-
International Journal of Clinical... Nov 2020Management of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) has undergone a paradigm shift with next-generation androgen receptor inhibitors. However,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Management of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) has undergone a paradigm shift with next-generation androgen receptor inhibitors. However, direct comparative data are not available to inform treatment decisions and/or guideline recommendations. Therefore, we performed network meta-analysis to indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of currently available treatments. Multiple databases were searched for articles published before June 2020. Studies that compared overall and/or metastasis-free and/or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival (OS/MFS/PSA-PFS) and/or adverse events (AEs) in nmCRPC patients were considered eligible. Three studies (n = 4117) met our eligibility criteria. Formal network meta-analyses were conducted. For MFS, apalutamide, darolutamide, and enzalutamide were significantly more effective than placebo, and apalutamide emerged as the best option (P score: 0.8809). Apalutamide [hazard ratio (HR): 0.85, 95% credible interval (CrI): 0.77-0.94] and enzalutamide (HR: 0.86, 95% CrI: 0.78-0.95) were both significantly more effective than darolutamide. For PSA-PFS, all three agents were statistically superior to placebo, and apalutamide emerged as the likely preferred option (P score: 1.000). Apalutamide (HR: 0.71, 95% CrI: 0.69-0.74) and enzalutamide (HR: 0.76, 95% CrI: 0.74-0.79) were both significantly more effective than darolutamide. For AEs (including all AEs, grade 3 or grade 4 AEs, grade 5 AEs, and discontinuation rates), darolutamide was the likely best option. Apalutamide and enzalutamide appear to be more efficacious agents for therapy of nmCRPC, while darolutamide appears to have the most favorable tolerability profile. These findings may facilitate individualized treatment strategies and inform future direct comparative trials.
Topics: Androgen Receptor Antagonists; Antineoplastic Agents; Benzamides; Humans; Kallikreins; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Nitriles; Phenylthiohydantoin; Progression-Free Survival; Proportional Hazards Models; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Pyrazoles; Thiohydantoins; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32924096
DOI: 10.1007/s10147-020-01777-9 -
Systematic Reviews Apr 2024Immunosuppressive therapy (IST) is the first choice for severe aplastic anemia (SAA) patients with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) limitation, and the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Immunosuppressive therapy (IST) is the first choice for severe aplastic anemia (SAA) patients with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) limitation, and the main factor limiting its efficacy is too few residual hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells (HSPC). Eltrombopag (EPAG), as a small molecule thrombopoietin receptor agonist, can stimulate the proliferation of residual HSPC and restore the bone marrow hematopoietic function of patients. In recent years, many studies have observed the efficacy and safety of IST combined with EPAG in the treatment of SAA, but the results are still controversial. The aim of this study is to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of IST combined with or without EPGA in the treatment of SAA.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of all relevant literature published up to January 19, 2024. Pooled odds ratio (OR) was calculated to compare the rates, along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p value to assess whether the results were statistically significant by Review Manager 5.4.1. The p values for the interactions between each subgroup were calculated by Stata 15.1. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane bias risk assessment tools were respectively used to evaluate the quality of the literature with cohort studies and randomized controlled trials. The Review Manager 5.4.1 and Stata 15.1 were used to assess bias risk and perform the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies involving 2148 patients were included. The IST combined with the EPAG group had higher overall response rate (ORR) than the IST group at 3 months (pooled OR = 2.10, 95% CI 1.58-2.79, p < 0.00001) and 6 months (pooled OR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.60-2.83, p < 0.00001), but the difference between the two groups became statistically insignificant at 12 months (pooled OR = 1.13, 95% CI 0.75-1.72, p = 0.55). The results of complete response rate (CRR) (pooled OR at 3 months = 2.73, 95% CI 1.83-4.09, p < 0.00001, 6 months = 2.76, 95% CI 2.08-3.67, p < 0.00001 and 12 months = 1.38, 95% CI 0.85-2.23, p = 0.19) were similar to ORR. Compared with the IST group, the IST combined with the EPAG group had better overall survival rate (OSR) (pooled OR = 1.70, 95% CI 1.15-2.51, p = 0.008), but there were no statistically significant differences in event-free survival rate (EFSR) (pooled OR = 1.40, 95% CI 0.93-2.13, p = 0.11), clonal evolution rate (pooled OR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.46-1.00, p = 0.05) and other adverse events between the two groups. The results of subgroup analysis showed that different ages were a source of heterogeneity, but different study types and different follow-up times were not. Moreover, all p-values for the interactions were greater than 0.05, suggesting that the treatment effect was not influenced by subgroup characteristics.
CONCLUSION
EPAG added to IST enables patients to achieve earlier and faster hematologic responses with a higher rate of complete response. Although it had no effect on overall EFSR, it improved OSR and did not increase the incidence of clonal evolution and other adverse events.
Topics: Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Anemia, Aplastic; Immunosuppression Therapy; Benzoates; Pathologic Complete Response; Treatment Outcome; Hydrazines; Pyrazoles
PubMed: 38576005
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-024-02515-2 -
Pain Nov 2022Burrowing behaviour is used to assess pain-associated behaviour in laboratory rodents. To gain insight into how models of disease-associated persistent pain and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Burrowing behaviour is used to assess pain-associated behaviour in laboratory rodents. To gain insight into how models of disease-associated persistent pain and analgesics affect burrowing behaviour, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that assessed burrowing behaviour. A systematic search in March 2020 and update in September 2020 was conducted in 4 databases. Study design characteristics and experimental data were extracted, followed by a random-effects meta-analysis. We explored the association between burrowing and monofilament-induced limb withdrawal. Dose response relationship was investigated for some analgesics. Forty-five studies were included in the meta-analysis, in which 16 model types and 14 drug classes were used. Most experiments used rat (79%) and male (72%) animals. Somatic inflammation and trauma-induced neuropathy models were associated with reduced burrowing behaviour. Analgesics (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and gabapentinoids) attenuated burrowing deficits in these models. Reporting of measures to reduce risk of bias was unclear except for randomisation which was high. There was not a correlation ( R2 = 0.1421) between burrowing and monofilament-induced limb withdrawal. Opioids, gabapentin, and naproxen showed reduced burrowing behaviour at high doses, whereas ibuprofen and celecoxib showed opposite trend. The findings indicate that burrowing could be used to assess pain-associated behaviour. We support the use of a portfolio of composite measures including spontaneous and stimulus-evoked tests. The information collected here could help in designing experiments involving burrowing assessment in models of disease-associated pain.
Topics: Analgesics; Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Behavior, Animal; Celecoxib; Disease Models, Animal; Gabapentin; Ibuprofen; Male; Naproxen; Pain; Rats; Rodentia
PubMed: 35353780
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002632 -
The Canadian Journal of Infectious... 2022Since the beginning of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) disease outbreak, there has been an increasing interest in discovering potential therapeutic agents for this... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Since the beginning of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) disease outbreak, there has been an increasing interest in discovering potential therapeutic agents for this disease. In this regard, we conducted a systematic review through an overview of drug development (in silico, in vitro, and in vivo) for treating COVID-19.
METHODS
A systematic search was carried out in major databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and Google Scholar from December 2019 to March 2021. A combination of the following terms was used: coronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, drug design, drug development, In silico, In vitro, and In vivo. A narrative synthesis was performed as a qualitative method for the data synthesis of each outcome measure.
RESULTS
A total of 2168 articles were identified through searching databases. Finally, 315 studies (266 in silico, 34 in vitro, and 15 in vivo) were included. In studies with in silico approach, 98 article study repurposed drug and 91 studies evaluated herbal medicine on COVID-19. Among 260 drugs repurposed by the computational method, the best results were observed with saquinavir ( = 9), ritonavir ( = 8), and lopinavir ( = 6). Main protease ( = 154) following spike glycoprotein ( = 62) and other nonstructural protein of virus ( = 45) was among the most studied targets. Doxycycline, chlorpromazine, azithromycin, heparin, bepridil, and glycyrrhizic acid showed both in silico and in vitro inhibitory effects against SARS-CoV-2.
CONCLUSION
The preclinical studies of novel drug design for COVID-19 focused on main protease and spike glycoprotein as targets for antiviral development. From evaluated structures, saquinavir, ritonavir, eucalyptus, Tinospora cordifolia, aloe, green tea, curcumin, pyrazole, and triazole derivatives in in silico studies and doxycycline, chlorpromazine, and heparin from in vitro and human monoclonal antibodies from in vivo studies showed promised results regarding efficacy. It seems that due to the nature of COVID-19 disease, finding some drugs with multitarget antiviral actions and anti-inflammatory potential is valuable and some herbal medicines have this potential.
PubMed: 36199815
DOI: 10.1155/2022/2044282 -
PloS One 2022Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for haematological disorders. Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), a cause of morbidity and mortality is treated with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for haematological disorders. Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), a cause of morbidity and mortality is treated with corticosteroids. However, patients with steroid-refractory GVHD after HSCT have a poor prognosis. Ruxolitinib, a selective Janus kinase inhibitor, is a novel treatment strategy for steroid-refractory GVHD.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of ruxolitinib for the treatment of steroid-refractory GVHD and analyse its adverse effects.
STUDY DESIGN
Meta-analysis.
SEARCH METHODS
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs of ruxolitinib-based therapy in patients with steroid-refractory GVHD were found in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science in March 2021. Outcomes included overall response rate, survival, and adverse effects. The Methodological Index for Non-randomised Studies (MINORS) and the Cochrane collaboration risk-of-bias tool were used to assess methodological quality. Funnel plots, Egger's test, and the trim and fill method were used to assess publication bias.
RESULTS
In total, 1470 studies were identified; 19 studies (17 non-RCTs, 2 RCTs) involving 1358 patients met our inclusion criteria. Survival rates at the longest follow-up in non-RCTs, were 57.5% (95% CI 46.9-67.4) and 80.3% (95% CI 69.7-87.9) for acute GVHD (aGVHD) and chronic GVHD (cGVHD), respectively. In non-RCTs, the overall response was 74.9% (95% CI 66.6-81.8, I2 = 49%) in aGVHD and 73.1% (95% CI 62.5-81.6, I2 = 49%) in cGVHD. In aGVHD, the response rates were gastrointestinal, 61.4-90.2%; skin, 52.5-80.6%; and liver, 41.8-71.8%. In cGVHD, the response rates were gastrointestinal, 30.1-70.4%; skin, 30.1-84.4%; lung, 27.0-83.0%; and mouth 3.5-98.1%. In addition, a lower aGVHD grade and moderate cGVHD were associated with a better clinical response. Common adverse events were cytopenia and infectious complications.
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that ruxolitinib therapy could be a potentially effective and safe treatment for patients with steroid-refractory GVHD.
Topics: Graft vs Host Disease; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Nitriles; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Steroids
PubMed: 35905125
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271979 -
Respiratory Medicine Oct 2022There are conflicting reports on the results of several of the latest clinical trials related to the use of baricitinib in the management of COVID-19 patients. The aim... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There are conflicting reports on the results of several of the latest clinical trials related to the use of baricitinib in the management of COVID-19 patients. The aim of the current systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of baricitinib in COVID-19 patients.
METHODS
Databases like ScienceDirect, PubMed/Medline, Publons, Google Scholar and other sources like ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane, medRxiv, Research Square and reference lists were thoroughly searched.
RESULTS
Fifteen (15) articles which met the inclusion criteria were qualitatively and quantitatively analysed. Based on Cochrane and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) risk of bias (RoB) analyses, 14/15 articles are grouped as high-quality. Meta-analyses revealed that randomised control trials (RCTs) and non-randomised control trials (nRCTs) statistically significantly reduced the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients, with a risk ratio (RR) in the fixed-effect model was RR = 0.64 [95% CI: 0.51 to 0.79; p < 0.0001] and RR = 0.58 [95% CI: 0.45 to 0.73; p < 0.00001], respectively, with insignificant heterogeneity and no publication bias found. For block/reduce disease progression (BDP), baricitinib did not statistically significantly reduce disease progression for RCTs. The RR in the random effect model was RR = 0.80 [95% CI: 0.58 to 1.10: p = 0.17], with significant heterogeneity, where I was 60%. On the other hand, baricitinib statistically significantly reduced disease progression in nRCTs, as the RR of the fixed effect model was RR = 0.54 [95% CI: 0.37 to 0.78; p = 0.001] with insignificant heterogeneity.
CONCLUSION
The current meta-analyses revealed that baricitinib statistically significantly reduced mortality rate and disease progression in COVID-19 patients.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021281556.
Topics: Azetidines; Disease Progression; Humans; Purines; Pyrazoles; SARS-CoV-2; Sulfonamides; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 36150282
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2022.106986 -
Psychopharmacology Jul 2024Zuranolone, a newly FDA-approved synthetic neurosteroid, shows promise in treating depression. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
RATIONALE
Zuranolone, a newly FDA-approved synthetic neurosteroid, shows promise in treating depression.
OBJECTIVES
Our aim is to evaluate Zuranolone's efficacy and safety in treating depression.
METHODS
Five databases were searched until September 2023 for relevant randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of zuranolone. The potential risk of bias in the included trials was evaluated by the Cochrane Risk of Bias II guideline Data were extracted and pooled using Review Manager Software (RevMan 5.3).
RESULTS
An analysis of eight studies highlights Zuranolone's efficacy in treating depression compared to placebo across most of the outcomes. Notably, the 30mg and 50mg doses demonstrated significant improvements in reducing HAM-D scores by over 50% within a 15-day follow-up (RR) of 1.46 (95% CI [1.27, 1.68], p < 0.0001) and 1.14 (95% CI [1.01, 1.3], p = 0.04). Additionally, the HAM-D ≤ 7% score analysis revealed significant enhancements with the 30mg dose over both 15-day (RR = 1.82, 95% CI [1.44, 2.31], p < 0.0001) and 45-day (RR = 1.43, 95% CI [1.16, 1.77], p = 0.0008) durations. Adverse Events Drug Discontinuation demonstrated no overall significant difference (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: [0.79, 2.23], p = 0.282). Further, specific adverse events, such as headache, showed no significant overall difference between Zuranolone and placebo (OR = 1.11, 95% CI: [0.84, 1.47], p = 0.47), with dose-dependent analysis revealing less headache in the 30 mg group.
CONCLUSION
Zuranolone demonstrates favorable tolerability and safety, particularly at 30mg and 50mg doses after 15 days, suggesting its potential and effective treatment for depression.
Topics: Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Treatment Outcome; Pregnanolone; Pyrazoles
PubMed: 38802705
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-024-06611-y -
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Aug 2022The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of celecoxib, a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, in addition to standard... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of celecoxib, a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, in addition to standard anticancer therapy. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of celecoxib-combined cancer therapy were systematically searched in PubMed and Embase databases. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), disease-free survival (DFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), pathological complete response (pCR), and adverse events (AEs). The results of 30 RCTs containing 9655 patients showed limited benefits in celecoxib-combined cancer therapy. However, celecoxib-combined palliative therapy prolonged PFS in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) wild-type patients (HR = 0.57, 95%CI = 0.35-0.94). Moreover, despite a slight increase in thrombocytopenia (RR = 1.35, 95%CI = 1.08-1.69), there was no increase in other toxicities. Celecoxib combined with adjuvant therapy indicated a better OS (HR = 0.850, 95%CI = 0.725-0.996). Furthermore, celecoxib plus neoadjuvant therapy improved the ORR in standard cancer therapy, especially neoadjuvant therapy (overall: RR = 1.13, 95%CI = 1.03-1.23; neoadjuvant therapy: RR = 1.25, 95%CI = 1.09-1.44), but not pCR. Our study indicated that adding celecoxib to palliative therapy prolongs the PFS of EGFR wild-type patients, with good safety profiles. Celecoxib combined with adjuvant therapy prolongs OS, and celecoxib plus neoadjuvant therapy improves the ORR. Thus, celecoxib-combined cancer therapy may be a promising therapy strategy.
Topics: Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Celecoxib; Cyclooxygenase 2; ErbB Receptors; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36135051
DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29090482 -
Blood Advances Aug 2019Both apixaban and rivaroxaban have been approved for use in acute venous thromboembolism (VTE). Although indirect comparison through network meta-analyses of randomized... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Both apixaban and rivaroxaban have been approved for use in acute venous thromboembolism (VTE). Although indirect comparison through network meta-analyses of randomized trials have been performed to compare the efficacy and safety of these agents, further comparison between these agents was lacking until recently. We sought to systematically review and carry out a meta-analysis of studies to further compare apixaban with rivaroxaban from multiple studies done in the real-world settings. Studies comparing rivaroxaban with apixaban in patients with acute VTE were identified through electronic literature searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane library up to May 2019. Study-specific risk ratios (RRs) were calculated and combined using a random-effects model meta-analysis. In an analysis involving 24 041 patients, recurrent VTE within 6 months occurred in 56 of 4897 patients (1.14%) in the apixaban group and 258 of 19 144 patients (1.35%) in the rivaroxaban group (RR, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.19; = .45). Clinically relevant major bleeding occurred in 85 of 11 559 patients (0.74%) in the apixaban group and 350 of 33 909 patients (1.03%) in the rivaroxaban group (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.93; = .01). Clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 169 of 3417 patients (4.95%) in the apixaban group and 1094 of 12 475 patients (8.77%) in the rivaroxaban group (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.50-0.70; < .01). Apixaban shows equivalent efficacy in prevention of recurrent VTE but decreased risk of major and minor bleeding events compared with rivaroxaban.
Topics: Blood Coagulation; Hemorrhage; Humans; Odds Ratio; Pyrazoles; Pyridones; Rivaroxaban; Treatment Outcome; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 31405948
DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2019000572 -
Journal of Medical Virology Apr 2022The benefits of baricitinib in coronavirus disease-2019 are inadequately defined. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of baricitinib to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The benefits of baricitinib in coronavirus disease-2019 are inadequately defined. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of baricitinib to determine its clinical efficacy and adverse events in patients with COVID-19. Databases were searched from their inception to September 5, 2021. The primary outcome was the coefficient of mortality. We also compared secondary indicators and adverse events between baricitinib treatment and placebo or other treatments. Twelve studies of 3564 patients were included and assessed qualitatively (modified Jadad and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale scores). Baricitinib effectively improved the mortality rate (relative risk of mortality = 0.56; 95% confidence interval: 0.46-0.69; p < 0.001; I = 2%), and this result was unchanged by subgroup analysis. Baricitinib improved intensive care unit admission, the requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation, and improved the oxygenation index. Data from these studies also showed that baricitinib slightly reduced the risk of adverse events. Regarding the choice of the drug dosage of baricitinib, the high-dose group appeared to have additional benefits for clinical efficacy. Our study shows that baricitinib may be a promising, safe, and effective anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 drug candidate, with the advantages of low cost, easy production, and convenient storage.
Topics: Azetidines; COVID-19; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Purines; Pyrazoles; SARS-CoV-2; Sulfonamides; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34846766
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.27482