-
International Journal of Infectious... Jul 2022This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of favipiravir in patients with COVID-19. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of favipiravir in patients with COVID-19.
METHODS
Our protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020206305). Fourteen databases were searched until February 8, 2021. An update search for new RCTs was done on March 2, 2022. Meta-analysis was done for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs.
RESULTS
Overall, 157 studies (24 RCTs, 1 non-RCT, 21 observational studies, 2 case series, and 106 case reports) were included. On hospitalized patients, in comparison to standard of care, favipiravir showed a higher rate of viral clearance at day 5 (RR = 1.60, p = 0.02), defervescence at day 3-4 (RR = 1.99, p <0.01), chest radiological improvement (RR = 1.33, p <0.01), hospital discharge at day 10-11 (RR = 1.19, p <0.01), and shorter clinical improvement time (MD = -1.18, p = 0.05). Regarding adverse events, favipiravir groups had higher rates of hyperuricemia (RR = 9.42, p <0.01), increased alanine aminotransferase (RR = 1.35, p <0.01) but lower rates of nausea (RR = 0.42, p <0.01) and vomiting (R R= 0.19, p=0.02). There were no differences regarding mortality (RR=1.19, p=0.32), and increased aspartate aminotransferase (RR = 1.11, p = 0.25). On nonhospitalized patients, no significant differences were reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Adding favipiravir to the standard of care provides better outcomes for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Pregnant, lactating women, and patients with a history of hyperuricemia should avoid using favipiravir.
Topics: Amides; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Humans; Hyperuricemia; Pyrazines; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35470021
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2022.04.035 -
European Journal of Clinical... Dec 2021We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis for the effectiveness of Favipiravir on the fatality and the requirement of mechanical ventilation for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis for the effectiveness of Favipiravir on the fatality and the requirement of mechanical ventilation for the treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19 patients. We searched available literature and reported it by using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Until June 1, 2021, we searched PubMed, bioRxiv, medRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar by using the keywords "Favipiravir" and terms synonymous with COVID-19. Studies for Favipiravir treatment compared to standard of care among moderate and severe COVID-19 patients were included. Risk of bias assessment was performed using Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) and ROBINS-I assessment tool for non-randomized studies. We defined the outcome measures as fatality and requirement for mechanical ventilation. A total of 2702 studies were identified and 12 clinical trials with 1636 patients were analyzed. Nine out of 12 studies were randomized controlled trials. Among the randomized studies, one study has low risk of bias, six studies have moderate risk of bias, and 2 studies have high risk of bias. Observational studies were identified as having moderate risk of bias and non-randomized study was found to have serious risk of bias. Our meta-analysis did not reveal any significant difference between the intervention and the comparator on fatality rate (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.64-1.94) and mechanical ventilation requirement (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.13-1.95). There is no significant difference in fatality rate and mechanical ventilation requirement between Favipiravir treatment and the standard of care in moderate and severe COVID-19 patients.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Amides; Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Observational Studies as Topic; Pyrazines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2; Young Adult; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34347191
DOI: 10.1007/s10096-021-04307-1 -
Blood Cancer Journal Jan 2024Extra copies of chromosome 1q21 (+1q: gain = 3 copies, amp >= 4 copies) are associated with worse outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM). This systematic review assesses...
Extra copies of chromosome 1q21 (+1q: gain = 3 copies, amp >= 4 copies) are associated with worse outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM). This systematic review assesses the current reporting trends of +1q, the efficacy of existing regimens on +1q, and its prognostic implications in MM randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Registry of RCTs were searched from January 2012 to December 2022. Only MM RCTs were included. A total of 124 RCTs were included, of which 29 (23%) studies reported on +1q. Among them, 10% defined thresholds for +1q, 14% reported survival data separately for gain and amp, and 79% considered +1q a high-risk cytogenetic abnormality. Amongst RCTs that met the primary endpoint showing improvement in progression free survival (PFS), lenalidomide maintenance (Myeloma XI), selinexor (BOSTON), and isatuximab (IKEMA and ICARIA) were shown to improve PFS for patients with evidence of +1q. Some additional RCT's such as Myeloma XI+ (carfilzomib), ELOQUENT-3 (elotuzumab), and HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 (bortezomib) met their endpoint showing improvement in PFS and also showed improvement in PFS in the +1q cohort, although the confidence interval crossed 1. All six studies that reported HR for +1q patients vs. without (across both arms) showed worse OS and PFS for +1q. There is considerable heterogeneity in the reporting of +1q. All interventions that have shown to be successful in RCTs and have clearly reported on the +1q subgroup have shown concordant direction of results and benefit of the applied intervention. A more standardized approach to reporting this abnormality is needed.
Topics: Humans; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bortezomib; Chromosome Aberrations; Chromosomes, Human, Pair 1; Lenalidomide; Multiple Myeloma; Prognosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38272897
DOI: 10.1038/s41408-024-00985-0 -
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association... Jul 2020Antiviral medications are being given empirically to some patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To support the development of a COVID-19 management... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antiviral medications are being given empirically to some patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To support the development of a COVID-19 management guideline, we conducted a systematic review that addressed the benefits and harms of 7 antiviral treatments for COVID-19.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed and 3 Chinese databases (CNKI, WANFANG and SinoMed) through Apr. 19, medRxiv and Chinaxiv through Apr. 27, and Chongqing VIP through Apr. 30, 2020. We included studies of ribavirin, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, umifenovir (arbidol), favipravir, interferon and lopinavir/ritonavir. If direct evidence from COVID-19 studies was not available, we included indirect evidence from studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) for efficacy outcomes and other acute respiratory viral infections for safety outcomes.
RESULTS
In patients with nonsevere COVID-19 illness, the death rate was extremely low, precluding an important effect on mortality. We found only very low-quality evidence with little or no suggestion of benefit for most treatments and outcomes in both nonsevere and severe COVID-19. An exception was treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir, for which we found low-quality evidence for a decrease in length of stay in the intensive care unit (risk difference 5 d shorter, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0 to 9 d) and hospital stay (risk difference 1 d shorter, 95% CI 0 to 2 d). For safety outcomes, evidence was of low or very low quality, with the exception of treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir for which moderate-quality evidence suggested likely increases in diarrhea, nausea and vomiting.
INTERPRETATION
To date, persuasive evidence of important benefit in COVID-19 does not exist for any antiviral treatments, although for each treatment evidence has not excluded important benefit. Additional randomized controlled trials involving patients with COVID-19 will be needed before such treatments can be administered with confidence.
Topics: Amides; Antiviral Agents; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Chloroquine; Coronavirus Infections; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Indoles; Influenza, Human; Lopinavir; Observational Studies as Topic; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Pyrazines; Ribavirin; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 32493740
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.200647 -
Annals of Hematology Dec 2022With the incorporation of novel agents in earlier lines of therapy, an increasing number of multiple myeloma patients are refractory to traditional classes of drugs.... (Review)
Review
With the incorporation of novel agents in earlier lines of therapy, an increasing number of multiple myeloma patients are refractory to traditional classes of drugs. Selinexor in combination with dexamethasone has emerged as a viable option for heavily pretreated triple-class relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In this systematic review, we analyzed available literature on the role of selinexor in RRMM. The Boston trial demonstrated that selinexor when combined with dexamethasone and bortezomib is associated with a better depth and duration of response without excessive toxicity, compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone alone. Similarly, selinexor in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone was found to have a durable response and tolerable safety profile in both carfilzomib-naive and carfilzomib refractory RRMM patients. Selinexor in combination with IMiDs (lenalidomide and pomalidomide) as well as CD38 monoclonal antibodies (daratumumab) also have promising results. Selinexor combination therapy is both safe and effective for patients with pretreated RRMM.
Topics: Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Bortezomib; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Dexamethasone; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
PubMed: 36214853
DOI: 10.1007/s00277-022-04999-1 -
American Journal of Hematology Jul 2024In view of the increasing data evaluating carfilzomib-based induction for newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
Comparative efficacy of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) versus bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) in newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
In view of the increasing data evaluating carfilzomib-based induction for newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (KRd) versus bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (VRd). Three studies totaling 1597 patients (50% KRd-treated, 50% VRd-treated) were included. Despite similar survival outcomes and overall response rate compared with the VRd arm, KRd-treated subjects showed higher odds of achieving complete responses and measurable residual disease negativity. Among patients with high-risk cytogenetics (n = 348), KRd was associated with significant improvement in progression-free survival (HR = 0.70; 95% CI = 0.50-0.97; p = .03; I = 0%), suggesting carfilzomib-based induction may be preferable in this NDMM subpopulation.
Topics: Multiple Myeloma; Humans; Lenalidomide; Dexamethasone; Oligopeptides; Bortezomib; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Progression-Free Survival; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38606993
DOI: 10.1002/ajh.27314 -
Animal Models and Experimental Medicine Feb 2024The maintenance dosage of selexipag is categorized as low, medium or high. In order to assess the efficacy and safety of different dosages of selexipag for the risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The maintenance dosage of selexipag is categorized as low, medium or high. In order to assess the efficacy and safety of different dosages of selexipag for the risk stratification of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Studies assessing PAH risk stratification indices, such as the World Health Organization functional class (WHO-FC), six-minute walk distance (6MWD), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level, right atrial pressure (RAP), cardiac index (CI) and mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO), were included.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies were included. Selexipag led to improvements in the 6MWD (MD: 24.20 m, 95% CI: 10.74-37.67), NT-proBNP (SMD: -0.41, 95% CI: -0.79-0.04), CI (MD: 0.47 L/min/m, 95% CI: 0.17-0.77) and WHO-FC (OR: 0.564, 95% CI: 0.457-0.697). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that all three dosages improved the 6MWD. A moderate dosage led to improvements in the CI (MD: 0.30 L/min/m, 95% CI: 0.15-0.46) and WHO-FC (OR: 0.589, 95% CI: 0.376-0.922). Within 6 months of treatment, only the WHO-FC and CI were significantly improved (OR: 0.614, 95% CI: 0.380-0.993; MD: 0.30 L/min/m, 95% CI: 0.16-0.45, respectively). More than 6 months of treatment significantly improved the 6MWD, WHO-FC and NT-proBNP (MD: 40.87 m, 95% CI: 10.97-70.77; OR: 0.557, 95% CI: 0.440-0.705; SMD: -0.61, 95% CI: -1.17-0.05, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
Low, medium, and high dosages of selexipag all exhibited good effects. When treatment lasted for more than 6 months, selexipag exerted obvious effects, even in the low-dosage group. This finding is important for guiding individualized treatments.
Topics: Humans; Hypertension, Pulmonary; Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension; Acetamides; Pyrazines
PubMed: 37740617
DOI: 10.1002/ame2.12347 -
Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia Apr 2021Available targeted agents (TAs) for the upfront therapy of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (ie, ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, venetoclax) have rarely been compared in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparison Between Venetoclax-based and Bruton Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor-based Therapy as Upfront Treatment of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL): A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Available targeted agents (TAs) for the upfront therapy of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (ie, ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, venetoclax) have rarely been compared in head-to-head clinical trials. In search of data for evidence-based treatment decisions, a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis was performed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The screening process adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Guidelines (PRISMA).
RESULTS
Only 3 trials were suitable for the base-case network analysis (ILLUMINATE, ELEVATE-TN, and CLL14). Regarding progression-free survival (PFS), fixed-effect analyses comparing ibrutinib-obinutuzumab (IO) with venetoclax-obinutuzumab (VO) (relative risk [RR], 1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-2.81), acalabrutinib (A) with IO (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.47-1.61), and A with VO (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.32-1.01) revealed that the upper limit of the 95% CI for RR did exceed the 1.0 value. This indicates a lack of significant difference in PFS for IO, VO, and A. In contrast, acalabrutinib plus obinutuzumab (AO) improved PFS in comparison with IO (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.87) and VO (RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.15-0.56). No differences in the frequency of adverse events was observed across different TAs. Also, the analysis of PFS in relationship with high-risk genetic features (ie, TP53 aberrations, IGHV unmutated, 11q deletion) showed similar results for different TAs. However, patients with unmutated IGHV status fared better with AO than with VO in terms of PFS.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and network meta-analysis indicated that upfront AO prolongs PFS in comparison with IO and VO, whereas no differences are observed between IO, VO, and single-agent A. Hopefully, ongoing studies will further delineate the position of different TAs in chronic lymphocytic leukemia therapy based on effectiveness, availability, safety, cost, and treatment objectives.
Topics: Adenine; Agammaglobulinaemia Tyrosine Kinase; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Benzamides; Bridged Bicyclo Compounds, Heterocyclic; Humans; Leukemia, Lymphocytic, Chronic, B-Cell; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Mutation; Network Meta-Analysis; Piperidines; Progression-Free Survival; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Pyrazines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfonamides; Tumor Suppressor Protein p53
PubMed: 33199185
DOI: 10.1016/j.clml.2020.10.012 -
Georgian Medical News Dec 2022Many experimental studies have investigated various treatment options for patients with multiple myeloma; however, bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (RVD regimen)...
Many experimental studies have investigated various treatment options for patients with multiple myeloma; however, bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (RVD regimen) is still considered a gold-standard therapy. This regimen can lead to a wide range of side effects, one of which is enterotoxicity. Significantly efficacious enteroprotective interventions have not yet been developed or implemented into clinical practice. This literature review assesses the development of chemotherapy-driven dysbiosis through Toll-like receptors (TLRs) and explores the hypothesis that the gut microbiome could provide significant enteroprotection. A systematic review was performed by utilizing articles published between 2015-2022 from the following databases: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (Medline), PubMed, Science Direct, and Cochrane Library databases. In conclusion, we found further studies of gut microbiome variety and function are necessary and could be used in development of treatment and prevention strategy of chemotherapy enterotoxicity.
Topics: Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Dysbiosis; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Lenalidomide; Bortezomib
PubMed: 36780619
DOI: No ID Found -
European Journal of Pharmacology Apr 2023Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a serious disabling condition that leads to the loss of motor, sensory, and excretory functions, seriously affecting the quality of life of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a serious disabling condition that leads to the loss of motor, sensory, and excretory functions, seriously affecting the quality of life of patients and imposing a heavy burden on the patient's family and society. There is currently a lack of effective treatments for SCI. However, a large number of experimental studies have shown beneficial effects of tetramethylpyrazine (TMP). We performed a meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the effects of TMP on neurological and motor function recovery in rats with acute SCI. English (PubMed, Web of Science, and EMbase) and Chinese (CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and CBM) databases were searched for literature related to TMP treatment in rats with SCI published until October 2022. Two researchers independently read the included studies, extracted the data, and evaluated their quality. A total of 29 studies were included, and a risk of bias assessment revealed that the methodological quality of the included studies was low. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan (BBB; n = 429, pooled mean difference [MD] = 3.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.67 to 4.22, p < 0.00001) and inclined plane test (n = 133, pooled MD = 5.60, 95% CI = 3.78 to 7.41, p < 0.00001) scores of rats treated with TMP were significantly higher than those in the control group at 14 days after SCI. TMP treatment also resulted in a significant reduction in malondialdehyde (MDA; n = 128, pooled MD = -2.03, 95% CI = -3.47 to -0.58, p < 0.00001) and increased superoxide dismutase (SOD; n = 128, pooled MD = 5.02, 95% CI = 2.39 to 7.65, p < 0.00001). Subgroup analysis indicated that different doses of TMP did not improve the BBB scale and inclined plane test angles. In conclusion, this review showed that TMP can improve SCI outcomes; however, in view of the limitations of the included studies, larger and high-quality studies are required for verification.
Topics: Rats; Animals; Quality of Life; Spinal Cord Injuries; Pyrazines; Recovery of Function; Spinal Cord
PubMed: 36803629
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2023.175524