-
Lancet (London, England) Jul 2022Behavioural, cognitive, and pharmacological interventions can all be effective for insomnia. However, because of inadequate resources, medications are more frequently... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Behavioural, cognitive, and pharmacological interventions can all be effective for insomnia. However, because of inadequate resources, medications are more frequently used worldwide. We aimed to estimate the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for the acute and long-term treatment of adults with insomnia disorder.
METHODS
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and websites of regulatory agencies from database inception to Nov 25, 2021, to identify published and unpublished randomised controlled trials. We included studies comparing pharmacological treatments or placebo as monotherapy for the treatment of adults (≥18 year) with insomnia disorder. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework. Primary outcomes were efficacy (ie, quality of sleep measured by any self-rated scale), treatment discontinuation for any reason and due to side-effects specifically, and safety (ie, number of patients with at least one adverse event) both for acute and long-term treatment. We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. This study is registered with Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PU4QJ.
FINDINGS
We included 170 trials (36 interventions and 47 950 participants) in the systematic review and 154 double-blind, randomised controlled trials (30 interventions and 44 089 participants) were eligible for the network meta-analysis. In terms of acute treatment, benzodiazepines, doxylamine, eszopiclone, lemborexant, seltorexant, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more efficacious than placebo (SMD range: 0·36-0·83 [CINeMA estimates of certainty: high to moderate]). Benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more efficacious than melatonin, ramelteon, and zaleplon (SMD 0·27-0·71 [moderate to very low]). Intermediate-acting benzodiazepines, long-acting benzodiazepines, and eszopiclone had fewer discontinuations due to any cause than ramelteon (OR 0·72 [95% CI 0·52-0·99; moderate], 0·70 [0·51-0·95; moderate] and 0·71 [0·52-0·98; moderate], respectively). Zopiclone and zolpidem caused more dropouts due to adverse events than did placebo (zopiclone: OR 2·00 [95% CI 1·28-3·13; very low]; zolpidem: 1·79 [1·25-2·50; moderate]); and zopiclone caused more dropouts than did eszopiclone (OR 1·82 [95% CI 1·01-3·33; low]), daridorexant (3·45 [1·41-8·33; low), and suvorexant (3·13 [1·47-6·67; low]). For the number of individuals with side-effects at study endpoint, benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were worse than placebo, doxepin, seltorexant, and zaleplon (OR range 1·27-2·78 [high to very low]). For long-term treatment, eszopiclone and lemborexant were more effective than placebo (eszopiclone: SMD 0·63 [95% CI 0·36-0·90; very low]; lemborexant: 0·41 [0·04-0·78; very low]) and eszopiclone was more effective than ramelteon (0.63 [0·16-1·10; very low]) and zolpidem (0·60 [0·00-1·20; very low]). Compared with ramelteon, eszopiclone and zolpidem had a lower rate of all-cause discontinuations (eszopiclone: OR 0·43 [95% CI 0·20-0·93; very low]; zolpidem: 0·43 [0·19-0·95; very low]); however, zolpidem was associated with a higher number of dropouts due to side-effects than placebo (OR 2·00 [95% CI 1·11-3·70; very low]).
INTERPRETATION
Overall, eszopiclone and lemborexant had a favorable profile, but eszopiclone might cause substantial adverse events and safety data on lemborexant were inconclusive. Doxepin, seltorexant, and zaleplon were well tolerated, but data on efficacy and other important outcomes were scarce and do not allow firm conclusions. Many licensed drugs (including benzodiazepines, daridorexant, suvorexant, and trazodone) can be effective in the acute treatment of insomnia but are associated with poor tolerability, or information about long-term effects is not available. Melatonin, ramelteon, and non-licensed drugs did not show overall material benefits. These results should serve evidence-based clinical practice.
FUNDING
UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.
Topics: Adult; Benzodiazepines; Doxepin; Eszopiclone; Humans; Melatonin; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Zolpidem
PubMed: 35843245
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00878-9 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Jan 2022Outcomes of treatment of tuberculosis patients with regimens including pretomanid have not yet been systematically reviewed. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Outcomes of treatment of tuberculosis patients with regimens including pretomanid have not yet been systematically reviewed.
OBJECTIVES
To appraise existing evidence on efficacy and safety of pretomanid in tuberculosis.
DATA SOURCES
Pubmed, clinicaltrials.gov. and Cochrane library.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Quantitative studies presenting original data on clinical efficacy or safety of pretomanid.
PARTICIPANTS
Patients with tuberculosis.
INTERVENTIONS
Treatment with pretomanid or pretomanid-containing regimens in minimum one study group.
METHODS
Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data on efficacy (early bactericidal activity, bactericidal activity, end-of-treatment outcomes and acquired resistance) and safety were summarized in tables. Mean differences in efficacy outcomes between regimens across studies were calculated.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included; four randomized controlled trials on 2-week early bactericidal activity in rifampicin-susceptible tuberculosis, three trials with randomized rifampicin-susceptible tuberculosis arms and a single rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis arm (two on 8-week bactericidal activity, one on end-of-treatment outcomes), one single-arm trial with end-of-treatment outcomes in highly resistant tuberculosis. Activity of pretomanid-moxifloxacin-pyrazinamide was superior to standard treatment on daily change in colony-forming units at days 0-2, 0-56 and 7-56 and time to culture conversion in rifampicin-susceptible tuberculosis (hazard ratio: 1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.7), but not at end of treatment in one study. This study was stopped due to serious hepatotoxic adverse events, including three deaths, in 4% (95% CI 2-8) patients on pretomanid-moxifloxacin-pyrazinamide and none in controls. In patients with uncomplicated rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis on pretomanid-moxifloxacin-pyrazinamide treatment, 91% (95% CI 59-100) had favourable end-of-treatment outcomes. In patients with highly resistant tuberculosis, 90% (95% CI 83-95) on pretomanid-bedaquiline-linezolid had favourable outcomes six months after treatment, but linezolid-related toxicity was frequent. No acquired resistance to pretomanid was reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests an important role for pretomanid in rifampicin-resistant and highly resistant tuberculosis. Trials comparing pretomanid to existing core and companion drugs are needed to further define that role.
Topics: Antitubercular Agents; Humans; Linezolid; Moxifloxacin; Nitroimidazoles; Pyrazinamide; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rifampin; Tuberculosis; Tuberculosis, Multidrug-Resistant
PubMed: 34400340
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.08.007 -
Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome Jun 2022To assess the safety and efficacy of semaglutide compared with placebo and other anti-hyperglycaemic agents in type 2 diabetes (T2DM). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
To assess the safety and efficacy of semaglutide compared with placebo and other anti-hyperglycaemic agents in type 2 diabetes (T2DM).
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane library for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare different doses, durations, and interventions in T2DM. We presented results as mean difference (MD) or relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Twenty-six included RCTs studied different doses of subcutaneous (SC) and oral semaglutide, tirzepatide, liraglutide, sitagliptin, canagliflozin, and empagliflozin compared with placebo. Tirzepatide showed the highest efficacy, however, it was comparable to semaglutide. SC semaglutide 1 mg once-weekly showed higher reduction in HbA (MD = -1.72, 95% CI [-2.32; -1.12]), and fasting blood glucose (MD = -1.93, 95% CI [-2.81; -1.04]) versus placebo at 30 weeks and other timepoints. Adverse events (ADs) were comparable to placebo with oral and SC semaglutide, oral sitagliptin, SC liraglutide, and oral empagliflozin at most timepoints. However, SC semaglutide 0.8 mg and tirzepatide 10 mg groups had the highest gastrointestinal adverse events.
CONCLUSION
Tirzepatide, oral and SC semaglutide has a favourable efficacy in treating T2DM. The adverse events were comparable to placebo; however, gastrointestinal adverse events were highly recorded in tirzepatide, oral and SC semaglutide groups.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Glucagon-Like Peptides; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Liraglutide; Network Meta-Analysis; Sitagliptin Phosphate
PubMed: 35623229
DOI: 10.1016/j.dsx.2022.102511 -
Advances in Therapy May 2022Many treatment regimens have been evaluated in transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The objective of this study was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Many treatment regimens have been evaluated in transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of relevant therapies for the treatment of TIE patients with NDMM.
METHODS
Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating different treatment options for TIE patients with NDMM were compared in a network meta-analysis (NMA). The NMA includes recent primary and long-term OS readouts from SWOG S0777, ENDURANCE, MAIA, and ALCYONE. Relevant trials were identified through a systematic literature review. Relative efficacy measures (i.e., hazard ratios [HRs] for PFS and OS) were extracted and synthesised in random-effects NMAs.
RESULTS
A total of 122 publications describing 45 unique RCTs was identified. Continuous lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd) was selected as the referent comparator. Daratumumab-containing treatments (daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone [D-Rd], daratumumab/bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [D-VMP]) and bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (VRd) had the highest probabilities of being more effective than Rd continuous for PFS (HR: D-Rd, 0.53; D-VMP, 0.57, VRd, 0.77) and OS (HR: D-Rd, 0.68; VRd, 0.77, D-VMP, 0.78). D-Rd had the highest chance of being ranked as the most effective treatment with respect to PFS and OS. Results using a smaller network focusing on only those regimens that are relevant in Europe were consistent with the primary analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
These comparative effectiveness data may help inform treatment selection in TIE patients with NDMM.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bortezomib; Dexamethasone; Humans; Lenalidomide; Multiple Myeloma; Network Meta-Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35246820
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-022-02083-8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2024The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to challenge the health workforce and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to challenge the health workforce and societies worldwide. Favipiravir was suggested by some experts to be effective and safe to use in COVID-19. Although this drug has been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is still unclear if it has a definite role in the treatment of COVID-19.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of favipiravir compared to no treatment, supportive treatment, or other experimental antiviral treatment in people with acute COVID-19.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and three other databases, up to 18 July 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for RCTs evaluating the efficacy of favipiravir in treating people with COVID-19.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures for data collection and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 25 trials that randomized 5750 adults (most under 60 years of age). The trials were conducted in Bahrain, Brazil, China, India, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, the UK, and the USA. Most participants were hospitalized with mild to moderate disease (89%). Twenty-two of the 25 trials investigated the role of favipiravir compared to placebo or standard of care, whilst lopinavir/ritonavir was the comparator in two trials, and umifenovir in one trial. Most trials (24 of 25) initiated favipiravir at 1600 mg or 1800 mg twice daily for the first day, followed by 600 mg to 800 mg twice a day. The duration of treatment varied from five to 14 days. We do not know whether favipiravir reduces all-cause mortality at 28 to 30 days, or in-hospital (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.46; 11 trials, 3459 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 8 trials, 1383 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference in the need for admission to hospital (if ambulatory) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.46; 4 trials, 670 participants; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the time to clinical improvement (defined as time to a 2-point reduction in patients' admission status on the WHO's ordinal scale) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; 4 trials, 721 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference to the progression to oxygen therapy (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.75; 2 trials, 543 participants; low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may lead to an overall increased incidence of adverse events (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.54; 18 trials, 4699 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may result in little to no difference inserious adverse eventsattributable to the drug (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.42; 12 trials, 3317 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The low- to very low-certainty evidence means that we do not know whether favipiravir is efficacious in people with COVID-19 illness, irrespective of severity or admission status. Treatment with favipiravir may result in an overall increase in the incidence of adverse events but may not result in serious adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Amides; Pyrazines
PubMed: 38314855
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015219.pub2 -
International Journal of Dermatology Oct 2020Scleromyxedema is a chronic disease with high morbidity and mortality and no definitive therapeutic guidelines. (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
Scleromyxedema is a chronic disease with high morbidity and mortality and no definitive therapeutic guidelines.
OBJECTIVE
To review all available data on the efficacy and the safety of the available treatments of scleromyxedema and suggest a possible therapeutic approach.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
We performed a systematic literature review in Pubmed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane collaboration databases, searching for all articles since 1990 on the treatments of scleromyxedema, with no limits on participant age, gender, or nationality.
FINDINGS
Ninety-seven studies were included in this systematic review, of which one prospective, two retrospective, 70 case reports/case series, and 24 letters/correspondence/clinical image. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) was the most used first-line therapy based on its efficacy and its generally well-tolerated nature; most patients require continued treatment to remain in remission. Thalidomide and systemic glucocorticoids were mostly considered as second-line therapies and were given alone or in association with IVIG. Patients with severe or refractory disease were treated with autologous bone marrow transplantation, melphalan, or bortezomib with dexamethasone.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Consideration of patient comorbidities, disease distribution, clinician experience, and treatment accessibility is mandatory in every therapeutic approach of scleromyxedema.
Topics: Bortezomib; Humans; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Scleromyxedema; Thalidomide
PubMed: 32358980
DOI: 10.1111/ijd.14888 -
Blood Cancer Journal Sep 2023Rituximab-based chemo-immunotherapy is currently the standard first-line treatment for Waldenstrom macroglobulinaemia (WM), while ibrutinib has emerged as an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Rituximab-based chemo-immunotherapy is currently the standard first-line treatment for Waldenstrom macroglobulinaemia (WM), while ibrutinib has emerged as an alternative. In the absence of randomised trials (RCTs) comparing these regimens, the optimal first-line treatment for WM remains uncertain. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought to assess the efficacy and safety of first-line treatment regimens for WM. We searched key databases from January 2007 to March 2023, including phase II and III trials, including treatment-naïve WM patients treated with rituximab-based regimens or ibrutinib. Response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicities were evaluated. Four phase III and seven phase II trials were included among 736 unique records. Pooled response rates from all comparative and non-comparative trials were 46%, 33% and 26% for bendamustine rituximab (BR), bortezomib-dexamethasone, cyclophosphamide, rituximab (BDRC) and ibrutinib rituximab (IR), respectively. Two-year pooled PFS was 89%, 81% and 82% with BR, BDRC and IR, respectively. Neuropathy was more frequent with bortezomib, while haematologic and cardiac toxicities were more common with chemo-immunotherapy and ibrutinib-based regimens respectively. Our findings suggest that BR yields higher response rates than bortezomib or ibrutinib-based combinations. RCTs comparing BR against emerging therapies, including novel Bruton Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors, are warranted.
Topics: Humans; Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia; Rituximab; Bortezomib; Clinical Protocols; Cyclophosphamide
PubMed: 37679351
DOI: 10.1038/s41408-023-00916-5 -
Annals of Medicine 2023The emergence of genetically-modified human proteins and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have presented a promising strategy for effectively managing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy and safety profile of once-weekly Semaglutide versus once-daily Sitagliptin as an add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The emergence of genetically-modified human proteins and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have presented a promising strategy for effectively managing diabetes. Due to the scarcity of clinical trials focusing on the safety and efficacy of semaglutide as an adjunctive treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes who had inadequate glycemic control with metformin, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. This was necessary to fill the gap and provide a comprehensive assessment of semaglutide compared to sitagliptin, a commonly prescribed DPP-4 inhibitor, in this patient population.
METHODS
A comprehensive and systematic search was carried out on reputable databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Elsevier's ScienceDirect to identify relevant studies that compared the efficacy of once-weekly Semaglutide with once-daily Sitagliptin in individuals diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The analysis of the gathered data was performed utilizing the random-effects model, which considers both within-study and between-study variations.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis incorporated three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), encompassing 2401 participants, with a balanced distribution across the treatment groups. The primary focus of the study revolved around evaluating changes in HbA1C, blood pressure, pulse rate, body weight, waist circumference, and BMI. The findings revealed that once-weekly Semaglutide showed substantially improved HbA1C (WMD: -0.98; 95% CI: -1.28, -0.69, p-value: < 0.0001; I2: 100%), systolic (WMD: -3.73; 95% CI: -5.42, -2.04, p-value: <0.0001; I2: 100%) and diastolic blood pressures (WMD: -0.66; 95% CI: -1.02, -0.29, p-value: 0.0005; I2: 100%), and body weight (WMD: -3.17; 95% CI: -3.84, -2.49, p-value: <0.00001; I2: 100%) compared to once-daily Sitagliptin. However, there was an observed increase in pulse rate (WMD: 3.33; 95% CI: 1.61, 5.06, p-value: <0.00001; I2: 100%) associated with Semaglutide treatment. Regarding secondary outcomes, there was an elevated risk of total adverse events and premature treatment discontinuation with Semaglutide. The risk of serious, severe, moderate, and mild adverse events did not significantly differ between the two treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, the administration of once-weekly Semaglutide exhibited a substantial reduction in HbA1c, average systolic blood pressure (SBP), mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP), body weight, waist circumference, body mass index (BMI), and a rise in pulse rate, as opposed to the once-daily administration of Sitagliptin.
Topics: Humans; Metformin; Sitagliptin Phosphate; Glycated Hemoglobin; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Hypoglycemic Agents; Body Weight
PubMed: 37498865
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2023.2239830 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Hypertonic saline enhances mucociliary clearance and may lessen the destructive inflammatory process in the airways. This is an update of a previously published review. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hypertonic saline enhances mucociliary clearance and may lessen the destructive inflammatory process in the airways. This is an update of a previously published review.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate efficacy and tolerability of nebulised hypertonic saline treatment in people with cystic fibrosis (CF) compared to placebo or other treatments that enhance mucociliary clearance.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched ongoing trials databases. Most recent search: 25 April 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials assessing hypertonic saline compared to placebo or other mucolytic therapy, for any duration or dose regimen in people with CF (any age or disease severity).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently reviewed all identified trials and data, and assessed trial quality. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. For cross-over trials we stipulated a one-week washout period. We planned to use results from a paired analysis in the review, but this was only possible in one trial. For other cross-over trials, we chose to treat the trials as if they were parallel.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 24 trials (1318 participants, aged one month to 56 years); we excluded 29 trials, two trials are ongoing and six are awaiting classification. We judged 15 of the 24 included trials to have a high risk of bias due to participants' ability to discern the taste of the solutions. Hypertonic saline 3% to 7% versus placebo (stable disease) We are uncertain whether the regular use of nebulised hypertonic saline in stable lung disease leads to an improvement in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV) % predicted at four weeks, (mean difference (MD) 3.30%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 5.89; 4 trials, 246 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In preschool children we found no difference in lung clearance index (LCI) at four weeks, but a small improvement after 48 weeks of treatment with hypertonic saline compared to isotonic saline (MD -0.60, 95% CI -1.00 to -0.19; 2 trials, 192 participants). We are also uncertain whether hypertonic saline made a difference to mucociliary clearance, pulmonary exacerbations or adverse events compared to placebo. Hypertonic saline versus control (acute exacerbation) Two trials compared hypertonic saline to control, but only one provided data. There may be little or no difference in lung function measured by FEV % predicted after hypertonic saline compared to isotonic saline (MD 5.10%, 95% CI -14.67 to 24.87; 1 trial, 130 participants). Neither trial reported any deaths or measures of sputum clearance. There were no serious adverse events. Hypertonic saline versus rhDNase Three trials compared a similar dose of hypertonic saline to recombinant deoxyribonuclease (rhDNase); two trials (61 participants) provided data for inclusion in the review. We are uncertain whether there was an effect of hypertonic saline on FEV % predicted after three weeks (MD 1.60%, 95% CI -7.96 to 11.16; 1 trial, 14 participants; very low-certainty evidence). At three months, rhDNase may lead to a greater increase in FEV % predicted than hypertonic saline (5 mL twice daily) at 12 weeks in participants with moderate to severe lung disease (MD 8.00%, 95% CI 2.00 to 14.00; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether adverse events differed between the two treatments. No deaths were reported. Hypertonic saline versus amiloride One trial (12 participants) compared hypertonic saline to amiloride but did not report on most of our outcomes. The trial found that there was no difference between treatments in measures of sputum clearance (very low-certainty evidence). Hypertonic saline compared with sodium-2-mercaptoethane sulphonate (Mistabron®) One trial (29 participants) compared hypertonic saline to sodium-2-mercaptoethane sulphonate. The trial did not measure our primary outcomes. There was no difference between treatments in any measures of sputum clearance, courses of antibiotics or adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). Hypertonic saline versus mannitol One trial (12 participants) compared hypertonic saline to mannitol, but did not report lung function at relevant time points for this review; there were no differences in sputum clearance, but mannitol was reported to be more 'irritating' (very low-certainty evidence). Hypertonic saline versus xylitol Two trials compared hypertonic saline to xylitol, but we are uncertain whether there is any difference in FEV % predicted or median time to exacerbation between groups (very low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes were reported in the review. Hypertonic saline 7% versus hypertonic saline 3% We are uncertain whether there was an improvement in FEV % predicted after treatment with 7% hypertonic saline compared with 3% (very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are very uncertain if regular use of nebulised hypertonic saline by adults and children over the age of 12 years with CF results in an improvement in lung function after four weeks (three trials; very low-certainty evidence); there was no difference seen at 48 weeks (one trial; low-certainty evidence). Hypertonic saline improved LCI modestly in children under the age of six years. Evidence from one small cross-over trial in children indicates that rhDNase may lead to better lung function than hypertonic saline at three months; qualifying this, we highlight that while the study did demonstrate that the improvement in FEV was greater with daily rhDNase, there were no differences seen in any of the secondary outcomes. Hypertonic saline does appear to be an effective adjunct to physiotherapy during acute exacerbations of lung disease in adults. However, for the outcomes assessed, the certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low at best, according to the GRADE criteria. The role of hypertonic saline in conjunction with cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator therapy now needs to be considered, and future research needs to focus on this aspect.
Topics: Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Administration, Inhalation; Amiloride; Cystic Fibrosis; Mannitol; Saline Solution, Hypertonic; Sodium; Xylitol; Infant; Adolescent; Young Adult; Middle Aged
PubMed: 37319354
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001506.pub5 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023As a popular antidiabetic drug, teneligliptin has been used for over 10 years, but its efficacy and safety have rarely been systematically evaluated. Therefore, a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
As a popular antidiabetic drug, teneligliptin has been used for over 10 years, but its efficacy and safety have rarely been systematically evaluated. Therefore, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of teneligliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing teneligliptin with placebo or active comparators in T2DM patients for at least 12 weeks were included in the study. Data analysis was performed using R 4.2.3 and Stata 17.0 software. Each outcome was presented as a mean difference (MD) or an odds ratio (OR) along with 95% confidence interval (CI) and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value (SUCRA).
RESULTS
A total of 18 RCTs with 3,290 participants with T2DM were included in this study. Generally, compared to placebo, sitagliptin, vildagliptin, metformin, and bromocriptine, 20 mg of teneligliptin showed better efficacy in reducing HbA1c (MD [95% CI], -0.78 [-0.86 to -0.70], -0.08 [-0.36 to 0.19], -0.04 [-0.72 to 0.60], -0.12 [-0.65 to 0.42], and -0.50 [-0.74 to -0.26], respectively) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (MD [95% CI], -18.02 [-20.64 to -15.13], 1.17 [-9.39 to 11.70], -8.06 [-30.95 to 14.35], -2.75 [-18.89 to 13.01], and -34.23 [-45.93 to -22.96], respectively), and 40 mg of teneligliptin also showed better efficacy in reducing HbA1c (MD [95% CI], -0.84 [-1.03 to -0.65], -0.15 [-0.49 to 0.19], -0.10 [-0.81 to 0.57], -0.18 [-0.76 to 0.39], and -0.56 [-0.88 to -0.26], respectively) and FPG (MD [95% CI], -20.40 [-26.07 to -14.57], -1.20 [-13.21 to 10.38], -10.43 [-34.16 to 12.65], -5.13 [-22.21 to 11.66], and -36.61 [-49.33 to -24.01], respectively). Compared to placebo, 20 mg of teneligliptin showed no significant difference in incidences of hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal adverse events (OR [95% CI], 1.30 [0.70 to 2.19] and 1.48 [0.78 to 2.98], respectively), and 40 mg of teneligliptin showed no significant difference in incidence of hypoglycemia (OR [95% CI], 2.63 [0.46 to 8.10]). Generally, antidiabetic effect and hypoglycemia risk of teneligliptin gradually increased as its dose increased from 5 mg to 40 mg. Compared to 20 mg of teneligliptin, 40 mg of teneligliptin showed superior efficacy and no-inferior safety, which was considered as the best option in reducing HbA1c, FPG, and 2h PPG and increasing proportion of the patients achieving HbA1c < 7% (SUCRA, 85.51%, 84.24%, 79.06%, and 85.81%, respectively) among all the included interventions.
CONCLUSION
Compared to sitagliptin, vildagliptin, metformin, bromocriptine, and placebo, teneligliptin displayed favorable efficacy and acceptable safety in treating T2DM. Twenty milligrams or 40 mg per day was the optimal dosage regimen of teneligliptin. The results of this study will provide important evidence-based basis for rational use of teneligliptin and clinical decision-making of T2DM medication.
Topics: Humans; Bromocriptine; Glycated Hemoglobin; Network Meta-Analysis; Vildagliptin; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Metformin; Sitagliptin Phosphate; Hypoglycemic Agents; Hypoglycemia
PubMed: 38189048
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1282584