-
Virology Journal Jul 2021Limited data is available on the efficacy of direct acting anti-viral drugs on hepatitis C in drug users. The aim of this meta-analysis was to comprehensively analyze... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Limited data is available on the efficacy of direct acting anti-viral drugs on hepatitis C in drug users. The aim of this meta-analysis was to comprehensively analyze the efficacy and safety of LDV/SOF in drug users infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV).
METHODS
The PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase and Web of Science databases were searched for articles published till April 2021 on HCV-positive drug users who were treated with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF). The primary endpoint was pooled sustained virological response at 12 weeks (SVR12) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Funnel plots and Egger's test were used to assess the publication bias.
RESULTS
A total of 12 studies and 711 subjects treated with LDV/SOF-based regimen for HCV were included, and the pooled SVR12 rate was 89.8% (95% CI 85.9-92.7). The pooled SVR12 rate of genotype 1 drug users was 92.4% (95% CI 88.6-95.0). Subgroup analysis showed that pooled SVR12 rates of patients treated with LDV/SOF and LDV/SOF ± RBV were 89.2% (95% CI 83.4-93.1), 90.4% (95% CI 83.6-94.5) respectively. In addition, the SVR12 rates were 88% (95% CI 70.7-95.7) for 8 weeks, 89.9% (95% CI 81.0-94.9) for 12 weeks and 82.2% (95% CI 24.9-98.5) for 24 weeks of treatment.
CONCLUSION
LDV/SOF is a safe and relatively effective treatment for hepatitis C in drug users.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Benzimidazoles; Drug Users; Fluorenes; Hepatitis C; Humans; Sofosbuvir; Sustained Virologic Response
PubMed: 34315488
DOI: 10.1186/s12985-021-01625-w -
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical... Oct 2020Limited treatment options are available in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The objective was to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Limited treatment options are available in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The objective was to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) and exploratory network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the tolerability and effectiveness of SIRT with Y-90 resin microspheres, regorafenib, TAS-102 (trifluridine/tipiracil), and best supportive care (BSC) as third-line treatment in patients with mCRC.
METHODS
An SLR was conducted to identify studies comparing two or more of the treatments and reporting overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, tumor response, or adverse event (AE) incidence. An exploratory NMA was conducted to compare hazard ratios (HRs) for OS using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques.
RESULTS
Seven studies were identified in the SLR: two double-blind randomized-controlled trials (RCT) for each drug, one open-label RCT, and two non-randomized comparative studies for SIRT. Patient selection criteria differed between studies, with SIRT studies including patients with liver-dominant colorectal metastases. Nausea and vomiting were more frequent with TAS-102 than regorafenib or SIRT; diarrhea was more common with TAS-102 and regorafenib than SIRT. The exploratory NMA suggested that all active treatments improved OS, with HRs of 0.48 (95% CrI 0.30-0.78) for SIRT with Y-90 resin microspheres, 0.63 (0.38-1.03) for TAS-102, and 0.67 (0.40-1.08) for regorafenib each compared to BSC.
CONCLUSIONS
Regorafenib, TAS-102 and SIRT using Y-90 resin microspheres are more effective than BSC in third-line treatment of mCRC; however, study heterogeneity made comparisons between active treatments challenging. SIRT is a viable treatment for third-line mCRC and its favorable AE profile should be considered in the therapeutic decision-making process.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Brachytherapy; Colorectal Neoplasms; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinations; Humans; Microspheres; Neoplasm Metastasis; Network Meta-Analysis; Palliative Care; Phenylurea Compounds; Progression-Free Survival; Pyridines; Pyrrolidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thymine; Trifluridine; Uracil; Yttrium Radioisotopes
PubMed: 32715436
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-020-03315-6 -
Vaccines Feb 2023The advantages of skin-based vaccination include induction of strong immunity, dose-sparing, and ease of administration. Several technologies for skin-based immunisation... (Review)
Review
The advantages of skin-based vaccination include induction of strong immunity, dose-sparing, and ease of administration. Several technologies for skin-based immunisation in humans are being developed to maximise these key advantages. This route is more conventionally used in veterinary medicine. Skin-based vaccination of pigs is of high relevance due to their anatomical, physiological, and immunological similarities to humans, as well as being a source of zoonotic diseases and their livestock value. We conducted a systematic mapping review, focusing on vaccine-induced immunity and safety after the skin immunisation of pigs. Veterinary vaccines, specifically anti-viral vaccines, predominated in the literature. The safe and potent skin administration to pigs of adjuvanted vaccines, particularly emulsions, are frequently documented. Multiple methods of skin immunisation exist; however, there is a lack of consistent terminology and accurate descriptions of the route and device. Antibody responses, compared to other immune correlates, are most frequently reported. There is a lack of research on the underlying mechanisms of action and breadth of responses. Nevertheless, encouraging results, both in safety and immunogenicity, were observed after skin vaccination that were often comparable to or superior the intramuscular route. Further research in this area will underlie the development of enhanced skin vaccine strategies for pigs, other animals and humans.
PubMed: 36851328
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines11020450 -
Nefrologia 2020Controversy persists about the role of hepatitis C as a risk factor for developing kidney disease in the general population. Some authors have evaluated the effect of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Controversy persists about the role of hepatitis C as a risk factor for developing kidney disease in the general population. Some authors have evaluated the effect of antiviral therapy for HCV on the risk of kidney disease.
STUDY AIMS AND DESIGN
A systematic review of the published medical literature was performed to assess whether antiviral therapy for HCV has an independent impact on kidney survival in the adult general population. A random effects model was used to generate an overall estimate of the risk of kidney disease after anti-HCV therapy across the published studies. Meta-regression and stratified analysis were also carried out.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies were eligible (n=356, 285 patients) and separate meta-analyses were conducted according to the outcome. Pooling studies based on viral responses (n=7; 34,763 individual patients) demonstrated a relationship between sustained viral response and lower frequency of kidney disease; the overall estimate for adjusted risk of kidney disease was 2.50 (95% CI, 1.41; 4.41) (p=0.0016) and between-study heterogeneity was found (p-value by Q test=0.004). Aggregation of studies comparing treated vs untreated cohorts (n=8, n=333,312 patients) revealed an association between anti-HCV therapy and lower risk of kidney disease. The overall estimate for adjusted risk of kidney disease across the eight studies was 0.39 (95% CI, 0.25; 0.612) (p=0.0001). Meta-regression showed that the effectiveness of antiviral therapy in reducing the frequency of kidney disease diminishes as cirrhosis (p=0.02) and HBV infection (p=0.0001) increase among HCV-infected individuals.
CONCLUSIONS
Antiviral therapy for HCV lowers the risk of kidney disease among HCV-infected individuals. Studies to understand the mechanisms underlying this association are ongoing.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiviral Agents; Disease Progression; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Incidence; Interferons; Liver Cirrhosis; Male; Middle Aged; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Risk; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31813592
DOI: 10.1016/j.nefro.2019.07.007 -
International Journal of Molecular... Jan 2022Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) are remnants of ancient retroviral infections that have become fixed in the human genome. While HERV genes are typically silenced...
Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) are remnants of ancient retroviral infections that have become fixed in the human genome. While HERV genes are typically silenced in healthy somatic cells, there are numerous reports of HERV transcription and translation across a wide spectrum of cancers, while T and B cell responses against HERV proteins have been detected in cancer patients. This review systematically categorizes the published evidence on the expression of and adaptive immune response against specific HERVs in distinct cancer types. A systematic literature search was performed using Medical Search Headings (MeSH) in the PubMed/Medline database. Papers were included if they described the translational activity of HERVs. We present multiple tables that pair the protein expression of specific HERVs and cancer types with information on the quality of the evidence. We find that HERV-K is the most investigated HERV. HERV-W (syncytin-1) is the second-most investigated, while other HERVs have received less attention. From a therapeutic perspective, HERV-K and HERV-E are the only HERVs with experimental demonstration of effective targeted therapies, but unspecific approaches using antiviral and demethylating agents in combination with chemo- and immunotherapies have also been investigated.
Topics: Animals; Antibody Formation; Endogenous Retroviruses; Host-Pathogen Interactions; Humans; Neoplasms; Retroviridae Infections; Viral Proteins
PubMed: 35163254
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23031330 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is common in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients on dialysis, causes chronic liver disease, may increase the risk of death, and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is common in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients on dialysis, causes chronic liver disease, may increase the risk of death, and impacts kidney transplant outcomes. Direct-acting antivirals have replaced interferons because of better efficacy and tolerability. This is an update of a review first published in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to look at the benefits and harms of interventions for HCV in CKD patients on dialysis: death, disease relapse, treatment response/discontinuation, time to recovery, quality of life (QoL), cost-effectiveness, and adverse events. We aimed to study comparisons of available interventions, compared with placebo, control, with each other and with newer treatments.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 23 February 2023 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, handsearching conference proceedings, and searching the International Clinical Trials Register Portal (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, first period of randomised cross-over studies on interventions for HCV in CKD on dialysis were considered.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Three studies were included in this update, therefore 13 studies (997 randomised participants) met our inclusion criteria. Overall, the risk of bias was judged low in seven studies, unclear in four, low to unclear in one, and high in one study. Interventions included standard interferon, pegylated (PEG) interferon, standard or PEG interferon plus ribavirin; direct-acting antivirals, and direct-acting antivirals plus PEG interferon plus ribavirin. Compared to placebo or control, standard interferon may make little or no difference to death (5 studies, 134 participants: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.23) or relapse (low certainty evidence), probably improves end-of-treatment response (ETR) (5 studies, 132 participants: RR 8.62, 95% CI 3.03 to 24.55; I² = 0%) (moderate certainty evidence), and probably makes little or no difference to sustained virological response (SVR) (4 studies, 98 participants: RR 3.25, 95% CI 0.81 to 13.07; I² = 53%), treatment discontinuation (4 studies, 116 participants: RR 4.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 42.69; I² = 63%), and adverse events (5 studies, 143 participants: RR 3.56, 95% CI 0.98 to 13.01; I² = 25%) (moderate certainty evidence). In low certainty evidence, PEG interferon (1 study, 50 participants) may improve ETR (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.15) but may make little or no difference to death (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.81), SVR (RR 2.40, 95% CI 0.99 to 5.81), treatment discontinuation (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.96), adverse events (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.96) and relapses (21/38 relapsed) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.25) compared to standard interferon. In moderate certainty evidence, high-dose PEG interferon (alpha-2a and alpha-2b) may make little or no difference to death (2 studies, 97 participants: RR 4.30, 95% CI 0.76 to 24.33; I² = 0%), ETR (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.51 to 3.90; I² = 20%), SVR (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.07; I² = 0%), treatment discontinuation (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.28; I² = 0%) or adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.83; I² = 27%) compared to low-dose PEG interferon. High-dose PEG interferon may make little or no difference to relapses (1 study, 43 participants: RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.77; low certainty evidence). There were no significant subgroup differences. Standard interferon plus ribavirin may lead to higher treatment discontinuation (1 study, 52 participants: RR 2.97, 95% CI 1.19 to 7.36; low certainty evidence) compared to standard interferon alone. In low certainty evidence, PEG interferon plus ribavirin (1 study, 377 participants) may improve SVR (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.46 to 2.21), reduce relapses (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.48), slightly increase the number with adverse events (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.19), and may make little or no difference to ETR (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09) compared to PEG interferon alone. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of PEG interferon plus ribavirin on treatment discontinuation (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.69 to 4.24) compared to PEG interferon alone. One study reported grazoprevir plus elbasvir improved ETR (173 participants: RR 174.99, 95% CI 11.03 to 2775.78; low certainty evidence) compared to placebo. It is uncertain whether telaprevir plus ribavirin (high versus low initial dose) plus PEG interferon for 24 versus 48 weeks (1 study, 35 participants) improves ETR (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.56) or SVR (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.56) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Data on QoL, cost-effectiveness, cardiovascular outcomes and peritoneal dialysis were not available.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In dialysis patients with HCV infection grazoprevir plus elbasvir probably improves ETR. There is no difference in ETR or SVR for combinations of telaprevir, ribavirin and PEG interferon given for different durations and doses. Though no longer in use, PEG interferon was more effective than standard interferon for ETR but not SVR. Increasing doses of PEG interferon did not improve responses. The addition of ribavirin to PEG interferon may result in fewer relapses, higher SVR, and higher numbers with adverse events.
Topics: Humans; Antiviral Agents; Chronic Disease; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C; Interferons; Recurrence; Renal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Ribavirin
PubMed: 37096802
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007003.pub3 -
PLoS Pathogens May 2021Although a growing number of studies suggest interactions between Schistosoma parasites and viral infections, the effects of schistosome infections on the host response...
Although a growing number of studies suggest interactions between Schistosoma parasites and viral infections, the effects of schistosome infections on the host response to viruses have not been evaluated comprehensively. In this systematic review, we investigated how schistosomes impact incidence, virulence, and prevention of viral infections in humans and animals. We also evaluated immune effects of schistosomes in those coinfected with viruses. We screened 4,730 studies and included 103. Schistosomes may increase susceptibility to some viruses, including HIV and Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus, and virulence of hepatitis B and C viruses. In contrast, schistosome infection may be protective in chronic HIV, Human T-cell Lymphotropic Virus-Type 1, and respiratory viruses, though further research is needed. Schistosome infections were consistently reported to impair immune responses to hepatitis B and possibly measles vaccines. Understanding the interplay between schistosomes and viruses has ramifications for anti-viral vaccination strategies and global control of viral infections.
Topics: Animals; Antiviral Agents; Coinfection; Humans; Immunity; Schistosoma; Schistosomiasis; Virus Diseases; Viruses
PubMed: 34015063
DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009555 -
Kidney International Reports Feb 2023Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) have improved treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). To facilitate the 2022 update...
INTRODUCTION
Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) have improved treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). To facilitate the 2022 update of the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guideline for CKD patients with HCV, we systematically reviewed DAA regimens in patients with CKD stages G4 and G5 nondialysis (G4-G5ND), CKD stage G5 on dialysis (G5D), and kidney transplant recipients (KTRs).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov through February 1, 2022, and conferences from 2019 to 2021. Studies of HCV-infected patients with CKD G4-G5ND, G5D, and KTRs treated with specified DAA regimens were included. Outcomes included death at 6 months or later, sustained virologic response at 12 weeks (SVR12), serious adverse events (SAEs) attributed to DAA, and treatment discontinuation because of adverse events. Maximum likelihood meta-analyses were determined; certainty of evidence was assessed per GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation).
RESULTS
We identified 106 eligible studies (22 reported on CKD G4-G5ND, 69 on CKD G5D, and 29 on KTRs). In each population, the majority of DAA regimens achieved SVR12 ≥ 93%. We found generally low quality of evidence of low risk of SAEs (mostly 0%, up to 2.9%) and low risk of discontinuation because of adverse events (mostly 0%-5%). Across 3 unadjusted observational studies in KTRs, the risk of death after DAA treatment was substantially lower than without treatment (summary odds ratio, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.61).
CONCLUSION
Combination DAA regimens are safe and highly effective in patients with advanced CKD, on dialysis, and with kidney transplants.
PubMed: 36815114
DOI: 10.1016/j.ekir.2022.11.008 -
Medicine Dec 2022Previous studies have reported controversial results on levels of inflammatory cytokines in patients with arsenic exposure. This study aims to evaluate the associations... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Previous studies have reported controversial results on levels of inflammatory cytokines in patients with arsenic exposure. This study aims to evaluate the associations between arsenic exposure and inflammatory cytokines and C-reaction protein (CRP).
METHODS
We searched the databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI) for studies reporting levels of cytokines and CRP in patients with arsenic exposure compared to the controls. The retrieval time was from January 2000 to September 2022.
RESULTS
13 observational studies involving 1665 arsenic exposed and 1091 unexposed individuals were included. Among these studies, 6 from China, 4 from India, 2 from Bangladesh and 1 from Turkey. Our result showed that interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, and IL-12 levels were significantly higher in arsenic-exposed individuals compared to the control group, IL-2 level was significantly lower, and Tumor necrosis factor-α, Interferon-γ, CRP, and IL-10 levels were not changed. After sensitivity analyses, tumor necrosis factor-α and Interferon-γ levels were significantly higher in arsenic-exposed individuals compared to the control group. High heterogeneity was detected in most studies.
CONCLUSION
Many cytokines (such as IL-6, IL-8, and IL-12) have altered in individuals with arsenic exposure, this indicates arsenic exposure could trigger the cell-mediated inflammatory response. Regular examining immune function (such as inflammatory cytokines) in individuals with the risk of arsenic exposure is important to human health.
Topics: Humans; Cytokines; Arsenic; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha; Interferon-gamma; Interleukin-8; Interleukin-6; Inflammation; Interleukin-12
PubMed: 36550845
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000032352 -
Infectious Diseases and Therapy Sep 2020The emergence of SARS-CoV-2/2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has created a global pandemic with no approved treatments or vaccines. Many treatments have already been... (Review)
Review
The emergence of SARS-CoV-2/2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has created a global pandemic with no approved treatments or vaccines. Many treatments have already been administered to COVID-19 patients but have not been systematically evaluated. We performed a systematic literature review to identify all treatments reported to be administered to COVID-19 patients and to assess time to clinically meaningful response for treatments with sufficient data. We searched PubMed, BioRxiv, MedRxiv, and ChinaXiv for articles reporting treatments for COVID-19 patients published between 1 December 2019 and 27 March 2020. Data were analyzed descriptively. Of the 2706 articles identified, 155 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 9152 patients. The cohort was 45.4% female and 98.3% hospitalized, and mean (SD) age was 44.4 years (SD 21.0). The most frequently administered drug classes were antivirals, antibiotics, and corticosteroids, and of the 115 reported drugs, the most frequently administered was combination lopinavir/ritonavir, which was associated with a time to clinically meaningful response (complete symptom resolution or hospital discharge) of 11.7 (1.09) days. There were insufficient data to compare across treatments. Many treatments have been administered to the first 9152 reported cases of COVID-19. These data serve as the basis for an open-source registry of all reported treatments given to COVID-19 patients at www.CDCN.org/CORONA . Further work is needed to prioritize drugs for investigation in well-controlled clinical trials and treatment protocols.
PubMed: 32462545
DOI: 10.1007/s40121-020-00303-8