-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2015Multiple sclerosis (MS) often leads to severe neurological disability and a serious decline in quality of life. The ideal target of disease-modifying therapy for MS is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Multiple sclerosis (MS) often leads to severe neurological disability and a serious decline in quality of life. The ideal target of disease-modifying therapy for MS is to prevent disability worsening and improve quality of life. Dimethyl fumarate is considered to have an immunomodulatory activity and neuroprotective effect. It has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency as a first-line therapy for adult patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RMSS).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefit and safety of dimethyl fumarate as monotherapy or combination therapy versus placebo or other approved disease-modifying drugs (interferon beta, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, fingolimod, teriflunomide, alemtuzumab) for patients with MS.
SEARCH METHODS
The Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Trials Specialised Register of the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group (4 June 2014). We checked reference lists of published reviews and retrieved articles and searched reports (2004 to June 2014) from the MS societies in Europe and America. We also communicated with investigators participating in trials of dimethyl fumarate and the Biogen Idec Medical Information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, controlled, parallel-group clinical trials (RCTs) with a length of follow-up equal to or greater than one year evaluating dimethyl fumarate, as monotherapy or combination therapy, versus placebo or other approved disease-modifying drugs for patients with MS without restrictions regarding dosage, administration frequency and duration of treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures of The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by consensus among the review authors. We contacted the principal investigators of included studies for additional data or confirmation of data.
MAIN RESULTS
Two RCTs were included, involving 2667 adult patients with RRMS to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two dosages of dimethyl fumarate (240 mg orally three times daily or twice daily) by direct comparison with placebo for two years. Among them, a subsample of 1221 (45.8%) patients were selected to participate in MRI evaluations by each study site with MRI capabilities itself. No powered head-to-head study with an active treatment comparator has been found. Meta-analyses showed that dimethyl fumarate both three times daily and twice daily reduced the number of patients with a relapse (risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.66, P < 0.00001 and 0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.77, P < 0.00001, respectively) or disability worsening (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.87, P = 0.0009 and 0.65, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81, P = 0.0001, respectively) over two years, compared to placebo. The treatment effects were decreased in the likely-case scenario analyses taking the effect of dropouts into consideration. Both dosages also reduced the annualised relapse rate. Data of active lesions on MRI scans were not combined because there was a high risk of selection bias for MRI outcomes and imprecision of MRI data in both studies, as well as an obvious heterogeneity between the studies. In terms of safety profile, both dosages increased the risk for adverse events and the risk for drug discontinuation due to adverse events. The most common adverse events included flushing and gastrointestinal events (upper abdominal pain, nausea and diarrhoea). Uncommon adverse events included lymphopenia and leukopenia, but they were more likely to happen with dimethyl fumarate than with placebo (high dosage: RR 5.25, 95% CI 2.20 to 12.51, P = 0.0002 and 5.23, 95% CI 2.47 to 11.07, P < 0.0001, respectively; low dosage: RR 5.69, 95% CI 2.40 to 13.46, P < 0.0001 and 6.53, 95% CI 3.13 to 13.64, P < 0.00001, respectively). Both studies had a high attrition bias resulting from the unbalanced reasons for dropouts among groups. Quality of evidence for relapse outcome was moderate, but for disability worsening was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-quality evidence to support that dimethyl fumarate at a dose of 240 mg orally three times daily or twice daily reduces both the number of patients with a relapse and the annualised relapse rate over two years of treatment in comparison with placebo. However, the quality of the evidence to support the benefit in reducing the number of patients with disability worsening is low. There is no high-quality data available to evaluate the benefit on MRI outcomes. The common adverse effects such as flushing and gastrointestinal events are mild-to-moderate for most patients. Lymphopenia and leukopenia are uncommon adverse events but significantly associated with dimethyl fumarate. Both dosages of dimethyl fumarate have similar benefit and safety profile, which supports the option of low-dose administration. New studies of high quality and long-term follow-up are needed to evaluate the benefit of dimethyl fumarate on prevention of disability worsening and to observe the long-term adverse effects including progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Dimethyl Fumarate; Drug Administration Schedule; Fumarates; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-Remitting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25900414
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011076.pub2 -
The American Journal of Clinical... Feb 2013Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies have provided information on the association between vitamin B-12 intake and biomarkers. The use of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Systematic review with dose-response meta-analyses between vitamin B-12 intake and European Micronutrient Recommendations Aligned's prioritized biomarkers of vitamin B-12 including randomized controlled trials and observational studies in adults and elderly persons.
BACKGROUND
Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies have provided information on the association between vitamin B-12 intake and biomarkers. The use of these data to estimate dose-response relations provides a useful means to summarize the body of evidence.
OBJECTIVE
We systematically reviewed studies that investigated vitamin B-12 intake and biomarkers of vitamin B-12 status and estimated dose-response relations with the use of a meta-analysis.
DESIGN
This systematic review included all RCTs, prospective cohort studies, nested case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies in healthy adult populations published through January 2010 that supplied or measured dietary vitamin B-12 intake and measured vitamin B-12 status as serum or plasma vitamin B-12, methylmalonic acid (MMA), or holotranscobalamin. We calculated an intake-status regression coefficient ( ) for each individual study and calculated the overall pooled and SE ( ) by using random-effects meta-analysis on a double-log scale.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis of observational studies showed a weaker slope of dose-response relations than the meta-analysis of RCTs. The pooled dose-response relation of all studies between vitamin B-12 intake and status indicated that a doubling of the vitamin B-12 intake increased vitamin B-12 concentrations by 11% (95% CI: 9.4%, 12.5%). This increase was larger for studies in elderly persons (13%) than in studies in adults (8%). The dose-response relation between vitamin B-12 intake and MMA concentrations indicated a decrease in MMA of 7% (95% CI: -10%, -4%) for every doubling of the vitamin B-12 intake. The assessment of risk of bias within individual studies and across studies indicated risk that was unlikely to seriously alter these results.
CONCLUSION
The obtained dose-response estimate between vitamin B-12 intake and status provides complementary evidence to underpin recommendations for a vitamin B-12 intake of populations.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aging; Biomarkers; European Union; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Methylmalonic Acid; Nutrition Policy; Nutritional Requirements; Transcobalamins; Vitamin B 12; Vitamin B 12 Deficiency
PubMed: 23269815
DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.112.033951 -
Annales de Chirurgie Plastique Et... Aug 2017The management of hidradenitis suppurativa is multidisciplinary, involving general measures, medical treatment and surgery. Non-surgical treatments, often first-line... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The management of hidradenitis suppurativa is multidisciplinary, involving general measures, medical treatment and surgery. Non-surgical treatments, often first-line procedures, mainly concern forms of low-to-moderate severity or, conversely, very severe forms in non-operable patients or those refusing surgery. While many treatments have been attempted, few randomized controlled trials have been conducted, so the choice of treatments is most often based on the personal experience of the clinicians. The objective of this systematic review is to propose a synthetic analysis of the currently available non-surgical procedures.
METHODS
This systematic review of the literature was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA criteria. We searched for articles in the Medline, PubMed Central, Embase and Cochrane databases published between January 2005 and September 2015.
RESULTS
Sixty-four articles were included. They generally had a low level of evidence; indeed, the majority of them were retrospective observational studies. They involved biotherapy (44%), dynamic phototherapy (16%), antibiotics (11%), Laser (8%), retinoids (6%) and immunosuppressive therapies, anti-inflammatory drugs, zinc, metformin, gammaglobulins and fumarates.
CONCLUSIONS
None of the non-surgical treatments can treat all stages of the disease and offer long-term remission. Antibiotics and biotherapy seem to have real effectiveness but their effect remains suspensive and the disease is almost certain to reappear once they are stopped. As regards antibiotics, no association has shown their superiority in a study with a high level of evidence. And while some biotherapies seem quite effective, due to their side effects they should be reserved for moderate-to-severe, resistant or inoperable forms of the disease. Randomized controlled studies are needed before valid conclusions can be drawn. In the resistant or disabling forms, it is consequently advisable to orientate to the greatest possible extent towards radical surgery, which is the only treatment allowing hope for cure.
Topics: Androgen Antagonists; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Biological Products; Dermatologic Agents; Fumarates; Hidradenitis Suppurativa; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Immunoglobulins; Immunosuppressive Agents; Laser Therapy; Metformin; Phototherapy; Retinoids
PubMed: 28457725
DOI: 10.1016/j.anplas.2017.03.012 -
BMC Pharmacology & Toxicology Dec 2020Bempedoic acid is a new drug that reduces cholesterol synthesis via inhibiting ATP citrate lyase. It remains unclear whether the combination of bempedoic acid and other... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid alone or combining with other lipid-lowering therapies in hypercholesterolemic patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Bempedoic acid is a new drug that reduces cholesterol synthesis via inhibiting ATP citrate lyase. It remains unclear whether the combination of bempedoic acid and other lipid-lowering drugs is better than these drugs alone. This study systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid monotherapy or combination togethers in hypercholesterolemic patients.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials were searched across Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, web of science, etc. The net change scores [least squares mean (LSM) percentage change] in LDL-C level were meta-analyzed using weighted mean difference. The reductions in other lipids including total cholesterol (TC), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and apolipoprotein (ApoB) and high sensitivity C reactive protein (hsCRP) were also assessed. Odds ratio (OR) of the incidence of adverse events (AEs) were calculated to evaluate the safety of bempedoic acid.
RESULTS
A total of 13 trials (4858 participates) were included. Pooled data showed that the combination togethers resulted in greater reductions in LDL-C level than monotherapies (bempedoic acid + statin vs. statin: LSM difference (%), - 18.37, 95% CI, - 20.16 to - 16.57, I = 0; bempedoic acid + ezetimibe vs. ezetimibe: LSM difference (%), - 18.89, 95% CI, - 29.66 to - 8.13, I = 87%). But the difference in efficacy between bempedoic acid and ezetimibe was not obvious. Meta-regression analysis showed the treatment duration was a source of heterogeneity (adj R = 16.92, 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.72). Furthermore, the background therapy of statin before screening decreased the efficacy of bempedoic acid. In addition, bempedoic acid also resulted in a significant reduction in TC, non-HDL-C, ApoB and hsCRP level. The OR of muscle-related AEs by the combination of bempedoic acid and statin was 1.29 (95% CI, 1.00 to 1.67, I = 0) when compared with statin alone.
CONCLUSION
This study showed the efficacy of combination togethers were similar but stronger than these drugs alone. Of note, a trend of high risk of muscle-related AEs by the combination of bempedoic acid and statin was observed, though it is not statistically significant, such risk is needed to be confirmed by more trials, because it is important for us to determine which is the better combinative administration for statin-intolerant patients.
Topics: Anticholesteremic Agents; Dicarboxylic Acids; Drug Therapy, Combination; Fatty Acids; Humans; Hypercholesterolemia; Hypolipidemic Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33276805
DOI: 10.1186/s40360-020-00463-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2011Elective medical or surgical procedures are commonplace for neonates admitted to NICU. Agents such as opioids are commonly used for achieving... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Elective medical or surgical procedures are commonplace for neonates admitted to NICU. Agents such as opioids are commonly used for achieving sedation/analgesia/anaesthesia for such procedures; however, these agents are associated with adverse effects. Propofol is used widely in paediatric and adult populations for this purpose. The efficacy and safety of the use of propofol in neonates has not been defined.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of propofol treatment compared to placebo or no treatment or alternate active agents in neonates undergoing sedation or anaesthesia for procedures. To conduct subgroup analyses according to method of propofol administration (bolus or continuous infusion), type of active control agent (neuromuscular blocking agents with or without the use of sedative, analgesics or anxiolytics), type of procedure (endotracheal intubation, eye examination, other procedure), and gestational age (preterm and term).
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched MEDLINE (1950 to September 30, 2010), EMBASE (1980 to September 30, 2010) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2) for eligible studies without language restriction. We searched reference lists of identified articles and abstracts submitted to Pediatric Academic Societies (2002 to 2009), and international trials registries for eligible articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of propofol versus placebo, no treatment or other sedative/anaesthetic/analgesic agents in isolation or combination used in neonates for procedures.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We collected and analysed data in accordance with the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group.
MAIN RESULTS
One open-label randomised controlled trial of 63 neonates was eligible for inclusion. Thirty-three neonates in the propofol group were compared to 30 infants in the morphine-atropine-suxamethonium group. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of infants who required multiple intubation attempts (39% in the propofol group versus 57% in the morphine-atropine-suxamethonium group; RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.29). Times required to prepare medication, to complete the procedure and for recovery to previous clinical status were shorter in the propofol group. No difference in clinically significant side effects was observed; however, the number of events was small.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No practice recommendation can be made based on the available evidence regarding the use of propofol in neonates. Further research is needed on the pharmacokinetics of propofol in neonates and once a relatively safe dose is identified, randomised controlled trials assessing the safety and efficacy of propofol are needed.
Topics: Analgesia; Anesthesia; Atropine; Drug Combinations; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant, Newborn; Intubation, Intratracheal; Morphine; Neuromuscular Depolarizing Agents; Propofol; Succinylcholine
PubMed: 21412900
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007248.pub2 -
Surgery For Obesity and Related... 2016Earlier publications have shown renal stone complications after bariatric surgery. Multiple reports have also linked metabolic changes that alter the urinary chemistry... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Earlier publications have shown renal stone complications after bariatric surgery. Multiple reports have also linked metabolic changes that alter the urinary chemistry profiles, especially hyperoxaluria, after bariatric surgery. However, evidence on change of other urine chemistry studies and type of bariatric surgery and risk of stone has been inconclusive so far.
OBJECTIVES
To explore the association between bariatric surgery and postoperative urinary chemistry change and risk of stone formation SETTING: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We comprehensively searched the databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from their dates of inception to January 2016. The inclusion criteria were published studies of association between bariatric surgery and postoperative renal stone formation or urine chemistry profiles. We used random-effects model meta-analysis and calculated the pooled risk of renal stone and difference in 24-hour urine chemistry profiles.
RESULTS
Twelve observational studies were included in the meta-analysis. There was significantly higher risk of stone formation after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery with pooled relative risk = 1.79 (95% CI: 1.54-2.10). In the analysis of urine chemistry profiles, there was significantly higher calcium oxalate supersaturation, lower citrate, and lower volume postoperatively compared with preoperatively. There was also higher urine oxalate in patients who had bariatric surgery compared with nonsurgery controls.
CONCLUSIONS
Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery is associated with higher risk of renal stone and increased urine oxalate and calcium oxalate supersaturation.
Topics: Calcium Oxalate; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Female; Gastric Bypass; Humans; Hyperoxaluria; Kidney Calculi; Male; Obesity; Observational Studies as Topic; Postoperative Complications; Risk Factors
PubMed: 27396545
DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2016.04.004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Inflammatory bowel disease affects approximately seven million people globally. Iron deficiency anaemia can occur as a common systemic manifestation, with a prevalence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Inflammatory bowel disease affects approximately seven million people globally. Iron deficiency anaemia can occur as a common systemic manifestation, with a prevalence of up to 90%, which can significantly affect quality of life, both during periods of active disease or in remission. It is important that iron deficiency anaemia is treated effectively and not be assumed to be a normal finding of inflammatory bowel disease. The various routes of iron administration, doses and preparations present varying advantages and disadvantages, and a significant proportion of people experience adverse effects with current therapies. Currently, no consensus has been reached amongst physicians as to which treatment path is most beneficial.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the interventions for the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in people with inflammatory bowel disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases on 21st November 2019. We also contacted experts in the field and searched references of trials for any additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness and safety of iron administration interventions compared to other iron administration interventions or placebo in the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in inflammatory bowel disease. We considered both adults and children, with studies reporting outcomes of clinical, endoscopic, histologic or surgical remission as defined by study authors.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment of included studies. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 studies (1670 randomised participants) that met the inclusion criteria. The studies compared intravenous iron sucrose vs oral iron sulphate (2 studies); oral iron sulphate vs oral iron hydroxide polymaltose complex (1 study); oral iron fumarate vs intravenous iron sucrose (1 study); intravenous ferric carboxymaltose vs intravenous iron sucrose (1 study); erythropoietin injection + intravenous iron sucrose vs intravenous iron sucrose + injection placebo (1 study); oral ferric maltol vs oral placebo (1 study); oral ferric maltol vs intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (1 study); intravenous ferric carboxymaltose vs oral iron sulphate (1 study); intravenous iron isomaltoside vs oral iron sulphate (1 study); erythropoietin injection vs oral placebo (1 study). All studies compared participants with CD and UC together, as well as considering a range of disease activity states. The primary outcome of number of responders, when defined, was stated to be an increase in haemoglobin of 20 g/L in all but two studies in which an increase in 10g/L was used. In one study comparing intravenous ferric carboxymaltose and intravenous iron sucrose, moderate-certainty evidence was found that intravenous ferric carboxymaltose was probably superior to intravenous iron sucrose, although there were responders in both groups (150/244 versus 118/239, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.46, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 9). In one study comparing oral ferric maltol to placebo, there was low-certainty evidence of superiority of the iron (36/64 versus 0/64, RR 73.00, 95% CI 4.58 to 1164.36). There were no other direct comparisons that found any difference in the primary outcomes, although certainty was low and very low for all outcomes, due to imprecision from sparse data and risk of bias varying between moderate and high risk. The reporting of secondary outcomes was inconsistent. The most common was the occurrence of serious adverse events or those requiring withdrawal of therapy. In no comparisons was there a difference seen between any of the intervention agents being studied, although the certainty was very low for all comparisons made, due to risk of bias and significant imprecision due to the low numbers of events. Time to remission, histological and biochemical outcomes were sparsely reported in the studies. None of the other secondary outcomes were reported in any of the studies. An analysis of all intravenous iron preparations to all oral iron preparations showed that intravenous administration may lead to more responders (368/554 versus 205/373, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31, NNTB = 11, low-certainty due to risk of bias and inconsistency). Withdrawals due to adverse events may be greater in oral iron preparations vs intravenous (15/554 versus 31/373, RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.74, low-certainty due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Intravenous ferric carboxymaltose probably leads to more people having resolution of IDA (iron deficiency anaemia) than intravenous iron sucrose. Oral ferric maltol may lead to more people having resolution of IDA than placebo. We are unable to draw conclusions on which of the other treatments is most effective in IDA with IBD (inflammatory bowel disease) due to low numbers of studies in each comparison area and clinical heterogeneity within the studies. Therefore, there are no other conclusions regarding the treatments that can be made and certainty of all findings are low or very low. Overall, intravenous iron delivery probably leads to greater response in patients compared with oral iron, with a NNTB (number needed to treat) of 11. Whilst no serious adverse events were specifically elicited with any of the treatments studied, the numbers of reported events were low and the certainty of these findings very low for all comparisons, so no conclusions can be drawn. There may be more withdrawals due to such events when oral is compared with intravenous iron delivery. Other outcomes were poorly reported and once again no conclusions can be made as to the impact of IDA on any of these outcomes. Given the widespread use of many of these treatments in practice and the only guideline that exists recommending the use of intravenous iron in favour of oral iron, research to investigate this key issue is clearly needed. Considering the current ongoing trials identified in this review, these are more focussed on the impact in specific patient groups (young people) or on other symptoms (such as fatigue). Therefore, there is a need for studies to be performed to fill this evidence gap.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Anemia, Iron-Deficiency; Bias; Colitis, Ulcerative; Crohn Disease; Disaccharides; Erythropoietin; Ferric Compounds; Ferric Oxide, Saccharated; Fumarates; Hematinics; Humans; Iron Compounds; Maltose; Middle Aged; Placebos; Pyrones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 33471939
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013529.pub2 -
The British Journal of Dermatology Feb 2014Dermatologists may choose from various conventional and biological systemic agents to treat patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. We set out to analyse... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Dermatologists may choose from various conventional and biological systemic agents to treat patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. We set out to analyse systematically the efficacy and tolerability of approved treatments for moderate-to-severe psoriasis. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of systemic treatment approved for moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Efficacy was assessed as the proportion of participants with 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index at primary efficacy measurement (week 8-16). Safety was summarized as rates of adverse events and withdrawals. Direct and indirect comparative efficacy was assessed by random effects meta-analysis of risk differences (RDs). In total, 48 eligible RCTs totalling 16 696 patients (11 178 randomized to biologics, 1888 to conventional treatments) were identified. In placebo-controlled trials, infliximab was the most efficacious [RD 76%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 73-79%]. Adalimumab (RD 61%, 95% CI 56-67%), and ustekinumab 45 mg (RD 63%, 95% CI 59-66%) and 90 mg (RD 67%, 95% CI 60-74%) each had similar efficacy. These biologics are more effective than etanercept and all conventional treatments. Head-to-head trials indicate the superiority of adalimumab and infliximab over methotrexate (MTX), the superiority of ustekinumab over etanercept, the nonsignificant superiority of ciclosporin over MTX, and the dose-dependent efficacy of etanercept and ustekinumab. Fumaric acid is as efficacious as MTX. Safety of treatments could not be pooled due to a lack of standardization in reporting across trials. In conclusion, the qualitative and quantitative evidence is much stronger for biological interventions than for conventional treatments.
Topics: Biological Factors; Cyclosporine; Dermatologic Agents; Fumarates; Humans; Methotrexate; Psoriasis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retinoids; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24131260
DOI: 10.1111/bjd.12663 -
The British Journal of Dermatology Nov 2016Fumaric acid esters (FAEs) are licensed for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis in Germany but are also used off-label in many other countries. We conducted... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Fumaric acid esters (FAEs) are licensed for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis in Germany but are also used off-label in many other countries. We conducted this systematic review to synthesize the highest-quality evidence for the benefits and risks of FAEs for psoriasis. Our primary outcomes were change in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score and dropout rates due to adverse effects. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of FAEs or dimethylfumarate were included, with no restriction on age or psoriasis subtype. We searched the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, LILACS and five trials registers, and hand searched six conference proceedings. Six RCTs with a total of 544 participants were included, four of which were published only as abstracts or brief reports, limiting study reporting. Five RCTs compared FAEs with placebo, and all demonstrated benefit in favour of FAEs. However, meta-analysis was possible only for PASI 50 response after 12-16 weeks, which was achieved by 64% of participants on FAEs compared with 14% on placebo: risk ratio (RR) 4·55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2·80-7·40; two studies; 247 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in dropout rates due to adverse effects (RR 5·36, 95% CI 0·28-102·12; one study; 27 participants; very low-quality evidence and wide CI). More participants experienced nuisance adverse effects with FAEs (76%) than with placebo (16%) (RR 4·72, 95% CI 2·45-9·08; one study; 99 participants; moderate-quality evidence), mainly abdominal pain, diarrhoea and flushing. One head-to-head study of very low-quality evidence comparing FAEs with methotrexate reported comparable efficacy and dropout rates, although FAEs caused more flushing. The evidence in this review was limited and must be interpreted with caution; studies with better design and outcome reporting are needed.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Dermatologic Agents; Fumarates; Humans; Methotrexate; Placebos; Psoriasis; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27087044
DOI: 10.1111/bjd.14676 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jan 2012To examine the safety of using aliskiren combined with agents used to block the renin-angiotensin system. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The effect of combination treatment with aliskiren and blockers of the renin-angiotensin system on hyperkalaemia and acute kidney injury: systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the safety of using aliskiren combined with agents used to block the renin-angiotensin system.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and two trial registries, published up to 7 May 2011.
STUDY SELECTION
Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that compared combined treatment using aliskiren and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers with monotherapy using these agents for at least four weeks and that provided numerical data on the adverse event outcomes of hyperkalaemia and acute kidney injury. A random effects model was used to calculate pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals for these outcomes.
RESULTS
10 randomised controlled studies (4814 participants) were included in the analysis. Combination therapy with aliskiren and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers significantly increased the risk of hyperkalaemia compared with monotherapy using angiotensin converting enzymes or angiotensin receptor blockers (relative risk 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.24 to 2.02) or aliskiren alone (1.67, 1.01 to 2.79). The risk of acute kidney injury did not differ significantly between the combined therapy and monotherapy groups (1.14, 0.68 to 1.89).
CONCLUSION
Use of aliskerin in combination with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers is associated with an increased risk for hyperkalaemia. The combined use of these agents warrants careful monitoring of serum potassium levels.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Amides; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Fumarates; Humans; Hyperkalemia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 22232539
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.e42