-
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Oct 2023Cytisine is a smoking cessation medication. This systematic review incorporates recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide an updated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cytisine is a smoking cessation medication. This systematic review incorporates recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide an updated evidence-based assessment of cytisine's efficacy and safety.
METHODS
We searched Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, for RCTs comparing cytisine to other smoking cessation treatments in adults who smoke.
PRIMARY OUTCOME
6-month biochemically verified continuous abstinence. Other outcomes: abstinence at longest follow-up, adverse events, mortality, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess evidence certainty.
RESULTS
We included 14 RCTs involving 9953 adults. Cytisine was superior to placebo (risk ratio [RR] 2.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-4.47; 5 RCTs, 4325 participants), but not varenicline (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.65-1.95; 2 RCTs, 2131 participants) for the primary outcome. Cytisine was superior to placebo (RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.64-4.70; 8 RCTs, 5762 participants) and nicotine replacement therapy [NRT] (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.12-1.73; 2 RCTs, 1511 participants), but not varenicline (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.72-1.44; 4 RCTs, 2708 participants) for abstinence at longest follow-up. Cytisine increased mostly gastrointestinal adverse events compared to placebo (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.06-1.25; 8 RCTs, 5520 participants) and NRT (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.26-1.84; 1 RCT, 1310 participants) but less adverse events compared to varenicline (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.48-0.95; 3 RCTs, 2484 participants).
CONCLUSION
Cytisine shows greater efficacy than placebo and NRT, but more adverse events. It is comparable to varenicline, with fewer adverse events. This can inform clinicians and guidelines on cytisine for smoking cessation.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Varenicline; Smoking Cessation; Nicotinic Agonists; Nicotine; Bupropion; Benzazepines; Alkaloids; Azocines; Quinolizines
PubMed: 37678096
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2023.110936 -
Clinical Cardiology Aug 2023This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of single-pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive drugs in patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. Through Searching... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of single-pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive drugs in patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. Through Searching Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science collected only randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs in people with uncontrolled essential hypertension. The search period is from the establishment of the database to July 2022. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment, and statistical analyses were performed using Review Manage 5.3 and Stata 15.1 software. This review ultimately included 32 references involving 16 273 patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that a total of 11 single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs were included, namely: Amlodipine/valsartan, Telmisartan/amlodipine, Losartan/HCTZ, Candesartan/HCTZ, Amlodipine/benazepril, Telmisartan/HCTZ, Valsartan/HCTZ, Irbesartan/amlodipine, Amlodipine/losartan, Irbesartan/HCTZ, and Perindopril/amlodipine. According to SUCRA, Irbesartan/amlodipine may rank first in reducing systolic blood pressure (SUCRA: 92.2%); Amlodipine/losartan may rank first in reducing diastolic blood pressure (SUCRA: 95.1%); Telmisartan/amlodipine may rank first in blood pressure control rates (SUCRA: 83.5%); Amlodipine/losartan probably ranks first in diastolic response rate (SUCRA: 84.5%). Based on Ranking Plot of the Network, we can conclude that single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs are superior to monotherapy, and ARB/CCB combination has better advantages than other SPC in terms of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, blood pressure control rate, and diastolic response rate. However, due to the small number of some drug studies, the lack of relevant studies has led to not being included in this study, which may impact the results, and readers should interpret the results with caution.
Topics: Humans; Antihypertensive Agents; Losartan; Hypertension; Telmisartan; Irbesartan; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Hydrochlorothiazide; Valine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Amlodipine; Valsartan; Tetrazoles; Blood Pressure; Essential Hypertension
PubMed: 37432701
DOI: 10.1002/clc.24082 -
Circulation Mar 2024Device-detected atrial fibrillation (also known as subclinical atrial fibrillation or atrial high-rate episodes) is a common finding in patients with an implanted... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Device-detected atrial fibrillation (also known as subclinical atrial fibrillation or atrial high-rate episodes) is a common finding in patients with an implanted cardiac rhythm device and is associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke. Whether oral anticoagulation is effective and safe in this patient population is unclear.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE and Embase for randomized trials comparing oral anticoagulation with antiplatelet or no antithrombotic therapy in adults with device-detected atrial fibrillation recorded by a pacemaker, implantable cardioverter defibrillator, cardiac resynchronization therapy device, or implanted cardiac monitor. We used random-effects models for meta-analysis and rated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework (GRADE). The review was preregistered (PROSPERO CRD42023463212).
RESULTS
From 785 citations, we identified 2 randomized trials with relevant clinical outcome data: NOAH-AFNET 6 (Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial High Rate Episodes; 2536 participants) evaluated edoxaban, and ARTESiA (Apixaban for the Reduction of Thrombo-Embolism in Patients With Device-Detected Sub-Clinical Atrial Fibrillation; 4012 participants) evaluated apixaban. Meta-analysis demonstrated that oral anticoagulation with these agents reduced ischemic stroke (relative risk [RR], 0.68 [95% CI, 0.50-0.92]; high-quality evidence). The results from the 2 trials were consistent (I statistic for heterogeneity=0%). Oral anticoagulation also reduced a composite of cardiovascular death, all-cause stroke, peripheral arterial embolism, myocardial infarction, or pulmonary embolism (RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.73-0.99]; I=0%; moderate-quality evidence). There was no reduction in cardiovascular death (RR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.76-1.17]; I=0%; moderate-quality evidence) or all-cause mortality (RR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.96-1.21]; I=0%; moderate-quality evidence). Oral anticoagulation increased major bleeding (RR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.05-2.50]; I²=61%; high-quality evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of the NOAH-AFNET 6 and ARTESiA trials are consistent with each other. Meta-analysis of these 2 large randomized trials provides high-quality evidence that oral anticoagulation with edoxaban or apixaban reduces the risk of stroke in patients with device-detected atrial fibrillation and increases the risk of major bleeding.
Topics: Humans; Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Embolism; Hemorrhage; Ischemic Stroke; Pyridines; Stroke; Thiazoles; Treatment Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37952187
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.067512 -
The American Journal of Medicine Aug 2023People who smoke conventional cigarettes are increasingly turning to electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) as a pathway to quitting. However, the efficacy and safety of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
People who smoke conventional cigarettes are increasingly turning to electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) as a pathway to quitting. However, the efficacy and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation remains controversial.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), identified through a systematic search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Inclusion was restricted to RCTs with a follow-up duration ≥6 months. The primary endpoint was the most rigorous criterion of biochemically validated abstinence at maximum follow-up, and the primary comparison was nicotine e-cigarettes versus any conventional (ie, non-e-cigarette) smoking cessation therapy. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess bias. Count data were pooled across trials using random-effects models with inverse variance weighting to estimate relative risks (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We registered the study protocol with the Open Science Framework Registries (osf.io/26fkq).
RESULTS
A total of 5 RCTs (n = 3253) were included. Compared with conventional smoking cessation therapies, the use of nicotine e-cigarettes was associated with an increase in abstinence, defined by the most rigorous criterion of abstinence reported (RR 1.77; 95% CI, 1.29-2.44). Nicotine e-cigarettes also increased abstinence (defined by the most rigorous criterion) compared with non-nicotine e-cigarettes (RR 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13-2.15). The incidence of death or serious adverse events was low across all trials at maximum follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
Among individuals attempting to quit smoking, nicotine e-cigarettes are more efficacious than conventional nicotine replacement or behavioral smoking cessation therapies, and may prove beneficial in reducing smoking-related health risks.
Topics: Humans; Smoking Cessation; Nicotinic Agonists; Vaping; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Nicotine; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems
PubMed: 37148992
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2023.04.014 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Oct 2023Nausea and vomiting during pregnancy (NVP) are common symptoms in pregnancy. Although no definitive treatment option for NVP, pyridoxine (Vitamin B6) supplementation has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Nausea and vomiting during pregnancy (NVP) are common symptoms in pregnancy. Although no definitive treatment option for NVP, pyridoxine (Vitamin B6) supplementation has been used widely. The present study aims to systematically evaluate the current evidence regarding pyridoxine for the treatment of NVP.
METHODS
Data were obtained using a stepwise search process using keywords in the following online medical databases; PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for studies published before 1st May 2021. Studies reporting intervention with pyridoxine supplementation alone and/or with other active substances were included. A meta-analysis was performed on the PUQE score and Rhode's score for nausea and vomiting.
FINDINGS
Initial database searching indicated 548 potentially eligible articles, of which 18 studies satisfying the inclusion criteria were selected. Eight studies showed beneficial effects with pyridoxine alone as the supplementation, while six others found that the supplementation of pyridoxine in combination with another active substance had favourable effects. Supplementation of pyridoxine alone as well as combined treatment of pyridoxine with an active ingredient as the intervention significantly improved the symptoms of nausea according to Rhode's score [0.78 [95% CI: 0.26, 1.31; p = 0.003; I2 = 57%, p = 0.10)] and PUQE score [0.75 (95% CI: 0.28, 1.22; p = 0.002; I2 = 0%, p = 0.51)], respectively.
CONCLUSION
Supplementation of pyridoxine alone as well as with an active ingredient demonstrated beneficial effects for women suffering from NVP.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Pyridoxine; Vitamin B 6; Vomiting; Nausea; Pregnancy Complications; Dietary Supplements; Antiemetics
PubMed: 36719452
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-023-06925-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023Gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) is characterised by the regurgitation of gastric contents into the oesophagus. GOR is a common presentation in infancy, both in primary... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) is characterised by the regurgitation of gastric contents into the oesophagus. GOR is a common presentation in infancy, both in primary and secondary care, affecting approximately 50% of infants under three months old. The natural history of GOR in infancy is generally of a self-limiting condition that improves with age, but older children and children with co-existing medical conditions can have more protracted symptoms. The distinction between gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) and GOR is debated. Current National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines define GORD as GOR causing symptoms severe enough to merit treatment. This is an update of a review first published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of pharmacological treatments for GOR in infants and children.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science up to 17 September 2022. We also searched for ongoing trials in clinical trials registries, contacted experts in the field, and searched the reference lists of trials and reviews for any additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any currently-available pharmacological treatment for GOR in children with placebo or another medication. We excluded studies assessing dietary management of GORD and studies of thickened feeds. We included studies in infants and children up to 16 years old.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 36 RCTs involving 2251 children and infants. We were able to extract summary data from 14 RCTs; the remaining trials had insufficient data for extraction. We were unable to pool results in a meta-analysis due to methodological differences in the included studies (including heterogeneous outcomes, study populations, and study design). We present the results in two groups by age: infants up to 12 months old, and children aged 12 months to 16 years old. Infants Omeprazole versus placebo: there is no clear effect on symptoms from omeprazole. One study (30 infants; very low-certainty evidence) showed cry/fuss time in infants aged three to 12 months had altered from 246 ± 105 minutes/day at baseline (mean +/- standard deviation (SD)) to 191 ± 120 minutes/day in the omeprazole group and from 287 ± 132 minutes/day to 201 ± 100 minutes/day in the placebo group (mean difference (MD) 10 minutes/day lower (95% confidence interval (CI) -89.1 to 69.1)). The reflux index changed in the omeprazole group from 9.9 ± 5.8% in 24 hours to 1.0 ± 1.3% and in the placebo group from 7.2 ± 6.0% to 5.3 ± 4.9% in 24 hours (MD 7% lower, 95% CI -4.7 to -9.3). Omeprazole versus ranitidine: one study (76 infants; very low-certainty evidence) showed omeprazole may or may not provide symptomatic benefit equivalent to ranitidine. Symptom scores in the omeprazole group changed from 51.9 ± 5.4 to 2.4 ± 1.2, and in the ranitidine group from 47 ± 5.6 to 2.5 ± 0.6 after two weeks: MD -4.97 (95% CI -7.33 to -2.61). Esomeprazole versus placebo: esomeprazole appeared to show no additional reduction in the number of GORD symptoms compared to placebo (1 study, 52 neonates; very low-certainty evidence): both the esomeprazole group (184.7 ± 78.5 to 156.7 ± 75.1) and placebo group (183.1 ± 77.5 to 158.3 ± 75.9) improved: MD -3.2 (95% CI -4.6 to -1.8). Children Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) at different doses may provide little to no symptomatic and endoscopic benefit. Rabeprazole given at different doses (0.5 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg) may provide similar symptom improvement (127 children in total; very low-certainty evidence). In the lower-dose group (0.5 mg/kg), symptom scores improved in both a low-weight group of children (< 15 kg) (mean -10.6 ± SD 11.13) and a high-weight group of children (> 15 kg) (mean -13.6 ± 13.1). In the higher-dose groups (1 mg/kg), scores improved in the low-weight (-9 ± 11.2) and higher-weight groups (-8.3 ± 9.2). For the higher-weight group, symptom score mean difference between the two different dosing regimens was 2.3 (95% CI -2 to 6.6), and for the lower-weight group, symptom score MD was 4.6 (95% CI -2.9 to 12). Pantoprazole: pantoprazole may or may not improve symptom scores at 0.3 mg/kg, 0.6 mg/kg, and 1.2 mg/kg pantoprazole in children aged one to five years by week eight, with no difference between 0.3 mg/kg and 1.2 mg/kg dosing (0.3 mg/kg mean -2.4 ± 1.7; 1.2 mg/kg -1.7 ± 1.2: MD 0.7 (95% CI -0.4 to 1.8)) (one study, 60 children; very low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient summary data to assess other medications.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very low-certainty evidence about symptom improvements and changes in pH indices for infants. There are no summary data for endoscopic changes. Medications may or may not provide a benefit (based on very low-certainty evidence) for infants whose symptoms remain bothersome, despite nonmedical interventions or parental reassurance. If a medication is required, there is no clear evidence based on summary data for omeprazole, esomeprazole (in neonates), H₂antagonists, and alginates for symptom improvements (very low-certainty evidence). Further studies with longer follow-up are needed. In older children with GORD, in studies with summary data extracted, there is very low-certainty evidence that PPIs (rabeprazole and pantoprazole) may or may not improve GORD outcomes. No robust data exist for other medications. Further RCT evidence is required in all areas, including subgroups (preterm babies and children with neurodisabilities).
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Esomeprazole; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Omeprazole; Pantoprazole; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Rabeprazole; Ranitidine
PubMed: 37635269
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008550.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2024Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence, in comparison to non-nicotine EC, other smoking cessation treatments and no treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register to 1 February 2023, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2023, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention as these studies have the potential to provide further information on harms and longer-term use. Studies had to report an eligible outcome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Critical outcomes were abstinence from smoking after at least six months, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 88 completed studies (10 new to this update), representing 27,235 participants, of which 47 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 58 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There is high certainty that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.93; I = 0%; 7 studies, 2544 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs is similar between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; I = 0%; 5 studies, 2052 participants). SAEs were rare, and there is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differ between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.60; I = 32%; 6 studies, 2761 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that nicotine EC increases quit rates compared to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96; I = 4%; 6 studies, 1613 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 7 more). There is moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differ between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I = 0%; 9 studies, 1412 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to issues with risk of bias, there is low-certainty evidence that, compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates may be higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.25; I = 0%; 9 studies, 5024 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 5 more). There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs may be more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I = 41%, low-certainty evidence; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.34; I = 23%; 10 studies, 3263 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Results from the NMA were consistent with those from pairwise meta-analyses for all critical outcomes, and there was no indication of inconsistency within the networks. Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence, evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing both clinically significant harm and benefit.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain due to risk of bias inherent in the study design. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but the longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.
Topics: Humans; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Nicotine; Nicotine Replacement Therapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smoking Cessation; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 38189560
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub8 -
Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy :... Mar 2024Baloxavir marboxil (BXM), a newly developed cap-dependent endonuclease inhibitor, is widely used to treat influenza virus infections in inpatients and outpatients. A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety of baloxavir marboxil versus oseltamivir as the treatment for influenza virus infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Baloxavir marboxil (BXM), a newly developed cap-dependent endonuclease inhibitor, is widely used to treat influenza virus infections in inpatients and outpatients. A previous meta-analysis included only outpatients and patients suspected of having an influenza virus infection based on clinical symptoms. However, whether BXM or oseltamivir is safer and more effective for inpatients remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis validating the effectiveness and safety of BXM versus oseltamivir in inpatients with influenza virus.
METHODS
The Scopus, EMBASE, PubMed, Ichushi, and CINAHL databases were systematically searched for articles published until January 2023. The outcomes were mortality, hospitalization period, incidence of BXM- or oseltamivir-related adverse events, illness duration, and changes of virus titers and viral RNA load in patients with influenza virus infections.
RESULTS
Two randomized controlled trials with 1624 outpatients and two retrospective studies with 874 inpatients were enrolled. No deaths occurred in outpatients treated with BXM or oseltamivir. Among inpatients, BXM reduced mortality (p = 0.06) and significantly shortened hospitalization period (p = 0.01) compared to oseltamivir. In outpatients, BXM had a significantly lower incidence of adverse events (p = 0.03), reductions in influenza virus titers (p < 0.001) and viral RNA loads (p < 0.001), and a tendency to be a shorter illness duration compared with that of oseltamivir (p = 0.27).
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis showed that BXM was safer and more effective in patients than oseltamivir; thus, supporting the use of BXM for the initial treatment of patients with proven influenza virus infection.
Topics: Humans; Oseltamivir; Influenza, Human; Retrospective Studies; Antiviral Agents; Oxazines; Pyridines; Thiepins; Orthomyxoviridae Infections; Treatment Outcome; RNA, Viral; Dibenzothiepins; Morpholines; Pyridones; Triazines
PubMed: 37866622
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiac.2023.10.017 -
Lung Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Oct 2023Anaplastic lymphoma kinase-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ALK-TKIs) are new treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Here, we quantified the toxicity profiles of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparative safety of anaplastic lymphoma kinase tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Anaplastic lymphoma kinase-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ALK-TKIs) are new treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Here, we quantified the toxicity profiles of different ALK-TKIs to guide clinical decision making.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Data were analyzed using random effects and consistency models under the frequency framework.
RESULTS
Of 865 relevant studies, 13 RCTs (encompassing 3,353 patients) were finally included. A network meta-analysis of all-grade AEs, fatal AEs, and treatment discontinuation due to AEs revealed no significant differences among the six ALK-TKIs. The rates of grade 3-4 AEs were: alectinib (16.2%), crizotinib (46.4%), brigatinib (63.7%), ensartinib (75.6%), ceritinib (78.3%), and lorlatinib (91.6%). The toxicity spectra of ALK-TKIs were different. The most frequent AEs associated with crizotinib were gastrointestinal reactions, visual disorders, neutropenia, edema, fatigue, and elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels, while those in the alectinib group were anemia and constipation. Diarrhea, hepatotoxicity, and increased serum creatinine were most common with ceritinib. The most frequent AEs in the brigatinib group were gastrointestinal reactions, hypertension, cough, headache, and elevated ALT or AST levels. The most significant toxicities of ensartinib were skin disorders, including pruritus and rash. Changes in lipid levels were the most frequent AEs associated with lorlatinib; weight gain, cognitive effects, and mood effects were lorlatinib-specific AEs.
CONCLUSIONS
The toxicity spectra of ALK-TKIs differed. Alectinib might be the safest ALK-TKI drug according to the combined evidence of grades 3-4 AEs and the combined incidence.
Topics: Humans; Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase; Protein-Tyrosine Kinases; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors; Crizotinib; Network Meta-Analysis; Lung Neoplasms; Protein Kinase Inhibitors
PubMed: 37597303
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2023.107319 -
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