-
International Journal of Environmental... Feb 2022(1) Background: pneumonia (PCP) has a substantial impact on the morbidity and mortality of patients, especially those with autoimmune disorders, thus requiring optimal... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: pneumonia (PCP) has a substantial impact on the morbidity and mortality of patients, especially those with autoimmune disorders, thus requiring optimal dosing strategies of Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX). Therefore, to ensure the safety of TMP-SMX, there is a high demand to review current evidence in PCP patients with a focus on dose optimization strategies; (2) Methods: Various databases were searched from January 2000 to December 2021 for articles in English, focusing on the dose optimization of TMP-SMX. The data were collected in a specific form with predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of each article was evaluated using a Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for retrospective studies, Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical checklist for case reports, and Cochrane bias tool for randomized clinical trials (RCTs); (3) Results: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria for final analysis. Of the 13 selected studies, nine were retrospective cohort studies, two case reports, and two randomized controlled trials (RCT). Most of the studies compared the high-dose with low-dose TMP-SMX therapy for PCP. We have found that a low dose of TMP-SMX provides satisfactory outcomes while reducing the mortality rate and PCP-associated adverse events. This strategy reduces the economic burden of illness and enhances patients' compliance to daily regimen plan; (4) Conclusions: The large-scale RCTs and cohort studies are required to improve dosing strategies to prevent initial occurrence of PCP or to prevent recurrence of PCP in immune compromised patients.
Topics: Cohort Studies; Humans; Pneumonia, Pneumocystis; Retrospective Studies; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination
PubMed: 35270525
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19052833 -
Journal of Psychiatric Research Sep 2020We conducted a random-effects model network meta-analysis to examine differences between lemborexant and suvorexant in efficacy and safety outcomes for treating patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We conducted a random-effects model network meta-analysis to examine differences between lemborexant and suvorexant in efficacy and safety outcomes for treating patients with insomnia. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL from their inception until April/28/2020. Primary outcomes were subjective time to sleep onset (sTSO), subjective total sleep time (sTST), and subjective wake-after-sleep onset (sWASO) at week 1. Four double-blind, randomized controlled trials were identified (n = 3237; 72.4% female; mean age 58.0 years). The treatment arm consisted of lemborexant 10 mg/d (LEM10, n = 592), lemborexant 5 mg/d (LEM5, n = 589), suvorexant 20/15 mg/d (SUV20/15, n = 493), zolpidem tartrate extended release 6.25 mg/d (ZOL6.25, n = 263), and placebo (n = 1300). All active treatments outperformed placebo regarding sTSO at week 1; standardized mean differences (95% credible interval): LEM10 = -0.51 (-0.63, -0.39), LEM5 = -0.48 (-0.60, -0.36), SUV20/15 = -0.21 (-0.33, -0.10), and ZOL6.25 = -0.30 (-0.46, -0.14); sTST at week 1: LEM10 = -0.58 (-0.70, -0.45), LEM5 = -0.33 (-0.46, -0.21), SUV20/15 = -0.34 (-0.46, -0.23), and ZOL6.25 = -0.42 (-0.59, -0.25); and sWASO at week 1: LEM10 = -0.42 (-0.57, -0.28), LEM5 = -0.26 (-0.40, -0.11), SUV20/15 = -0.18 (-0.32, -0.05), and ZOL6.25 = -0.37 (-0.56, -0.18). Although no significant differences were found in discontinuation due to adverse events between each active drug and placebo, LEM10 and SUV20/15 were associated with greater somnolence compared with placebo. LEM10 had the largest effect size compared with placebo for all primary outcomes, although with a risk of somnolence.
Topics: Azepines; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Pyridines; Pyrimidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Treatment Outcome; Triazoles
PubMed: 32531478
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2020.05.025 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Sleep disturbances, including reduced nocturnal sleep time, sleep fragmentation, nocturnal wandering, and daytime sleepiness are common clinical problems in dementia,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Sleep disturbances, including reduced nocturnal sleep time, sleep fragmentation, nocturnal wandering, and daytime sleepiness are common clinical problems in dementia, and are associated with significant carer distress, increased healthcare costs, and institutionalisation. Although non-drug interventions are recommended as the first-line approach to managing these problems, drug treatment is often sought and used. However, there is significant uncertainty about the efficacy and adverse effects of the various hypnotic drugs in this clinically vulnerable population.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects, including common adverse effects, of any drug treatment versus placebo for sleep disorders in people with dementia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois), the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register, on 19 February 2020, using the terms: sleep, insomnia, circadian, hypersomnia, parasomnia, somnolence, rest-activity, and sundowning.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a drug with placebo, and that had the primary aim of improving sleep in people with dementia who had an identified sleep disturbance at baseline.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data on study design, risk of bias, and results. We used the mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect, and where possible, synthesised results using a fixed-effect model. Key outcomes to be included in our summary tables were chosen with the help of a panel of carers. We used GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We found nine eligible RCTs investigating: melatonin (5 studies, n = 222, five studies, but only two yielded data on our primary sleep outcomes suitable for meta-analysis), the sedative antidepressant trazodone (1 study, n = 30), the melatonin-receptor agonist ramelteon (1 study, n = 74, no peer-reviewed publication), and the orexin antagonists suvorexant and lemborexant (2 studies, n = 323). Participants in the trazodone study and most participants in the melatonin studies had moderate-to-severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease (AD); those in the ramelteon study and the orexin antagonist studies had mild-to-moderate AD. Participants had a variety of common sleep problems at baseline. Primary sleep outcomes were measured using actigraphy or polysomnography. In one study, melatonin treatment was combined with light therapy. Only four studies systematically assessed adverse effects. Overall, we considered the studies to be at low or unclear risk of bias. We found low-certainty evidence that melatonin doses up to 10 mg may have little or no effect on any major sleep outcome over eight to 10 weeks in people with AD and sleep disturbances. We could synthesise data for two of our primary sleep outcomes: total nocturnal sleep time (TNST) (MD 10.68 minutes, 95% CI -16.22 to 37.59; 2 studies, n = 184), and the ratio of day-time to night-time sleep (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.03; 2 studies; n = 184). From single studies, we found no evidence of an effect of melatonin on sleep efficiency, time awake after sleep onset, number of night-time awakenings, or mean duration of sleep bouts. There were no serious adverse effects of melatonin reported. We found low-certainty evidence that trazodone 50 mg for two weeks may improve TNST (MD 42.46 minutes, 95% CI 0.9 to 84.0; 1 study, n = 30), and sleep efficiency (MD 8.53%, 95% CI 1.9 to 15.1; 1 study, n = 30) in people with moderate-to-severe AD. The effect on time awake after sleep onset was uncertain due to very serious imprecision (MD -20.41 minutes, 95% CI -60.4 to 19.6; 1 study, n = 30). There may be little or no effect on number of night-time awakenings (MD -3.71, 95% CI -8.2 to 0.8; 1 study, n = 30) or time asleep in the day (MD 5.12 minutes, 95% CI -28.2 to 38.4). There were no serious adverse effects of trazodone reported. The small (n = 74), phase 2 trial investigating ramelteon 8 mg was reported only in summary form on the sponsor's website. We considered the certainty of the evidence to be low. There was no evidence of any important effect of ramelteon on any nocturnal sleep outcomes. There were no serious adverse effects. We found moderate-certainty evidence that an orexin antagonist taken for four weeks by people with mild-to-moderate AD probably increases TNST (MD 28.2 minutes, 95% CI 11.1 to 45.3; 1 study, n = 274) and decreases time awake after sleep onset (MD -15.7 minutes, 95% CI -28.1 to -3.3: 1 study, n = 274) but has little or no effect on number of awakenings (MD 0.0, 95% CI -0.5 to 0.5; 1 study, n = 274). It may be associated with a small increase in sleep efficiency (MD 4.26%, 95% CI 1.26 to 7.26; 2 studies, n = 312), has no clear effect on sleep latency (MD -12.1 minutes, 95% CI -25.9 to 1.7; 1 study, n = 274), and may have little or no effect on the mean duration of sleep bouts (MD -2.42 minutes, 95% CI -5.53 to 0.7; 1 study, n = 38). Adverse events were probably no more common among participants taking orexin antagonists than those taking placebo (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.99; 2 studies, n = 323).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We discovered a distinct lack of evidence to guide decisions about drug treatment of sleep problems in dementia. In particular, we found no RCTs of many widely prescribed drugs, including the benzodiazepine and non-benzodiazepine hypnotics, although there is considerable uncertainty about the balance of benefits and risks for these common treatments. We found no evidence for beneficial effects of melatonin (up to 10 mg) or a melatonin receptor agonist. There was evidence of some beneficial effects on sleep outcomes from trazodone and orexin antagonists and no evidence of harmful effects in these small trials, although larger trials in a broader range of participants are needed to allow more definitive conclusions to be reached. Systematic assessment of adverse effects in future trials is essential.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Azepines; Caregiver Burden; Cognition; Humans; Indenes; Melatonin; Pyridines; Pyrimidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep; Sleep Wake Disorders; Time Factors; Trazodone; Triazoles
PubMed: 33189083
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009178.pub4 -
Pharmacotherapy Jan 2024This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of risdiplam on motor and respiratory function in spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of risdiplam on motor and respiratory function in spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). We systematically searched Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to March 2023. We included pre-post studies that determined the effect of risdiplam on the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Infant Test of Neuromuscular Disorders (CHOP-INTEND), the 32-item Motor Function Measure (MFM32), the Revised Upper Limb Module (RULM), the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale - Expanded (HFMSE), respiratory function, and the proportion of risdiplam-related adverse events in a population with SMA (phenotypes 1 and 2/3). Meta-analyses were also performed where possible. Eleven studies were included. After 12 months of treatment, 57% of participants with SMA1 achieved a CHOP-INTEND score ≥ 40 points, and more than half were able to feed orally and had head control. In SMA2/3, MFM32, RULM, and HFMSE increased by 2.09 (1.17, 3.01), 1.73 (1.25, 2.20), and 1.00 (0.40, 1.59) points, respectively. Efficacy on respiratory function in SMA2/3 was inconsistent. Finally, 16% of participants experienced adverse events, but serious adverse events could not be quantified due to a lack of cases. The limited available evidence suggests that risdiplam is an effective and safe drug for the treatment of SMA. In addition, long-term clinical benefit may be partly determined by the stage of disease at which treatment is initiated.
Topics: Child; Infant; Humans; Spinal Muscular Atrophies of Childhood; Muscular Atrophy, Spinal; Azo Compounds; Pyrimidines
PubMed: 37574770
DOI: 10.1002/phar.2866 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2023Alopecia areata is an autoimmune disease leading to nonscarring hair loss on the scalp or body. There are different treatments including immunosuppressants, hair growth... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Alopecia areata is an autoimmune disease leading to nonscarring hair loss on the scalp or body. There are different treatments including immunosuppressants, hair growth stimulants, and contact immunotherapy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of the treatments for alopecia areata (AA), alopecia totalis (AT), and alopecia universalis (AU) in children and adults.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP were searched up to July 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated classical immunosuppressants, biologics, small molecule inhibitors, contact immunotherapy, hair growth stimulants, and other therapies in paediatric and adult populations with AA.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard procedures expected by Cochrane including assessment of risks of bias using RoB2 and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The primary outcomes were short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (between 12 and 26 weeks of follow-up), and incidence of serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (greater than 26 weeks of follow-up) and health-related quality of life. We could not perform a network meta-analysis as very few trials compared the same treatments. We presented direct comparisons and made a narrative description of the findings.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 63 studies that tested 47 different treatments in 4817 randomised participants. All trials used a parallel-group design except one that used a cross-over design. The mean sample size was 78 participants. All trials recruited outpatients from dermatology clinics. Participants were between 2 and 74 years old. The trials included patients with AA (n = 25), AT (n = 1), AU (n = 1), mixed cases (n = 31), and unclear types of alopecia (n = 4). Thirty-three out of 63 studies (52.3%) reported the proportion of participants achieving short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (between 12 and 26 weeks). Forty-seven studies (74.6%) reported serious adverse events and only one study (1.5%) reported health-related quality of life. Five studies (7.9%) reported the proportion of participants with long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (greater than 26 weeks). Amongst the variety of interventions found, we prioritised some groups of interventions for their relevance to clinical practice: systemic therapies (classical immunosuppressants, biologics, and small molecule inhibitors), and local therapies (intralesional corticosteroids, topical small molecule inhibitors, contact immunotherapy, hair growth stimulants and cryotherapy). Considering only the prioritised interventions, 14 studies from 12 comparisons reported short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% and 22 studies from 10 comparisons reported serious adverse events (18 reported zero events and 4 reported at least one). One study (1 comparison) reported quality of life, and two studies (1 comparison) reported long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75%. For the main outcome of short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75%, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of oral prednisolone or cyclosporine versus placebo (RR 4.68, 95% CI 0.57 to 38.27; 79 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), intralesional betamethasone or triamcinolone versus placebo (RR 13.84, 95% CI 0.87 to 219.76; 231 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), oral ruxolitinib versus oral tofacitinib (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.52; 80 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), diphencyprone or squaric acid dibutil ester versus placebo (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71; 99 participants; 1 study; very-low-certainty evidence), diphencyprone or squaric acid dibutyl ester versus topical minoxidil (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71; 99 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), diphencyprone plus topical minoxidil versus diphencyprone (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.44; 30 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), topical minoxidil 1% and 2% versus placebo (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.96; 202 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and cryotherapy versus fractional CO2 laser (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.86; 80 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests oral betamethasone may increase short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% compared to prednisolone or azathioprine (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.88; 80 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between subcutaneous dupilumab and placebo in short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (RR 3.59, 95% CI 0.19 to 66.22; 60 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) as well as between topical ruxolitinib and placebo (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 100.89; 78 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). However, baricitinib results in an increase in short-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% when compared to placebo (RR 7.54, 95% CI 3.90 to 14.58; 1200 participants; 2 studies; high-certainty evidence). For the incidence of serious adverse events, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of topical ruxolitinib versus placebo (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.94; 78 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Baricitinib and apremilast may result in little to no difference in the incidence of serious adverse events versus placebo (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.60; 1224 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). The same result is observed for subcutaneous dupilumab compared to placebo (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.07 to 36.11; 60 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). For health-related quality of life, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of oral cyclosporine compared to placebo (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.07; very low-certainty evidence). Baricitinib results in an increase in long-term hair regrowth ≥ 75% compared to placebo (RR 8.49, 95% CI 4.70 to 15.34; 1200 participants; 2 studies; high-certainty evidence). Regarding the risk of bias, the most relevant issues were the lack of details about randomisation and allocation concealment, the limited efforts to keep patients and assessors unaware of the assigned intervention, and losses to follow-up.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found that treatment with baricitinib results in an increase in short- and long-term hair regrowth compared to placebo. Although we found inconclusive results for the risk of serious adverse effects with baricitinib, the reported small incidence of serious adverse events in the baricitinib arm should be balanced with the expected benefits. We also found that the impact of other treatments on hair regrowth is very uncertain. Evidence for health-related quality of life is still scant.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Child, Preschool; Adolescent; Young Adult; Middle Aged; Aged; Alopecia Areata; Minoxidil; Network Meta-Analysis; Immunosuppressive Agents; Prednisolone; Betamethasone; Cyclosporins; Biological Products
PubMed: 37870096
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013719.pub2 -
Journal of Crohn's & Colitis Aug 2023Tofacitinib has emerged as a new potential treatment for acute severe ulcerative colitis [ASUC]. We conducted a systematic review to assess efficacy, safety and...
BACKGROUND
Tofacitinib has emerged as a new potential treatment for acute severe ulcerative colitis [ASUC]. We conducted a systematic review to assess efficacy, safety and integration in ASUC algorithms.
METHODS
Systematic searching was done in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrials.gov until August 17, 2022, including all studies reporting original observations on tofacitinib for ASUC, preferably defined according to Truelove and Witts criteria. The primary outcome was colectomy-free survival.
RESULTS
Of 1072 publications identified, 21 studies were included of which three were ongoing clinical trials. The remaining comprised a pooled cohort originating from 15 case publications [n = 42], a GETAID cohort study [n = 55], a case-control study [n = 40 cases] and a paediatric cohort [n = 11]. Of these 148 reported cases, tofacitinib was used as second-line treatment after steroid failure in previous infliximab failures or third-line after sequential steroid and infliximab or cyclosporine failure, 69 [47%] were female, median age range was 17-34 years and disease duration was 0.7-10 years. Overall, 30-day colectomy-free survival was 85% [n = 123 of 145; n = 3 without colectomy had follow-up <30 days], 90-day 86% [n = 113 of 132; n = 16 follow-up <90 days] and 180-day 69% [n = 77 of 112; n = 36 follow-up <180 days]. Tofacitinib persistence at follow-up was 68-91%, clinical remission 35-69% and endoscopic remission 55%. Adverse events occurred in 22 patients, predominantly being infectious complications other than herpes zoster [n = 13], and resulted in tofacitinib discontinuation in seven patients.
CONCLUSION
Tofacitinib appears promising for treatment of ASUC with high short-term colectomy-free survival among refractory patients who are otherwise deemed to require colectomy. However, large high-quality studies are needed.
Topics: Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Colitis, Ulcerative; Treatment Outcome; Piperidines; Pyrimidines; Humans
PubMed: 36860164
DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad036 -
Future Oncology (London, England) Apr 2023To review clinical evidence for current and emerging treatments for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are ineligible for first-line induction chemotherapy.... (Review)
Review
To review clinical evidence for current and emerging treatments for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are ineligible for first-line induction chemotherapy. A systematic literature review was performed (28 October 2021) to identify clinical outcomes including overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), relapse-free survival (RFS) and adverse events (AEs). Of 233 references that met prespecified criteria, 26 studies were included. Adding targeted therapies (venetoclax/ivosidenib) to hypomethylating agents (HMAs) yielded better OS hazard ratios (HRs) (0.44-0.66) and EFS HRs (0.33-0.63) compared with other agents. AEs were more frequent with combination therapies than control arms, except with ivosidenib plus azacitidine. Targeted therapy combined with a HMA shows the most promising results in this difficult-to-treat population.
Topics: Humans; Cytarabine; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Azacitidine; Combined Modality Therapy; Progression-Free Survival; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Induction Chemotherapy
PubMed: 37170899
DOI: 10.2217/fon-2022-1286 -
JAMA Network Open Jan 2024The NAPOLI 3 trial showed the superiority of fluorouracil, leucovorin, liposomal irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (NALIRIFOX) over the combination of gemcitabine and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The NAPOLI 3 trial showed the superiority of fluorouracil, leucovorin, liposomal irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (NALIRIFOX) over the combination of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NABP) as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Analyses comparing NALIRIFOX and GEM-NABP with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) have not yet been reported.
OBJECTIVE
To derive survival, response, and toxic effects data from phase 3 clinical trials and compare NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, and GEM-NABP.
DATA SOURCES
After a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology meetings' libraries, Kaplan-Meier curves were extracted from phase 3 clinical trials conducted from January 1, 2011, until September 12, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Phase 3 clinical trials that tested NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, or GEM-NABP as first-line treatment of metastatic PDAC and reported overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves were selected. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Individual Participant Data reporting guidelines.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Individual patient OS and PFS data were extracted from Kaplan-Meier plots of original trials via a graphic reconstructive algorithm. Overall response rates (ORRs) and grade 3 or higher toxic effects rates were also collected. A pooled analysis was conducted, and results were validated via a network meta-analysis.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary end point was OS. Secondary outcomes included PFS, ORR, and toxic effects rates.
RESULTS
A total of 7 trials with data on 2581 patients were analyzed, including 383 patients treated with NALIRIFOX, 433 patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, and 1756 patients treated with GEM-NABP. Median PFS was longer in patients treated with NALIRIFOX (7.4 [95% CI, 6.1-7.7] months) or FOLFIRINOX (7.3 [95% CI, 6.5-7.9] months; [HR], 1.21 [95% CI, 0.86-1.70]; P = .28) compared with patients treated with GEM-NABP (5.7 [95% CI, 5.6-6.1] months; HR vs NALIRIFOX, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.22-1.73]; P < .001). Similarly, GEM-NABP was associated with poorer OS (10.4 [95% CI, 9.8-10.8]; months) compared with NALIRIFOX (HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.00-1.39]; P = .05], while no difference was observed between FOLFIRINOX (11.7 [95% CI, 10.4-13.0] months) and NALIRIFOX (11.1 [95% CI, 10.1-12.3] months; HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.81-1.39]; P = .65). There were no statistically significant differences in ORR among NALIRIFOX (41.8%), FOLFIRINOX (31.6%), and GEM-NABP (35.0%). NALIRIFOX was associated with lower incidence of grade 3 or higher hematological toxic effects (eg, platelet count decreased 1.6% vs 11.8% with FOLFIRINOX and 10.8% with GEM-NABP), but higher rates of severe diarrhea compared with GEM-NABP (20.3% vs 15.7%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX were associated with similar PFS and OS as first-line treatment of advanced PDAC, although NALIRIFOX was associated with a different toxicity profile. Careful patient selection, financial toxic effects consideration, and direct comparison between FOLFIRINOX and NALIRIFOX are warranted.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Irinotecan; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Leucovorin; Oxaliplatin; Gemcitabine; Fluorouracil; Adenocarcinoma
PubMed: 38190183
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.50756 -
European Journal of Human Genetics :... Mar 2024The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) aims to facilitate pharmacogenetics implementation in clinical practice by developing evidence-based guidelines to...
The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) aims to facilitate pharmacogenetics implementation in clinical practice by developing evidence-based guidelines to optimize pharmacotherapy. A guideline describing the gene-drug interaction between the genes CYP2D6, CYP3A4 and CYP1A2 and antipsychotics is presented here. The DPWG identified gene-drug interactions that require therapy adjustments when respective genotype is known for CYP2D6 with aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, haloperidol, pimozide, risperidone and zuclopenthixol, and for CYP3A4 with quetiapine. Evidence-based dose recommendations were obtained based on a systematic review of published literature. Reduction of the normal dose is recommended for aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, haloperidol, pimozide, risperidone and zuclopenthixol for CYP2D6-predicted PMs, and for pimozide and zuclopenthixol also for CYP2D6 IMs. For CYP2D6 UMs, a dose increase or an alternative drug is recommended for haloperidol and an alternative drug or titration of the dose for risperidone. In addition, in case of no or limited clinical effect, a dose increase is recommended for zuclopenthixol for CYP2D6 UMs. Even though evidence is limited, the DPWG recommends choosing an alternative drug to treat symptoms of depression or a dose reduction for other indications for quetiapine and CYP3A4 PMs. No therapy adjustments are recommended for the other CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 predicted phenotypes. In addition, no action is required for the gene-drug combinations CYP2D6 and clozapine, flupentixol, olanzapine or quetiapine and also not for CYP1A2 and clozapine or olanzapine. For identified gene-drug interactions requiring therapy adjustments, genotyping of CYP2D6 or CYP3A4 prior to treatment should not be considered for all patients, but on an individual patient basis only.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Clopenthixol; Clozapine; Cytochrome P-450 CYP1A2; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2D6; Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A; Drug Interactions; Haloperidol; Olanzapine; Pharmacogenetics; Pimozide; Quetiapine Fumarate; Quinolones; Risperidone; Thiophenes
PubMed: 37002327
DOI: 10.1038/s41431-023-01347-3 -
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