-
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 -
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 -
Virology Journal Feb 2024Azvudine has been approved for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in China, and this meta-analysis aims to illustrate the safety of azvudine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Azvudine has been approved for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in China, and this meta-analysis aims to illustrate the safety of azvudine and its effectiveness in reducing mortality.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Web of science, Cochrane Library and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 Living Overview of Evidence database (L.OVE) were searched to aggregate currently published studies. Cochrane risk of bias tool and ROBINS-I tool were used to assess the risk of bias of randomized controlled study and cohort study respectively. Odds radios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CIs) were combined for dichotomous variables. Publication bias was assessed by Egger's test and funnel plots.
RESULTS
A total of 184 articles were retrieved from the included databases and 17 studies were included into the final analysis. Pooled analysis showed that azvudine significantly reduced mortality risk in COVID-19 patients compared with controls (OR: 0.41, 95%CI 0.31-0.54, p < 0.001). Besides, either mild to moderate or severe COVID-19 patients could benefit from azvudine administration. There was no significant difference in the incidence of ICU admission (OR: 0.90, 95%CI 0.47-1.72, p = 0.74) and invasive ventilation (OR: 0.94, 95%CI 0.54-1.62, p = 0.82) between azvudine and control group. The incidence of adverse events was similar between azvudine and control (OR: 1.26, 95%CI 0.59-2.70, p = 0.56).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis suggests that azvudine could reduce the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients, and the safety of administration is acceptable.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO; No.: CRD42023462988; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ .
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Cohort Studies; China; Databases, Factual; Azides; Deoxycytidine
PubMed: 38395970
DOI: 10.1186/s12985-024-02316-y -
PloS One 2024This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in the treatment of patients with RA. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in the treatment of patients with RA.
METHODS
The databases CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, CBM, and PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), all from the time of database creation to April 2024. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment (using Review Manager-5.3 software) were independently performed by at least two authors. The network meta-analysis was conducted using R 4.1.3 software. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022370444.
RESULTS
Thirty-three RCTs included 15,961 patients The experimental groups involved six JAK inhibitors (filgotinib, tofacitinib, decernotinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib and peficitinib) and 12 interventions (different doses of the six JAK inhibitors), and the control group involved adalimumab (ADA) and placebo. Compared with placebo, all JAK inhibitors showed a significant increase in efficacy measures (ACR20/50/70). Compared with ADA, only tofacitinib, low-dose decernotinib, and high-dose peficitinib showed a significant increase in ACR20/50/70. Decernotinib ranked first in the SUCRA ranking of ACR20/50/70. In terms of safety indicators, only those differences between low-dose filgotinib and high-dose upadacitinib, low-dose tofacitinib and high-dose upadacitinib were statistically significant. Low-dose filgotinib ranked first in the SUCRA ranking with adverse events as safety indicators. Only the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib ranked higher among different SUCRA rankings.
CONCLUSION
Six JAK inhibitors have better efficacy than placebo. The superior efficacy of decernotinib and safety of low-dose filgotinib can be found in the SUCRA. However, there are no significant differences in safety between the different JAK inhibitors. Head-to-head trials, directly comparing one against each other, are required to provide more certain evidence.
Topics: Humans; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Bayes Theorem; Pyrimidines; Piperidines; Network Meta-Analysis; Azetidines; Purines; Pyrroles; Pyrazoles; Sulfonamides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Heterocyclic Compounds, 2-Ring; Niacinamide; Benzamides; Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring; Antirheumatic Agents; Triazoles; Adamantane; Pyridines; Valine
PubMed: 38905267
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305621 -
BMC Cancer Jun 2024Colorectal cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. The first and second lines of treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include chemotherapy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Colorectal cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. The first and second lines of treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include chemotherapy based on 5-fluorouracil. However, treatment following progression on the first and second line is still unclear. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for studies investigating the use of trifluridine-tipiracil with bevacizumab versus trifluridine-tipiracil alone for mCRC. We used RStudio version 4.2.3; and we considered p < 0.05 significant. Seven studies and 1,182 patients were included - 602 (51%) received trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab. Compared with control, the progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.42-0.63; p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.52-0.70; p < 0.001) were significantly higher with bevacizumab. The objective response rate (ORR) (RR 3.14; 95% CI 1.51-6.51; p = 0.002) and disease control rate (DCR) (RR 1.66; 95% CI 1.28-2.16; p = 0.0001) favored the intervention. Regarding adverse events, the intervention had a higher rate of neutropenia (RR 1.38; 95% CI 1.19-1.59; p = 0.00001), whereas the monotherapy group had a higher risk of anemia (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.44-0.82; p = 0.001). Our results support that the addition of bevacizumab is associated with a significant benefit in PFS, OS, ORR and DCR.
Topics: Humans; Colorectal Neoplasms; Bevacizumab; Trifluridine; Thymine; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Pyrrolidines; Drug Combinations; Neoplasm Metastasis; Progression-Free Survival; Uracil; Drug Resistance, Neoplasm
PubMed: 38825703
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12447-8