-
JAMA Oct 2023Gefapixant represents an emerging therapy for patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Gefapixant represents an emerging therapy for patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gefapixant for the treatment of adults with refractory or unexplained chronic cough.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from November 2014 to July 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Two reviewers independently screened for parallel and crossover randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared, in patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough, either gefapixant with placebo, or 2 or more doses of gefapixant with or without placebo.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently extracted data. A frequentist random-effects dose-response meta-analysis or pairwise meta-analysis was used for each outcome. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to rate the certainty in whether patients would perceive the effects as important (greater than the minimal important difference [MID]) or small (less than the MID).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Cough frequency (measured using the VitaloJAK cough monitor; MID, 20%), cough severity (measured using the 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS]; higher score is worse; MID, 30 mm), cough-specific quality of life (measured using the Leicester Cough Questionnaire [LCQ]; score range, 3 [maximal impairment] to 21 [no impairment]; MID, 1.3 points), treatment-related adverse events, adverse events leading to discontinuation, and taste-related adverse events.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs including 2980 patients were included in the primary analysis. Compared with placebo, gefapixant (45 mg twice daily) had small effects on awake cough frequency (17.6% reduction [95% CI, 10.6%-24.0%], moderate certainty), cough severity on the 100-mm VAS (mean difference, -6.2 mm [95% CI, -4.1 to -8.4]; high certainty), and cough-specific quality of life on the LCQ (mean difference, 1.0 points [95% CI, 0.7-1.4]; moderate certainty). Compared with placebo, gefapixant (45 mg twice daily) probably caused an important increase in treatment-related adverse events (32 more per 100 patients [95% CI, 13-64 more], moderate certainty) and taste-related adverse events (32 more per 100 patients [95% CI, 22-46 more], high certainty). High-certainty evidence suggests that gefapixant (15 mg twice daily) had small effects on taste-related adverse events (6 more per 100 patients [95% CI, 5-8 more]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Compared with placebo, gefapixant (45 mg orally twice daily) led to modest improvements in cough frequency, cough severity, and cough-specific quality of life but increased taste-related adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Cough; Pyrimidines; Quality of Life; Sulfonamides; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Treatment Outcome; Chronic Disease; Taste
PubMed: 37694849
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.18035 -
Viruses Nov 2023Acute hepatitis B infection is associated with severe liver disease and chronic sequelae in some cases. The purpose of this review was to determine the efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute hepatitis B infection is associated with severe liver disease and chronic sequelae in some cases. The purpose of this review was to determine the efficacy of nucleoside analogues (NA) (lamivudine versus entecavir) compared to placebo or no intervention for treating acute primary HBV infection.
METHODS
A meta-analysis for drug intervention was performed, following a fixed-effect model. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized studies that evaluated the outcomes of NA in acute hepatitis B infection were included. The following outcomes were considered: virological cure (PCR negative), elimination of acute infection (seroconversion of HBsAg), mortality, and serious adverse events.
RESULTS
Five trials with 627 adult participants with severe acute hepatitis B defined by biochemical and serologic parameters were included. Virological cure did not favor any intervention: OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.7 ( = 0.90), I2 = 58%. Seroconversion of HBsAg to negative favored placebo/standard-of-care compared to lamivudine: OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.9 ( = 0.02), I2 = 31%. The only trial that compared entecavir and lamivudine favored entecavir over lamivudine (OR: 3.64, 95% CI 1.31-10.13; 90 participants). Adverse events were mild.
CONCLUSION
There is insufficient evidence that NA obtain superior efficacy compared with placebo/standard-of-care in patients with acute viral hepatitis, based on low quality evidence.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Lamivudine; Antiviral Agents; Hepatitis B Surface Antigens; Hepatitis B; Hepatitis B virus; Hepatitis B, Chronic; Treatment Outcome; DNA, Viral
PubMed: 38005918
DOI: 10.3390/v15112241 -
Heart Failure Reviews Mar 2024Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is the most common heritable myocardial disorder worldwide. Current pharmacological treatment options are limited. Mavacamten, a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is the most common heritable myocardial disorder worldwide. Current pharmacological treatment options are limited. Mavacamten, a first-in-class cardiac myosin inhibitor, targets the main underlying pathology of HCM. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Mavacamten in patients with HCM. PRISMA flow chart was utilized using PubMed, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases for all up-to-date studies using pre-defined keywords. Pre-specified efficacy outcomes comprised several parameters, including an improvement in peak oxygen consumption (pVO2) and ≥ 1 NYHA class, the need for septal reduction therapy (SRT), change from baseline in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), changes in biochemical markers and LVEF, along with peak left ventricular outflow tract gradient at rest and after Valsalva maneuver. Safety outcomes included morbidity and serious adverse events. This systematic review included five studies, four RCTs and one non-randomized control trial comprised a total of 524 (Mavacamten [273, 54.3%] vs placebo [230, 45.7%] adult (≥ 18 years) patients with a mean age of 56 years. The study. comprised patients with Caucasian and Chinese ethnicity and patients with obstructive (oHCM) and non-obstructive (nHCM) HCM. Most baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment and placebo groups. Mavacamten showed a statistically significant increase in the frequency of the primary composite endpoint (RR = 1.92, 95% CI [1.28, 2.88]), ≥ 1 NYHA class improvement (RR = 2.10, 95% CI [1.66, 2.67]), a significant decrease in LVEF, peak left ventricular outflow tract gradient at rest and after Valsalva maneuver. Mavacamten also showed a significant reduction in SRT rates (RR = 0.29, 95% CI [0.21, 0.40], p < 0.00001), KCCQ clinical summary scores (MD = 8.08, 95% CI [4.80, 11.37], P < 0.00001) troponin levels and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. However, there was no statistically significant difference between Mavacamten and placebo regarding the change from baseline peak oxygen consumption. Mavacamten use resulted in a small increase in adverse events but no statistically significant increment in serious adverse events. Our study showed that Mavacamten is a safe and effective treatment option for Caucasian and Chinese patients with HCM on the short-term. Further research is needed to explore the long-term safety and efficacy of Mavacamten with HCM. In addition, adequately powered studies including patients with nHCM is needed to ascertain befits of Mavacamten in those patients.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Middle Aged; Cardiomyopathy, Hypertrophic; Heart; Benzylamines; Myocardium; Uracil
PubMed: 38112937
DOI: 10.1007/s10741-023-10375-6 -
Antiviral Research Jan 2024Remdesivir, molnupiravir, and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir are three antiviral agents approved by FDA emergency authorization for treating mild to moderate symptomatic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Remdesivir, molnupiravir, and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir are three antiviral agents approved by FDA emergency authorization for treating mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 adult outpatients at high risk for hospitalization and death.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of these antivirals based on updated published RCT and real-world data.
STUDY DESIGN
This systematic review followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis framework guidelines. We searched all publications up to January 2023. RRs and 95% CIs for death, hospitalization, and adverse events were calculated.
RESULTS
Six RCTs and seven cohort studies were included, with 1,456,523 participants, of whom 50,979 were treated with antivirals. Remdesivir was associated with the lowest probability of hospitalization and death compared to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir (P-scores 0.99 and 0.90, respectively, for remdesivir, 0.64 and 0.55, respectively for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 0.26 and 0.49, respectively for molnupiravir). Based on indirect comparisons, remdesivir was associated with a statistically significant decreased risk for hospitalization compared to molnupiravir (RR 0.09; 95% CI 0.02-0.40) and to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (RR 0.11; 95% CI 0.03-0.73). No statistically significant difference was found between antivirals in the mortality risk reduction and the risk for side effects.
CONCLUSIONS
This is the most comprehensive network meta-analysis integrating RCTs and real-world data. In our indirect comparison, remdesivir was associated with the highest efficacy in preventing hospitalization among high risk symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients, compared to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir. This finding supports current guidelines, and may have importance when deciding which antiviral to use, together with other important factors.
Topics: Adult; Humans; COVID-19; Network Meta-Analysis; Outpatients; Ritonavir; Antiviral Agents; Hydroxylamines; Cytidine; Nitriles; Lactams; Proline; Leucine
PubMed: 38056602
DOI: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2023.105768 -
Liver International : Official Journal... Mar 2024We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of pan-genotypic regimens, glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB), sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL), and sofosbuvir/daclatasvir... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of pan-genotypic regimens, glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB), sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL), and sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (SOF/DCV) and other direct-acting antivirals (DAA) regimens for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected adolescents (12-18 years), older children (6-11 years), and young children (3-5 years). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to inform the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines.
METHODS
We included clinical trials and observational studies published up to August 11, 2021, that evaluated DAA regimens in HCV-infected adolescents, older children, and young children. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases and key conference abstracts. Sustained virological response 12 weeks after the end of treatment (SVR12), adverse events (AEs), and treatment discontinuation were the outcomes evaluated. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified version of the ROBINS-I tool. Data were pooled using random-effects models, and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
A total of 49 studies including 1882 adolescents, 436 older children, and 166 young children were considered. The SVR12 was 100% (95% Confidence Interval: 96-100), 96% (90-100), and 96% (83-100) for GLE/PIB in adolescents, older, and young children, respectively; 95% (90-99), 93% (86-98), and 83% (70-93), for SOF/VEL, respectively; and 100% (97-100) and 100% (94-100) for SOF/DCV in adolescent and older children, respectively. There was a clear trend towards a higher rate of any reported AE from adolescents (50%), older children (53%), to young children (72%). Serious AEs and treatment discontinuations were uncommon in adolescents and older children (<1%) but slightly higher in young children (3%).
CONCLUSIONS
All three pan-genotypic DAA regimens were highly effective and well-tolerated and are now recommended by the WHO for use in adults, adolescents, and children down to 3 years, which will simplify procurement and supply chain management. The evidence was based largely on single-arm non-randomized controlled studies. Moreover, there were also missing data regarding key variables such as route of HCV acquisition, presence or absence of cirrhosis, or HIV co-infection that precluded evaluation of the impact of these factors on outcomes.
PROSPERO RECORD
CRD42020146752.
Topics: Adult; Child; Adolescent; Humans; Child, Preschool; Sofosbuvir; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Antiviral Agents; Hepatitis C; Sustained Virologic Response; Hepacivirus; Drug Therapy, Combination; Genotype; Treatment Outcome; Carbamates; Imidazoles; Pyrrolidines; Valine
PubMed: 38293756
DOI: 10.1111/liv.15827 -
International Journal of Antimicrobial... Mar 2024This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of small-molecule antivirals for treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of small-molecule antivirals for treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
METHODS
Seven databases were searched from their inception to 01 June 2023. The risk of bias in randomised controlled trials and retrospective studies was evaluated individually using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
In total, 160 studies involving 933 409 COVID-19 patients were evaluated. Compared with placebo or standard of care, proxalutamide demonstrated remarkable efficacy in reducing mortality rates, hospitalisation rates, serious adverse events, and the need for mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, it significantly enhanced both the rate of clinical improvement and expedited the duration of clinical recovery when compared with control groups. In patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, proxalutamide exhibited the above advantages, except for mortality reduction. Triazavirin was the most effective treatment for reducing the time required for viral clearance and improving the discharge rate. Leritrelvir and VV116 were ranked first in terms of enhancing the viral clearance rate on days 7 and 14, respectively. Molnupiravir was the most effective treatment for reducing the need for oxygen support. Overall, these findings remained consistent across the various subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS
A thorough evaluation of effectiveness, applicable to both mild-to-moderate and unstratified populations, highlights the specific advantages of proxalutamide, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, triazavirin, azvudine, molnupiravir, and VV116 in combating COVID-19. Additional clinical data are required to confirm the efficacy and safety of simnotrelvir/ritonavir and leritrelvir. The safety profiles of these antivirals were deemed acceptable.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; COVID-19; Retrospective Studies; Ritonavir; Antiviral Agents; Cytidine; Hydroxylamines
PubMed: 38244811
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2024.107096 -
PloS One 2024Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a complex cardiac condition characterized by hypercontractility of cardiac muscle leading to a dynamic obstruction of left... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Evaluating the efficacy and safety of mavacamten in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on qualitative assessment, biomarkers, and cardiac imaging.
BACKGROUND
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a complex cardiac condition characterized by hypercontractility of cardiac muscle leading to a dynamic obstruction of left ventricular outlet tract (LVOT). Mavacamten, a first-in-class cardiac myosin inhibitor, is increasingly being studied in randomized controlled trials. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety profile of Mavacamten compared to placebo in patients of HCM.
METHOD
We carried out a comprehensive search in PubMed, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov to analyze the efficacy and safety of mavacamten compared to placebo from 2010 to 2023. To calculate pooled odds ratio (OR) or risk ratio (RR) at 95% confidence interval (CI), the Mantel-Haenszel formula with random effect was used and Generic Inverse Variance method assessed pooled mean difference value at a 95% CI. RevMan was used for analysis. P<0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS
We analyzed five phase 3 RCTs including 609 patients to compare mavacamten with a placebo. New York Heart Association (NYHA) grade improvement and KCCQ score showed the odds ratio as 4.94 and 7.93 with p<0.00001 at random effect, respectively. Cardiac imaging which included LAVI, LVOT at rest, LVOT post valsalva, LVOT post-exercise, and reduction in LVEF showed the pooled mean differences for change as -5.29, -49.72, -57.45, -36.11, and -3.00 respectively. Changes in LVEDV and LVMI were not statistically significant. The pooled mean difference for change in NT-proBNP and Cardiac troponin-I showed 0.20 and 0.57 with p<0.00001. The efficacy was evaluated in 1) A composite score, which was defined as either 1·5 mL/kg per min or greater increase in peak oxygen consumption (pVO2) and at least one NYHA class reduction, or a 3·0 mL/kg per min or greater pVO2 increase without NYHA class worsening and 2) changes in pVO2, which was not statistically significant. Similarly, any treatment-associated emergent adverse effects (TEAE), treatment-associated serious adverse effects (TSAE), and cardiac-related adverse effects were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION
Mavacamten influences diverse facets of HCM comprehensively. Notably, our study delved into the drug's impact on the heart's structural and functional aspects, providing insights that complement prior findings. Further large-scale trials are needed to evaluate the safety profile of Mavacamten.
Topics: Humans; Cardiomyopathy, Hypertrophic; Heart; Benzylamines; Biomarkers; Uracil
PubMed: 38635724
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301704 -
Immunity, Inflammation and Disease Apr 2024This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir and sotrovimab in the treatment of patients with coronavirus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir and sotrovimab in the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
METHODS
Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, medRxiv, and Google Scholar were systematically searched to identify relevant evidence up to December 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool. Data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA).
RESULTS
Our search identified and included 13 studies involving 16166 patients. The meta-analysis revealed a significant difference between the molnupiravir and sotrovimab groups in terms of the mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 2.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16, 3.70). However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of hospitalization rate (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.47, 1.06), death or hospitalization rate (OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 0.81, 2.83), and intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.07, 4.84). In terms of safety, molnupiravir was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.21, 2.30).
CONCLUSION
The current findings indicate that sotrovimab may be more effective than molnupiravir in reducing the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients. However, no statistical difference was observed between the two treatments for other effectiveness outcomes. The certainty of evidence for these findings was rated as low or moderate. Further research is required to provide a better comparison of these interventions in treating COVID-19 patients.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Hydroxylamines; Cytidine; Antiviral Agents; SARS-CoV-2; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; COVID-19; Treatment Outcome; Hospitalization; Antibodies, Neutralizing
PubMed: 38652021
DOI: 10.1002/iid3.1262 -
The Journal of Dermatological Treatment Dec 2024Brivudine has been used in herpes zoster (HZ) treatment for years, but the safety and efficacy of brivudine are inconclusive. Here we perform a meta-analysis to assess... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Brivudine has been used in herpes zoster (HZ) treatment for years, but the safety and efficacy of brivudine are inconclusive. Here we perform a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy, safety, incidence of postherpetic neuralgia of brivudine.
METHODS
Data of randomized controlled Trials (RCTS) were obtained from the databases of both English (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) and Chinese (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Science Journal Database, and WanFang Database) literatures from inception to 12 September 2022. Meta-analyses of efficacy and safety of Brivudine for the treatment of herpes zoster for RCTS were conducted.
RESULTS
The analyses included seven RCTS (2095 patients in experimental group and 2076 patients in control group) in the treatment of HZ with brivudine. It suggested that the brivudine group was superior to the control group in terms of efficacy ( = .0002) and incidence of postherpetic neuralgia ( = .04). But the incidence of adverse reactions has no significant difference between the brivudine and the control groups ( = .22). In addition, subgroup analysis of adverse events also showed that brivudine was about the same safety as other modalities in the treatment of HZ ( > .05).
CONCLUSIONS
Brivudine is effective for HZ. However, the evidence on the safety of brivudine is insufficient.
Topics: Humans; Herpes Zoster; Neuralgia, Postherpetic; Antiviral Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Incidence; Bromodeoxyuridine
PubMed: 38811010
DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2024.2355256 -
The Pan African Medical Journal 2024Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is commonly complicated by anemia. Treating dialysis-dependent patients with anemia, including daprodustat and other inhibitors of prolyl... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study Review
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is commonly complicated by anemia. Treating dialysis-dependent patients with anemia, including daprodustat and other inhibitors of prolyl hydroxylase of hypoxia-inducible factor, recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO), and iron supplements. We conducted this study to test our postulation; daprodustat is superior to rhEPO and other conventional treatments respecting efficacy and safety parameters. We made systematic search through PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane. Seven unique trials were eventually included for systematic review; six of them with a sample size of 759 patients entered our network meta-analysis (NMA). Daprodustat 25-30 mg was associated with the greatest change in serum hemoglobin (MD=1.86, 95%CI= [1.20; 2.52]), ferritin (MD= -180.84, 95%CI= [-264.47; -97.20]), and total iron binding capacity (TIBC) (MD=11.03, 95%CI= [3.15; 18.92]) from baseline values. Dialysis-dependent patients with anemia had a significant increment in serum Hemoglobin and TIBC and a reduction in serum ferritin, in a dose-dependent manner, when administered daprodustat.
Topics: Humans; Anemia; Renal Dialysis; Hemoglobins; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Glycine; Ferritins; Barbiturates; Network Meta-Analysis; Erythropoietin; Recombinant Proteins; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Iron
PubMed: 38828426
DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2024.47.114.37278