-
Immunopharmacology and Immunotoxicology Dec 2021Furazolidone (FZD) is a widely used drug in human and veterinary medicine, and has antibacterial and antiprotozoal action. Although it is widely used as a therapy in...
Furazolidone (FZD) is a widely used drug in human and veterinary medicine, and has antibacterial and antiprotozoal action. Although it is widely used as a therapy in various pathological conditions, studies on the efficacy of FZD associated with immune responses are still limited. In this review, we seek to describe which immunopharmacological responses are caused by the administration of FZD. The study followed the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). A systematic review of clinical trials and and experimental studies was carried out, which resulted in 943 papers, of which 35 were considered eligible and, of these 35, 4 were selected for analysis. The studies listed indicated that administration of FZD can modulate pro- or anti-inflammatory pathways, with a probable increase in the expression of reactive oxygen species and a modulation of apoptotic pathways.
Topics: Adaptive Immunity; Animals; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Apoptosis; Cell Survival; Furazolidone; Humans; Immunity, Innate; Reactive Oxygen Species
PubMed: 34570666
DOI: 10.1080/08923973.2021.1979034 -
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease 2021In 2018, tafenoquine was approved for malaria chemoprophylaxis. We evaluated all available data on the safety and efficacy of tafenoquine chemoprophylaxis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In 2018, tafenoquine was approved for malaria chemoprophylaxis. We evaluated all available data on the safety and efficacy of tafenoquine chemoprophylaxis.
METHODS
This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines and was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019123839). We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and Cochrane databases. Two authors (JDM, PS) screened all papers.
RESULTS
We included 44 papers in the qualitative and 9 in the quantitative analyses. These 9 randomized, controlled trials included 2495 participants, aged 12-60 years with 27.3% women. Six studies were conducted in Plasmodium spp.-endemic regions; two were human infection studies. 200 mg weekly tafenoquine and higher dosages lead to a significant reduction of Plasmodium spp. infection compared to placebo and were comparable to 250 mg mefloquine weekly with a protective efficacy between 77.9 and 100% or a total risk ratio of 0.22 (95%-CI: 0.07-0.73; p = 0.013) in favour of tafenoquine. Adverse events (AE) were comparable in frequency and severity between tafenoquine and comparator arms. One study reported significantly more gastrointestinal events in tafenoquine users (p ≤ 0.001). Evidence of increased, reversible, asymptomatic vortex keratopathy in subjects with prolonged tafenoquine exposures was found. A single, serious event of decreased macular sensitivity occurred.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis of trials of G6PD-normal adults show that weekly tafenoquine 200 mg is well tolerated and effective as malaria chemoprophylaxis focusing primarily on Plasmodium falciparum but also on Plasmodium vivax. Our safety analysis is limited by heterogenous methods of adverse events reporting. Further research is indicated on the use of tafenoquine in diverse traveller populations.
Topics: Adult; Aminoquinolines; Antimalarials; Chemoprevention; Female; Humans; Malaria; Male
PubMed: 33227500
DOI: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101908 -
Systematic Reviews Apr 2024Leptospirosis, an important zoonotic bacterial disease, commonly affects resource-poor populations and results in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Leptospirosis, an important zoonotic bacterial disease, commonly affects resource-poor populations and results in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. The value of antibiotics in leptospirosis remains unclear, as evidenced by the conflicting opinions published.
METHODS
We conducted a search in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for studies. These studies included clinical trials and retrospective studies that evaluated the efficacy or safety of antibiotics for leptospirosis treatment. The primary outcomes assessed were defervescence time, mortality rate, and hospital stays. Subgroup analyses were performed based on whether there were cases involving children and whether there were cases of severe jaundice. Safety was defined as the prevalence of adverse events associated with the use of antibiotics. p scores were utilized to rank the efficacy of the antibiotics.
RESULTS
There are included 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 control trial (CT), and 3 retrospective studies (RS) involving 920 patients and 8 antibiotics. Six antibiotics resulted in significantly shorter defervescence times compared to the control, namely cefotaxime (MD, - 1.88; 95% CI = - 2.60 to - 1.15), azithromycin (MD, - 1.74; 95% CI = - 2.52 to - 0.95), doxycycline (MD, - 1.53; 95% CI = - 2.05 to - 1.00), ceftriaxone (MD, - 1.22; 95% CI = - 1.89 to - 0.55), penicillin (MD, - 1.22; 95% CI = - 1.80 to - 0.64), and penicillin or ampicillin (MD, - 0.08; 95% CI = - 1.01 to - 0.59). The antibiotics were not effective in reducing the mortality and hospital stays. Common adverse reactions to antibiotics included Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction, rash, headache, and digestive reactions (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and others).
CONCLUSIONS
Findings recommend that leptospirosis patients be treated with antibiotics, which significantly reduced the leptospirosis defervescence time. Cephalosporins, doxycycline, and penicillin are suggested, and azithromycin may be a suitable alternative for drug-resistant cases.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42022354938.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azithromycin; Doxycycline; Leptospirosis; Network Meta-Analysis; Penicillins
PubMed: 38627798
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-024-02519-y -
Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical... 2021To provide the latest evidence on the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir compared to other treatment options for COVID-19. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To provide the latest evidence on the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir compared to other treatment options for COVID-19.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Cochran Library, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for the relevant records up to April 2021. Moreover, we scanned MedRxiv, Google Scholar, and clinical registry databases to identify additional records. We have used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias tools to assess the quality of studies. This Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan software (version 5.3).
RESULTS
Fourteen studies were included. No significant difference was observed between lopinavir/ritonavir and non-antiviral treatment groups in terms of negative rate of PCR (polymerase chain reaction) on day 7 (risk ratio [RR]: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.63 to 1.09; P=0.17), and day 14 (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.05; P=0.25), PCR negative conversion time (mean difference [MD]: 1.09; 95% CI: -0.10 to 2.29; P=0.07), secondary outcomes, and adverse events (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between lopinavir/ritonavir and chloroquine as well as lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine regarding the efficacy outcomes (P>0.05). However, lopinavir/ritonavir showed better efficacy than arbidol for the same outcomes (P<0.05). Lopinavir/ritonavir plus arbidol was effective compared to arbidol alone in terms of the negative rate of PCR on day 7 (P=0.02). However, this difference was not significant regarding other efficacy outcomes (P>0.05).
CONCLUSION
Lopinavir/ritonavir has no more treatment effects than other therapeutic agents used herein in COVID-19 patients.
Topics: COVID-19; Drug Therapy, Combination; HIV Protease Inhibitors; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Lopinavir; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Ritonavir; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34048671
DOI: 10.18433/jpps31668 -
BMJ Open Respiratory Research Aug 2023Current evidence on the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis is inconclusive. We aimed to systematically evaluate published studies on repurposed drugs for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Current evidence on the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis is inconclusive. We aimed to systematically evaluate published studies on repurposed drugs for the prevention of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or COVID-19 among healthy adults.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
ELIGIBILITY
Quantitative experimental and observational intervention studies that evaluated the effectiveness of repurposed drugs for the primary prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or COVID-19 disease.
DATA SOURCE
PubMed and Embase (1 January 2020-28 September 2022).
RISK OF BIAS
Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions tools were applied to assess the quality of studies.
DATA ANALYSIS
Meta-analyses for each eligible drug were performed if ≥2 similar study designs were available.
RESULTS
In all, 65 (25 trials, 40 observational) and 29 publications were eligible for review and meta-analyses, respectively. Most studies pertained to hydroxychloroquine (32), ACE inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) (11), statin (8), and ivermectin (8). In trials, hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis reduced laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (risk ratio: 0.82 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90), I=48%), a result largely driven by one clinical trial (weight: 60.5%). Such beneficial effects were not observed in observational studies, nor for prognostic clinical outcomes. Ivermectin did not significantly reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR: 0.35 (95% CI 0.10 to 1.26), I=96%) and findings for clinical outcomes were inconsistent. Neither ACEi or ARB were beneficial in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most of the evidence from clinical trials was of moderate quality and of lower quality in observational studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Results from our analysis are insufficient to support an evidence-based repurposed drug policy for SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis because of inconsistency. In the view of scarce supportive evidence on repurposing drugs for COVID-19, alternative strategies such as immunisation of vulnerable people are warranted to prevent the future waves of infection.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021292797.
Topics: Adult; Humans; COVID-19; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Hydroxychloroquine; Ivermectin; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Primary Prevention
PubMed: 37640510
DOI: 10.1136/bmjresp-2023-001674 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Feb 2024Primaquine radical cure is used to treat dormant liver-stage parasites and prevent relapsing Plasmodium vivax malaria but is limited by concerns of haemolysis. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Primaquine radical cure is used to treat dormant liver-stage parasites and prevent relapsing Plasmodium vivax malaria but is limited by concerns of haemolysis. We undertook a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis to investigate the haematological safety of different primaquine regimens for P vivax radical cure.
METHODS
For this systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Central for prospective clinical studies of uncomplicated P vivax from endemic countries published between Jan 1, 2000, and June 8, 2023. We included studies if they had active follow-up of at least 28 days, if they included a treatment group with daily primaquine given over multiple days where primaquine was commenced within 3 days of schizontocidal treatment and was given alone or coadministered with chloroquine or one of four artemisinin-based combination therapies (ie, artemether-lumefantrine, artesunate-mefloquine, artesunate-amodiaquine, or dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine), and if they recorded haemoglobin or haematocrit concentrations on day 0. We excluded studies if they were on prevention, prophylaxis, or patients with severe malaria, or if data were extracted retrospectively from medical records outside of a planned trial. For the meta-analysis, we contacted the investigators of eligible trials to request individual patient data and we then pooled data that were made available by Aug 23, 2021. The main outcome was haemoglobin reduction of more than 25% to a concentration of less than 7 g/dL by day 14. Haemoglobin concentration changes between day 0 and days 2-3 and between day 0 and days 5-7 were assessed by mixed-effects linear regression for patients with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) activity of (1) 30% or higher and (2) between 30% and less than 70%. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019154470 and CRD42022303680.
FINDINGS
Of 226 identified studies, 18 studies with patient-level data from 5462 patients from 15 countries were included in the analysis. A haemoglobin reduction of more than 25% to a concentration of less than 7 g/dL occurred in one (0·1%) of 1208 patients treated without primaquine, none of 893 patients treated with a low daily dose of primaquine (<0·375 mg/kg per day), five (0·3%) of 1464 patients treated with an intermediate daily dose (0·375 mg/kg per day to <0·75 mg/kg per day), and six (0·5%) of 1269 patients treated with a high daily dose (≥0·75 mg/kg per day). The covariate-adjusted mean estimated haemoglobin changes at days 2-3 were -0·6 g/dL (95% CI -0·7 to -0·5), -0·7 g/dL (-0·8 to -0·5), -0·6 g/dL (-0·7 to -0·4), and -0·5 g/dL (-0·7 to -0·4), respectively. In 51 patients with G6PD activity between 30% and less than 70%, the adjusted mean haemoglobin concentration on days 2-3 decreased as G6PD activity decreased; two patients in this group who were treated with a high daily dose of primaquine had a reduction of more than 25% to a concentration of less than 7 g/dL. 17 of 18 included studies had a low or unclear risk of bias.
INTERPRETATION
Treatment of patients with G6PD activity of 30% or higher with 0·25-0·5 mg/kg per day primaquine regimens and patients with G6PD activity of 70% or higher with 0·25-1 mg/kg per day regimens were associated with similar risks of haemolysis to those in patients treated without primaquine, supporting the safe use of primaquine radical cure at these doses.
FUNDING
Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Medicines for Malaria Venture.
Topics: Humans; Antimalarials; Artemether, Lumefantrine Drug Combination; Artesunate; Australia; Hemoglobins; Hemolysis; Malaria, Vivax; Plasmodium vivax; Primaquine; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37748497
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(23)00431-0 -
The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine Jan 2022Conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs have been trialed in osteoarthritis (OA). Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which has shown its effectiveness in rheumatoid... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND/AIMS
Conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs have been trialed in osteoarthritis (OA). Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which has shown its effectiveness in rheumatoid arthritis, has been trialed for the treatment of OA; however, its efficacy and safety remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate efficacy and safety of HCQ for the treatment of OA.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception through June 2020. Two reviewers independently screened for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HCQ with placebo or other active-comparators for the treatment of knee, hand, or hip OA, extracted data, and performed Cochrane risk of bias assessments.
RESULTS
Six RCTs, four in hand OA, two in knee OA, consisting of 842 patients (436 in HCQ arm, 406 in control arm) were included. RCTs were conducted between 2012 and 2020, one each at UK, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Iran, and Egypt; follow-up period ranged 24 to 52 weeks. High-quality evidence showed no clinically important pain reduction with HCQ compared to placebo/active-control in hand OA (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.20 to 0.48). Effect on pain reduction in knee and hand OA was small and non-significant (SMD, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.44 to 0.25). High-quality evidence showed no improvement in dysfunction with HCQ compared to placebo in hand OA patients (SMD, 0.08; 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.40). Effect on dysfunction improvement in knee and hand OA was modest and statistically non-significant (SMD, -0.20; 95% CI,-0.57 to 0.18). No improvement in quality of life was observed in hand OA.
CONCLUSION
HCQ has no benefit in reducing pain and improving physical function in hand or knee OA patients.
Topics: Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33882635
DOI: 10.3904/kjim.2020.605 -
European Journal of Epidemiology Aug 2022Recruitment into randomized trials of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for prevention of COVID-19 has been adversely affected by a widespread conviction that HCQ is not... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Recruitment into randomized trials of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for prevention of COVID-19 has been adversely affected by a widespread conviction that HCQ is not effective for prevention. In the absence of an updated systematic review, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials that study the effectiveness of HCQ to prevent COVID-19.
METHODS
A search of PubMed, medRxiv, and clinicaltrials.gov combined with expert consultation found 11 completed randomized trials: 7 pre-exposure prophylaxis trials and 4 post-exposure prophylaxis trials. We obtained or calculated the risk ratio of COVID-19 diagnosis for assignment to HCQ versus no HCQ (either placebo or usual care) for each trial, and then pooled the risk ratio estimates.
RESULTS
The pooled risk ratio estimate of the pre-exposure prophylaxis trials was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.58-0.90) when using either a fixed effect or a standard random effects approach, and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.55-0.95) when using a conservative modification of the Hartung-Knapp random effects approach. The corresponding estimates for the post-exposure prophylaxis trials were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.72-1.16) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.62-1.35). All trials found a similar rate of serious adverse effects in the HCQ and no HCQ groups.
DISCUSSION
A benefit of HCQ as prophylaxis for COVID-19 cannot be ruled out based on the available evidence from randomized trials. However, the "not statistically significant" findings from early prophylaxis trials were widely interpreted as definite evidence of lack of effectiveness of HCQ. This interpretation disrupted the timely completion of the remaining trials and thus the generation of precise estimates for pandemic management before the development of vaccines.
Topics: COVID-19; COVID-19 Testing; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35943669
DOI: 10.1007/s10654-022-00891-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021Human African trypanosomiasis, or sleeping sickness, is a severe disease affecting people in the poorest parts of Africa. It is usually fatal without... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Human African trypanosomiasis, or sleeping sickness, is a severe disease affecting people in the poorest parts of Africa. It is usually fatal without treatment. Conventional treatments require days of intravenous infusion, but a recently developed drug, fexinidazole, can be given orally. Another oral drug candidate, acoziborole, is undergoing clinical development and will be considered in subsequent editions. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of currently used drugs for treating second-stage Trypanosoma brucei gambiense trypanosomiasis (gambiense human African trypanosomiasis, g-HAT).
SEARCH METHODS
On 14 May 2021, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database, BIOSIS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also searched reference lists of included studies, contacted researchers working in the field, and contacted relevant organizations.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that included adults and children with second-stage g-HAT, treated with anti-trypanosomal drugs currently in use.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias; a third review author acted as an arbitrator if needed. The included trial only reported dichotomous outcomes, which we presented as risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included one trial comparing fexinidazole to nifurtimox combined with eflornithine (NECT). This trial was conducted between October 2012 and November 2016 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic, and included 394 participants. The study reported on efficacy and safety, with up to 24 months' follow-up. We judged the study to be at low risk of bias in all domains except blinding; as the route of administration and dosing regimens differed between treatment groups, participants and personnel were not blinded, resulting in a high risk of performance bias. Mortality with fexinidazole may be higher at 24 months compared to NECT. There were 9/264 deaths in the fexinidazole group and 2/130 deaths in the NECT group (RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.49 to 10.11; 394 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the deaths were related to treatment. Fexinidazole likely results in an increase in the number of people relapsing during follow-up, with 14 participants in the fexinidazole group (14/264) and none in the NECT group (0/130) relapsing at 24 months (RD 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.08; 394 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there is any difference between the drugs regarding the incidence of serious adverse events at 24 months. (31/264 with fexinidazole and 13/130 with NECT group at 24 months). Adverse events were common with both drugs (247/264 with fexinidazole versus 121/130 with NECT), with no difference between groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06; 394 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral treatment with fexinidazole is much easier to administer than conventional treatment, but deaths and relapse appear to be more common. However, the advantages or an oral option are considerable, in terms of convenience, avoiding hospitalisation and multiple intravenous infusions, thus increasing adherence.
Topics: Animals; Antiprotozoal Agents; Humans; Nifurtimox; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Trypanosoma brucei gambiense; Trypanosomiasis, African
PubMed: 34882307
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015374 -
Respiratory Research Feb 2020Lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM) is a rare, low-grade multisystem neoplastic disease. Most LAM patients are at a high risk of losing lung function at an accelerated rate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM) is a rare, low-grade multisystem neoplastic disease. Most LAM patients are at a high risk of losing lung function at an accelerated rate and developing progressive dyspnea. Recently, several studies have reported their experience with pharmacological treatments for LAM. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of these therapies.
METHODS
PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and EBSCO Host were searched (until March 31, 2019) for eligible prospective studies regarding LAM patients treated with pharmacological treatments. Random effect models were used for quantitative analysis.
RESULTS
Fourteen prospective studies regarding five pharmacological treatments (including sirolimus, everolimus, doxycycline, triptorelin, and a combination therapy of sirolimus and hydroxychloroquine) were enrolled in our systematic review, and ten of them were used for the meta-analysis. Seven prospective studies reported that sirolimus was effective at improving or stabilizing lung function and alleviating renal angiomyolipoma (AML) in LAM patients. Subsequent quantitative analyses showed that during sirolimus treatment, the pooled values of lung function and 6-min walk distance (6MWD) were not significantly changed (P > 0.05), with the pooled response rate of AML being 0.62 (95% confidence intervals [CIs]: 0.43 to 0.82, I = 65%). Regarding everolimus, three prospective studies reported similar effects to those of sirolimus with regard to preserving lung function and reducing AMLs. The meta-analysis showed that the changes in lung function during everolimus treatment were not statistically significant (P > 0.05), while the pooled response rate of AML was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.68 to 0.88, I = 8%). Neither the qualitative nor the quantitative results confirmed the benefits of doxycycline or triptorelin treatment, and the effects of the combination therapy were unclear in LAM patients. Most of the adverse events during pharmacological treatments were low or moderate grade and tolerable.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, sirolimus and everolimus were recommended for the treatment of LAM because they could stabilize lung function and alleviate renal AML. Doxycycline and triptorelin were not recommended for the treatment of LAM because no beneficial outcomes were consistently observed. The efficacy and safety of combination therapy remain to be further explored.
Topics: Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Antineoplastic Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Drug Therapy, Combination; Enzyme Inhibitors; Everolimus; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Hyperlipidemias; Lymphangioleiomyomatosis; Prospective Studies; Sirolimus; Stomatitis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32059669
DOI: 10.1186/s12931-020-1316-3