-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Lupus erythematosus is an autoimmune disease with significant morbidity and mortality. Cutaneous disease in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is common. Many...
BACKGROUND
Lupus erythematosus is an autoimmune disease with significant morbidity and mortality. Cutaneous disease in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is common. Many interventions are used to treat SLE with varying efficacy, risks, and benefits.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions for cutaneous disease in SLE.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to June 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Wiley Interscience Online Library, and Biblioteca Virtual em Saude (Virtual Health Library). We updated our search in September 2020, but these results have not yet been fully incorporated.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for cutaneous disease in SLE compared with placebo, another intervention, no treatment, or different doses of the same intervention. We did not evaluate trials of cutaneous lupus in people without a diagnosis of SLE.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were complete and partial clinical response. Secondary outcomes included reduction (or change) in number of clinical flares; and severe and minor adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Sixty-one RCTs, involving 11,232 participants, reported 43 different interventions. Trials predominantly included women from outpatient clinics; the mean age range of participants was 20 to 40 years. Twenty-five studies reported baseline severity, and 22 studies included participants with moderate to severe cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE); duration of CLE was not well reported. Studies were conducted mainly in multi-centre settings. Most often treatment duration was 12 months. Risk of bias was highest for the domain of reporting bias, followed by performance/detection bias. We identified too few studies for meta-analysis for most comparisons. We limited this abstract to main comparisons (all administered orally) and outcomes. We did not identify clinical trials of other commonly used treatments, such as topical corticosteroids, that reported complete or partial clinical response or numbers of clinical flares. Complete clinical response Studies comparing oral hydroxychloroquine against placebo did not report complete clinical response. Chloroquine may increase complete clinical response at 12 months' follow-up compared with placebo (absence of skin lesions) (risk ratio (RR) 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 2.61; 1 study, 24 participants; low-quality evidence). There may be little to no difference between methotrexate and chloroquine in complete clinical response (skin rash resolution) at 6 months' follow-up (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.50; 1 study, 25 participants; low-quality evidence). Methotrexate may be superior to placebo with regard to complete clinical response (absence of malar/discoid rash) at 6 months' follow-up (RR 3.57, 95% CI 1.63 to 7.84; 1 study, 41 participants; low-quality evidence). At 12 months' follow-up, there may be little to no difference between azathioprine and ciclosporin in complete clinical response (malar rash resolution) (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.52; 1 study, 89 participants; low-quality evidence). Partial clinical response Partial clinical response was reported for only one key comparison: hydroxychloroquine may increase partial clinical response at 12 months compared to placebo, but the 95% CI indicates that hydroxychloroquine may make no difference or may decrease response (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.41 to 120.16; 20 pregnant participants, 1 trial; low-quality evidence). Clinical flares Clinical flares were reported for only two key comparisons: hydroxychloroquine is probably superior to placebo at 6 months' follow-up for reducing clinical flares (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.89; 1 study, 47 participants; moderate-quality evidence). At 12 months' follow-up, there may be no difference between methotrexate and placebo, but the 95% CI indicates there may be more or fewer flares with methotrexate (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.83; 1 study, 86 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events Data for adverse events were limited and were inconsistently reported, but hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and methotrexate have well-documented adverse effects including gastrointestinal symptoms, liver problems, and retinopathy for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine and teratogenicity during pregnancy for methotrexate.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence supports the commonly-used treatment hydroxychloroquine, and there is also evidence supporting chloroquine and methotrexate for treating cutaneous disease in SLE. Evidence is limited due to the small number of studies reporting key outcomes. Evidence for most key outcomes was low or moderate quality, meaning findings should be interpreted with caution. Head-to-head intervention trials designed to detect differences in efficacy between treatments for specific CLE subtypes are needed. Thirteen further trials are awaiting classification and have not yet been incorporated in this review; they may alter the review conclusions.
Topics: Age of Onset; Azathioprine; Bias; Biological Factors; Chloroquine; Cosmetic Techniques; Cyclosporine; Dermatologic Agents; Exanthema; Female; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Immunosuppressive Agents; Lupus Erythematosus, Cutaneous; Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic; Male; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Methotrexate; Placebos; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin Diseases; Symptom Flare Up
PubMed: 33687069
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007478.pub2 -
The Journal of Antibiotics Sep 2020Ivermectin proposes many potentials effects to treat a range of diseases, with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder drug. It is highly...
Ivermectin proposes many potentials effects to treat a range of diseases, with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder drug. It is highly effective against many microorganisms including some viruses. In this comprehensive systematic review, antiviral effects of ivermectin are summarized including in vitro and in vivo studies over the past 50 years. Several studies reported antiviral effects of ivermectin on RNA viruses such as Zika, dengue, yellow fever, West Nile, Hendra, Newcastle, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, chikungunya, Semliki Forest, Sindbis, Avian influenza A, Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome, Human immunodeficiency virus type 1, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Furthermore, there are some studies showing antiviral effects of ivermectin against DNA viruses such as Equine herpes type 1, BK polyomavirus, pseudorabies, porcine circovirus 2, and bovine herpesvirus 1. Ivermectin plays a role in several biological mechanisms, therefore it could serve as a potential candidate in the treatment of a wide range of viruses including COVID-19 as well as other types of positive-sense single-stranded RNA viruses. In vivo studies of animal models revealed a broad range of antiviral effects of ivermectin, however, clinical trials are necessary to appraise the potential efficacy of ivermectin in clinical setting.
Topics: Animals; Antiviral Agents; Betacoronavirus; Cell Line; DNA Viruses; Disease Models, Animal; Global Health; Humans; Ivermectin; Molecular Structure; RNA Viruses; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 32533071
DOI: 10.1038/s41429-020-0336-z -
Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) 2023Demodex mites are related to some inflammatory diseases such as rosacea and blepharitis and could be harmful in patients with immunodeficiency or immunosuppression,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Demodex mites are related to some inflammatory diseases such as rosacea and blepharitis and could be harmful in patients with immunodeficiency or immunosuppression, especially notable in patients using biologic like dupilumab. In order to have an objective observation of different anti-Demodex strategies, we conducted this study, based on interventional clinical evidence with quantified Demodex mite data.
METHODS
We used the PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Medline, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) as databases. To assess the risk of bias, the RoB2 and ROBINS-I tools were used. The certainty of evidence was assessed following the GRADE guideline. Furthermore, the effect sizes (ESs) of different strategies were compared in different time periods (0-1, 1-2, 2-3, >3 months), as well as Demodex decrease rates.
RESULTS
1,618 studies were identified in the databases, with 21 of which included in the final quantitative synthesis. Interventions in these studies included ivermectin, tea tree oil (TTO), permethrin, crotamiton, metronidazole, light therapies, combined therapies, and other therapies. During 0-1 month, the ES varied from 0.07 (cleanser) to 1.95 (systemic ivermectin-metronidazole). During 1-2 months, the ES varied from 0.88 (topical permethrin) to 4.40 (topical ivermectin). During 2-3 months, the ES varied from 0.79 (topical permethrin) to 8.37 (topical ivermectin). During the time of 3 months, the ES varied from 0.59 (topical permethrin) to 2.25 (intense pulsed light [IPL]). In terms of Demodex decrease rates, topical ivermectin, TTO, permethrin, IPL, and baby shampoo had achieved a nearly 100% decrease. The reported adverse events were mostly mild, without severe adverse events reported in any of the studies.
CONCLUSIONS
We found ivermectin (topical and systemic), ivermectin-metronidazole (topical), and TTO (topical) are promising anti-Demodex interventions. In addition to traditional pharmacotherapy, light therapies, especially IPL and skin cleansing, could also be considered as effective methods to control Demodex mite infestation.
Topics: Humans; Animals; Ivermectin; Mite Infestations; Metronidazole; Permethrin; Skin; Mites
PubMed: 36310014
DOI: 10.1159/000526296 -
American Journal of Therapeutics Jun 2021Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials.
AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY
We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in reducing mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection.
DATA SOURCES
We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and additionally in trial sequential analyses for mortality. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants met review inclusion.
THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES
Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian-Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a trial sequential analysis using the Biggerstaff-Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%-91%). Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for "need for mechanical ventilation," whereas effect estimates for "improvement" and "deterioration" clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty.
CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Humans; Ivermectin; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34145166
DOI: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001402 -
The Lancet. Gastroenterology &... Jan 2024We previously showed rising primary antibiotic resistance of Helicobacter pylori during 1990-2015 in the Asia-Pacific region. However, whether primary antibiotic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
We previously showed rising primary antibiotic resistance of Helicobacter pylori during 1990-2015 in the Asia-Pacific region. However, whether primary antibiotic resistance continues to rise is unknown. Therefore, we aimed to assess the latest prevalence of H pylori antibiotic resistance in this region.
METHODS
We did an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomised controlled trials published in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library between Jan 1, 1990, and July 12, 2023. Studies investigating primary H pylori resistance to clarithromycin, metronidazole, levofloxacin, amoxicillin, or tetracycline in individuals naive to eradication therapy in the Asia-Pacific region (as defined by the UN geoscheme) were eligible for inclusion. There were no language restrictions. Studies that focused on specific subpopulations (eg, children) were excluded. Using a standardised extraction form, two authors independently reviewed and extracted summary data from all eligible articles. The updated prevalence of antibiotic resistance was generated by meta-analysis under a random-effects model and subgroup analyses were done by countries and periods of study. Between-study variability was assessed by use of I. The study is registered in PROSPERO, CRD42022339956.
FINDINGS
A total of 351 studies, including 175 new studies and 176 studies from our previous analysis, were included in this meta-analysis. The overall prevalence of primary antibiotic resistance of H pylori between 1990 and 2022 was 22% (95% CI 20-23; I=96%) for clarithromycin, 52% (49-55; I=99%) for metronidazole, 26% (24-29; I=96%) for levofloxacin, 4% (3-5; I=95%) for tetracycline, and 4% (3-5; I=95%) for amoxicillin. Prevalence varied considerably between countries and across study periods. From 1990 to 2022, the prevalence of primary resistance increased for clarithromycin, metronidazole, and levofloxacin but remained stable for amoxicillin and tetracycline. The latest primary resistance prevalences were 30% (95% CI 28-33; I=93%) for clarithromycin, 61% (55-66; I=99%) for metronidazole, 35% (31-39; I=95%) for levofloxacin, 4% (2-6; I=96%) for tetracycline, and 6% (4-8; I=96%) for amoxicillin in the Asia-Pacific region.
INTERPRETATION
Treatment guidelines should be adapted in response to the rising primary resistance of key antibiotics for H pylori eradication. A global policy to control and monitor the antibiotic resistance of H pylori is urgently needed.
FUNDING
Ministry of Health and Welfare of Taiwan, National Science and Technology Council of Taiwan, and National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATION
For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Topics: Child; Humans; Clarithromycin; Metronidazole; Levofloxacin; Helicobacter pylori; Helicobacter Infections; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Amoxicillin; Tetracycline; Drug Resistance, Microbial; Asia
PubMed: 37972625
DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(23)00281-9 -
American Journal of Therapeutics Feb 2021Albendazole is an anthelmintic drug used worldwide for prophylactic or curative treatment. Side effects include diarrhea, abdominal pain, elevated levels of hepatic...
BACKGROUND
Albendazole is an anthelmintic drug used worldwide for prophylactic or curative treatment. Side effects include diarrhea, abdominal pain, elevated levels of hepatic transaminases, dizziness, neutropenia, and alopecia.
AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY
The main question of the systematic review is if albendazole administration can cause liver injury or liver failure.
DATA SOURCES
Two researchers conducted the search on PubMed and the key words used were: "albendazole," "anthelmintic," "drug-induced liver injury," and "acute hepatitis." Two new case reports were included in the systematic review.
RESULTS
Literature search concluded in 10 cases listed on PubMed. Another 2 new case reports from our experience are included in the systematic review. Most common symptoms presented are jaundice, anorexia, and vomiting after the single-use of albendazole or long-term usage. All cases presented high levels of transaminases, with remission after stopping the administration of albendazole. The treatment with albendazole was mostly given for liver hydatid cysts or empirically.
CONCLUSIONS
Albendazole is a prescription-based drug used by most patients without medical advice, without knowing the risk of side effects. The anthelmintic drug may induce liver injury, even in small doses; in result, practitioners and patients should take this information in consideration.
Topics: Albendazole; Anthelmintics; Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury, Chronic; Echinococcosis, Hepatic; Humans
PubMed: 33590990
DOI: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001341 -
The Lancet. Global Health Dec 2020The burden of malaria infection in sub-Saharan Africa among school-aged children aged 5-15 years is underappreciated and represents an important source of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The burden of malaria infection in sub-Saharan Africa among school-aged children aged 5-15 years is underappreciated and represents an important source of human-to-mosquito transmission of Plasmodium falciparum. Additional interventions are needed to control and eliminate malaria. We aimed to assess whether preventive treatment of malaria might be an effective means of reducing P falciparum infection and anaemia in school-aged children and lowering parasite transmission.
METHODS
In this systematic review and two meta-analyses, we searched the online databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Clinicaltrials.gov for intervention studies published between Jan 1, 1990, and Dec 14, 2018. We included randomised studies that assessed the effect of antimalarial treatment among asymptomatic school-aged children aged 5-15 years in sub-Saharan Africa on prevalence of P falciparum infection and anaemia, clinical malaria, and cognitive function. We first extracted data for a study-level meta-analysis, then contacted research groups to request data for an individual participant data meta-analysis. Outcomes of interest included prevalence of P falciparum infection detected by microscopy, anaemia (study defined values or haemoglobin less than age-adjusted and sex-adjusted values), clinical malaria (infection and symptoms on the basis of study-specific definitions) during follow-up, and code transmission test scores. We assessed effects by treatment type and duration of time protected, and explored effect modification by transmission setting. For study-level meta-analysis, we calculated risk ratios for binary outcomes and standardised mean differences for continuous outcomes and pooled outcomes using fixed-effect and random-effects models. We used a hierarchical generalised linear model for meta-analysis of individual participant data. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42016030197.
FINDINGS
Of 628 studies identified, 13 were eligible for the study-level meta-analysis (n=16 309). Researchers from 11 studies contributed data on at least one outcome (n=15 658) for an individual participant data meta-analysis. Interventions and study designs were highly heterogeneous; overall risk of bias was low. In the study-level meta-analysis, treatment was associated with reductions in P falciparum prevalence (risk ratio [RR] 0·27, 95% CI 0·17-0·44), anaemia (0·77, 0·65-0·91), and clinical malaria (0·40, 0·28-0·56); results for cognitive outcomes are not presented because data were only available for three trials. In our individual participant data meta-analysis, we found treatment significantly decreased P falciparum prevalence (adjusted RR [ARR] 0·46, 95% CI 0·40-0·53; p<0·0001; 15 648 individuals; 11 studies), anaemia (ARR 0·85, 0·77-0·92; p<0·0001; 15 026 individuals; 11 studies), and subsequent clinical malaria (ARR 0·50, 0·39-0·60; p<0·0001; 1815 individuals; four studies) across transmission settings. We detected a marginal effect on cognitive function in children older than 10 years (adjusted mean difference in standardised test scores 0·36, 0·01-0·71; p=0·044; 3962 individuals; five studies) although we found no significant effect when combined across all ages.
INTERPRETATION
Preventive treatment of malaria among school-aged children significantly decreases P falciparum prevalence, anaemia, and risk of subsequent clinical malaria across transmission settings. Policy makers and programme managers should consider preventive treatment of malaria to protect this age group and advance the goal of malaria elimination, while weighing these benefits against potential risks of chemoprevention.
FUNDING
US National Institutes of Health and Burroughs Wellcome Fund/ASTMH Fellowship.
Topics: Adolescent; Africa South of the Sahara; Antimalarials; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Malaria
PubMed: 33222799
DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30325-9 -
Cancers May 2023Quality pharmacological treatment can improve survival in many types of cancer. Drug repurposing offers advantages in comparison with traditional drug development... (Review)
Review
Quality pharmacological treatment can improve survival in many types of cancer. Drug repurposing offers advantages in comparison with traditional drug development procedures, reducing time and risk. This systematic review identified the most recent randomized controlled clinical trials that focus on drug repurposing in oncology. We found that only a few clinical trials were placebo-controlled or standard-of-care-alone-controlled. Metformin has been studied for potential use in various types of cancer, including prostate, lung, and pancreatic cancer. Other studies assessed the possible use of the antiparasitic agent mebendazole in colorectal cancer and of propranolol in multiple myeloma or, when combined with etodolac, in breast cancer. We were able to identify trials that study the potential use of known antineoplastics in other non-oncological conditions, such as imatinib for severe coronavirus disease in 2019 or a study protocol aiming to assess the possible repurposing of leuprolide for Alzheimer's disease. Major limitations of these clinical trials were the small sample size, the high clinical heterogeneity of the participants regarding the stage of the neoplastic disease, and the lack of accounting for multimorbidity and other baseline clinical characteristics. Drug repurposing possibilities in oncology must be carefully examined with well-designed trials, considering factors that could influence prognosis.
PubMed: 37296934
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15112972 -
BioMed Research International 2022or Tongkat Ali (family: Simaroubaceae) has the potential to be utilised as an antimicrobial and antiparasitic agent that correlated with its traditional use to treat... (Review)
Review
or Tongkat Ali (family: Simaroubaceae) has the potential to be utilised as an antimicrobial and antiparasitic agent that correlated with its traditional use to treat jaundice, malaria, antiseptic agent, and many more. This review is aimed at systematically sieving through articles regarding the antimicrobial and antiparasitic activity of . A total of 123 studies have been found using suitable keywords and manually searched from previous studies through the four databases. After title screening and abstract examination, 56 articles were excluded due to duplication and not meeting the acceptance criteria. 67 articles were assessed on full-text accessibility, 31 studies remained, and this number decreased to 20 articles after a careful examination of the full-text articles. Among the 20 articles selected, 17 articles proved the potential of as an antimicrobial and antiparasitic agent efficiently. 2 selected articles showed partial positive results, which specified specific microorganisms tested. In contrast, another 1 article gave a completely negative result. As for the conclusion, current studies highlighted by this review may shed light on the future direction of studies concerning as a novel antimicrobial and antiparasitic agent. However, more research should be done in the future focusing on the efficiency of for veterinary medicine utilisation.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents; Antiparasitic Agents; Eurycoma; Plant Extracts; Plant Roots
PubMed: 35845951
DOI: 10.1155/2022/4999797 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Coronavirus disease 2019 was first discovered in December 2019 and subsequently became a global pandemic with serious political, economic, and social implications...
Coronavirus disease 2019 was first discovered in December 2019 and subsequently became a global pandemic with serious political, economic, and social implications worldwide. We urgently need to find drugs that can be effective against COVID-19. Among the many observational studies, ivermectin has attracted the attention of many countries. Ivermectin is a broad-spectrum antiparasitic drug that also has some antiviral effects. We reviewed studies related to ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 over the last 2 years (2019.12-2022.03) search engines such as PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost. Seven studies showed a lower mortality rate in the ivermectin group than in the control group, six studies found that the ivermectin group had a significantly fewer length of hospitalization than the control group, and eight studies showed better negative RT-PCR responses in the IVM group than in the control group. Our systematic review indicated that ivermectin may be effective for mildly to moderately ill patients. There is no clear evidence or guidelines to recommend ivermectin as a therapeutic agent for COVID-19, so physicians should use it with caution in the absence of better alternatives in the clinical setting, and self-medication is not recommended for patients.
PubMed: 35800451
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.858693