-
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 Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic respiratory condition characterised by persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow limitation. Acute... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic respiratory condition characterised by persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow limitation. Acute exacerbations punctuate the natural history of COPD and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality and disease progression. Chronic airflow limitation is caused by a combination of small airways (bronchitis) and parenchymal destruction (emphysema), which can impact day-to-day activities and overall quality of life. In carefully selected patients with COPD, long-term, prophylactic use of antibiotics may reduce bacterial load, inflammation of the airways, and the frequency of exacerbations.
OBJECTIVES
To assess effects of different prophylactic antibiotics on exacerbations, quality of life, and serious adverse events in people with COPD in three separate network meta-analyses (NMAs), and to provide rankings of identified antibiotics.
SEARCH METHODS
To identify eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), we searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and clinical trials registries. We conducted the most recent search on 22 January 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs with a parallel design of at least 12 weeks' duration evaluating long-term administration of antibiotics prophylactically compared with other antibiotics, or placebo, for patients with COPD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This Cochrane Review collected and updated pair-wise data from two previous Cochrane Reviews. Searches were updated and additional studies included. We conducted three separate network meta-analyses (NMAs) within a Bayesian framework to assess three outcomes: exacerbations, quality of life, and serious adverse events. For quality of life, we collected data from St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Using previously validated methods, we selected the simplest model that could adequately fit the data for every analysis. We used threshold analysis to indicate which results were robust to potential biases, taking into account each study's contributions to the overall results and network structure. Probability ranking was performed for each antibiotic class for exacerbations, quality of life, and serious adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
Characteristics of studies and participants Eight trials were conducted at multiple sites that included hospital clinics or academic health centres. Seven were single-centre trials conducted in hospital clinics. Two trials did not report settings. Trials durations ranged from 12 to 52 weeks. Most participants had moderate to severe disease. Mean age ranged from 64 years to 73 years, and more males were recruited (51% to 100%). Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) ranged from 0.935 to 1.36 L. Most participants had previous exacerbations. Data from 12 studies were included in the NMAs (3405 participants; 16 treatment arms including placebo). Prophylactic antibiotics evaluated were macrolides (azithromycin and erythromycin), tetracyclines (doxycyclines), quinolones (moxifloxacin) and macrolides plus tetracyclines (roxithromycin plus doxycycline). Risk of bias and threshold analysis Most studies were at low risk across domains, except detection bias, for which only seven studies were judged at low risk. In the threshold analysis for exacerbations, all comparisons in which one antibiotic was compared with another were robust to sampling variation, especially macrolide comparisons. Comparisons of classes with placebo were sensitive to potential bias, especially macrolide versus placebo, therefore, any bias in the comparison was likely to favour the active class, so any adjustment would bring the estimated relative effect closer to the null value, thus quinolone may become the best class to prevent exacerbations. Exacerbations Nine studies were included (2732 participants) in this NMA (exacerbations analysed as time to first exacerbation or people with one or more exacerbations). Macrolides and quinolones reduced exacerbations. Macrolides had a greater effect in reducing exacerbations compared with placebo (macrolides: hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.60 to 0.75; quinolones: HR 0.89, 95% CrI 0.75 to 1.04), resulting in 127 fewer people per 1000 experiencing exacerbations on macrolides. The difference in exacerbations between tetracyclines and placebo was uncertain (HR 1.29, 95% CrI 0.66 to 2.41). Macrolides ranked first (95% CrI first to second), with quinolones ranked second (95% CrI second to third). Tetracyclines ranked fourth, which was lower than placebo (ranked third). Contributing studies were considered as low risk of bias in a threshold analysis. Quality of life (SGRQ) Seven studies were included (2237 participants) in this NMA. SGRQ scores improved with macrolide treatment compared with placebo (fixed effect-fixed class effect: mean difference (MD) -2.30, 95% CrI -3.61 to -0.99), but the mean difference did not reach the minimally clinical important difference (MCID) of 4 points. Tetracyclines and quinolones did not improve quality of life any more than placebo, and we did not detect a difference between antibiotic classes. Serious adverse events Nine studies were included (3180 participants) in the NMA. Macrolides reduced the odds of a serious adverse event compared with placebo (fixed effect-fixed class effect: odds ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% CrI 0.62 to 0.93). There was probably little to no difference in the effect of quinolone compared with placebo or tetracycline plus macrolide compared with placebo. There was probably little to no difference in serious adverse events between quinolones or tetracycline plus macrolide. With macrolide treatment 49 fewer people per 1000 experienced a serious adverse event compared with those given placebo. Macrolides ranked first, followed by quinolones. Tetracycline did not rank better than placebo. Drug resistance Ten studies reported drug resistance. Results were not combined due to variation in outcome measures. All studies concluded that prophylactic antibiotic administration was associated with the development of antimicrobial resistance.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This NMA evaluated the safety and efficacy of different antibiotics used prophylactically for COPD patients. Compared to placebo, prolonged administration of macrolides (ranked first) appeared beneficial in prolonging the time to next exacerbation, improving quality of life, and reducing serious adverse events. No clear benefits were associated with use of quinolones or tetracyclines. In addition, antibiotic resistance was a concern and could not be thoroughly assessed in this review. Given the trade-off between effectiveness, safety, and risk of antibiotic resistance, prophylactic administration of antibiotics may be best reserved for selected patients, such as those experiencing frequent exacerbations. However, none of the eligible studies excluded patients with previously isolated non-tuberculous mycobacteria, which would contraindicate prophylactic administration of antibiotics, due to the risk of developing resistant non-tuberculous mycobacteria.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Bacterial Load; Bayes Theorem; Bias; Disease Progression; Female; Forced Expiratory Volume; Humans; Macrolides; Male; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life; Quinolones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tetracyclines; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33448349
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013198.pub2 -
Epileptic Disorders : International... Dec 2022We carried out a systematic review of published information on transfer of antiseizure medications (ASMs) into breastmilk, ASM serum concentrations in breastfed infants,...
We carried out a systematic review of published information on transfer of antiseizure medications (ASMs) into breastmilk, ASM serum concentrations in breastfed infants, and the wellbeing of infants breastfed by mothers on ASM treatment. Information was extracted from 85 relevant articles. No data on ASM levels in breastmilk or in breastfed infants was identified for cannabidiol, cenobamate, clobazam, eslicarbazepine-acetate, everolimus, felbamate, fenfluramine, retigabine, rufinamide, stiripentol, tiagabine, and vigabatrin. For ASMs, with available information on levels in breastfed infants, very low concentrations (in the order of 10% or less of maternal serum concentrations) were reported for carbamazepine, gabapentin, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, phenytoin, valproate, and clonazepam. Slightly higher levels (up to approximately 30% of maternal serum concentrations) have been observed with lamotrigine and topiramate, and in single case reports for brivaracetam, lacosamide, and perampanel. High infant levels (30% up to 100% of maternal serum concentrations) have been reported with ethosuximide, phenobarbital and zonisamide. Adverse infant effects during breastfeeding by mothers on ASMs appear to be rare regardless of the type of ASM, but systematic study is limited. Prospective long-term follow-up studies of developmental outcomes among children who have been breastfed by mothers taking ASMs are sparse and have mainly involved children whose mothers were taking carbamazepine, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, phenytoin or valproate as monotherapy while breastfeeding. Although these studies have not indicated poorer outcome among breastfed children compared with those who were not breastfed, further data on long-term outcomes are needed to draw firm conclusions. It is concluded that breastfeeding should in general be encouraged in women taking ASMs, given the well-established benefits of breastfeeding with regard to both short- and long-term infant health in the general population. Counselling needs to be individualized including information on the current knowledge regarding the woman's specific ASM treatment.
Topics: Breast Feeding; Cannabidiol; Carbamazepine; Child; Clobazam; Clonazepam; Epilepsy; Ethosuximide; Everolimus; Felbamate; Female; Fenfluramine; Gabapentin; Humans; Infant; Lacosamide; Lamotrigine; Levetiracetam; Oxcarbazepine; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Prospective Studies; Tiagabine; Topiramate; Valproic Acid; Vigabatrin; Zonisamide
PubMed: 36193017
DOI: 10.1684/epd.2022.1492 -
Current Cancer Drug Targets 2023The optimal second-line therapy for hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/ human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The optimal second-line therapy for hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/ human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer is yet to be established. Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) of marketed drugs to compare their efficacy.
METHODS
We searched the literature in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science databases, and the main international conferences in the past 5 years to find phase III clinical trials on drugs available in the market. Network meta-analysis of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the objective response rate (ORR) was performed using R software. The efficiency of treatment options was compared using hazard ratios and 95% credibility intervals.
RESULTS
Overall, 12 studies with 6120 patients were included in the analysis. In an indirect comparison of the five regimens, cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) plus 500 mg fulvestrant (Ful500) gave the best PFS results; palbociclib ranked first with a surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) of 94.99%, followed by mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORi) plus everolimus (SUCRA=73.07%), phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitor (PI3Ki) plus Ful500 (SUCRA=66.73%), Ful500 alone (SUCRA=44.55%), and histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDACi) plus exemestane (SUCRA= 43.49%). However, no significant difference was found in the PFS rates of CDK4/6i, mTORi, and PI3Ki. For OS, CDK4/6i plus Ful500 ranked first; the SUCRA of ribociclib, abemaciclib, and palbociclib were 86.20%, 83.98%, and 78.52%, respectively. Alpelisib plus Ful500 (SUCRA=66.91%) ranked second but was not statistically different from CDK4/6i. The mTORi plus everolimus group had the best ORR (SUCRA=88.73%). In terms of safety, 81.56% of patients in the tucidinostat plus exemestane regimen developed neutropenia, suggesting strong hematological toxicity; 13.40% of patients developed grade 3-4 diarrhea after using abemaciclib plus Ful500.
CONCLUSION
For second-line endocrine therapy in HR+/HER2- advanced/metastatic breast cancer, CDK4/6i is a better choice than mTORi, PI3Ki, HDACi, and Ful; it shows good PFS and OS outcomes and a low probability for serious adverse events.>.
Topics: Female; Humans; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Everolimus; Network Meta-Analysis; Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinases; Receptor, ErbB-2; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic
PubMed: 37026492
DOI: 10.2174/1568009623666230407101128 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Feb 2023Doxycycline has been recommended as a treatment option for non-severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in adults. We sought to review the evidence for the efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Doxycycline has been recommended as a treatment option for non-severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in adults. We sought to review the evidence for the efficacy of doxycycline in adult patients with mild-to-moderate CAP.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of doxycycline versus comparator to assess the clinical efficacy. The primary outcome was the clinical cure rate. Random effects model meta-analyses were used to generate pooled odds ratio (OR) and evaluate heterogeneity (I2). Risk of bias (RoB) and quality of evidence (QoE) were evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and GRADE methods, respectively.
RESULTS
We included 6 RCTs with 834 clinically evaluable patients. The trials were performed between 1984 and 2004. Comparators were 3 macrolides (roxithromycin, spiramycin, and erythromycin) and 3 fluoroquinolones (ofloxacin, fleroxacin, and levofloxacin). Four trials had an overall high RoB. The clinical cure rate was similar between the doxycycline and comparator groups (87.2% [381/437] vs 82.6% [328/397]; OR 1.29 [95% confidence interval {CI}: .73-2.28]; I2 = 30%; low QoE). Subgroup analysis of two studies with a low RoB showed significantly higher clinical cure rates in the doxycyline group (87.1% [196/225] vs 77.8% [165/212]; OR 1.92 [95% CI: 1.15-3.21]; P = .01; I2 = 0%). Adverse event rates were comparable between the doxycycline and comparator groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The efficacy of doxycycline was comparable to macrolides or fluoroquinolones in mild-to-moderate CAP and thus represents a viable treatment option. Considering the lack of recent trials, it warrants large-scale clinical trials.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Doxycycline; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Macrolides; Fluoroquinolones; Pneumonia
PubMed: 35903011
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciac615 -
The Lancet. Oncology Oct 2019Although international guidelines support the administration of hormone therapies with or without targeted therapies in postmenopausal women with... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Endocrine treatment versus chemotherapy in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Although international guidelines support the administration of hormone therapies with or without targeted therapies in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, upfront use of chemotherapy remains common even in the absence of visceral crisis. Because first-line or second-line treatments, or both, based on chemotherapy and on hormone therapy have been scarcely investigated in head-to-head randomised controlled trials, we aimed to compare these two different approaches.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis with a systematic literature search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, Web of Science, and online archives of the most relevant international oncology conferences. We included all phase 2 and 3 randomised controlled trials investigating chemotherapy with or without targeted therapies and hormone therapies with or without targeted therapies as first-line or second-line treatments, or both, in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, published between Jan 1, 2000, and Dec 31, 2017. Additional recently published randomised controlled trials relevant to the topic were also subsequently added. No language restrictions were adopted for our search. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was done to compare hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (the primary outcome), and to compare odds ratios (ORs) for the proportion of patients achieving an overall response (the secondary outcome). All treatments were compared to anastrozole and to palbociclib plus letrozole. This study is registered in the Open Science Framework online public database, registration DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/496VR.
FINDINGS
We identified 2689 published results and 140 studies (comprising 50 029 patients) were included in the analysis. Palbociclib plus letrozole (HR 0·42; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0·25-0·70), ribociclib plus letrozole (0·43; 0·24-0·77), abemaciclib plus anastrozole or letrozole (0·42; 0·23-0·76), palbociclib plus fulvestrant (0·37; 0·23-0·59), ribociclib plus fulvestrant (0·48; 0·31-0·74), abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (0·44; 0·28-0·70), everolimus plus exemestane (0·42; 0·28-0·67), and, in patients with a PIK3CA mutation, alpelisib plus fulvestrant (0·39; 0·22-0·66), and several chemotherapy-based regimens, including anthracycline and taxane-containing regimens, were associated with better progression-free survival than was anastrozole alone. No chemotherapy or hormone therapy regimen was significantly better than palbociclib plus letrozole for progression-free survival. Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab was the only clinically relevant regimen that was significantly better than palbociclib plus letrozole in terms of the proportion of patients achieving an overall response (OR 8·95; 95% CrI 1·03-76·92).
INTERPRETATION
In the first-line or second-line setting, CDK4/6 inhibitors plus hormone therapies are better than standard hormone therapies in terms of progression-free survival. Moreover, no chemotherapy regimen with or without targeted therapy is significantly better than CDK4/6 inhibitors plus hormone therapies in terms of progression-free survival. Our data support treatment guideline recommendations involving the new combinations of hormone therapies plus targeted therapies as first-line or second-line treatments, or in both settings, in women with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Aminopyridines; Anastrozole; Androstadienes; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Benzimidazoles; Bevacizumab; Breast Neoplasms; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Everolimus; Female; Fulvestrant; Humans; Letrozole; Network Meta-Analysis; Paclitaxel; Piperazines; Postmenopause; Progression-Free Survival; Purines; Pyridines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptor, ErbB-2; Receptors, Estrogen; Receptors, Progesterone
PubMed: 31494037
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30420-6 -
Otolaryngology--head and Neck Surgery :... Dec 2023To evaluate the efficacy and safety of macrolide antibiotics therapy in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) receiving endoscopic sinus surgery. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of macrolide antibiotics therapy in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) receiving endoscopic sinus surgery.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library.
REVIEW METHODS
The electronic databases were comprehensively searched on June 2, 2022, for randomized controlled trials on macrolide antibiotics in the treatment of patients undergoing CRS endoscopic surgery. The primary outcome measures were the sinonasal outcome test (SNOT) score and the visual analog scale (VAS) score. The secondary outcome measures were the nasal endoscopy score (NES), the sinus computed tomography score, and adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 8 studies were included, involving 606 patients who used macrolide for a long time. Meta-analysis showed that no significant difference was observed in SNOT (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.38 to 0.13, I = 0%) and VAS (SMD = -0.10; 95% CI, -0.88 to 0.68, I = 81%) between the macrolide and placebo groups. However, macrolide outperformed the placebo in improving NES (SMD = -0.32; 95% CI, -0.62 to -0.03, I = 21%). The use of macrolide did not increase the incidence of adverse events.
CONCLUSION
Long-term use of macrolide after CRS surgery may not significantly improve the quality of life and disease severity of the patients but may play a role in improving postoperative NES in patients with CRS. There is still no sufficient evidence to determine whether the disease phenotype of CRS or the patient's race will affect the efficacy of long-term use of macrolide after CRS.
Topics: Humans; Macrolides; Quality of Life; Rhinitis; Nasal Polyps; Sinusitis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chronic Disease; Endoscopy
PubMed: 37548067
DOI: 10.1002/ohn.461 -
Respiratory Investigation Mar 2024The evidence for macrolide therapy in adult asthma is not properly established and remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The evidence for macrolide therapy in adult asthma is not properly established and remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy and safety of macrolide therapy for adult asthma.
METHODS
We searched randomized controlled trials from MEDLINE via the PubMed, CENTRAL, and Ichushi Web databases. The primary outcome was asthma exacerbation. The secondary outcomes were serious adverse events (including mortality), asthma-related quality of life (symptom scales, Asthma Control Questionnaire, and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire), rescue medication (puffs/day), respiratory function (morning peak expiratory flow, evening peak flow, and forced expiratory volume in 1 s), bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and minimum oral corticosteroid dose. Of the 805 studies, we selected seven studies for the meta-analysis, which was conducted using a random-effects model.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000050824).
RESULTS
No significant difference between macrolide and placebo for asthma exacerbations was observed (risk ratio 0.71, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.46-1.09; p = 0.12). Macrolide therapy for adult asthma showed a significant improvement in rescue medication with short-acting beta-agonists (mean difference -0.41, 95 % CI -0.78 to -0.04; p = 0.03). Macrolide therapy did not show more serious adverse events (odd ratio 0.61, 95 % CI 0.34-1.10; p = 0.10) than those with placebo. The other secondary outcomes were not significantly different between the macrolide and placebo groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Macrolide therapy for adult asthma may be more effective than placebo and could be a treatment option.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Macrolides; Quality of Life; Disease Progression; Asthma; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Adrenal Cortex Hormones
PubMed: 38211545
DOI: 10.1016/j.resinv.2023.12.015 -
Digestion 2023Vonoprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, has a strong acid suppression effect and potent efficacy in acid-associated diseases, including Helicobacter... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Vonoprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, has a strong acid suppression effect and potent efficacy in acid-associated diseases, including Helicobacter pylori eradication. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy for H. pylori eradication.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature search through PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to June 2022, to identify randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy and triple therapies for H. pylori eradication. Primary outcomes were cure rates and relative efficacy. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, dropout rate, and subgroup analysis.
RESULTS
Five studies with 1,852 patients were included in the analysis. The cure rates of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy were 85.6% with 95% confidence interval (CI) of 79.7-91.5% and 88.5% (95% CI: 83.2-93.8%) in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. The efficacy of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy was not inferior to that of triple therapy with pooled risk ratio (RR) of 1.03 (95% CI: 0.97-1.10) and 1.02 (95% CI: 0.98-1.08) in intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses; while it was significantly superior to the omeprazole or lansoprazole-based triple therapy (RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.05-1.25, p = 0.001). For clarithromycin-resistant strains, vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy showed superiority to vonoprazan-based triple therapy (86.7% vs. 71.4%, RR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.03-1.39, p = 0.02); however, vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy was significant inferior to vonoprazan-based triple therapy for clarithromycin-sensitive strains (83.0% vs. 92.8%, RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.85-0.95, p = 0.0002). The adverse effects of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy were lower than those of triple therapy (21.2% vs. 26.5%, RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.73-1.01, p = 0.06), especially the incidence of diarrhea (p = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
The efficacy of vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy is noninferior to vonoprazan-based triple therapy but superior to the omeprazole or lansoprazole-based triple therapy and has less side effects. Patients with clarithromycin-resistant strains are particularly expected to benefit from vonoprazan/amoxicillin dual therapy.
Topics: Humans; Amoxicillin; Clarithromycin; Helicobacter pylori; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Helicobacter Infections; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Drug Therapy, Combination; Pyrroles; Lansoprazole; Omeprazole; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37015201
DOI: 10.1159/000529622 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Mar 2023This systematic review was performed to determine the population that benefited from prophylactic ivermectin. Seven databases of health-related studies were searched for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review was performed to determine the population that benefited from prophylactic ivermectin. Seven databases of health-related studies were searched for eligible trials without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies investigating ivermectin for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevention were included. Data were pooled using a random-effects model, and subgroups were analyzed by study type and the pre- or postexposure population. The certainty of the evidence was determined by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Furthermore, 4 RCTs and 4 cohort studies with a moderate to high risk of bias were included in the analysis. The prophylactic use of ivermectin significantly decreased the overall incidence of COVID-19 (odds ratio [OR], 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16-0.44). Nevertheless, the positive result was not supported by the RCT. Ivermectin was associated with a lower risk of COVID-19 (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.12-0.40) in the preexposure population, whereas no protective effect was observed in the postexposure population (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.09-1.67). In summary, prophylactic ivermectin did not prevent COVID-19 in the postexposure population. Although the protective effect of ivermectin was shown in the overall and preexposure populations, the results were unreliable owing to poor-quality evidence.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Ivermectin; Bias; Research Design; Odds Ratio
PubMed: 36399336
DOI: 10.1002/jcph.2178