-
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Sep 2021To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).
DESIGN
Living systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data.
DATA SOURCES
WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021).
STUDY SELECTION
Trials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate.
METHODS
After duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm.
RESULTS
As of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative.
CONCLUSION
In patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement.
FUNDING
This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321).
READERS' NOTE
This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Viral; Antiviral Agents; Bayes Theorem; COVID-19; Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Immunization, Passive; Network Meta-Analysis; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Serotherapy
PubMed: 34556486
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n2231 -
BMC Gastroenterology Nov 2023Oral nucleoside (acid) analogues (NAs) are recommended for patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) associated with hepatitis B virus (HBV-ACLF). The efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus entecavir in the treatment of acute-on-chronic liver failure with hepatitis B: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Oral nucleoside (acid) analogues (NAs) are recommended for patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) associated with hepatitis B virus (HBV-ACLF). The efficacy and safety of tenofovir (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) in these patients remain unclear.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and Embase database was conducted to select studies published before December 2022 on TDF or ETV for HBV-ACLF. The primary outcomes were survival rates at 4, 12, and 48 weeks. Secondary outcomes were virologic and biochemical responses, serum antigen conversion, liver function score, and safety.
RESULTS
Four prospective and one retrospective cohort studies were selected. The overall analysis showed comparable survival rates at 4, 12, and 48 weeks for all patients receiving TDF or ETV (4-week: RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 0.90-1.51, p = 0.24; 12-week: RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.88-1.13, p = 0.94; 48-week: RR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.58-1.57, p = 0.86). Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) score and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score at 12 weeks were comparable in both groups but lower than baseline (CTP: SMD = -0.75, 95% CI:-2.81-1.30, p = 0.47; MELD: SMD = -1.10, 95% CI:-2.29-0.08, p = 0.07). At 48 weeks, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) levels were found to decrease to different degrees from baseline in both the TDF and ETV groups, and the decrease was greater in the TDF group than in the ETV group. No significant differences were found in biochemical, virologic response, and serum antigen conversion between the two groups during the observation period.
CONCLUSION
TDF treatment of HBV-ACLF is similar to ETV in improving survival, liver function, and virologic response but the effects on renal function in two groups in the long term remain unclear. More and larger long-term clinical trials are required to confirm these findings.
Topics: Humans; Tenofovir; Acute-On-Chronic Liver Failure; Antiviral Agents; Hepatitis B, Chronic; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; End Stage Liver Disease; Treatment Outcome; Severity of Illness Index; Hepatitis B; Hepatitis B virus
PubMed: 37957546
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-023-03024-7 -
Scientific Reports May 2021The novel coronavirus outbreak began in late December 2019 and rapidly spread worldwide, critically impacting public health systems. A number of already approved and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The novel coronavirus outbreak began in late December 2019 and rapidly spread worldwide, critically impacting public health systems. A number of already approved and marketed drugs are being tested for repurposing, including Favipiravir. We aim to investigate the efficacy and safety of Favipiravir in treatment of COVID-19 patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis. This systematic review and meta-analysis were reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement. We registered the protocol in the PROSPERO (CRD42020180032). All clinical trials which addressed the safety and efficacy of Favipiravir in comparison to other control groups for treatment of patients with confirmed infection with SARS-CoV2 were included. We searched electronic databases including LitCovid/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, Cochrane, and Scientific Information Database up to 31 December 2020. We assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using Cochrane Collaboration criteria. All analyses were performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 2, and the risk ratio index was calculated. Egger and Begg test was used for assessing publication bias. Nine studies were included in our meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis revealed a significant clinical improvement in the Favipiravir group versus the control group during seven days after hospitalization (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09-1.41; P = 0.001). Viral clearance was more in 14 days after hospitalization in Favipiravir group than control group, but this finding marginally not significant (RR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.98-1.25; P = 0.094). Requiring supplemental oxygen therapy in the Favipiravir group was 7% less than the control group, (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.67-1.28; P = 0.664). Transferred to ICU and adverse events were not statistically different between two groups. The mortality rate in the Favipiravir group was approximately 30% less than the control group, but this finding not statistically significant. Favipiravir possibly exerted no significant beneficial effect in the term of mortality in the general group of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. We should consider that perhaps the use of antiviral once the patient has symptoms is too late and this would explain their low efficacy in the clinical setting.
Topics: Amides; Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Clinical Trials as Topic; Disease Progression; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Pyrazines; SARS-CoV-2; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome; Viral Load; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34040117
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-90551-6 -
Acta Medica Indonesiana Oct 2022Most COVID-19 patients have mild or moderate illnesses that can progress to severe illness, leading to hospitalization and/or mortality. The use of antivirals to prevent... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Most COVID-19 patients have mild or moderate illnesses that can progress to severe illness, leading to hospitalization and/or mortality. The use of antivirals to prevent the progression of COVID-19 in non-hospitalized patients shows conflicting result and efficacy remain unclear. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of antivirals therapy in COVID-19 outpatients.
METHODS
Search were conducted in Pubmed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, Springer, medRxiv, Journal Storage [JSTOR], and Directory of Open Access Journals [DOAJ] for articles investigating antivirals in COVID-19 outpatients. In addition, clinical and virological outcomes, COVID-19 hospitalization, all caused mortality, and adverse events were assessed.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies were included in this review. The consecutive data from these studies suggested that favipiravir is more optimally used in early disease, but improvement in symptoms shows inconsistent results. Meanwhile, molnupiravir shows consistent results, which can reduce hospitalization and mortality risk. In addition, remdesivir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir have the potential to prevent the progression of COVID-19 in outpatients, but the data provided in this study are very limited. Finally, there is no significant difference in serious and non-serious adverse events, highlighting that antivirals have a good safety profile.
CONCLUSION
This study provides an overview of the role of various antivirals therapy in COVID-19 outpatients. Molnupiravir, remdesivir, and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir have shown potential to prevent the progression of COVID-19 in early disease. However, this review was based on very limited data. Therefore, further clinical trials are needed to confirm this finding.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Antiviral Agents; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; Outpatients; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36624710
DOI: No ID Found -
Rheumatology (Oxford, England) Oct 2023The objective of this study was to assess the possibility of HBV reactivation (HBVr) in patients with RA under anti-IL-6 treatment. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to assess the possibility of HBV reactivation (HBVr) in patients with RA under anti-IL-6 treatment.
METHODS
Using PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE, we performed a systematic literature search for articles related to HBVr in RA patients under anti-IL-6 treatment. The search was performed with no date limits and was last updated 28 January 2023. The results from all the databases were combined and duplicates were excluded, as were non-English articles, case reports, position articles, comments, and paediatric studies.
RESULTS
Our initial search led to 427 articles; 28 were duplicates, 46 non-English, 169 reviews, 31 books/letters, 25 case reports, and 88 irrelevant to the meta-analysis aim; 21 were excluded due to inadequate information, leaving 19 articles, with a sum of 372 RA patients with chronic HBV (CHB) or resolved HBV infection, for further analysis. The overall risk for HBVr in RA patients with CHB was 6.7%, increasing to 37% when only RA patients with CHB and no antiviral prophylaxis were included. On the contrary, HBVr was close to 0% in RA patients with resolved HBV infection, irrespective of antiviral prophylaxis. All RA patients experiencing HBVr in these studies were successfully managed with antiviral treatment and/or drug withdrawal.
CONCLUSION
Overall, anti-IL-6 treatment comes with a significant risk of HBVr in RA patients with CHB; risk is diminished when antiviral prophylaxis is used. In contrast, in RA patients with resolved HBV infection, the risk of HBVr seems to be extremely low. Large, well-designed studies (either controlled trials or multicentre/international observational studies) are warranted to further validate these results.
Topics: Humans; Child; Hepatitis B virus; Antiviral Agents; Virus Activation; Arthritis, Rheumatoid
PubMed: 37871924
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead243 -
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection... 2022Many antiviral agents have been studied in clinical trials for allograft rejection prevention following cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in high-risk kidney transplant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and Safety of Antiviral Agents in Preventing Allograft Rejection Following CMV Prophylaxis in High-Risk Kidney Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Many antiviral agents have been studied in clinical trials for allograft rejection prevention following cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in high-risk kidney transplant patients. However, data on the most effective and safest treatment are lacking. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to rank CMV prophylaxis agents for allograft rejection prevention following CMV prophylaxis in high-risk kidney transplant patients according to their efficacy and safety. We conducted searches on the MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, and CENTRAL databases, as well as the reference lists of selected studies up to December 2021, for published and peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of CMV prophylaxis agents in high-risk kidney transplant patients. Thirteen studies were independently selected by three reviewers and included post-kidney transplant patients indicated for CMV prophylaxis who had been randomized to receive prophylactic antiviral agents or standard of care. The reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies, and direct and network meta-analyses were applied to assess the study outcomes. The probability of efficacy and safety was evaluated, and the drugs were assigned a numerical ranking. We evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. The primary outcome was an incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection, whereas the secondary outcome was a composite of major adverse drug reactions. Each outcome referred to the definition provided in the original studies. Valganciclovir, valacyclovir, and ganciclovir were identified to significantly decrease the incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection with pooled risk differences (RDs) of -20.53% (95% confidence interval [CI] = -36.09% to -4.98%), -19.3% (95% CI = -32.7% to -5.93%), and -10.4% (95% CI = -19.7% to -0.12%), respectively. The overall major adverse drug reaction was 5.7% without a significant difference when compared with placebo. Valganciclovir had the best combined efficacy and safety among the examined antiviral agents and was the most effective and safest antiviral agent overall for allograft rejection prevention following CMV prophylaxis. Valacyclovir was the optimal alternative antiviral agent for patients who were unable to tolerate intravenous ganciclovir or access oral valganciclovir as financial problem. However, compliance and dose-related toxicities should be closely monitored.
Topics: Allografts; Antiviral Agents; Cytomegalovirus; Cytomegalovirus Infections; Ganciclovir; Humans; Kidney Transplantation; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Valacyclovir; Valganciclovir
PubMed: 35433502
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.865735 -
Virology Journal Aug 2023Our study aimed to compare the predictive performance of different hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) prediction models in chronic hepatitis B patients receiving entecavir... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Our study aimed to compare the predictive performance of different hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) prediction models in chronic hepatitis B patients receiving entecavir or tenofovir, including discrimination, calibration, negative predictive value (NPV) in low-risk, and proportion of low-risk.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature research in PubMed, EMbase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science before January 13, 2022. The predictive performance was assessed by area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration index, negative predictive value, and the proportion in low-risk. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses of discrimination and calibration were conducted. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to validate the stability of the results.
RESULTS
We identified ten prediction models in 23 studies. The pooled 3-, 5-, and 10-year AUROC varied from 0.72 to 0.84, 0.74 to 0.83, and 0.76 to 0.86, respectively. REAL-B, AASL-HCC, and HCC-RESCUE achieved the best discrimination. HCC-RESCUE, PAGE-B, and mPAGE-B overestimated HCC development, whereas mREACH-B, AASL-HCC, REAL-B, CAMD, CAGE-B, SAGE-B, and aMAP underestimated it. All models were able to identify people with a low risk of HCC accurately. HCC-RESCUE and aMAP recognized over half of the population as low-risk. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis showed similar results.
CONCLUSION
Considering the predictive performance of all four aspects, we suggest that HCC-RESCUE was the best model to utilize in clinical practice, especially in primary care and low-income areas. To confirm our findings, further validation studies with the above four components were required.
Topics: Humans; Tenofovir; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Hepatitis B, Chronic; Liver Neoplasms; Antiviral Agents
PubMed: 37582759
DOI: 10.1186/s12985-023-02145-5 -
Value in Health : the Journal of the... Nov 2020To review published economic evaluations of antiviral treatment for pandemics and outbreaks of respiratory illnesses. (Review)
Review
Cost-Effectiveness of Antiviral Treatments for Pandemics and Outbreaks of Respiratory Illnesses, Including COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Published Economic Evaluations.
OBJECTIVE
To review published economic evaluations of antiviral treatment for pandemics and outbreaks of respiratory illnesses.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review to identify economic evaluations of antiviral treatment for pandemics and outbreaks of respiratory illnesses, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We searched Medline (EBSCOhost), EMBASE (Ovid), EconLit (Ovid), National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (Ovid), and Health Technology Assessment (Ovid). The search was last rerun on July 5, 2020. Citation tracking and reference checking were used. Only full economic evaluations published as peer-reviewed articles in the last 10 years were included. Studies were quality assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence economic evaluation checklist.
RESULTS
Overall, 782 records were identified, of which 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies were mostly conducted in high-income countries. All were model-based. Seven (50%) were cost-utility analyses, 4 (28.6%) were cost-effectiveness analyses, 2 (14.3%) were cost-consequences analyses, and 1 (7.1%) was a cost-benefit analysis. Strategies including antiviral treatment were found to be either cost-saving or cost-effective, at the study-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds. Empirical treatment was more cost-effective than test-guided treatment for young adults but less so for older adults.
CONCLUSIONS
Antiviral treatment for managing pandemics and outbreaks of respiratory illnesses that have very high case fatality rate, similar to COVID-19 pandemic, are likely to be cost-effective either as a standalone intervention or part of a multifaceted strategy. Investing in the development of such curative treatments and promptly evaluating their cost-effectiveness, relative to other strategies in use at the time of their introduction should be the focus going forward to inform resource allocation decisions particularly in low- and middle-income countries.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Disease Outbreaks; Humans; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Respiratory Insufficiency; SARS-CoV-2; Technology Assessment, Biomedical
PubMed: 33127010
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.07.002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Pityriasis rosea is a scaly, itchy rash that mainly affects young adults and lasts for 2 to 12 weeks. The effects of many available treatments are uncertain. This is an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pityriasis rosea is a scaly, itchy rash that mainly affects young adults and lasts for 2 to 12 weeks. The effects of many available treatments are uncertain. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions for the management of pityriasis rosea in any individual diagnosed by a medical practitioner.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to October 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We searched five trials registers. We also checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies, contacted trial authors, scanned the abstracts from major dermatology conference proceedings, and searched the CAB Abstracts database. We searched PubMed for adverse effects to November 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of interventions in pityriasis rosea. Treatment could be given in a single therapy or in combination. Eligible comparators were no treatment, placebo, vehicle only, another active compound, or placebo radiation treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane. Our key outcomes were good or excellent rash improvement within two weeks, rated separately by the participant and medical practitioner; serious adverse events; resolution of itch within two weeks (participant-rated); reduction in itch score within two weeks (participant-rated); and minor participant-reported adverse events not requiring withdrawal of the treatment.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 trials (761 participants). In general, risk of selection bias was unclear or low, but risk of performance bias and reporting bias was high for 21% of the studies. Participant age ranged from 2 to 60 years, and sex ratio was similar. Disease severity was measured by various severity indices, which the included studies did not categorise. Six studies were conducted in India, three in Iran, two in the Philippines, and one each in Pakistan, the USA, and China. The included studies were conducted in dermatology departments and a paediatric clinic. Study duration ranged from 5 to 26 months. Three studies were funded by drug manufacturers; most studies did not report their funding source. The included studies assessed macrolide antibiotics, an antiviral agent, phototherapy, steroids and antihistamine, and Chinese medicine. None of the studies measured participant-rated good or excellent rash improvement. All reported outcomes were assessed within two weeks of treatment, except for adverse effects, which were measured throughout treatment. There is probably no difference between oral clarithromycin and placebo in itch resolution (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.52; 1 study, 28 participants) or rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.44; 1 study, 60 participants). For this comparison, there were no serious adverse events (1 study, 60 participants); minor adverse events and reduction in itch score were not measured; and all evidence was of moderate quality. When compared with placebo, erythromycin may lead to increased rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) (RR 4.02, 95% CI 0.28 to 56.61; 2 studies, 86 participants, low-quality evidence); however, the 95% CI indicates that the result may also be compatible with a benefit of placebo, and there may be little or no difference between treatments. Itch resolution was not measured, but one study measured reduction in itch score, which is probably larger with erythromycin (MD 3.95, 95% CI 3.37 to 4.53; 34 participants, moderate-quality evidence). In the same single, small trial, none of the participants had a serious adverse event, and there was no clear difference between groups in minor adverse events, which included gastrointestinal upset (RR 2.00, CI 0.20 to 20.04; moderate-quality evidence). Two trials compared oral azithromycin to placebo or vitamins. There is probably no difference between groups in itch resolution (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.48) or reduction in itch score (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.43) (both outcomes based on one study; 70 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence from two studies indicates there may be no difference between groups in rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.00; 119 participants). In these same two studies, no serious adverse events were reported, and there was no clear difference between groups in minor adverse events, specifically mild abdominal pain (RR 5.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 47.10; moderate-quality evidence). Acyclovir was compared to placebo, vitamins, or no treatment in three trials (all moderate-quality evidence). Based on one trial (21 participants), itch resolution is probably higher with placebo than with acyclovir (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.94); reduction in itch score was not measured. However, there is probably a significant difference between groups in rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) in favour of acyclovir versus all comparators (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.33 to 4.53; 3 studies, 141 participants). Based on the same three studies, there were no serious adverse events in either group, and there was probably no difference between groups in minor adverse events (only one participant in the placebo group experienced abdominal pain and diarrhoea). One trial compared acyclovir added to standard care (calamine lotion and oral cetirizine) versus standard care alone (24 participants). The addition of acyclovir may lead to increased itch resolution (RR 4.50, 95% CI 1.22 to 16.62) and reduction in itch score (MD 1.26, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.78) compared to standard care alone. Rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) was not measured. The trial reported no serious adverse events in either group, and there may be no difference between groups in minor adverse events, such as headache (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.40 to 122.44) (all results based on low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
When compared with placebo or no treatment, oral acyclovir probably leads to increased good or excellent, medical practitioner-rated rash improvement. However, evidence for the effect of acyclovir on itch was inconclusive. We found low- to moderate-quality evidence that erythromycin probably reduces itch more than placebo. Small study sizes, heterogeneity, and bias in blinding and selective reporting limited our conclusions. Further research is needed to investigate different dose regimens of acyclovir and the effect of antivirals on pityriasis rosea.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antiviral Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Dermatologic Agents; Female; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Phototherapy; Pityriasis Rosea; Pruritus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 31684696
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005068.pub3 -
Clinical Transplantation Jan 2024Human-cytomegalovirus (hCMV) infection involving the gastrointestinal tract represents a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among kidney transplant (KT) recipients... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Human-cytomegalovirus (hCMV) infection involving the gastrointestinal tract represents a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among kidney transplant (KT) recipients (KTRs). Signs and symptoms of the disease are extremely variable. Prompt anti-viral therapy administration and immunosuppression modification are key factors for optimizing management. However, complex work-up strategies are generally required to confirm the preliminary diagnosis. Unfortunately, solid evidence and guidelines on this specific topic are not available. We consequently aimed to summarize current knowledge on post-KT hCMV-related gastrointestinal disease (hCMV-GID).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023399363) about hCMV-GID in KTRs.
RESULTS
Our systematic review includes 52 case-reports and ten case-series, published between 1985 and 2022, collectively reporting 311 cases. The most frequently reported signs and symptoms of hCMV-GID were abdominal pain, diarrhea, epigastric pain, vomiting, fever, and GI bleeding. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy were the primary diagnostic techniques. In most cases, the preliminary diagnosis was confirmed by histology. Information on anti-viral prophylaxis were extremely limited as much as data on induction or maintenance immunosuppression. Treatment included ganciclovir and/or valganciclovir administration. Immunosuppression modification mainly consisted of mycophenolate mofetil or calcineurin inhibitor minimization and withdrawal. In total, 21 deaths were recorded. Renal allograft-related outcomes were described for 26 patients only. Specifically, reported events were acute kidney injury (n = 17), transplant failure (n = 5), allograft rejection (n = 4), and irreversible allograft dysfunction (n = 3).
CONCLUSIONS
The development of local and national registries is strongly recommended to improve our understanding of hCMV-GID. Future clinical guidelines should consider the implementation of dedicated diagnostic and treatment strategies.
Topics: Humans; Kidney Transplantation; Cytomegalovirus; Antiviral Agents; Cytomegalovirus Infections; Ganciclovir; Gastrointestinal Diseases
PubMed: 38063324
DOI: 10.1111/ctr.15218