-
Archives of Dermatological Research Aug 2021While isotretinoin has been the gold-standard of therapy for severe acne since its approval in 1982, its anti-inflammatory properties makes it a potentially applicable...
While isotretinoin has been the gold-standard of therapy for severe acne since its approval in 1982, its anti-inflammatory properties makes it a potentially applicable and versatile therapy for a wide variety of dermatologic conditions yet to be explored. This systematic review comprehensively recounts the success of oral isotretinoin in non-acne cutaneous diseases and provide insight into future directions of isotretinoin utility. A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed. Search terms included "isotretinoin" OR "accutane" AND "skin" OR "dermatology" OR "hair" OR "nails" OR "rosacea" OR "psoriasis" OR "pityriasis rubra pilaris" OR "condyloma acuminata" OR "granuloma annulare" OR "darier's disease" OR "non-melanoma skin cancer" OR "frontal fibrosing alopecia" OR "cutaneous lupus erythematosus" OR "hidradenitis suppurativa" OR "photodamaged skin" OR "skin aging" OR "wart" OR "flat warts" OR "plane warts" OR "lichen planus" OR "dissecting cellulitis" OR "folliculitis decalvans" OR "sebaceous hyperplasia" OR "cutaneous t-cell lymphoma" OR "mycosis fungoides." A total of 169 studies discuss the use of oral isotretinoin for 16 non-acne dermatologic conditions, the most common being non-melanoma skin cancers (0.2-8.2 mg/kg/day), cutaneous T-cell lymphomas (0.5-2 mg/kg/day), and rosacea (0.22-1 mg/kg/day). Inflammatory conditions such as rosacea, granuloma annulare, and hidradenitis suppurativa benefit from lower oral isotretinoin dosage of 0.3-1 mg/kg/day, whereas, hyperkeratotic diseases such as psoriasis and pityriasis rubra pilaris, consistently respond better to higher dosages of up to 2-4 mg/kg/day for lesion clearance. Recurrence of disease following discontinuation of isotretinoin have been reported for rosacea, psoriasis, granuloma annulare, Darier's disease, dissecting cellulitis, and non-melanoma skin cancers. Disease exacerbation was reported in some patients with hidradenitis suppurativa. Off-label isotretinoin is an effective treatment choice for dermatological conditions beyond acne. Further prospective, randomized human trials are needed to clarify when and how to prescribe off-label isotretinoin for maximum efficacy and safety.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Dermatologic Agents; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Isotretinoin; Off-Label Use; Skin Diseases; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33151346
DOI: 10.1007/s00403-020-02152-4 -
Nutrients Dec 2021l-Carnitine (l-C) and any of its forms (glycine-propionyl l-Carnitine (GPL-C) or l-Carnitine l-tartrate (l-CLT)) has been frequently recommended as a supplement to...
l-Carnitine (l-C) and any of its forms (glycine-propionyl l-Carnitine (GPL-C) or l-Carnitine l-tartrate (l-CLT)) has been frequently recommended as a supplement to improve sports performance due to, among others, its role in fat metabolism and in maintaining the mitochondrial acetyl-CoA/CoA ratio. The main aim of the present systematic review was to determine the effects of oral l-C supplementation on moderate- (50-79% V˙O) and high-intensity (≥80% V˙O) exercise performance and to show the effective doses and ideal timing of its intake. A structured search was performed according to the PRISMA statement and the PICOS guidelines in the Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus databases, including selected data obtained up to 24 October 2021. The search included studies where l-C or glycine-propionyl l-Carnitine (GPL-C) supplementation was compared with a placebo in an identical situation and tested its effects on high and/or low-moderate performance. The trials that used the supplementation of l-C together with additional supplements were eliminated. There were no applied filters on physical fitness level, race, or age of the participants. The methodological quality of studies was evaluated by the McMaster Critical Review Form. Of the 220 articles obtained, 11 were finally included in this systematic review. Six studies used l-C, while three studies used l-CLT, and two others combined the molecule propionyl l-Carnitine (PL-C) with GPL-C. Five studies analyzed chronic supplementation (4-24 weeks) and six studies used an acute administration (<7 days). The administration doses in this chronic supplementation varied from 1 to 3 g/day; in acute supplementation, oral l-C supplementation doses ranged from 3 to 4 g. On the one hand, the effects of oral l-C supplementation on high-intensity exercise performance variables were analyzed in nine studies. Four of them measured the effects of chronic supplementation (lower rating of perceived exertion (RPE) after 30 min at 80% V˙O on cycle ergometer and higher work capacity in "all-out" tests, peak power in a Wingate test, and the number of repetitions and volume lifted in leg press exercises), and five studies analyzed the effects of acute supplementation (lower RPE after graded exercise test on the treadmill until exhaustion and higher peak and average power in the Wingate cycle ergometer test). On the other hand, the effects of l-C supplementation on moderate exercise performance variables were observed in six studies. Out of those, three measured the effect of an acute supplementation, and three described the effect of a chronic supplementation, but no significant improvements on performance were found. In summary, l-C supplementation with 3 to 4 g ingested between 60 and 90 min before testing or 2 to 2.72 g/day for 9 to 24 weeks improved high-intensity exercise performance. However, chronic or acute l-C or GPL-C supplementation did not present improvements on moderate exercise performance.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Athletic Performance; Carnitine; Dietary Supplements; Exercise; Female; Humans; Male; Sports Nutritional Physiological Phenomena; Time Factors
PubMed: 34959912
DOI: 10.3390/nu13124359 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Misoprostol given orally is a commonly used labour induction method. Our Cochrane Review is restricted to studies with low-dose misoprostol (initially ≤ 50 µg), as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Misoprostol given orally is a commonly used labour induction method. Our Cochrane Review is restricted to studies with low-dose misoprostol (initially ≤ 50 µg), as higher doses pose unacceptably high risks of uterine hyperstimulation.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of low-dose oral misoprostol for labour induction in women with a viable fetus in the third trimester of pregnancy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (14 February 2021) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials comparing low-dose oral misoprostol (initial dose ≤ 50 µg) versus placebo, vaginal dinoprostone, vaginal misoprostol, oxytocin, or mechanical methods; or comparing oral misoprostol protocols (one- to two-hourly versus four- to six-hourly; 20 µg to 25 µg versus 50 µg; or 20 µg hourly titrated versus 25 µg two-hourly static).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Using Covidence, two review authors independently screened reports, extracted trial data, and performed quality assessments. Our primary outcomes were vaginal birth within 24 hours, caesarean section, and hyperstimulation with foetal heart changes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 61 trials involving 20,026 women. GRADE assessments ranged from moderate- to very low-certainty evidence, with downgrading decisions based on imprecision, inconsistency, and study limitations. Oral misoprostol versus placebo/no treatment (four trials; 594 women) Oral misoprostol may make little to no difference in the rate of caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.11; 4 trials; 594 women; moderate-certainty evidence), while its effect on uterine hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes is uncertain (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.25 to 105.31; 3 trials; 495 women; very low-certainty evidence). Vaginal births within 24 hours was not reported. In all trials, oxytocin could be commenced after 12 to 24 hours and all women had pre-labour ruptured membranes. Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone (13 trials; 9676 women) Oral misoprostol probably results in fewer caesarean sections (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.90; 13 trials, 9676 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis indicated that 10 µg to 25 µg (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.87; 9 trials; 8652 women) may differ from 50 µg (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.34; 4 trials; 1024 women) for caesarean section. Oral misoprostol may decrease vaginal births within 24 hours (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.00; 10 trials; 8983 women; low-certainty evidence) and hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.59; 11 trials; 9084 women; low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol versus vaginal misoprostol (33 trials; 6110 women) Oral use may result in fewer vaginal births within 24 hours (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95; 16 trials, 3451 women; low-certainty evidence), and less hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.92, 25 trials, 4857 women, low-certainty evidence), with subgroup analysis suggesting that 10 µg to 25 µg orally (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.57; 6 trials, 957 women) may be superior to 50 µg orally (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.11; 19 trials; 3900 women). Oral misoprostol probably does not increase caesarean sections overall (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; 32 trials; 5914 women; low-certainty evidence) but likely results in fewer caesareans for foetal distress (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; 24 trials, 4775 women). Oral misoprostol versus intravenous oxytocin (6 trials; 737 women, 200 with ruptured membranes) Misoprostol may make little or no difference to vaginal births within 24 hours (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.33; 3 trials; 466 women; low-certainty evidence), but probably results in fewer caesarean sections (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 6 trials; 737 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect on hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes is uncertain (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.26; 3 trials, 331 women; very low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol versus mechanical methods (6 trials; 2993 women) Six trials compared oral misoprostol to transcervical Foley catheter. Misoprostol may increase vaginal birth within 24 hours (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.79; 4 trials; 1044 women; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the risk of caesarean section (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95; 6 trials; 2993 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.21; 4 trials; 2828 women; low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol one- to two-hourly versus four- to six-hourly (1 trial; 64 women) The evidence on hourly titration was very uncertain due to the low numbers reported. Oral misoprostol 20 µg hourly titrated versus 25 µg two-hourly static (2 trials; 296 women) The difference in regimen may have little or no effect on the rate of vaginal births in 24 hours (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is of very low certainty for all other reported outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-dose oral misoprostol is probably associated with fewer caesarean sections (and therefore more vaginal births) than vaginal dinoprostone, and lower rates of hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes. However, time to birth may be increased, as seen by a reduced number of vaginal births within 24 hours. Compared to transcervical Foley catheter, low-dose oral misoprostol is associated with fewer caesarean sections, but equivalent rates of hyperstimulation. Low-dose misoprostol given orally rather than vaginally is probably associated with similar rates of vaginal birth, although rates may be lower within the first 24 hours. However, there is likely less hyperstimulation with foetal heart changes, and fewer caesarean sections performed due to foetal distress. The best available evidence suggests that low-dose oral misoprostol probably has many benefits over other methods for labour induction. This review supports the use of low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour, and demonstrates the lower risks of hyperstimulation than when misoprostol is given vaginally. More trials are needed to establish the optimum oral misoprostol regimen, but these findings suggest that a starting dose of 25 µg may offer a good balance of efficacy and safety.
Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Administration, Oral; Apgar Score; Cesarean Section; Dinoprostone; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Heart Rate, Fetal; Humans; Intensive Care, Neonatal; Labor, Induced; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Oxytocin; Parturition; Placebos; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Uterus
PubMed: 34155622
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014484 -
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis :... Oct 2023Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) represent a cornerstone of adult venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment. Recently, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) represent a cornerstone of adult venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment. Recently, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating DOACs in pediatrics have been performed.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs in the pediatric population.
METHODS
We systematically searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from initiation up to August 20, 2022, for RCTs comparing DOACs to standard of care (SOC) in patients aged <18 years according to PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration CRD42022353870). The primary analysis was performed according to the anticoagulation intensity and clinical setting (ie, prophylaxis in cardiac disease or treatment in VTE). Efficacy outcomes were all-cause mortality and VTE. Safety outcomes were major bleeding (MB), clinically relevant non-MB, any bleeding, serious adverse events, and discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
Seven RCTs were included in the systematic review and 6 in the meta-analysis (3 prophylaxis in cardiac disease and 3 treatment in VTE). DOACs showed a significant reduction of VTE recurrence for treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.94) and a nonsignificant reduction in VTE occurrence in prophylaxis (OR = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.03-1.55). No differences were observed for any bleeding, serious AEs, and MB in prophylaxis. Nonsignificant trends were observed for clinically relevant non-MB, MB in treatment, and discontinuation due to AE in prophylaxis. We found a significant increase in discontinuation due to AE in treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
DOAC treatment seems to reduce VTE compared with SOC without major safety issues in the pediatric population, whereas DOAC prophylaxis seems at least comparable to SOC.
Topics: Humans; Child; Anticoagulants; Venous Thromboembolism; Hemorrhage; Blood Coagulation; Heart Diseases; Administration, Oral
PubMed: 37481075
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtha.2023.07.011 -
Heart (British Cardiac Society) Jan 2023There has been limited systematic evaluation of outcomes and drivers of inappropriate non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) dosing among patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Outcomes and drivers of inappropriate dosing of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
There has been limited systematic evaluation of outcomes and drivers of inappropriate non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) dosing among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This review identified and systematically evaluated literature on clinical and economic outcomes of inappropriate NOAC dosing and associated patient characteristics.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Econlit, PubMed and NHS EEDs databases were searched for English language observational studies from all geographies published between 2008 and 2020, examining outcomes of, or factors associated with, inappropriate NOAC dosing in adult patients with AF.
RESULTS
One hundred and six studies were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis showed that compared with recommended NOAC dosing, off-label underdosing was associated with a null effect on stroke outcomes (ischaemic stroke and stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA), stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and stroke/SE/TIA). Meta-analysis of 15 studies examining clinical outcomes of inappropriate NOAC dosing found a null effect of underdosing on bleeding outcomes (major bleeding HR=1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.19; p=0.625) but an increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR=1.28, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.49; p=0.006). Overdosing was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (HR=1.41, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.85; p=0.013). No studies were found examining economic outcomes of inappropriate NOAC dosing. Narrative synthesis of 12 studies examining drivers of inappropriate NOAC dosing found that increased age, history of minor bleeds, hypertension, congestive heart failure and low creatine clearance (CrCl) were associated with an increased risk of underdosing. There was insufficient evidence to assess drivers of overdosing.
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis suggests that off-label underdosing of NOACs does not reduce bleeding outcomes. Patients prescribed off-label NOAC doses are at an increased risk of all-cause mortality. These data underscore the importance of prescriber adherence to NOAC dosing guidelines to achieve optimal clinical outcomes for patients with AF.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020219844.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Stroke; Administration, Oral; Brain Ischemia; Ischemic Attack, Transient; Hemorrhage; Embolism
PubMed: 36316100
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2022-321114 -
European Heart Journal. Cardiovascular... Apr 2021The aim of the present meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K oral antagonists (NOACs) vs. vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in elderly... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Safety and efficacy of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation: systematic review and meta-analysis of 22 studies and 440 281 patients.
AIMS
The aim of the present meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K oral antagonists (NOACs) vs. vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and indirectly compare NOACs in this population.
METHODS AND RESULTS
MEDLINE, Cochrane, ISI Web of Sciences, and SCOPUS were searched for randomized or adjusted observational studies comparing NOACs vs. VKAs for stroke prevention in AF patients ≥75 years. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes of this meta-analysis were the composite of stroke and systemic embolism (SSE) and major bleedings, respectively. Other secondary outcomes were also analysed. The analysis included 22 studies enrolling 440 281 AF patients ≥ 75 years. The risk of SSE was significantly lower with NOACs vs. VKAs [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.89], whereas no differences were found for major bleedings (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.85-1.05). NOACs reduced the risk of intracranial bleeding (HR 0.46; 95% CI 0.38-0.58), haemorrhagic stroke (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.48-0.79) and fatal bleeding (HR 0.46; 95% CI 0.30-0.72) but increased gastrointestinal (GI) bleedings (HR 1.46; 95% CI 1.30-1.65), compared to VKAs. The adjusted indirect comparison showed no significant differences in term of SSE between NOAC agents. Conversely, the risk of major bleeding was higher for rivaroxaban vs. apixaban (HR 1.69; 95% CI 1.39-2.08) and edoxaban (HR 1.37; 95% CI 1.14-1.67), and for dabigatran vs. apixaban (HR 1.47; 95% CI 1.18-1.85).
CONCLUSION
In elderly patients with AF, NOACs are associated to a lower risk of SSE, intracranial bleeding, haemorrhagic stroke and fatal bleeding than VKAs, but increase GI bleedings. In this analysis, the safety profile of individual NOAC agents was significantly different.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Aged; Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Vitamin K
PubMed: 31830264
DOI: 10.1093/ehjcvp/pvz073 -
Journal of Investigational Allergology... Jul 2021According to current guidelines, oral antihistamines are the first-line treatment for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Up-dosing antihistamines to 4-fold the...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
According to current guidelines, oral antihistamines are the first-line treatment for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Up-dosing antihistamines to 4-fold the licensed dose is recommended if control is not achieved. Such indications are based mainly on expert opinion. Objectives: To critically review and analyze clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of higher-than-licensed dosage of second-generation oral antihistamines in the treatment of CSU.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed following a sensitive search strategy. All articles published in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library between 1961 and October 2018 were examined. Publications with CSU patients prescribed secondgeneration antihistamines in monotherapy compared with placebo, licensed dosages, and/or higher dosages were included. Articles were evaluated by peer reviewers. Quality was evaluated using the Jadad and Oxford scores.
RESULTS
We identified 337 articles, of which 14 were included in the final evaluation (fexofenadine, 6; cetirizine, 2; levocetirizine and desloratadine, 1; levocetirizine, 1; rupatadine, 2; ebastine, 1; and bilastine, 1). Only 5 studies were placebo-controlled. The number of patients included ranged from 20 to 439. The observation lapse was ≤16 weeks. High fexofenadine doses produced a significant dosedependent response and controlled urticaria in most patients. Cetirizine, levocetirizine, rupatadine, and bilastine were more effective in up-dosing. The most frequent adverse events were headache and drowsiness.
CONCLUSION
The low quality and heterogeneity of the articles reviewed made it impossible to reach robust conclusions and reveal the need for large-scale randomized clinical trials.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Animals; Anti-Allergic Agents; Chronic Urticaria; Clinical Trials as Topic; Drug Dosage Calculations; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Histamine H1 Antagonists, Non-Sedating; Humans; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33030434
DOI: 10.18176/jiaci.0649 -
Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology Nov 2023Finasteride and minoxidil are medicaments commonly prescribed for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPA), hypertension, and/or androgenetic alopecia (AGA). The...
Finasteride and minoxidil are medicaments commonly prescribed for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPA), hypertension, and/or androgenetic alopecia (AGA). The mechanism of action of finasteride is based on the interference in androgenic pathways, which may lead to fertility-related disorders in men. Minoxidil, however, can act in multiple ways, and there is no consensus that its use can adversely affect male fertility. Since finasteride and minoxidil could be risk factors for male fertility, we aimed to compare their impact on the two reproductive organs testis and epididymis of adult murine models, besides testis/epididymis-related cells, and describe the mechanism of action involved. For such, we used the PRISMA guideline. We included 31 original studies from a structured search on PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. For in vivo studies, the bias analysis and the quality of the studies were assessed as described by SYRCLE (Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation). We concluded that finasteride and minoxidil act as hormone disruptors, causing oxidative stress and morphological changes mainly in the testis. Our results also revealed that finasteride treatment could be more harmful to male reproductive health because it was more associated with reproductive injuries, including damage to the epididymis, erectile dysfunction, decreased libido, and reduced semen volume. Thus, this study contributes to the global understanding of the mechanisms by which medicaments used for alopecia might lead to male reproductive disorders. We hope that our critical analysis expedites clinical research and reduces methodological bias. The registration number on the Prospero platform is CRD42022313347.
Topics: Adult; Male; Humans; Animals; Mice; Minoxidil; Finasteride; Alopecia; Administration, Oral; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37805090
DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2023.116710 -
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy Jun 2021To evaluate how treatment with DOACs for VTE affects thrombosis and bleeding outcomes compared to warfarin in CKD and dialysis patients.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate how treatment with DOACs for VTE affects thrombosis and bleeding outcomes compared to warfarin in CKD and dialysis patients.
DATA SOURCES
A literature search was conducted for studies evaluating VTE and bleeding outcomes with DOAC use in CKD and dialysis patients. Searches conducted through EMBASE, MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception to September 22, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series with ≥10 patients included.
DATA SYNTHESIS
From 7286 studies, nine studies met inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference between DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban) and warfarin for reducing recurrent VTE and bleeding events in moderate CKD patients. The risk of overall major bleeding increased when the degree of kidney impairment increased. There was no significant difference between apixaban and warfarin for VTE outcomes in dialysis patients.
RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
There continues to be a controversial debate whether it may be more beneficial to use DOACs versus warfarin in CKD/dialysis patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). The risk vs benefit of using DOACs in the CKD/ESKD population should continue to be evaluated for each individual patient.
CONCLUSION
Apixaban may be used cautiously as an alternative in acute VTE treatment in severe CKD patients. Insufficient evidence is available to suggest the use of dabigatran and rivaroxaban in this patient population. The benefit of using DOACs in this population for VTE treatment should be weighed against the potential bleeding risk in patients with CKD.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Hemorrhage; Humans; Renal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Rivaroxaban; Thrombosis; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 33073581
DOI: 10.1177/1060028020967635 -
The British Journal of Dermatology Jan 2024Treatment failure is considered to be an important factor in relation to the increase in scabies incidence over the last decade. However, the regional and temporal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Treatment failure is considered to be an important factor in relation to the increase in scabies incidence over the last decade. However, the regional and temporal differences, in addition to the predictors of therapy failure, are unclear.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the prevalence of treatment failure in patients with scabies and investigation of associated factors.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Global Health and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to August 2021 for randomized and quasi-randomized trials, in addition to observational studies that enrolled children or adults diagnosed with confirmed or clinical scabies treated with permethrin, ivermectin, crotamiton, benzyl benzoate, malathion, sulfur or lindane, and measured treatment failure or factors associated with treatment failure. We performed a random effects meta-analysis for all outcomes reported by at least two studies.
RESULTS
A total of 147 studies were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. The overall prevalence of treatment failure was 15.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.9-17.6; I2 = 95.3%, moderate-certainty evidence] with regional differences between World Health Organization regions (P = 0.003) being highest in the Western Pacific region (26.9%, 95% CI 14.5-41.2). Oral ivermectin (11.8%, 95% CI 8.4-15.4), topical ivermectin (9.3%, 95% CI 5.1-14.3) and permethrin (10.8%, 95% CI 7.5-14.5) had relatively lower failure prevalence compared with the overall prevalence. Failure prevalence was lower in patients treated with two doses of oral ivermectin (7.1%, 95% CI 3.1-12.3) compared with those treated with one dose (15.2%, 95% CI 10.8-20.2; P = 0.021). Overall and permethrin treatment failure prevalence in the included studies (1983-2021) increased by 0.27% and 0.58% per year, respectively. Only three studies conducted a multivariable risk factor analysis; no studies assessed resistance.
CONCLUSIONS
A second dose of ivermectin showed lower failure prevalence than single-dose ivermectin, which should be considered in all guidelines. The increase in treatment failure over time hints at decreasing mite susceptibility for several drugs, but reasons for failure are rarely assessed. Ideally, scabicide susceptibility testing should be implemented in future studies.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Administration, Oral; Hexachlorocyclohexane; Ivermectin; Malathion; Permethrin; Scabies; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 37625798
DOI: 10.1093/bjd/ljad308