health-related quality of life in people with minimal hepatic encephalopathy, and may improve hepatic encephalopathy, particularly in populations with minimal hepatic encephalopathy and when it is used for prevention. Rifaximin likely has no overall effect on mortality, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, or hepatic encephalopathy compared to non-absorbable disaccharides. However, when used in combination with a non-absorbable disaccharide, it likely reduces overall mortality risk, the risk of serious adverse events, improves hepatic encephalopathy, reduces the length of hospital stay, and prevents the occurrence/recurrence of hepatic encephalopathy. The certainty of evidence for these outcomes is very low to moderate; further high-quality trials are needed.
Topics: Humans; Hepatic Encephalopathy; Rifaximin; Quality of Life; Ammonia; Liver Cirrhosis; Disaccharides
PubMed: 37467180
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011585.pub2 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023The safety of different sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors remains uncertain due to the lack of head-to-head comparisons. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparative safety of different sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUNDS
The safety of different sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors remains uncertain due to the lack of head-to-head comparisons.
METHODS
This network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to compare the safety of nine SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies published in English before August 30, 2022. Published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the safety of individual SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with T2DM were included. A Bayesian NMA with random effects model was applied. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. The quality of the evidence was evaluated using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework.
RESULTS
Nine SGLT-2 inhibitors were evaluated in 113 RCTs (12 registries) involving 105,293 adult patients. Reproductive tract infections (RTIs) were reported in 1,967 (4.51%) and 276 (1.01%) patients in the SGLT-2 inhibitor and placebo groups, respectively. Furthermore, pollakiuria was reported in 233 (2.66%) and 45 (0.84%) patients, respectively. Compared to placebo, a significantly higher risk of RTIs was observed with canagliflozin, ertugliflozin, empagliflozin, remogliflozin, dapagliflozin, and sotagliflozin, but not with luseogliflozin and ipragliflozin, regardless of gender. An increased risk of pollakiuria was observed with dapagliflozin [odds ratio (OR) 10.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60-157.94) and empagliflozin (OR 5.81, 95%CI 1.79-32.97). Remogliflozin (OR 6.45, 95%CI 2.18-27.79) and dapagliflozin (OR 1.33, 95%CI 1.10-1.62) were associated with an increased risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs). Instead, the included SGLT-2 inhibitors had a protective effect against acute kidney injury (AKI). No significant differences were found for hypovolemia, renal impairment or failure, fracture, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), amputation, and severe hypoglycemia between the SGLT-2 inhibitor and the placebo groups.
CONCLUSION
In patients with T2DM, dapagliflozin was associated with an increased risk of RTIs, pollakiuria, and UTIs. Empagliflozin increased the risk of RTIs and pollakiuria. Remogliflozin increased the risk of UTIs. None of the SGLT-2 inhibitors showed a significant difference from the placebo for hypovolemia, renal impairment or failure, fracture, DKA, amputation, and severe hypoglycemia. The findings guide the selection of SGLT-2 inhibitors for patients with T2DM based on the patient's profiles to maximize safety.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42022334644.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetic Ketoacidosis; Fractures, Bone; Hypoglycemia; Hypovolemia; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors
PubMed: 37701900
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1238399 -
The British Journal of Dermatology Sep 2023On the basis of safety data for patients with inflammatory rheumatism or inflammatory bowel disease, treatment with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (JAKi) has been linked... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
On the basis of safety data for patients with inflammatory rheumatism or inflammatory bowel disease, treatment with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (JAKi) has been linked to the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). However, these inflammatory diseases are proatherogenic; in contrast, patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) do not usually have a high cardiovascular (CV) comorbidity burden.
OBJECTIVES
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of MACE in patients with AD treated with JAKi.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar from their inception to 2 September 2022. Cohort studies, randomized controlled trials and pooled safety analyses providing CV safety data on patients taking JAKi for AD were selected. We included patients aged ≥ 12 years. We built a 'controlled-period' cohort (n = 9309; 6000 exposed to JAKi and 3309 exposed to comparators) and an 'all-JAKi' cohort (n = 9118 patients exposed to a JAKi in any of the included studies). The primary outcome was a composite of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), ischaemic stroke and CV death. The broader secondary MACE outcome encompassed ACS, stroke (whether ischaemic or haemorrhagic), transient ischaemic attack and CV death. The frequency of primary and secondary MACE was assessed in both cohorts. A fixed-effects meta-analysis using the Peto method was used to calculate the odds ratio (OR) for MACE in the 'controlled-period' cohort. Evaluation of the risk of bias was done using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (version 2). Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
Eight per cent of the records identified initially met the selection criteria, corresponding to 23 records included in the 'all-JAKi' cohort. Patients had been exposed to baricitinib, upadacitinib, abrocitinib, ivarmacitinib, placebo or dupilumab. Four primary events (three with JAKi and one with placebo) and five secondary events (four with JAKi and one with placebo) occurred among 9309 patients in the 'controlled-period' cohort (MACE frequency 0.04% and 0.05%, respectively). Eight primary events and 13 secondary events occurred among 9118 patients in the 'all-JAKi' cohort (MACE frequency 0.08% and 0.14%, respectively). The OR for primary MACE in patients with AD treated with JAKi vs. placebo or dupilumab was 1.35 (95% confidence interval 0.15-12.21; I2 = 12%, very low certainty of evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
Our review highlights rare cases of MACE among JAKi users for AD. JAKi may have little-to-no effect on the occurrence of MACE in patients with AD vs. comparators, but the evidence is uncertain. Real-life long-term population-level safety studies are needed.
Topics: Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Dermatitis, Atopic; Brain Ischemia; Stroke; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
PubMed: 37410552
DOI: 10.1093/bjd/ljad229 -
Nutrition Reviews Jan 2024Despite recent advances in antidepressants in treating major depression (MDD), their usage is marred by adverse effects and social stigmas. Probiotics may be an...
CONTEXT
Despite recent advances in antidepressants in treating major depression (MDD), their usage is marred by adverse effects and social stigmas. Probiotics may be an efficacious adjunct or standalone treatment, potentially circumventing the aforementioned issues with antidepressants. However, there is a lack of head-to-head clinical trials between these 2 interventions.
OBJECTIVE
A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and acceptability of these 2 interventions in treating MDD.
DATA SOURCES
Six databases and registry platforms for the clinical trial were systematically searched to identify the eligible double-blinded, randomized controlled trials published between 2015 and 2022.
DATA EXACTION
Two authors selected independently the placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants and microbiota-targeted interventions (prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics) used for the treatment of MDD in adults (≥18 years old). Standardized mean differences (SMDs) of depressive symptom scores from individual trials were pooled for network meta-analysis (PROSPERO no. CRD42020222305).
RESULTS
Forty-two eligible trials covering 22 interventions were identified, of which 16 were found to be effective in MDD treatment and the certainty of evidence was moderate to very low. When all trials were considered, compared with placebo, SMDs of interventions ranged from -0.16 (95% credible interval: -0.30, -0.04) for venlafaxine to -0.81 (-1.06, -0.52) for escitalopram. Probiotics were superior to brexpiprazole (SMD [95% credible interval]: -0.42 [-0.68, -0.17]), cariprazine (-0.44 [-0.69, -0.24]), citalopram (-0.37 [-0.66, -0.07]), duloxetine (-0.26, [-0.51, -0.04]), desvenlafaxine (-0.38 [-0.63, -0.14]), ketamine (-0.32 [-0.66, -0.01]), venlafaxine (-0.47 [-0.73, -0.23]), vilazodone (-0.37 [-0.61, -0.12]), vortioxetine (-0.39 [-0.63, -0.15]), and placebo (-0.62 [-0.86, -0.42]), and were noninferior to other antidepressants. In addition, probiotics ranked the second highest in the treatment hierarchy after escitalopram. Long-term treatment (≥8 weeks) using probiotics showed the same tolerability as antidepressants.
CONCLUSION
Probiotics, compared with antidepressants and placebo, may be efficacious as an adjunct or standalone therapy for treating MDD.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020222305.
PubMed: 38219239
DOI: 10.1093/nutrit/nuad171 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2023A detailed summary and meta-analysis of the dose-related effect of pravastatin on lipids is not available. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A detailed summary and meta-analysis of the dose-related effect of pravastatin on lipids is not available.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective To assess the pharmacology of pravastatin by characterizing the dose-related effect and variability of the effect of pravastatin on the surrogate marker: low-density lipoprotein (LDL cholesterol). The effect of pravastatin on morbidity and mortality is not the objective of this systematic review. Secondary objectives • To assess the dose-related effect and variability of effect of pravastatin on the following surrogate markers: total cholesterol; high-density lipoprotein (HDL cholesterol); and triglycerides. • To assess the effect of pravastatin on withdrawals due to adverse effects.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to September 2021: CENTRAL (2021, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Bireme LILACS, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of pravastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included, and extracted data. We entered lipid data from placebo-controlled trials into Review Manager 5 as continuous data and withdrawal due to adverse effects (WDAEs) data as dichotomous data. We searched for WDAEs information from all trials. We assessed all trials using Cochrane's risk of bias tool under the categories of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential biases.
MAIN RESULTS
Sixty-four RCTs evaluated the dose-related efficacy of pravastatin in 9771 participants. The participants were of any age, with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease, and pravastatin effects were studied within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Log dose-response data over the doses of 5 mg to 160 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, and a weak linear dose-related effect on blood triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of pravastatin on blood HDL cholesterol. Pravastatin 10 mg/day to 80 mg/day reduced LDL cholesterol by 21.7% to 31.9%, total cholesterol by 16.1% to 23.3%,and triglycerides by 5.8% to 20.0%. The certainty of evidence for these effects was judged to be moderate to high. For every two-fold dose increase there was a 3.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 4.6) decrease in blood LDL cholesterol. This represented a dose-response slope that was less than the other studied statins: atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, fluvastatin, pitavastatin and cerivastatin. From other systematic reviews we conducted on statins for its effect to reduce LDL cholesterol, pravastatin is similar to fluvastatin, but has a decreased effect compared to atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, pitavastatin and cerivastatin. The effect of pravastatin compared to placebo on WADES has a risk ratio (RR) of 0.81 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.03). The certainty of evidence was judged to be very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Pravastatin lowers blood total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride in a dose-dependent linear fashion. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with pravastatin because of the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 48.4% of the randomized placebo-controlled trials.
Topics: Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant; Pravastatin; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Atorvastatin; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol, HDL; Cholesterol, LDL; Fluvastatin; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
PubMed: 37721222
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013673.pub2 -
JAMA Network Open Mar 2024Antipsychotic-induced akathisia (AIA) occurs in 14% to 35% of patients treated with antipsychotics and is associated with increased suicide and decreased adherence in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Antipsychotic-induced akathisia (AIA) occurs in 14% to 35% of patients treated with antipsychotics and is associated with increased suicide and decreased adherence in patients with schizophrenia. However, no comprehensive review and network meta-analysis has been conducted to compare the efficacy of treatments for AIA.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy associated with AIA treatments.
DATA SOURCES
Three databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were systematically searched by multiple researchers for double-blind randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing active drugs for the treatment of AIA with placebo or another treatment between May 30 and June 18, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Selected studies were RCTs that compared adjunctive drugs for AIA vs placebo or adjunctive treatment in patients treated with antipsychotics fulfilling the criteria for akathisia, RCTs with sample size of 10 patients or more, only trials in which no additional drugs were administered during the study, and RCTs that used a validated akathisia score. Trials with missing data for the main outcome (akathisia score at the end points) were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data extraction and synthesis were performed, estimating standardized mean differences (SMDs) through pairwise and network meta-analysis with a random-effects model. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was the severity of akathisia measured by a validated scale at the last available end point.
RESULTS
Fifteen trials involving 492 participants compared 10 treatments with placebo. Mirtazapine (15 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -1.20; 95% CI, -1.83 to -0.58), biperiden (6 mg/d for ≥14 days; SMD, -1.01; 95% CI, -1.69 to -0.34), vitamin B6 (600-1200 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -0.92; 95% CI, -1.57 to -0.26), trazodone (50 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -0.84; 95% CI, -1.54 to -0.14), mianserin (15 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -0.81; 95% CI, -1.44 to -0.19), and propranolol (20 mg/d for ≥6 days; SMD, -0.78; 95% CI, -1.35 to -0.22) were associated with greater efficacy than placebo, with low to moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 34.6%; 95% CI, 0.0%-71.1%). Cyproheptadine, clonazepam, zolmitriptan, and valproate did not yield significant effects. Eight trials were rated as having low risk of bias; 2, moderate risk; and 5, high risk. Sensitivity analyses generally confirmed the results for all drugs except for cyproheptadine and propranolol. No association between effect sizes and psychotic severity was found.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, mirtazapine, biperiden, and vitamin B6 were associated with the greatest efficacy for AIA, with vitamin B6 having the best efficacy and tolerance profile. Trazodone, mianserin, and propranolol appeared as effective alternatives with slightly less favorable efficacy and tolerance profiles. These findings should assist prescribers in selecting an appropriate medication for treating AIA.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Biperiden; Cyproheptadine; Gallopamil; Mianserin; Mirtazapine; Network Meta-Analysis; Propranolol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Trazodone; Vitamin B 6; Akathisia, Drug-Induced
PubMed: 38451521
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.1527 -
BMJ Open Jan 2024The objective of this study is to evaluate the comparative benefits and harms of opioids and cannabis for medical use for chronic non-cancer pain. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to evaluate the comparative benefits and harms of opioids and cannabis for medical use for chronic non-cancer pain.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, Cannabis-Med, Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) from inception to March 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomised trials comparing any type of cannabis for medical use or opioids, against each other or placebo, with patient follow-up ≥4 weeks.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Paired reviewers independently extracted data. We used Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence and communicate our findings.
RESULTS
Ninety trials involving 22 028 patients were eligible for review, among which the length of follow-up ranged from 28 to 180 days. Moderate certainty evidence showed that opioids provide small improvements in pain, physical functioning and sleep quality versus placebo; low to moderate certainty evidence supported similar effects for cannabis versus placebo. Neither was more effective than placebo for role, social or emotional functioning (all high to moderate certainty evidence). Moderate certainty evidence showed there is probably little to no difference between cannabis for medical use and opioids for physical functioning (weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.47 on the 100-point 36-item Short Form Survey physical component summary score, 95% credible interval (CrI) -1.97 to 2.99), and cannabis resulted in fewer discontinuations due to adverse events versus opioids (OR 0.55, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.83). Low certainty evidence suggested little to no difference between cannabis and opioids for pain relief (WMD 0.23 cm on a 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), 95% CrI -0.06 to 0.53) or sleep quality (WMD 0.49 mm on a 100 mm VAS, 95% CrI -4.72 to 5.59).
CONCLUSIONS
Cannabis for medical use may be similarly effective and result in fewer discontinuations than opioids for chronic non-cancer pain.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020185184.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Bayes Theorem; Cannabinoid Receptor Agonists; Cannabis; Chronic Pain; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38171632
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068182 -
Complementary Therapies in Clinical... Nov 2023To understand the placebo response of acupuncture and its effect on migraine and optimize the design of future acupuncture clinical trials on migraine treatment. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To understand the placebo response of acupuncture and its effect on migraine and optimize the design of future acupuncture clinical trials on migraine treatment.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials with sham acupuncture as a control in migraine treatment were searched in four English databases from inception to September 1, 2022. The primary outcome was placebo response rate. Secondary outcomes were migraine symptoms, emotional condition, and quality of life. Factors associated with placebo response were also explored. Results were combined using risk difference (RD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with a random effects model.
RESULTS
The final analysis included 21 studies involving 1177 patients. The pooled response rate of sham acupuncture was 0.34 (RD, 95% CI 0.23-0.45, I 89.8%). The results (SMD [95% CI]) showed significant improvements in migraine symptoms (pain intensity -0.56 [-0.73 to -0.38], and episode conditions -0.55 [-0.75 to -0.35]); emotional condition (anxiety scale -0.49 [-0.90 to -0.08] and depression scale -0.21 [-0.40 to -0.03]); and quality of life on the Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (restrictive 0.78 [0.61-0.95]; preventive 0.52 [0.35-0.68]; and emotional 0.45 [0.28-0.62]) and on the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form (physical 0.48 [0.34-0.62] and mental 0.21 [0.02-0.41]). Only acupuncture treatment frequency had a significant impact on the placebo response rate (RD 0.49 vs. 0.14; p = 0.00).
CONCLUSIONS
The effect sizes for placebo response of sham acupuncture varied across migraine treatment trials. Further studies should routinely consider adjusting for a more complete set of treatment factors.
Topics: Humans; Quality of Life; Acupuncture Therapy; Migraine Disorders; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Placebo Effect; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37793307
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2023.101800 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are a novel class of drugs that have shown efficacy in treating immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). However, their safety...
Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are a novel class of drugs that have shown efficacy in treating immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). However, their safety profile in terms of herpes zoster infection remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the risk of herpes zoster associated with JAK inhibitors in patients with IMIDs. A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the safety of JAK inhibitors in patients with IMIDs including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA), psoriasis (PsO), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of herpes zoster infection. Network meta-analysis was performed to compare the risk of herpes zoster among different JAK inhibitors and placebo. A network meta-analysis was conducted using data from 47 RCTs including 24,142 patients. In patients with IMIDs, peficitinib 100 mg QD was associated with the highest risk of herpes zoster infection in patients with IMIDs, followed by baricitinib 4 mg QD and upadacitinib 30 mg QD. No difference in herpes zoster risk was found for other JAK inhibitors compared with placebo. Subgroup analysis indicated that higher incidence of herpes zoster was found in patients treated by baricitinib 4 mg QD, peficitinib 100 mg QD, and upadacitinib 30 mg QD only in patients with RA. Our study suggests that some JAK inhibitors, particularly peficitinib, baricitinib, and tofacitinib, are associated with a higher risk of herpes zoster infection in patients with IMIDs.
PubMed: 37614317
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1241954