-
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology :... Dec 2023Two-round Delphi study carried out in Spain. Three theme-based blocks were set out: 1) Patient profiles: therapeutic goal and parameters to be analysed according to...
Two-round Delphi study carried out in Spain. Three theme-based blocks were set out: 1) Patient profiles: therapeutic goal and parameters to be analysed according to POSEIDON patient profiles; 2) Ovarian stimulation protocols with antagonists: monotherapy (FSH) vs combined therapy (FSH + LH/HMG); 3) Safety and effectiveness of the devices. The antral follicle count and the anti-Müllerian hormone level were considered indicators that can be used to predict ovarian response. More than 80% of the participants agreed that FSH monotherapy is the recommended regimen in normal/hyper-responsive patients of < 35 years of age; that 150-300 IU is the dose to be used in ovarian stimulation in monotherapy depending on clinical parameters; and that FSH monotherapy improves patients' comfort compared to two combined drugs. It was unanimously considered that the type of device used by the patient influences the comfort of the treatment.IMPACT STATEMENT There is currently no consensus on the optimal treatment for controlled ovarian stimulation for patients undergoing IVF which leads to highly variable clinical practices. This study's strong point is that, since it is a consensus, it has been possible to include more topics than would normally be dealt with in a systematic review or guidelines, which are generally based on a strict method that restricts the scope of the research. Experts have reached a consensus on most of the statements and based on these they have issued consensus statements that will enable the optimal use of gonadotropins in IVF. This Delphi consensus provides a real-life clinical perspective on gonadotropin usage in IVF.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Follicle Stimulating Hormone; Delphi Technique; Fertilization in Vitro; Pregnancy Rate; Spain; Gonadotropins; Ovulation Induction
PubMed: 36772946
DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2023.2174692 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Accumulating evidence are available on the efficacy of high-dose isoniazid (INH) for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) treatment. We aimed to perform a...
Accumulating evidence are available on the efficacy of high-dose isoniazid (INH) for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) treatment. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare clinical efficacy and safety outcomes of high-dose INH- containing therapy against other regimes. We searched the following databases PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We considered and included any studies comparing treatment success, treatment unsuccess, or adverse events in patients with MDR-TB treated with high-dose INH (>300 mg/day or >5 mg/kg/day). Of a total of 3,749 citations screened, 19 studies were included, accounting for 5,103 subjects, the risk of bias was low in all studies. The pooled treatment success, death, and adverse events of high-dose INH-containing therapy was 76.5% (95% CI: 70.9%-81.8%; I: 92.03%), 7.1% (95% CI: 5.3%-9.1%; I: 73.75%), and 61.1% (95% CI: 43.0%-77.8%; I: 98.23%), respectively. The high-dose INH administration is associated with significantly higher treatment success (RR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.04-1.22; < 0.01) and a lower risk of death (RR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.32-0.63; < 0.01). However, in terms of other outcomes (such as adverse events, and culture conversion rate), no difference was observed between high-dose INH and other treatment options (all > 0.05). In addition, no publication bias was observed. In MDR-TB patients, high-dose INH administration is associated with a favorable outcome and acceptable adverse-event profile. identifier CRD42023438080.
PubMed: 38259285
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1331371 -
BMC Gastroenterology Aug 2023The effectiveness of selective COX-2 inhibitors in preventing colorectal cancer recurrence has been demonstrated, however it is unknown how safe and successful they will... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The effectiveness of selective COX-2 inhibitors in preventing colorectal cancer recurrence has been demonstrated, however it is unknown how safe and successful they will be over the long term. As a result, we looked at the efficacy, safety, and consequences of adding COX-2 inhibitors to the treatment plan afterward.
METHODS
In patients with advanced colorectal cancer, we compared the efficacy of celecoxib at two different doses (200 mg twice day and 400 mg twice daily) with placebo. To evaluate the impacts of post-treatment, several datasets from inception to June 2022 were searched. Response rate, illness control rate, and 3-year survival were the main results. And evaluated several safety outcomes, particularly those that were susceptible to adverse events.
RESULTS
The study comprised a total of 9 randomized controlled trials (3206 participants). Celecoxib and rofecoxib doidn't significantly improved the 1-3 year remission rate (OR, 1.57 [95% CI: 0.95-2.57]) and disease control rate (OR, 1.08 [95% CI: 0.99-1.17]). Subgroup analysis of different doses showed that 400 mg of celecoxib significantly improved the response rate (OR, 2.82 [95%CI: 1.20-6.61]). 200 mg celecoxib was not significant (OR, 1.28 [95% CI: 0.66-2.49]). Rofecoxib also did not fully improve disease response rates. Celecoxib at any dose improved 3-year survival (OR, 1.21 [95% CI: 1.02-1.45]). It is important to note that COX-2 inhibitors did not significantly enhance the likelihood of adverse events including gastrointestinal or cardiovascular side effects at any dose.
CONCLUSIONS
For patients with advanced colorectal cancer, a reasonable chemoprevention regimen can include celecoxib 400 mg twice daily.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Celecoxib; Colorectal Neoplasms; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfones
PubMed: 37580670
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-023-02918-w -
JAMA Network Open Mar 2024Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at high risk for cardiovascular disease, but their systematic underrepresentation in cardiovascular randomized clinical...
IMPORTANCE
Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at high risk for cardiovascular disease, but their systematic underrepresentation in cardiovascular randomized clinical trials (RCTs) limits the generation of appropriate evidence to guide cardiovascular risk management (CVRM).
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the underrepresentation of patients with CKD in cardiovascular RCTs, and to highlight evidence gaps in CVRM medications in this population.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
A systematic search was conducted in ClinicalTrials.gov from February 2000 through October 2021 for RCTs with full-text publications. If no full-text publications were found in ClinicalTrials.gov, MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar were also searched. Eligible RCTs were those evaluating the effectiveness of antiplatelets, anticoagulants, blood pressure-lowering drugs, glucose-lowering drugs, or cholesterol-lowering drugs in adults with cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors. Trials with a sample size of fewer than 100 patients were excluded.
FINDINGS
In total, 1194 RCTs involving 2 207 677 participants (mean [SD] age, 63 [6] years; 1 343 970 males [64%]) were included. Since 2000, the percentage of cardiovascular RCTs excluding patients with CKD has increased from 66% to 79% (74% overall [884 RCTs]). In 864 RCTs (72%), more patients were excluded than anticipated on safety grounds (63% [306] of trials required no dose adjustment, and 79% [561] required dose adjustment). In total, 158 RCTs (13%) reported results for patients with CKD separately (eg, in subgroup analyses). Significant evidence gaps exist in most CVRM interventions for patients with CKD, particularly for those with CKD stages 4 to 5. Twenty-three RCTs (2%) reported results for patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2, 15 RCTs (1%) reported for patients receiving dialysis, and 1 RCT (0.1%) reported for recipients of kidney transplant.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Results of this systematic review suggest that representation of patients with CKD in cardiovascular RCTs has not improved in the past 2 decades and that these RCTs excluded more patients with CKD than expected on safety grounds. Lack of reporting or underreporting of results for this patient population is associated with evidence gaps in the effectiveness of most CVRM medications in patients with all stages of CKD, particularly CKD stages 4 to 5.
Topics: Humans; Antihypertensive Agents; Cardiovascular Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Renal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38451526
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.0427 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2023The effect of booster vaccinations with the coronavirus virus disease (COVID-19) vaccine on people living with HIV (PLWH) remains unknown. In this study, we aimed to...
BACKGROUND
The effect of booster vaccinations with the coronavirus virus disease (COVID-19) vaccine on people living with HIV (PLWH) remains unknown. In this study, we aimed to investigate the immunogenicity and effectiveness of booster doses of the COVID-19 vaccine in PLWH.
METHODS
Literature research was done through the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Review, and Web of Science databases up to 4 July 2023. Pooled estimates were calculated and compared using the DerSimonian and Laird method for a random effects model. Randomized control trials and observational studies were both considered for inclusion.
RESULTS
We included 35 eligible studies covering 30,154 PLWH. The pooled immune response rate (IRR) of PLWH after the COVID-19 booster vaccination was 97.25% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.81-99.49), and similar to healthy control (HC) (risk ratio [RR] = 0.98, 95% CI, 0.96-1.00). The pooled IRR for PLWH with CD4 T-cell counts ≤ 200 was 86.27 (95% CI, 65.35-99.07). For Omicron variants, the pooled IRR for PLWH after booster dose was 74.07% (95% CI, 58.83-89.30), and the risk of IRR was reduced by 10% in PLWH compared with HC (RR = 0.90, 95% CI, 0.80-1.00). The T-cell immune response of PLWH was found to be comparable to HC ( ≥ 0.05). Subgroup analyses revealed that mRNA vaccines produced a relatively high IRR in PLWH compared to other vaccines. In addition, the results showed that booster vaccination appeared to further reduce the risk of COVID-19-related infections, hospitalizations, and deaths compared with the primary vaccination.
CONCLUSION
It was shown that booster vaccination with the COVID-19 vaccine provided a high IRR in PLWH and still produced a desirable moderate IRR in PLWH with a CD4 T-cell count of ≤ 200. Importantly, the humoral and T-cell responses to booster vaccination in PLWH were comparable to HC, and similar results were observed with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. Our review strongly emphasizes the effect of mRNA vaccine booster vaccination in PLWH on eliciting desirable protective IRR. Furthermore, booster vaccination appears to further reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death in PLWH compared to primary vaccination. However, more evidence is needed to confirm its effectiveness.
PubMed: 37877024
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1275843 -
BMJ Open Respiratory Research Mar 2024The rate of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) recurrence is substantial. Identifying risk factors can support the development of prevention strategies. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The rate of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) recurrence is substantial. Identifying risk factors can support the development of prevention strategies.
METHODS
We retrieved studies published between 1 January 1980 and 31 December 2022 that assessed factors associated with undifferentiated TB recurrence, relapse or reinfection. For factors reported in at least four studies, we performed random-effects meta-analysis to estimate a pooled relative risk (RR). We assessed heterogeneity, risk of publication bias and certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
We included 85 studies in the review; 81 documented risk factors for undifferentiated recurrence, 17 for relapse and 10 for reinfection. The scope for meta-analyses was limited given the wide variety of factors studied, inconsistency in control for confounding and the fact that only few studies employed molecular genotyping. Factors that significantly contributed to moderately or strongly increased pooled risk and scored at least moderate certainty of evidence were: for undifferentiated recurrence, multidrug resistance (MDR) (RR 3.49; 95% CI 1.86 to 6.53) and fixed-dose combination TB drugs (RR 2.29; 95% CI 1.10 to 4.75) in the previous episode; for relapse, none; and for reinfection, HIV infection (RR 4.65; 95% CI 1.71 to 12.65). Low adherence to treatment increased the pooled risk of recurrence 3.3-fold (95% CI 2.37 to 4.62), but the certainty of evidence was weak.
CONCLUSION
This review emphasises the need for standardising methods for TB recurrence research. Actively pursuing MDR prevention, facilitating retention in treatment and providing integrated care for patients with HIV could curb recurrence rates. The use of fixed-dose combinations of TB drugs under field conditions merits further attention.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42018077867.
Topics: Humans; Reinfection; HIV Infections; Tuberculosis, Pulmonary; Risk Factors; Recurrence; Drug Combinations
PubMed: 38479821
DOI: 10.1136/bmjresp-2023-002281 -
Malaria Journal Oct 2023Imperfect adherence is a major barrier to effective primaquine radical cure of Plasmodium vivax. This study investigated the effect of reduced adherence on the risk of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effect of adherence to primaquine on the risk of Plasmodium vivax recurrence: a WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Imperfect adherence is a major barrier to effective primaquine radical cure of Plasmodium vivax. This study investigated the effect of reduced adherence on the risk of P. vivax recurrence.
METHODS
Efficacy studies of patients with uncomplicated P. vivax malaria, including a treatment arm with daily primaquine, published between January 1999 and March 2020 were identified. Individual patient data from eligible studies were pooled using standardized methodology. Adherence to primaquine was inferred from i) the percentage of supervised doses and ii) the total mg/kg dose received compared to the target total mg/kg dose per protocol. The effect of adherence to primaquine on the incidence of P. vivax recurrence between days 7 and 90 was investigated by Cox regression analysis.
RESULTS
Of 82 eligible studies, 32 were available including 6917 patients from 18 countries. For adherence assessed by percentage of supervised primaquine, 2790 patients (40.3%) had poor adherence (≤ 50%) and 4127 (59.7%) had complete adherence. The risk of recurrence by day 90 was 14.0% [95% confidence interval: 12.1-16.1] in patients with poor adherence compared to 5.8% [5.0-6.7] following full adherence; p = 0.014. After controlling for age, sex, baseline parasitaemia, and total primaquine dose per protocol, the rate of the first recurrence was higher following poor adherence compared to patients with full adherence (adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) = 2.3 [1.8-2.9]). When adherence was quantified by total mg/kg dose received among 3706 patients, 347 (9.4%) had poor adherence, 88 (2.4%) had moderate adherence, and 3271 (88.2%) had complete adherence to treatment. The risks of recurrence by day 90 were 8.2% [4.3-15.2] in patients with poor adherence and 4.9% [4.1-5.8] in patients with full adherence; p < 0.001.
CONCLUSION
Reduced adherence, including less supervision, increases the risk of vivax recurrence.
Topics: Humans; Primaquine; Antimalarials; Plasmodium vivax; Recurrence; Malaria, Vivax; Folic Acid Antagonists
PubMed: 37817240
DOI: 10.1186/s12936-023-04725-w -
Kidney Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2024A three-dose regimen is the current standard for COVID-19 vaccination, but systematic data on immunogenicity and safety in chronic kidney disease patients remains... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A three-dose regimen is the current standard for COVID-19 vaccination, but systematic data on immunogenicity and safety in chronic kidney disease patients remains limited.
OBJECTIVES
We conducted a meta-analysis on the immunogenicity and safety of three-dose COVID-19 vaccination in patients on renal replacement therapy (RRT).
METHODS
Systematic literature search in four electronic databases yielded twenty eligible studies (2,117 patients, 94% of whom received mRNA vaccines) for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The overall seropositivity rate of anti-SARS-CoV-2 was 74.2% (95% CI: 65.0-83.4%) after three-dose COVID-19 vaccination. The seropositivity rate of anti-SARS-CoV-2 in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) was 64.6% (95% CI: 58.7-70.5%), and 43.5% (95% CI: 38.5-48.6%) of non-responders after second dose became seropositive after third dose. The seropositivity rate of anti-SARS-CoV-2 was 92.9% (95% CI: 89.5-96.2%) in dialysis patients, and 64.6% (95% CI: 46.8-82.3%) of non-responders after second dose became seropositive after third dose. In KTRs, each year increase in transplant vintage was associated with 35.6% increase in anti-SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity (95% CI: 15.9-55.4%, = 0.01). There were no serious adverse events attributed to vaccination in KTRs, and the commonest local and systemic adverse events were injection site pain and fatigue, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Three-dose COVID-19 vaccination regimen in patients on RRT is associated with reduced immunogenicity, especially in KTRs. There are no adverse events associated with third-dose COVID-19 vaccine in KTRs.
PubMed: 38751793
DOI: 10.1159/000536308 -
Cancers Oct 2023There have been many clinical questions regarding whether the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) could deteriorate the effects of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors... (Review)
Review
There have been many clinical questions regarding whether the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) could deteriorate the effects of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors (CDKIs) in HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of this clinical question, including studies enrolling HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer patients treated with CDKIs (Palbociclib or Ribociclib) and reporting at least one comparative survival outcome, either overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS), between concomitant PPI users and non-users. Eight studies met the eligibility criteria, with a total of 2584 patients included (PPI users: 830, PPI non-users: 1754), demonstrating that concomitant PPI use was associated with significantly higher risks of all-cause mortality (HR = 2.03; 95% CI, 1.49 to 2.77; I = 0%) and disease progression (HR = 1.75; 95% CI, 1.26 to 2.43; I = 59%) in breast cancer patients taking Palbociclib. In contrast, there were no significant survival impacts of PPIs on Ribociclib (HR = 1.46; 95% CI, 0.91 to 2.34; I = 36%). Additionally, there was no significant difference in the risk associated with CDKI dose reduction due to drug toxicity (RR = 1.12; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.29). Therefore, when HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer patients require the use of PPIs, it may be reasonable to consider using Ribociclib.
PubMed: 37958308
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15215133 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Uncontrolled blood pressure is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. Fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy offers a promising approach to addressing this... (Review)
Review
Uncontrolled blood pressure is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. Fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy offers a promising approach to addressing this challenge by providing a convenient single-tablet solution that enhances the effectiveness of blood pressure control. In our systematic review, we assess the effectiveness of perindopril/amlodipine FDC in managing blood pressure. We conducted a comprehensive search across four primary electronic databases, namely, PubMed, Virtual Health Library (VHL), Global Health Library (GHL), and Google Scholar, as of 8 February 2022. Additionally, we performed a manual search to find relevant articles. The quality of the selected articles was evaluated using the Study Quality Assessment Tools (SQAT) checklist from the National Institute of Health and the ROB2 tool from Cochrane. Our systematic review included 17 eligible articles. The findings show that the use of perindopril/amlodipine FDC significantly lowers blood pressure and enhances the quality of blood pressure control. Compared to the comparison group, the perindopril/amlodipine combination tablet resulted in a higher rate of blood pressure response and normalization. Importantly, perindopril/amlodipine FDC contributes to improved patient adherence with minimal side effects. However, studies conducted to date have not provided assessments of the cost-effectiveness of perindopril/amlodipine FDC. In summary, our analysis confirms the effectiveness of perindopril/amlodipine FDC in lowering blood pressure, with combination therapy outperforming monotherapy and placebo. Although mild adverse reactions were observed in a small subset of participants, cost-effectiveness assessments for this treatment remain lacking in the literature.
PubMed: 38410524
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1156655