-
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease 2021In 2018, tafenoquine was approved for malaria chemoprophylaxis. We evaluated all available data on the safety and efficacy of tafenoquine chemoprophylaxis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In 2018, tafenoquine was approved for malaria chemoprophylaxis. We evaluated all available data on the safety and efficacy of tafenoquine chemoprophylaxis.
METHODS
This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines and was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019123839). We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and Cochrane databases. Two authors (JDM, PS) screened all papers.
RESULTS
We included 44 papers in the qualitative and 9 in the quantitative analyses. These 9 randomized, controlled trials included 2495 participants, aged 12-60 years with 27.3% women. Six studies were conducted in Plasmodium spp.-endemic regions; two were human infection studies. 200 mg weekly tafenoquine and higher dosages lead to a significant reduction of Plasmodium spp. infection compared to placebo and were comparable to 250 mg mefloquine weekly with a protective efficacy between 77.9 and 100% or a total risk ratio of 0.22 (95%-CI: 0.07-0.73; p = 0.013) in favour of tafenoquine. Adverse events (AE) were comparable in frequency and severity between tafenoquine and comparator arms. One study reported significantly more gastrointestinal events in tafenoquine users (p ≤ 0.001). Evidence of increased, reversible, asymptomatic vortex keratopathy in subjects with prolonged tafenoquine exposures was found. A single, serious event of decreased macular sensitivity occurred.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis of trials of G6PD-normal adults show that weekly tafenoquine 200 mg is well tolerated and effective as malaria chemoprophylaxis focusing primarily on Plasmodium falciparum but also on Plasmodium vivax. Our safety analysis is limited by heterogenous methods of adverse events reporting. Further research is indicated on the use of tafenoquine in diverse traveller populations.
Topics: Adult; Aminoquinolines; Antimalarials; Chemoprevention; Female; Humans; Malaria; Male
PubMed: 33227500
DOI: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101908 -
Toxins Sep 2023The aim of this systematic review is to provide an update on the occurrence and co-occurrence of selected non-regulated mycotoxins and provide an overview of current... (Review)
Review
The aim of this systematic review is to provide an update on the occurrence and co-occurrence of selected non-regulated mycotoxins and provide an overview of current regulations. Fifteen non-regulated mycotoxins were found in 19 food categories worldwide. On top of that, 38 different combinations of non-regulated mycotoxins were found, with mixtures varying from binary combinations up to 12 mycotoxins. Taking into consideration the amount of evidence regarding the prevalence and co-occurrence of non-regulated mycotoxins, future steps should be taken considering continuous monitoring, scientific exchange, and generation of high-quality data. To enhance data quality, guidelines outlining the minimum quality criteria for both occurrence data and metadata are needed. By doing so, we can effectively address concerns related to the toxicity of non-regulated mycotoxins. Furthermore, obtaining more data concerning the co-occurrence of both regulated and non-regulated mycotoxins could aid in supporting multiple chemical risk assessment methodologies. Implementing these steps could bolster food safety measures, promote evidence-based regulations, and ultimately safeguard public health from the potential adverse effects of non-regulated mycotoxins.
Topics: Data Accuracy; Fenbendazole; Food; Food Safety; Mycotoxins
PubMed: 37756008
DOI: 10.3390/toxins15090583 -
Systematic Reviews Apr 2024Leptospirosis, an important zoonotic bacterial disease, commonly affects resource-poor populations and results in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Leptospirosis, an important zoonotic bacterial disease, commonly affects resource-poor populations and results in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. The value of antibiotics in leptospirosis remains unclear, as evidenced by the conflicting opinions published.
METHODS
We conducted a search in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for studies. These studies included clinical trials and retrospective studies that evaluated the efficacy or safety of antibiotics for leptospirosis treatment. The primary outcomes assessed were defervescence time, mortality rate, and hospital stays. Subgroup analyses were performed based on whether there were cases involving children and whether there were cases of severe jaundice. Safety was defined as the prevalence of adverse events associated with the use of antibiotics. p scores were utilized to rank the efficacy of the antibiotics.
RESULTS
There are included 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 control trial (CT), and 3 retrospective studies (RS) involving 920 patients and 8 antibiotics. Six antibiotics resulted in significantly shorter defervescence times compared to the control, namely cefotaxime (MD, - 1.88; 95% CI = - 2.60 to - 1.15), azithromycin (MD, - 1.74; 95% CI = - 2.52 to - 0.95), doxycycline (MD, - 1.53; 95% CI = - 2.05 to - 1.00), ceftriaxone (MD, - 1.22; 95% CI = - 1.89 to - 0.55), penicillin (MD, - 1.22; 95% CI = - 1.80 to - 0.64), and penicillin or ampicillin (MD, - 0.08; 95% CI = - 1.01 to - 0.59). The antibiotics were not effective in reducing the mortality and hospital stays. Common adverse reactions to antibiotics included Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction, rash, headache, and digestive reactions (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and others).
CONCLUSIONS
Findings recommend that leptospirosis patients be treated with antibiotics, which significantly reduced the leptospirosis defervescence time. Cephalosporins, doxycycline, and penicillin are suggested, and azithromycin may be a suitable alternative for drug-resistant cases.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42022354938.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azithromycin; Doxycycline; Leptospirosis; Network Meta-Analysis; Penicillins
PubMed: 38627798
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-024-02519-y -
Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical... 2021To provide the latest evidence on the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir compared to other treatment options for COVID-19. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To provide the latest evidence on the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir compared to other treatment options for COVID-19.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Cochran Library, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for the relevant records up to April 2021. Moreover, we scanned MedRxiv, Google Scholar, and clinical registry databases to identify additional records. We have used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias tools to assess the quality of studies. This Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan software (version 5.3).
RESULTS
Fourteen studies were included. No significant difference was observed between lopinavir/ritonavir and non-antiviral treatment groups in terms of negative rate of PCR (polymerase chain reaction) on day 7 (risk ratio [RR]: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.63 to 1.09; P=0.17), and day 14 (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.05; P=0.25), PCR negative conversion time (mean difference [MD]: 1.09; 95% CI: -0.10 to 2.29; P=0.07), secondary outcomes, and adverse events (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between lopinavir/ritonavir and chloroquine as well as lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine regarding the efficacy outcomes (P>0.05). However, lopinavir/ritonavir showed better efficacy than arbidol for the same outcomes (P<0.05). Lopinavir/ritonavir plus arbidol was effective compared to arbidol alone in terms of the negative rate of PCR on day 7 (P=0.02). However, this difference was not significant regarding other efficacy outcomes (P>0.05).
CONCLUSION
Lopinavir/ritonavir has no more treatment effects than other therapeutic agents used herein in COVID-19 patients.
Topics: COVID-19; Drug Therapy, Combination; HIV Protease Inhibitors; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Lopinavir; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Ritonavir; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34048671
DOI: 10.18433/jpps31668 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Jul 2024Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP) is a common opportunistic infection among people living with HIV (PWH), particularly among new and untreated cases. Several... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study Review
Comparative efficacy and safety of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia prophylaxis regimens for people living with HIV: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP) is a common opportunistic infection among people living with HIV (PWH), particularly among new and untreated cases. Several regimens are available for the prophylaxis of PCP, including trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), dapsone-based regimens (DBRs), aerosolized pentamidine (AP), and atovaquone.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of PCP prophylaxis regimens in PWH by network meta-analysis.
METHODS
DATA SOURCES: Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL from inception to June 21, 2023.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Comparative randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
PARTICIPANTS
PWH.
INTERVENTIONS
Regimens for PCP prophylaxis either compared head-to-head or versus no treatment/placebo.
ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS
Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs 2.
METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS
Title or abstract and full-text screening and data extraction were performed in duplicate by two independent reviewers. Data on PCP incidence, all-cause mortality, and discontinuation due to toxicity were pooled and ranked by network meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses of primary versus secondary prophylaxis, by year, and by dosage were performed.
RESULTS
A total of 26 RCTs, comprising 55 treatment arms involving 7516 PWH were included. For the prevention of PCP, TMP-SMX was ranked the most favourable agent and was superior to DBRs (risk ratio [RR] = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.83) and AP (RR = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36-0.77). TMP-SMX was also the only agent with a mortality benefit compared with no treatment/placebo (RR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98). However, TMP-SMX was also ranked as the most toxic agent with a greater risk of discontinuation than DBRs (RR = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.54) and AP (7.20; 95% CI, 5.37-9.66). No significant differences in PCP prevention or mortality were detected among the other regimens. The findings remained consistent within subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS
TMP-SMX is the most effective agent for PCP prophylaxis in PWH and the only agent to confer a mortality benefit; consequently, it should continue to be recommended as the first-line agent. Further studies are necessary to determine the optimal dosing of TMP-SMX to maximize efficacy and minimize toxicity.
Topics: Humans; Pneumonia, Pneumocystis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Network Meta-Analysis; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination; Pneumocystis carinii; HIV Infections; AIDS-Related Opportunistic Infections; Dapsone; Pentamidine; Atovaquone; Antifungal Agents; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38583518
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2024.03.037 -
The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine Jan 2022Conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs have been trialed in osteoarthritis (OA). Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which has shown its effectiveness in rheumatoid... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND/AIMS
Conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs have been trialed in osteoarthritis (OA). Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which has shown its effectiveness in rheumatoid arthritis, has been trialed for the treatment of OA; however, its efficacy and safety remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate efficacy and safety of HCQ for the treatment of OA.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception through June 2020. Two reviewers independently screened for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HCQ with placebo or other active-comparators for the treatment of knee, hand, or hip OA, extracted data, and performed Cochrane risk of bias assessments.
RESULTS
Six RCTs, four in hand OA, two in knee OA, consisting of 842 patients (436 in HCQ arm, 406 in control arm) were included. RCTs were conducted between 2012 and 2020, one each at UK, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Iran, and Egypt; follow-up period ranged 24 to 52 weeks. High-quality evidence showed no clinically important pain reduction with HCQ compared to placebo/active-control in hand OA (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.20 to 0.48). Effect on pain reduction in knee and hand OA was small and non-significant (SMD, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.44 to 0.25). High-quality evidence showed no improvement in dysfunction with HCQ compared to placebo in hand OA patients (SMD, 0.08; 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.40). Effect on dysfunction improvement in knee and hand OA was modest and statistically non-significant (SMD, -0.20; 95% CI,-0.57 to 0.18). No improvement in quality of life was observed in hand OA.
CONCLUSION
HCQ has no benefit in reducing pain and improving physical function in hand or knee OA patients.
Topics: Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33882635
DOI: 10.3904/kjim.2020.605 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Feb 2024Primaquine radical cure is used to treat dormant liver-stage parasites and prevent relapsing Plasmodium vivax malaria but is limited by concerns of haemolysis. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Primaquine radical cure is used to treat dormant liver-stage parasites and prevent relapsing Plasmodium vivax malaria but is limited by concerns of haemolysis. We undertook a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis to investigate the haematological safety of different primaquine regimens for P vivax radical cure.
METHODS
For this systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Central for prospective clinical studies of uncomplicated P vivax from endemic countries published between Jan 1, 2000, and June 8, 2023. We included studies if they had active follow-up of at least 28 days, if they included a treatment group with daily primaquine given over multiple days where primaquine was commenced within 3 days of schizontocidal treatment and was given alone or coadministered with chloroquine or one of four artemisinin-based combination therapies (ie, artemether-lumefantrine, artesunate-mefloquine, artesunate-amodiaquine, or dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine), and if they recorded haemoglobin or haematocrit concentrations on day 0. We excluded studies if they were on prevention, prophylaxis, or patients with severe malaria, or if data were extracted retrospectively from medical records outside of a planned trial. For the meta-analysis, we contacted the investigators of eligible trials to request individual patient data and we then pooled data that were made available by Aug 23, 2021. The main outcome was haemoglobin reduction of more than 25% to a concentration of less than 7 g/dL by day 14. Haemoglobin concentration changes between day 0 and days 2-3 and between day 0 and days 5-7 were assessed by mixed-effects linear regression for patients with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) activity of (1) 30% or higher and (2) between 30% and less than 70%. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019154470 and CRD42022303680.
FINDINGS
Of 226 identified studies, 18 studies with patient-level data from 5462 patients from 15 countries were included in the analysis. A haemoglobin reduction of more than 25% to a concentration of less than 7 g/dL occurred in one (0·1%) of 1208 patients treated without primaquine, none of 893 patients treated with a low daily dose of primaquine (<0·375 mg/kg per day), five (0·3%) of 1464 patients treated with an intermediate daily dose (0·375 mg/kg per day to <0·75 mg/kg per day), and six (0·5%) of 1269 patients treated with a high daily dose (≥0·75 mg/kg per day). The covariate-adjusted mean estimated haemoglobin changes at days 2-3 were -0·6 g/dL (95% CI -0·7 to -0·5), -0·7 g/dL (-0·8 to -0·5), -0·6 g/dL (-0·7 to -0·4), and -0·5 g/dL (-0·7 to -0·4), respectively. In 51 patients with G6PD activity between 30% and less than 70%, the adjusted mean haemoglobin concentration on days 2-3 decreased as G6PD activity decreased; two patients in this group who were treated with a high daily dose of primaquine had a reduction of more than 25% to a concentration of less than 7 g/dL. 17 of 18 included studies had a low or unclear risk of bias.
INTERPRETATION
Treatment of patients with G6PD activity of 30% or higher with 0·25-0·5 mg/kg per day primaquine regimens and patients with G6PD activity of 70% or higher with 0·25-1 mg/kg per day regimens were associated with similar risks of haemolysis to those in patients treated without primaquine, supporting the safe use of primaquine radical cure at these doses.
FUNDING
Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Medicines for Malaria Venture.
Topics: Humans; Antimalarials; Artemether, Lumefantrine Drug Combination; Artesunate; Australia; Hemoglobins; Hemolysis; Malaria, Vivax; Plasmodium vivax; Primaquine; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37748497
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(23)00431-0 -
Respiratory Research Feb 2020Lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM) is a rare, low-grade multisystem neoplastic disease. Most LAM patients are at a high risk of losing lung function at an accelerated rate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM) is a rare, low-grade multisystem neoplastic disease. Most LAM patients are at a high risk of losing lung function at an accelerated rate and developing progressive dyspnea. Recently, several studies have reported their experience with pharmacological treatments for LAM. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of these therapies.
METHODS
PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and EBSCO Host were searched (until March 31, 2019) for eligible prospective studies regarding LAM patients treated with pharmacological treatments. Random effect models were used for quantitative analysis.
RESULTS
Fourteen prospective studies regarding five pharmacological treatments (including sirolimus, everolimus, doxycycline, triptorelin, and a combination therapy of sirolimus and hydroxychloroquine) were enrolled in our systematic review, and ten of them were used for the meta-analysis. Seven prospective studies reported that sirolimus was effective at improving or stabilizing lung function and alleviating renal angiomyolipoma (AML) in LAM patients. Subsequent quantitative analyses showed that during sirolimus treatment, the pooled values of lung function and 6-min walk distance (6MWD) were not significantly changed (P > 0.05), with the pooled response rate of AML being 0.62 (95% confidence intervals [CIs]: 0.43 to 0.82, I = 65%). Regarding everolimus, three prospective studies reported similar effects to those of sirolimus with regard to preserving lung function and reducing AMLs. The meta-analysis showed that the changes in lung function during everolimus treatment were not statistically significant (P > 0.05), while the pooled response rate of AML was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.68 to 0.88, I = 8%). Neither the qualitative nor the quantitative results confirmed the benefits of doxycycline or triptorelin treatment, and the effects of the combination therapy were unclear in LAM patients. Most of the adverse events during pharmacological treatments were low or moderate grade and tolerable.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, sirolimus and everolimus were recommended for the treatment of LAM because they could stabilize lung function and alleviate renal AML. Doxycycline and triptorelin were not recommended for the treatment of LAM because no beneficial outcomes were consistently observed. The efficacy and safety of combination therapy remain to be further explored.
Topics: Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Antineoplastic Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Drug Therapy, Combination; Enzyme Inhibitors; Everolimus; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Hyperlipidemias; Lymphangioleiomyomatosis; Prospective Studies; Sirolimus; Stomatitis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32059669
DOI: 10.1186/s12931-020-1316-3 -
Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia 2023Previous systematic reviews have identified no benefit of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. After publication of these reviews,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Previous systematic reviews have identified no benefit of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. After publication of these reviews, the results of COPE, the largest randomized trial conducted to date, became available.
OBJECTIVES
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to synthesize the evidence on the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to placebo or standard of care.
METHODS
Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov complemented by manual search. Pairwise meta-analyses, risk of bias, and evidence certainty assessments were conducted, including optimal information size analysis (OIS). A level of significance of 0.05 was adopted in the meta-analysis. PROSPERO: CRD42021265427.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs with 3,219 participants were included. COVID-19 hospitalization and any adverse events rates were not significantly different between hydroxychloroquine (5.6% and 35.1%) and control (7.4% and 20.4%) (risk ratio, RR, 0.77, 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.57-1.04, I2: 0%; RR 1.78, 95%-CI 0.90; 3.52, I2: 93%, respectively). The OIS (7,880) was not reached for COVID-19 hospitalization, independently of the simulation for anticipated event rate and RR reduction estimate.
CONCLUSION
Evidence of very low certainty showed lack of benefit with hydroxychloroquine in preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations. Despite being the systematic review with the largest number of participants included, the OIS, considering pre-vaccination response to infection, has not yet been reached.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Hydroxychloroquine; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Chloroquine
PubMed: 37042856
DOI: 10.36660/abc.20220380 -
European Journal of Epidemiology Aug 2022Recruitment into randomized trials of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for prevention of COVID-19 has been adversely affected by a widespread conviction that HCQ is not... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Recruitment into randomized trials of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for prevention of COVID-19 has been adversely affected by a widespread conviction that HCQ is not effective for prevention. In the absence of an updated systematic review, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials that study the effectiveness of HCQ to prevent COVID-19.
METHODS
A search of PubMed, medRxiv, and clinicaltrials.gov combined with expert consultation found 11 completed randomized trials: 7 pre-exposure prophylaxis trials and 4 post-exposure prophylaxis trials. We obtained or calculated the risk ratio of COVID-19 diagnosis for assignment to HCQ versus no HCQ (either placebo or usual care) for each trial, and then pooled the risk ratio estimates.
RESULTS
The pooled risk ratio estimate of the pre-exposure prophylaxis trials was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.58-0.90) when using either a fixed effect or a standard random effects approach, and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.55-0.95) when using a conservative modification of the Hartung-Knapp random effects approach. The corresponding estimates for the post-exposure prophylaxis trials were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.72-1.16) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.62-1.35). All trials found a similar rate of serious adverse effects in the HCQ and no HCQ groups.
DISCUSSION
A benefit of HCQ as prophylaxis for COVID-19 cannot be ruled out based on the available evidence from randomized trials. However, the "not statistically significant" findings from early prophylaxis trials were widely interpreted as definite evidence of lack of effectiveness of HCQ. This interpretation disrupted the timely completion of the remaining trials and thus the generation of precise estimates for pandemic management before the development of vaccines.
Topics: COVID-19; COVID-19 Testing; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35943669
DOI: 10.1007/s10654-022-00891-4