-
Medicine Oct 2020The Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship, research outcome and quality has been already evaluated for clinical trials in order to analyze if this kind of sponsorship...
BACKGROUND
The Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship, research outcome and quality has been already evaluated for clinical trials in order to analyze if this kind of sponsorship affects the results of clinical trials. In this sense, this study has the aim to investigate whether placebo use allows positive outcomes regarding efficacy and safety compared to synthetic medicines.
METHODS
We designed and registered a study protocol for a systematic review for methodology data. We will only randomized clinical trials that use placebo as comparator. The main outcome will be the evaluation of placebo use regarding the tendency for positive results (efficacy and security) when comparing to synthetic medicines. PubMed, Cochrane, LILACS (BVS), Web of Science, Scopus, and Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE) databases will be searched. Gray literature will be identified through the databases Proquest (Dissertation and Theses), OpenGrey and Google Scholar. Two review authors will independently assess trial quality and will extract data in accordance with standard Cochrane methodology. If necessary, we will also contact authors for additional information. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool will be used. If feasible, it means homogenous data, we will conduct random effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses will be conducted for different justifications for placebo use and for studies sponsored/not sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry.
RESULTS
Our present findings will indicate the effects of placebo use as comparator regarding efficacy and safety of the oral synthetic medicines.
DISCUSSION
This systematic review will identify, summarize, and analyze if there is a trend for positive efficacy and safety results for synthetic medicines in clinical trials when compared with placebo and if the justification for placebo use is considered ethically acceptable.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42018110829.
Topics: Data Accuracy; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Pharmaceutical Research; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 33126350
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022915 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020This is the second update of this systematic review. High blood pressure represents a major public health problem. Worldwide, approximately one-fourth of the adult... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This is the second update of this systematic review. High blood pressure represents a major public health problem. Worldwide, approximately one-fourth of the adult population has hypertension. Epidemiological and experimental studies suggest a link between hyperuricaemia and hypertension. Hyperuricaemia affects 25% to 40% of those with untreated hypertension; a much lower prevalence has been reported in those with normotension or in the general population. However, whether lowering serum uric acid (UA) might lower blood pressure (BP), is an unanswered question.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether UA-lowering agents reduce BP in people with primary hypertension or prehypertension, compared with placebo.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to May 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL 2018, Issue 12, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched LILACS (1982 to May 2020), and contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language or date restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
To be included in this updated review, the studies had to meet the following criteria: 1) randomised or quasi-randomised, with a group assigned to receive a UA-lowering agent and another group assigned to receive placebo; 2) double-blind, single-blind, or open-label; 3) parallel or cross-over trial design; 4) cross-over trials had to have a washout period of at least two weeks; 5) minimum treatment duration of four weeks; 6) participants had to have a diagnosis of essential hypertension or prehypertension plus hyperuricaemia (serum UA greater than 6 mg/dL in women, 7 mg/dL in men, and 5.5 mg/dL in children or adolescents); 7) outcome measures included change in 24-hour ambulatory systolic or diastolic BP, or both; or clinic-measured systolic or diastolic BP, or both.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The two review authors independently collected the data using a data extraction form, and resolved any disagreements via discussion. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
In this review update, we screened 722 records, selected 26 full-text reports for evaluation. We identified no ongoing studies and did not add any new studies. We included three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), enrolling 211 people with hypertension or prehypertension, plus hyperuricaemia. Low-certainty evidence from three RCTs found inconclusive results between those who received UA-lowering drugs and placebo, in 24-hour ambulatory systolic (MD -6.2 mmHg, 95% CI -12.8 to 0.5) or diastolic BP (-3.9 mmHg, 95% CI -9.2 to 1.4). Low-certainty evidence from two RCTs found that UA-lowering drugs reduced clinic-measured systolic BP (-8.43 mmHg, 95% CI -15.24 to -1.62) but results for clinic-measured diastolic BP were inconclusive (-6.45 mmHg, 95% CI -13.60 to 0.70). High-certainty evidence from three RCTs found that serum UA levels were reduced by 3.1 mg/dL (95% CI 2.4 to 3.8) in the participants that received UA-lowering drugs. Low-certainty evidence from three RCTs found inconclusive results regarding the occurrence of adverse events between those who received UA-lowering drugs and placebo (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 8.10).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this updated Cochrane Review, the current RCT data are insufficient to know whether UA-lowering therapy lowers BP. More studies are needed.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Allopurinol; Blood Pressure; Child; Humans; Hypertension; Hyperuricemia; Patient Dropouts; Placebos; Prehypertension; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Uricosuric Agents
PubMed: 32877573
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008652.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Functional Abdominal Pain Disorders (FAPDs) present a considerable burden to paediatric patients, impacting quality of life, school attendance and causing higher rates... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Functional Abdominal Pain Disorders (FAPDs) present a considerable burden to paediatric patients, impacting quality of life, school attendance and causing higher rates of anxiety and depression disorders. There are no international guidelines for the management of this condition. A previous Cochrane Review in 2011 found no evidence to support the use of antidepressants in this context.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the current evidence for the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for FAPDs in children and adolescents.
SEARCH METHODS
In this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and two clinical trial registers from inception until 03 February 2020. We also updated our search of databases of ongoing research, reference lists and 'grey literature' from inception to 03 February 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antidepressants to placebo, to no treatment or to any other intervention, in children aged 4 to 18 years with a FAPD diagnosis as per the Rome or any other defined criteria (as defined by the authors). The primary outcomes of interest included treatment success (as defined by the authors), pain severity, pain frequency and withdrawal due to adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors checked all citations independently, resolving disagreement with a third-party arbiter. We reviewed all potential studies in full text, and once again made independent decisions, with disagreements resolved by consensus. We conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments independently, following Cochrane methods. Where homogeneous data were available, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model. We conducted GRADE analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We found one new study in this updated search, making a total of three trials (223 participants) eligible for inclusion: two using amitriptyline (AMI) and one using citalopram. For the primary outcome of treatment success, two studies used reports of success on a symptom-based Likert scale, with either a two-point reduction or the two lowest levels defined as success. The third study defined success as a 15% improvement in quality of life (QOL) ratings scales. Therefore, meta-analysis did not include this final study due to the heterogeneity of the outcome measure. There is low-certainty evidence that there may be no difference when antidepressants are compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.56; 2 studies, 205 participants; I = 0%). We downgraded the evidence for significant imprecision due to extremely sparse data (see Summary of findings table 1). The third study reported that participants receiving antidepressants were significantly more likely than those receiving placebo to experience at least a 15% improvement in overall QOL score at 10 and 13 weeks (P = 0.007 and P = 0.002, respectively (absolute figures were not given)). The analysis found no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events between antidepressants and placebo: RR 3.17 (95% CI 0.65 to 15.33), with very low certainty due to high risk of bias in studies and imprecision due to low event and participant numbers. Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effect model and analysing just for AMI found no change in this result. Due to heterogeneous and limited reporting, no further meta-analysis was possible.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There may be no difference between antidepressants and placebo for treatment success of FAPDs in childhood. There may be no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events, but this is also of low certainty. There is currently no evidence to support clinical decision making regarding the use of these medications. Further studies must consider sample size, homogenous and relevant outcome measures and longer follow up.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Adolescent; Amitriptyline; Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Child; Citalopram; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Placebos; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33560523
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008013.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020Souvenaid is a dietary supplement with a patented composition (Fortasyn Connect™)which is intended to be used by people with Alzheimer's disease (AD). It has been...
BACKGROUND
Souvenaid is a dietary supplement with a patented composition (Fortasyn Connect™)which is intended to be used by people with Alzheimer's disease (AD). It has been designed to support the formation and function of synapses in the brain, which are thought to be strongly correlated with cognitive function. If effective, it might improve symptoms of Alzheimer's disease and also prevent the progression from prodromal Alzheimer's disease to dementia. We sought in this review to examine the evidence for this proposition.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of Souvenaid on incidence of dementia, cognition, functional performance, and safety in people with Alzheimer's disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS, i.e. the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), Web of Science (ISI Web of Science), Cinahl (EBSCOhost), Lilacs (BIREME), and clinical trials registries up to 24 June 2020. We also reviewed citations of reference lists of landmark papers, reviews, and included studies for additional studies and assessed their suitability for inclusion in the review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, placebo-controlled trials which evaluated Souvenaid in people diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD (also termed prodromal AD) or with dementia due to AD, and with a treatment duration of at least 16 weeks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Our primary outcome measures were incidence of dementia, global and specific cognitive function, functional performance, combined cognitive-functional outcomes and adverse events. We selected studies, extracted data, assessed the quality of trials and intended to conduct meta-analyses according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We present all outcomes grouped by stage of AD.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three randomised, placebo-controlled trials investigating Souvenaid in 1097 community-dwelling participants with Alzheimer's disease. One study each included participants with prodromal AD, mild AD dementia and mild-to-moderate AD dementia. We rated the risks of bias of all trials as low. One study (in prodromal AD) was funded by European grants. The other two studies were funded by the manufacturer of Souvenaid. One trial investigated the incidence of dementia in people with prodromal AD at baseline, and found little to no difference between the Souvenaid group and the placebo group after 24 months (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.43; 1 trial, 311 participants; moderate quality of evidence). In prodromal AD, and in mild and mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease dementia, Souvenaid probably results in little or no difference in global or specific cognitive functions (moderate quality of evidence). Everyday function, or the ability to perform activities of daily living, were measured in mild and mild-to-moderate AD dementia. Neither study found evidence of a difference between the groups after 24 weeks of treatment (moderate quality of evidence). Two studies investigated combined cognitive-functional outcomes with the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes and observed conflicting results. Souvenaid probably results in slight improvement, which is below estimates of meaningful change, in participants with prodromal Alzheimer's disease after 24 months (moderate quality of evidence), but probably has little to no effect in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease dementia after 24 weeks (moderate quality of evidence). Adverse effects observed were low in all trials, and the available data were insufficient to determine any connection with Souvenaid.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Two years of treatment with Souvenaid probably does not reduce the risk of progression to dementia in people with prodromal AD. There is no convincing evidence that Souvenaid affects other outcomes important to people with AD in the prodromal stage or mild-to-moderate stages of dementia. Conflicting evidence on combined cognitive-functional outcomes in prodromal AD and mild AD dementia warrants further investigation. Adverse effects of Souvenaid seem to be uncommon, but the evidence synthesised in this review does not permit us to make a definitive statement on the long-term tolerability of Souvenaid. The effects of Souvenaid in more severe AD dementia or in people with AD at risk of nutritional deficiencies remain unclear.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Bias; Cognition; Dementia; Dietary Supplements; Disease Progression; Docosahexaenoic Acids; Eicosapentaenoic Acid; Humans; Phospholipids; Placebos; Prodromal Symptoms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 33320335
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011679.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020Asthma is a common long-term respiratory disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. Approximately half of people with asthma have an important... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Asthma is a common long-term respiratory disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. Approximately half of people with asthma have an important allergic component to their disease, which may provide an opportunity for targeted treatment. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) aims to reduce asthma symptoms by delivering increasing doses of an allergen (e.g. house dust mite, pollen extract) under the tongue to induce immune tolerance. Fifty-two studies were identified and synthesised in the original Cochrane Review in 2015, but questions remained about the safety and efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy for people with asthma.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy compared with placebo or standard care for adults and children with asthma.
SEARCH METHODS
The original searches for trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and reference lists of all primary studies and review articles found trials up to 25 March 2015. The most recent search for trials for the current update was conducted on 29 October 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel randomised controlled trials, irrespective of blinding or duration, that evaluated sublingual immunotherapy versus placebo or as an add-on to standard asthma management. We included both adults and children with asthma of any severity and with any allergen-sensitisation pattern. We included studies that recruited participants with asthma, rhinitis, or both, providing at least 80% of trial participants had a diagnosis of asthma. We selected outcomes to reflect recommended outcomes for asthma clinical trials and those most important to people with asthma. Primary outcomes were asthma exacerbations requiring a visit to the emergency department (ED) or admission to hospital, validated measures of quality of life, and all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes were asthma symptom scores, exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids, response to provocation tests, and dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the search results for included trials, extracted numerical data, and assessed risk of bias, all of which were cross-checked for accuracy. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs) using study participants as the unit of analysis; we analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. We considered the strength of evidence for all primary and secondary outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Sixty-six studies met the inclusion criteria for this update, including 52 studies from the original review. Most studies were double-blind and placebo-controlled, varied in duration from one day to three years, and recruited participants with mild or intermittent asthma, often with comorbid allergic rhinitis. Twenty-three studies recruited adults and teenagers; 31 recruited only children; three recruited both; and nine did not specify. The pattern of reporting and results remained largely unchanged from the original review despite 14 further studies and a 50% increase in participants studied (5077 to 7944). Reporting of primary efficacy outcomes to measure the impact of SLIT on asthma exacerbations and quality of life was infrequent, and selective reporting may have had a serious effect on the completeness of the evidence; 16 studies did not contribute any data, and a further six studies could only be included in a post hoc analysis of all adverse events. Allocation procedures were generally not well described; about a quarter of the studies were at high risk of performance or detection bias (or both); and participant attrition was high or unknown in around half of the studies. The primary outcome in most studies did not align with those of interest to the review (mostly asthma or rhinitis symptoms), and only two small studies reported our primary outcome of exacerbations requiring an ED or hospital visit; the pooled estimate from these studies suggests SLIT may reduce exacerbations compared with placebo or usual care, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 1.20; n = 108; very low-certainty evidence). Nine studies reporting quality of life could not be combined in a meta-analysis and, whilst the direction of effect mostly favoured SLIT, the effects were often uncertain and small. SLIT likely does not increase SAEs compared with placebo or usual care, and analysis by risk difference suggests no more than 1 in 100 people taking SLIT will have a serious adverse event (RD -0.0004, 95% CI -0.0072 to 0.0064; participants = 4810; studies = 29; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding secondary outcomes, asthma symptom and medication scores were mostly measured with non-validated scales, which precluded meaningful meta-analysis or interpretation, but there was a general trend of SLIT benefit over placebo. Changes in ICS use (MD -17.13 µg/d, 95% CI -61.19 to 26.93; low-certainty evidence), exacerbations requiring oral steroids (studies = 2; no events), and bronchial provocation (SMD 0.99, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.82; low-certainty evidence) were not often reported. Results were imprecise and included the possibility of important benefit or little effect and, in some cases, potential harm from SLIT. More people taking SLIT had adverse events of any kind compared with control (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.67; high-certainty evidence; participants = 4251; studies = 27), but events were usually reported to be transient and mild. Lack of data prevented most of the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite continued study in the field, the evidence for important outcomes such as exacerbations and quality of life remains too limited to draw clinically useful conclusions about the efficacy of SLIT for people with asthma. Trials mostly recruited mixed populations with mild and intermittent asthma and/or rhinitis and focused on non-validated symptom and medication scores. The review findings suggest that SLIT may be a safe option for people with well-controlled mild-to-moderate asthma and rhinitis who are likely to be at low risk of serious harm, but the role of SLIT for people with uncontrolled asthma requires further evaluation.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Animals; Asthma; Child; Disease Progression; Hospitalization; Humans; Placebos; Pollen; Pyroglyphidae; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis, Allergic; Sublingual Immunotherapy
PubMed: 32926419
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011293.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Neurocysticercosis is a parasitic infection of the central nervous system by the larval stage of the pork tapeworm and is a common cause of seizures and epilepsy in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Neurocysticercosis is a parasitic infection of the central nervous system by the larval stage of the pork tapeworm and is a common cause of seizures and epilepsy in endemic areas. Anthelmintics (albendazole or praziquantel) may be given alongside supportive treatment (antiepileptics/analgesia) with the aim of killing these larvae (cysticerci), with or without corticosteroid treatment. However, there are potential adverse effects of these drugs, and the cysticerci may eventually die without directed anthelminthic treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of anthelmintics on people with neurocysticercosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov, up to 21 October 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials comparing anthelmintics and supportive treatment (+/- corticosteroids) with supportive treatment alone (+/- corticosteroids) for people with neurocysticercosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the title and abstract of all articles identified by the search. We obtained full-text articles to confirm the eligibility of all studies that passed screening. One review author extracted data, which a second review author checked. Two review authors assessed the risk of bias of each trial and performed GRADE assessments. In cases of disagreement at consensus discussion stage between review authors, we consulted a third review author. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous variables, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for pooled data from studies with similar interventions and outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 studies in the review. Only two studies investigated praziquantel and did not report data in a format that could contribute to meta-analysis. Most results in this review are therefore applicable to albendazole versus placebo or no anthelmintic. The aggregate analysis across all participants with neurocysticercosis did not demonstrate a difference between groups in seizure recurrence, but heterogeneity was marked (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14; 10 trials, 1054 participants; I = 67%; low-certainty evidence). When stratified by participants with a single cyst or multiple cysts, pooled analysis suggests that albendazole probably improves seizure recurrence for participants with a single cyst (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.91; 5 trials, 396 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). All studies contributing to this analysis recruited participants with non-viable, intraparenchymal cysts only, and most participants were children. We are uncertain whether or not albendazole reduces seizure recurrence in participants with multiple cysts, as the certainty of the evidence is very low, although the direction of effect is towards albendazole causing harm (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.31; 2 trials, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This analysis included a large study containing a highly heterogeneous population that received an assessment of unclear risk for multiple 'Risk of bias' domains. Regarding radiological outcomes, albendazole probably slightly improves the complete radiological clearance of lesions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.39; 13 trials, 1324 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and the evolution of cysts (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.47; 6 trials, 434 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). More adverse events appeared to be observed in participants treated with either albendazole or praziquantel compared to those receiving placebo or no anthelmintic. The most commonly reported side effects were headache, abdominal pain, and nausea/vomiting.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For participants with a single cyst, there was less seizure recurrence in the albendazole group compared to the placebo/no anthelmintic group. The studies contributing to this evidence only recruited participants with a non-viable intraparenchymal cyst. We are uncertain whether albendazole reduces seizure recurrence for participants with multiple cysts. We also found that albendazole probably increases radiological clearance and evolution of lesions. There were very few studies reporting praziquantel outcomes, and these findings apply to albendazole only.
Topics: Adult; Albendazole; Anticestodal Agents; Bias; Brain Diseases; Child; Humans; Neurocysticercosis; Placebos; Praziquantel; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures
PubMed: 34060667
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000215.pub5 -
PloS One 2023To assess the benefits and harms of cannabinoids in participants with pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of cannabinoids in participants with pain.
DESIGN
Systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
DATA SOURCES
The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, and BIOSIS.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Published and unpublished randomised clinical trials comparing cannabinoids versus placebo in participants with any type of pain.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
All-cause mortality, pain, adverse events, quality of life, cannabinoid dependence, psychosis, and quality of sleep.
RESULTS
We included 65 randomised placebo-controlled clinical trials enrolling 7017 participants. Fifty-nine of the trials and all outcome results were at high risk of bias. Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis showed no evidence of a difference between cannabinoids versus placebo on all-cause mortality (RR 1.20; 98% CI 0.85 to 1.67; P = 0.22). Meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analysis showed that cannabinoids neither reduced acute pain (mean difference numerical rating scale (NRS) 0.52; 98% CI -0.40 to 1.43; P = 0.19) or cancer pain (mean difference NRS -0.13; 98% CI -0.33 to 0.06; P = 0.1) nor improved quality of life (mean difference -1.38; 98% CI -11.81 to 9.04; P = 0.33). Meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analysis showed that cannabinoids reduced chronic pain (mean difference NRS -0.43; 98% CI -0.72 to -0.15; P = 0.0004) and improved quality of sleep (mean difference -0.42; 95% CI -0.65 to -0.20; P = 0.0003). However, both effect sizes were below our predefined minimal important differences. Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis indicated that cannabinoids increased the risk of non-serious adverse events (RR 1.20; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.25; P < 0.001) but not serious adverse events (RR 1.18; 98% CI 0.95 to 1.45; P = 0.07). None of the included trials reported on cannabinoid dependence or psychosis.
CONCLUSIONS
Cannabinoids reduced chronic pain and improved quality of sleep, but the effect sizes are of questionable importance. Cannabinoids had no effects on acute pain or cancer pain and increased the risks of non-serious adverse events. The harmful effects of cannabinoids for pain seem to outweigh the potential benefits.
Topics: Humans; Acute Pain; Cancer Pain; Chronic Pain; Quality of Life; Cannabinoids; Analgesics; Sleep; Sleep Quality; Placebos
PubMed: 36716312
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267420 -
Lancet (London, England) Sep 2020Angina might persist or reoccur despite successful revascularisation with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and antianginal therapy. Additionally, PCI in stable... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Angina might persist or reoccur despite successful revascularisation with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and antianginal therapy. Additionally, PCI in stable patients has not been shown to improve survival compared with optimal medical therapy. Trimetazidine is an antianginal agent that improves energy metabolism of the ischaemic myocardium and might improve outcomes and symptoms of patients who recently had a PCI. In this study, we aimed to assess the long-term potential benefits and safety of trimetazidine added to standard evidence-based medical treatment in patients who had a recent successful PCI.
METHODS
We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial of trimetazidine added to standard background therapy in patients who had undergone successful PCI at 365 centres in 27 countries across Europe, South America, Asia, and north Africa. Eligible patients were aged 21-85 years and had had either elective PCI for stable angina or urgent PCI for unstable angina or non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction less than 30 days before randomisation. Patients were randomly assigned by an interactive web response system to oral trimetazidine 35 mg modified-release twice daily or matching placebo. Participants, study investigators, and all study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of cardiac death; hospital admission for a cardiac event; recurrence or persistence of angina requiring an addition, switch, or increase of the dose of at least one antianginal drug; or recurrence or persistence of angina requiring a coronary angiography. Efficacy analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. Safety was assessed in all patients who had at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2010-022134-89).
FINDINGS
From Sept 17, 2014, to June 15, 2016, 6007 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either trimetazidine (n=2998) or placebo (n=3009). After a median follow-up of 47·5 months (IQR 42·3-53·3), incidence of primary endpoint events was not significantly different between the trimetazidine group (700 [23·3%] patients) and the placebo group (714 [23·7%]; hazard ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·88-1·09], p=0·73). When analysed individually, there were no significant differences in the incidence of the components of the primary endpoint between the treatment groups. Similar results were obtained when patients were categorised according to whether they had an elective or urgent PCI. 1219 (40·9%) of 2983 patients in the trimetazidine group and 1230 (41·1%) of 2990 patients in the placebo group had serious treatment-emergent adverse events. Frequencies of adverse events of interest were similar between the groups.
INTERPRETATION
Our results show that the routine use of oral trimetazidine 35 mg twice daily over several years in patients receiving optimal medical therapy, after successful PCI, does not influence the recurrence of angina or the outcome; these findings should be taken into account when considering the place of trimetazidine in clinical practice. However, the long-term prescription of this treatment does not appear to be associated with any statistically significant safety concerns in the population studied.
FUNDING
Servier.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Africa, Northern; Aged; Angina, Stable; Angina, Unstable; Asia; Case-Control Studies; Coronary Angiography; Death; Europe; Female; Hospitalization; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Non-ST Elevated Myocardial Infarction; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Placebos; Recurrence; Safety; South America; Treatment Outcome; Trimetazidine; Vasodilator Agents
PubMed: 32877651
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31790-6 -
Clinical Lung Cancer Jun 2023Osimertinib is a third-generation, irreversible, oral epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that potently and selectively inhibits both...
INTRODUCTION
Osimertinib is a third-generation, irreversible, oral epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that potently and selectively inhibits both EGFR-TKI sensitizing and EGFR T790M resistance mutations, with demonstrated efficacy in EGFR mutation-positive (EGFRm) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), including central nervous system (CNS) metastases. Here we present the rationale and study design for ADAURA2 (NCT05120349), which will evaluate adjuvant osimertinib vs. placebo in patients with stage IA2-IA3 EGFRm NSCLC, following complete tumor resection.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
ADAURA2 is a phase III, global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients will be adults aged ≥18 years with resected primary nonsquamous NSCLC stage IA2 or IA3 and central confirmation of an EGFR exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation. Patients will be stratified by pathologic risk of disease recurrence (high vs. low), EGFR mutation type (exon 19 deletion vs. L858R) and race (Chinese Asian vs. non-Chinese Asian vs. non-Asian), and randomized 1:1 to receive osimertinib 80 mg once daily (QD) or placebo QD until disease recurrence, treatment discontinuation, or a maximum treatment duration of 3 years. The primary endpoint of this study is disease-free survival (DFS) in the high-risk stratum. Secondary endpoints include DFS in the overall population, overall survival, CNS DFS, and safety. Health-related quality of life and pharmacokinetics will also be evaluated.
RESULTS
Study enrolment began in February 2022 and interim results of the primary endpoint are expected in August 2027.
Topics: Humans; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Antineoplastic Agents; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Lung Neoplasms; Double-Blind Method; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Disease-Free Survival
PubMed: 36872181
DOI: 10.1016/j.cllc.2023.02.002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021This is an updated version of the Cochrane review published in 2015. Around half of people with epilepsy will not achieve seizure freedom on their first antiepileptic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane review published in 2015. Around half of people with epilepsy will not achieve seizure freedom on their first antiepileptic drug; many will require add-on therapy. Around a third of people fail to achieve complete seizure freedom despite multiple antiepileptic drugs. Lacosamide has been licenced as an add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide as an add-on therapy for children and adults with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases (22 August 2019): the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), including the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 20 August 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), with no language restrictions. We contacted UCB Pharma (sponsors of lacosamide).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of add-on lacosamide in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology, assessing the following outcomes: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; seizure freedom; treatment withdrawal; adverse events; quality of life; and cognitive changes. The primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We estimated summary risk ratios (RR) for each outcome presented with 99% confidence intervals (CI), except for 50% or greater seizure reduction, seizure freedom and treatment withdrawal which were presented with 95% CIs. We performed subgroup analyses according to lacosamide dose and sensitivity analyses according to population age, whereby data from children were excluded from the meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five trials (2199 participants). The risk of bias for all studies was low to unclear. All studies were placebo-controlled and assessed doses from 200 mg to 600 mg per day. One study evaluated lacosamide in children; all other studies were in adults. Trial duration ranged from 24 to 26 weeks. All studies used adequate methods of randomisation and were double-blind. Overall, the certainty of the evidence for the outcomes was judged as moderate to high, with the exception of seizure freedom which was low. The RR for a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 1.79 (95% CI 1.55 to 2.08; 5 studies; 2199 participants; high-certainty evidence). The RR for seizure freedom for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 2.27 (95% CI 1.35 to 3.83; 5 studies; 2199 participants; low-certainty evidence). The RR for treatment withdrawal for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 1.57 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.98; 5 studies; 2199 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The estimated effect size for most outcomes did not change considerably following sensitivity analysis. For seizure freedom, however, the RR nearly doubled upon the exclusion of data from children (RR 4.04, 95% CI 1.52 to 10.73). Adverse events associated with lacosamide included: abnormal co-ordination (RR 6.12, 99% CI 1.35 to 27.77), blurred vision (RR 4.65, 99% CI 1.24 to 17.37), diplopia (RR 5.59, 99% CI 2.27 to 13.79), dizziness (RR 2.96, 99% CI 2.09 to 4.20), nausea (RR 2.35, 99% CI 1.37 to 4.02), somnolence (RR 2.04, 99% CI 1.22 to 3.41), vomiting (RR 2.94, 99% CI 1.54 to 5.64), and number of participants experiencing one or more adverse events (RR 1.12, 99% CI 1.01 to 1.24). Adverse events that were not significant were: vertigo (RR 3.71, 99% CI 0.86 to 15.95), rash (RR 0.58, 99% CI 0.17 to 1.89), nasopharyngitis (RR 1.41, 99% CI 0.87 to 2.28), headache (RR 1.34, 99% CI 0.90 to 1.98), fatigue (RR 2.11, 99% CI 0.92 to 4.85), nystagmus (RR 1.47, 99% CI 0.61 to 3.52), and upper respiratory tract infection (RR 0.70, 99% CI 0.43 to 1.15).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Lacosamide is effective and well-tolerated in the short term when used as add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Lacosamide increases the number of people with 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency and may increase seizure freedom, compared to placebo. Higher doses of lacosamide may be associated with higher rates of adverse events and treatment withdrawal. Additional evidence is required assessing the use of lacosamide in children and on longer-term efficacy and tolerability.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Bias; Child; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Epilepsies, Partial; Humans; Lacosamide; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures
PubMed: 33998660
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008841.pub3