-
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 -
BMJ Open May 2023Coronary heart disease(CHD) with stable angina pectoris is a common cardiovascular disease. It has been reported that 10%-81.4% of these patients suffer from...
Efficacy and safety of dropping pills in the treatment of coronary heart disease with stable angina pectoris and depression: study protocol for a randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, double-blind and multicentre clinical trial.
BACKGROUND
Coronary heart disease(CHD) with stable angina pectoris is a common cardiovascular disease. It has been reported that 10%-81.4% of these patients suffer from psychological conditions,such as depression, which has been associated with more frequent angina, lower treatment satisfaction and lower perceived quality of life. extract (GBE), the raw material of dropping pills (GBDPs), is widely used to treat various conditions, including cardiovascular disease, ischaemic cerebrovascular disease, and depression. This clinical trial aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of GBDPs in improving the frequency of angina pectoris and the life quality of patients with stable angina pectoris and depression symptoms.
METHODS
This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and multicentre clinical trial will be conducted in four medical centres in China. We aim to recruit approximately 72 participants aged 18-75 years with depression and coronary heart disease with stable angina pectoris. Based on conventional drug treatment, participants will be randomly assignedto the treatment group (GBDPs group; n=36) or the control group (placebo group; n=36) at a 1:1 allocation ratio. After randomisation,follow-up will be done at 4 weeks, 8 weeks and 12 weeks (±3 days). Additionally, 30 healthy individuals will be enrolled to investigate the underlying pharmacological mechanisms of the effects of GBE. The primary outcomes will be the Seattle Angina Questionnaire score and the frequency of angina pectoris-related symptoms each week. The secondary outcomes will include the 36-item Short Form Health Survey quality-of-life scale, Hamilton Depression Scale and composite endpoint incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION
This trial has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, China (approval number: ZYYECK [2020]030). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. The results of this trial will be publicly shared through academic conferences and peer-reviewed journals.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
NCT04529148 and ChiCTR2200066908.
Topics: Humans; Angina, Stable; Ginkgo biloba; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Control Groups; Depression; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome; Double-Blind Method; Coronary Disease; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Multicenter Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37164472
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055263 -
Theranostics 2020Nanozymes are a class of nanomaterials with intrinsic enzyme-like characteristics which overcome the limitations of natural enzymes such as high cost, low stability and... (Review)
Review
Nanozymes are a class of nanomaterials with intrinsic enzyme-like characteristics which overcome the limitations of natural enzymes such as high cost, low stability and difficulty to large scale preparation. Nanozymes combine the advantages of chemical catalysts and natural enzymes together, and have exhibited great potential in biomedical applications. However, the size controllable synthesis and targeting modifications of nanozymes are still challenging. Here, we introduce ferritin nanozymes to solve these problems. Ferritins are natural nanozymes which exhibit intrinsic enzyme-like activities ( ferroxidase, peroxidase). In addition, by biomimetically synthesizing nanozymes inside the ferritin protein shells, artificial ferritin nanozymes are introduced, which possess the advantages of versatile self-assembly ferritin nanocage and enzymatic activity of nanozymes. Ferritin nanozymes provide a new horizon for the development of nanozyme in disease targeted theranostics research. The emergence of ferritin nanozyme also inspires us to learn from the natural nanostructures to optimize or rationally design nanozymes. In this review, the intrinsic enzyme-like activities of ferritin and bioengineered synthesis of ferritin nanozyme were summarized. After that, the applications of ferritin nanozymes were covered. Finally, the advantages, challenges and future research directions of advanced ferritin nanozymes for biomedical research were discussed.
Topics: Animals; Enzymes; Ferritins; Humans; Nanostructures; Theranostic Nanomedicine
PubMed: 31903145
DOI: 10.7150/thno.39827 -
European Journal of Clinical... Jul 2022Randomized controlled trials (RCT) in mental disorders research commonly use active control groups including psychotherapeutic shams or inactive medication. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Randomized controlled trials (RCT) in mental disorders research commonly use active control groups including psychotherapeutic shams or inactive medication. This meta-analysis assessed whether placebo conditions (active controls) had an effect compared to no treatment or usual care (passive controls).
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Ovid, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science were searched from inception to April 2021 and reference lists of relevant articles. Three-arm RCTs, including active and passive control groups, were selected. Where individual standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculable, random effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate an overall effect size with 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing active vs passive controls. Heterogeneity was assessed using I² statistic and meta-regression. Funnel asymmetry was evaluated using Egger's test (Prospero registration: CRD42021242940).
RESULTS
24 articles with 25 relevant RCTs were included in the review, of which 11 studies were of high risk of bias. There was an improvement in outcomes favouring the placebo conditions, compared to passive controls, overall (25 studies, SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.06-0.42, I² = 43%) and in subgroups with anxiety (SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.07-0.84, I² = 59%) or depression (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.04-0.39, I² = 0%). Meta-regression did not show a significant explanation for heterogeneity. Egger's test showed no asymmetry (p = .200).
CONCLUSIONS
A small placebo effect was observed in mental disorders research overall, and in patients with anxiety or depression. These findings should be interpreted with caution in the light of heterogeneity and risk of bias.
Topics: Anxiety; Humans; Mental Disorders; Placebo Effect
PubMed: 35224726
DOI: 10.1111/eci.13762 -
Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism Aug 2021To assess how patient characteristics and study design influence the effectiveness of control interventions in hand OA trials. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess how patient characteristics and study design influence the effectiveness of control interventions in hand OA trials.
METHODS
The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020163473). Two authors independently searched four electronic databases from their inception to December 31, 2019. Randomized and non-randomized controlled hand OA trials were included if pain intensity was assessed using a validated scale. We allocated control groups into one of the following: placebo, add-on treatment, no treatment, or active treatment. The standardized mean differences (d) of pain, as well as subjective function and hand strength, were pooled with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and 90% prediction intervals using random-effects models. Meta-regression and post-hoc subgroup analyses were performed to investigate which factors potentially impacted placebo analgesia and between-study heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Thirty-one placebo, 11 add-on, 12 no-treatment, and 10 active-treatment controls were included in meta-analyses. Effective pain relief was observed in placebo (d = -0.50, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.37), add-on (d = -0.35, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.12), and active-treatment (d = -0.92, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.48) groups. In subjective function, these treatments had smaller but beneficial effects; hand strength, contrastingly, was not improved. Placebo effects were larger when flare designs were used (d = -0.96) and more homogeneous when minimum pain thresholds were set (d = -0.46, 90% prediction intervals -0.79 to -0.14).
CONCLUSION
Placebo, add-on, and active control treatments were more effective than the no treatment control in relieving hand pain and improving subjective function. By choosing minimum pain thresholds and flare requirements at patient enrollment, moderate pain relief may be replicated among control participants in future randomized placebo-controlled trials.
Topics: Control Groups; Hand; Humans; Osteoarthritis; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34146952
DOI: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2021.04.006 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) affects between 4% and 12% of people aged 55 to 70 years, and 20% of people over 70 years. A common complaint is intermittent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) affects between 4% and 12% of people aged 55 to 70 years, and 20% of people over 70 years. A common complaint is intermittent claudication (exercise-induced lower limb pain relieved by rest). These patients have a three- to six-fold increase in cardiovascular mortality. Cilostazol is a drug licensed for the use of improving claudication distance and, if shown to reduce cardiovascular risk, could offer additional clinical benefits. This is an update of the review first published in 2007.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of cilostazol on initial and absolute claudication distances, mortality and vascular events in patients with stable intermittent claudication.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registries, on 9 November 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered double-blind, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cilostazol versus placebo, or versus other drugs used to improve claudication distance in patients with stable intermittent claudication.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trials for selection and independently extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. We assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. For dichotomous outcomes, we used odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and for continuous outcomes we used mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs. We pooled data using a fixed-effect model, or a random-effects model when heterogeneity was identified. Primary outcomes were initial claudication distance (ICD) and quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes were absolute claudication distance (ACD), revascularisation, amputation, adverse events and cardiovascular events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 double-blind, RCTs (3972 participants) comparing cilostazol with placebo, of which five studies also compared cilostazol with pentoxifylline. Treatment duration ranged from six to 26 weeks. All participants had intermittent claudication secondary to PAD. Cilostazol dose ranged from 100 mg to 300 mg; pentoxifylline dose ranged from 800 mg to 1200 mg. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded by one level for all studies because publication bias was strongly suspected. Other reasons for downgrading were imprecision, inconsistency and selective reporting. Cilostazol versus placebo Participants taking cilostazol had a higher ICD compared with those taking placebo (MD 26.49 metres; 95% CI 18.93 to 34.05; 1722 participants; six studies; low-certainty evidence). We reported QoL measures descriptively due to insufficient statistical detail within the studies to combine the results; there was a possible indication in improvement of QoL in the cilostazol treatment groups (low-certainty evidence). Participants taking cilostazol had a higher ACD compared with those taking placebo (39.57 metres; 95% CI 21.80 to 57.33; 2360 participants; eight studies; very-low certainty evidence). The most commonly reported adverse events were headache, diarrhoea, abnormal stools, dizziness, pain and palpitations. Participants taking cilostazol had an increased odds of experiencing headache compared to participants taking placebo (OR 2.83; 95% CI 2.26 to 3.55; 2584 participants; eight studies; moderate-certainty evidence).Very few studies reported on other outcomes so conclusions on revascularisation, amputation, or cardiovascular events could not be made. Cilostazol versus pentoxifylline There was no difference detected between cilostazol and pentoxifylline for improving walking distance, both in terms of ICD (MD 20.0 metres, 95% CI -2.57 to 42.57; 417 participants; one study; low-certainty evidence); and ACD (MD 13.4 metres, 95% CI -43.50 to 70.36; 866 participants; two studies; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported on QoL; the study authors reported no difference in QoL between the treatment groups (very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on revascularisation, amputation or cardiovascular events. Cilostazol participants had an increased odds of experiencing headache compared with participants taking pentoxifylline at 24 weeks (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.17; 982 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Cilostazol has been shown to improve walking distance in people with intermittent claudication. However, participants taking cilostazol had higher odds of experiencing headache. There is insufficient evidence about the effectiveness of cilostazol for serious events such as amputation, revascularisation, and cardiovascular events. Despite the importance of QoL to patients, meta-analysis could not be undertaken because of differences in measures used and reporting. Very limited data indicated no difference between cilostazol and pentoxifylline for improving walking distance and data were too limited for any conclusions on other outcomes.
Topics: Aged; Bias; Cilostazol; Humans; Intermittent Claudication; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; Pentoxifylline; Peripheral Vascular Diseases; Placebos; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke; Tetrazoles; Walking
PubMed: 34192807
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003748.pub5 -
Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 2023The study aimed to evaluate the effects of honey on the incidence of post-operative pain in patients undergoing tonsillectomy. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVE
The study aimed to evaluate the effects of honey on the incidence of post-operative pain in patients undergoing tonsillectomy.
METHODS
This study is a double-blind and randomized controlled trial design. Twenty-four adult male patients underwent tonsillectomy surgery and were randomized assigned into three groups consist of honey group, placebo group, and control group. All subjects were given standard analgesia and antibiotics, also honey for the honey group and placebo for the placebo group, and only standard post-operative regimens for the control group. This study used silk-cotton tree or kapok tree honey (Ceiba pentandra). Honey was used by gargling every six hours for ten days. Likewise, the same method was applied in the placebo group. Pain scale was assessed for ten days using the Visual Analogue Scale questionnaire, and the frequency of analgesic drugs was recorded on days 1, 2, 4, 7, and 10.
RESULT
Honey group showed significantly higher pain reduction when compared to placebo and control groups, with a significant reduction in the pain scale on day 1, 2, 4, 7 and 10 (p = 0.034; p = 0.003; p < 0.001; p = 0.001; p = 0.001) gradually; Significant differences were also observed in analgesic use, especially on day 2, 4 and 7 (p = 0.028; p = 0.001; p = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS
Administration of Kapok tree honey (C. pentandra) after tonsillectomy might reduce post-operative pain and reduce the need for analgesia. Therefore, honey can be considered a complementary medicine and can be administered routinely as adjunctive therapy for post-operative patients.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Tonsillectomy; Honey; Pain, Postoperative; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Double-Blind Method
PubMed: 34716106
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2021.08.007 -
Advances in Nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) Sep 2023In 1997, the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) dietary reference intakes (DRI) Committee established a magnesium (Mg) tolerable upper intake level (UL) for adults of 350... (Review)
Review
In 1997, the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) dietary reference intakes (DRI) Committee established a magnesium (Mg) tolerable upper intake level (UL) for adults of 350 mg/d from supplemental intake alone. Diarrhea was the limiting factor. The safety of oral Mg dietary supplements exceeding the UL is currently in debate. Increasing the UL may result in more Mg supplementation, decreasing the prevalence of undernutrition for this nutrient and thus providing additional protection against numerous chronic diseases. This perspective aims to show that more recent and comprehensive evidence-based data on the occurrence of diarrhea indicate that the Mg UL for adults should be re-evaluated. To update the literature base to re-evaluate setting the Mg UL, a PubMed search was conducted to identify intervention studies published between 1997 and 2022 that used single-ingredient Mg products reporting a priori diarrhea adverse events among adults. The Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Adverse Event Reporting System (CAERS) was also searched for adverse events caused by Mg supplementation. The PubMed search identified 10 studies, including 5 meta-analyses and 5 randomized controlled trials, that met the search criteria. Seven studies (Mg intakes of 128-1200 mg/d) found no significant differences in diarrhea occurrence between the intervention and control groups. One meta-analysis found only minor differences in gastrointestinal disturbances between groups given placebo versus 520 mg Mg/d, but withdrawals were not significantly different between groups. Another meta-analysis found that 3 of 13 studies (120-973 mg/d) reported diarrhea that led to study withdrawal, but the treatment arm was not specified in 2 studies. The CAERS search, when limited to single-ingredient suspect Mg products, found only 40 attributable cases of gastrointestinal adverse events. Only one-third of these 40 cases noted a complaint of diarrhea. These updated data indicate that doses above the current UL for Mg supplements can be consumed without adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Diarrhea; Dietary Supplements; Gastrointestinal Tract; Magnesium; Malnutrition; Meta-Analysis as Topic
PubMed: 37487817
DOI: 10.1016/j.advnut.2023.06.008 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2020Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA; also known as mesalazine or mesalamine) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA; also known as mesalazine or mesalamine) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. In an earlier version of this review, we found that 5-ASA drugs were more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis (UC), but had a significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. In this version, we have rerun the search to bring the review up to date.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness, and safety of oral 5-ASA compared to placebo, SASP, or 5-ASA comparators for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC and to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing of oral 5-ASA with conventional (two or three times daily) dosing regimens.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a literature search for studies on 11 June 2019 using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. In addition, we searched review articles and conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials with a minimum treatment duration of six months. We considered studies of oral 5-ASA therapy for treatment of participants with quiescent UC compared with placebo, SASP, or other 5-ASA formulations. We also included studies that compared once-daily 5-ASA treatment with conventional dosing of 5-ASA and 5-ASA dose-ranging studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was the failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes were adherence, adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE), withdrawals due to AEs, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. Trials were separated into five comparison groups: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus SASP, once-daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA (balsalazide, Pentasa, and olsalazine) versus comparator 5-ASA formulation (Asacol and Salofalk), and 5-ASA dose-ranging. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome. We analyzed data on an intention-to-treat basis, and used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
The search identified 44 studies (9967 participants). Most studies were at low risk of bias. Ten studies were at high risk of bias. Seven of these studies were single-blind and three were open-label. 5-ASA is more effective than placebo for maintenance of clinical or endoscopic remission. About 37% (335/907) of 5-ASA participants relapsed at six to 12 months compared to 55% (355/648) of placebo participants (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.76; 8 studies, 1555 participants; high-certainty evidence). Adherence to study medication was not reported for this comparison. SAEs were reported in 1% (6/550) of participants in the 5-ASA group compared to 2% (5/276) of participants in the placebo group at six to 12 months (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.84; 3 studies, 826 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in AEs at six to 12 months' follow-up (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18; 5 studies, 1132 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). SASP is more effective than 5-ASA for maintenance of remission. About 48% (416/871) of 5-ASA participants relapsed at six to 18 months compared to 43% (336/784) of SASP participants (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.27; 12 studies, 1655 participants; high-certainty evidence). Adherence to study medication and SAEs were not reported for this comparison. There is probably little or no difference in AEs at six to 12 months' follow-up (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.40; 7 studies, 1138 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is little or no difference in clinical or endoscopic remission rates between once-daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA. About 37% (717/1939) of once-daily participants relapsed over 12 months compared to 39% (770/1971) of conventional-dosing participants (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01; 10 studies, 3910 participants; high-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in medication adherence rates. About 10% (106/1152) of participants in the once-daily group failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 8% (84/1154) of participants in the conventional-dosing group (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.93; 9 studies, 2306 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). About 3% (41/1587) of participants in the once-daily group experienced a SAE compared to 2% (35/1609) of participants in the conventional-dose group at six to 12 months (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.87; moderate-certainty evidence). There is little or no difference in the incidence of AEs at six to 13 months' follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.04; 8 studies, 3497 participants; high-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in the efficacy of different 5-ASA formulations. About 44% (158/358) of participants in the 5-ASA group relapsed at six to 18 months compared to 41% (142/349) of participants in the 5-ASA comparator group (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.28; 6 studies, 707 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is superior to placebo for maintenance therapy in UC. There is high-certainty evidence that 5-ASA is inferior compared to SASP. There is probably little or no difference between 5-ASA and placebo, and 5-ASA and SASP in commonly reported AEs such as flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache, and dyspepsia. Oral 5-ASA administered once daily has a similar benefit and harm profile as conventional dosing for maintenance of remission in quiescent UC.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Aminosalicylic Acids; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Bias; Colitis, Ulcerative; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Medication Adherence; Mesalamine; Patient Dropouts; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Remission Induction; Sulfasalazine
PubMed: 32856298
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000544.pub5 -
Virologica Sinica Oct 2022A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial was conducted in healthy Chinese infants to assess the efficacy and safety of a hexavalent live... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial was conducted in healthy Chinese infants to assess the efficacy and safety of a hexavalent live human-bovine reassortant rotavirus vaccine (HRV) against rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE). A total of 6400 participants aged 6-12 weeks were enrolled and randomly assigned to either HRV (n = 3200) or placebo (n = 3200) group. All the subjects received three oral doses of vaccine four weeks apart. The vaccine efficacy (VE) against RVGE caused by rotavirus serotypes contained in HRV was evaluated from 14 days after three doses of administration up until the end of the second rotavirus season. VE against severe RVGE, VE against RVGE hospitalization caused by serotypes contained in HRV, and VE against RVGE, severe RVGE, and RVGE hospitalization caused by natural infection of any serotype of rotavirus were also investigated. All adverse events (AEs) were collected for 30 days after each dose. Serious AEs (SAEs) and intussusception cases were collected during the entire study. Our data showed that VE against RVGE caused by serotypes contained in HRV was 69.21% (95%CI: 53.31-79.69). VE against severe RVGE and RVGE hospitalization caused by serotypes contained in HRV were 91.36% (95%CI: 78.45-96.53) and 89.21% (95%CI: 64.51-96.72) respectively. VE against RVGE, severe RVGE, and RVGE hospitalization caused by natural infection of any serotype of rotavirus were 62.88% (95%CI: 49.11-72.92), 85.51% (95%CI: 72.74-92.30) and 83.68% (95%CI: 61.34-93.11). Incidences of AEs from the first dose to one month post the third dose in HRV and placebo groups were comparable. There was no significant difference in incidences of SAEs in HRV and placebo groups. This study shows that this hexavalent reassortant rotavirus vaccine is an effective, well-tolerated, and safe vaccine for Chinese infants.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Animals; Cattle; China; Enterovirus Infections; Gastroenteritis; Humans; Infant; Rotavirus; Rotavirus Infections; Rotavirus Vaccines; Vaccination; Vaccines, Attenuated; Vaccines, Combined
PubMed: 35926726
DOI: 10.1016/j.virs.2022.07.011