-
European Heart Journal Aug 2009Currently, clopidogrel is recommended for treatment of patients with acute coronary syndrome and/or percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the delayed onset of the... (Review)
Review
Currently, clopidogrel is recommended for treatment of patients with acute coronary syndrome and/or percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the delayed onset of the effect and the occurrence of poor platelet inhibition responders with clopidogrel as well as non-compliance to dual antiplatelet treatment are associated with a raised risk of stent thrombosis. The molecular target of the active metabolite of clopidogrel and several emerging antiplatelet treatments is the P2Y(12) receptor, which is the main platelet receptor responsible for ADP-induced platelet aggregation. Active metabolites of the thienopyridine prodrugs (ticlopidine, clopidogrel, and prasugrel) covalently bind to the P2Y(12) receptor and are irreversible, indirect platelet inhibitors. The newer, direct-acting P2Y(12) inhibitors (cangrelor and ticagrelor) change the conformation of the P2Y(12) receptor, resulting in reversible, concentration dependent inhibition of the receptor. An understanding of the similarities and differences in the properties and mechanisms of action of these new inhibitors compared with clopidogrel is needed in order to optimize the development and use of these agents in clinical practice. The objectives of this systematic review are to summarize the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacogenetics of the different P2Y(12) inhibitors and to discuss the clinical implications for treatment of patients.
Topics: Acute Coronary Syndrome; Clopidogrel; Cytochrome P-450 Enzyme System; Humans; Piperazines; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Polymorphism, Genetic; Prasugrel Hydrochloride; Purinergic P2 Receptor Antagonists; Pyridines; Thiophenes; Ticlopidine
PubMed: 19633016
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehp296 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2013Some antiepileptic drugs but not others are useful in clinical practice for the prophylaxis of migraine. This might be explained by the variety of actions of these drugs... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Some antiepileptic drugs but not others are useful in clinical practice for the prophylaxis of migraine. This might be explained by the variety of actions of these drugs in the central nervous system. The present review is part of an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated (conclusions not changed) in 2007.
OBJECTIVES
To describe and assess the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin/gabapentin enacarbil or pregabalin for preventing migraine attacks in adult patients with episodic migraine.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to 15 January 2013), MEDLINE In-Process (current week, 15 January 2013), and EMBASE (1974 to 15 January 2013) and handsearched Headache and Cephalalgia through January 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were required to be prospective, controlled trials of gabapentin/gabapentin enacarbil or pregabalin taken regularly to prevent the occurrence of migraine attacks, to improve migraine-related quality of life, or both.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. For headache frequency data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) between gabapentin and comparator (placebo, active control, or gabapentin in a different dose) for individual studies and pooled these across studies. For dichotomous data on responders (patients with ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency), we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and numbers needed to treat (NNTs). We also summarised data on adverse events from all single dosage studies and calculated risk differences (RDs) and numbers needed to harm (NNHs).
MAIN RESULTS
Five trials on gabapentin and one trial on its prodrug gabapentin enacarbil met the inclusion criteria; no reports on pregabalin were identified. In total, data from 1009 patients were considered. One trial each of gabapentin 900 mg (53 patients), and gabapentin titrated to 1200 mg (63 patients) and 1800 mg (122 patients) failed to show a statistically significant reduction in headache frequency in the active treatment group as compared to the placebo group, whereas one trial of gabapentin titrated to 1800 to 2400 mg (113 patients) demonstrated a small but statistically significant superiority of active treatment for this outcome (MD -0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.55 to -0.05). The pooled results of these four studies (MD -0.44; 95% CI -1.43 to 0.56; 351 patients) do not demonstrate a significant difference between gabapentin and placebo. One trial of gabapentin titrated to 1800 mg (122 patients) failed to demonstrate a significant difference between active treatment and placebo in the proportion of responders (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.11), whereas one trial of gabapentin titrated to 1800 to 2400 mg (113 patients) demonstrated a small but statistically significant superiority of active treatment for this outcome (OR 2.79; 95% CI 1.09 to 7.17). The pooled results of these two studies (OR 1.59; 95% CI 0.57 to 4.46; 235 patients) do not demonstrate a significant difference between gabapentin and placebo. Comparisons from one study (135 patients) suggest that gabapentin 2000 mg is no more effective than gabapentin 1200 mg. One trial of gabapentin enacarbil (523 participants) failed to demonstrate a significant difference versus placebo or between doses for gabapentin enacarbil titrated to between 1200 mg and 3000 mg with regard to proportion of responders; there was also no evidence of a dose-response trend. Adverse events, most notably dizziness and somnolence, were common with gabapentin.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The pooled evidence derived from trials of gabapentin suggests that it is not efficacious for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults. Since adverse events were common among the gabapentin-treated patients, it is advocated that gabapentin should not be used in routine clinical practice. Gabapentin enacarbil is not efficacious for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults. There is no published evidence from controlled trials of pregabalin for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults.
Topics: Adult; Amines; Anticonvulsants; Carbamates; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Gabapentin; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Pregabalin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 23797675
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010609 -
Orvosi Hetilap Mar 20095-aminosalicylate (5-ASA) agents remain the mainstay treatment in ulcerative colitis (UC). A number of oral 5-ASA agents is commercially available, including azo-bond... (Review)
Review
5-aminosalicylate (5-ASA) agents remain the mainstay treatment in ulcerative colitis (UC). A number of oral 5-ASA agents is commercially available, including azo-bond pro-drugs such as sulfasalazine, olsalazine and balsalazide, and delayed- and controlled-release forms of mesalazine. In addition, the effectiveness of oral therapy relies on good compliance, which may be adversely affected by frequent daily dosing and a large number of tablets. Furthermore, poor adherence has been shown to be an important barrier to successful management of patients with UC. Recently, new, once-daily formulations of mesalazine including the unique multi-matrix delivery system and mesalazine granules were proven to be efficacious in inducing and maintaining remission in mild-to-moderate UC, with a good safety profile comparable to that of other oral mesalazine formulations. In addition, they offer the advantage of low pill burden and may contribute to increased long-term compliance and treatment success in clinical practice and might potentially further contribute to a decline in the risk for UC-associated colon cancers. In this systematic review, the authors summarize the available literature on the short- and medium-term efficacy and safety of the new once-daily mesalazine formulations.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Colitis, Ulcerative; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Medication Adherence; Mesalamine; Remission Induction; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 19228568
DOI: 10.1556/OH.2009.28555 -
Journal of Neuro-oncology Feb 2019Glioma surgery at its nascency relied predominantly on visual and tactile feedback for the removal of grossly abnormal tissue. This technique has inherent limitations in...
BACKGROUND
Glioma surgery at its nascency relied predominantly on visual and tactile feedback for the removal of grossly abnormal tissue. This technique has inherent limitations in delineating infiltrative tumor from normal brain, thus limiting the ability to achieve a gross total resection consistently. Since extent of resection (EOR) is consistently correlated with measures of survival, fluorescence-guided surgery shows promise in improving our ability to treat high-grade gliomas (HGG). 5-Aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) is a prodrug preferentially metabolized by glioma cells that allows direct, real-time visualization of pathologic tissue through fluorescence under blue light.
OBJECTIVE
To report the relationship between 5-ALA and EOR in newly diagnosed HGG. To report our institutional experience including nuances of workflow.
METHODS
The authors performed a systematic review of the available literature between 1998 and 2018 to isolate studies addressing the impact of fluorescence-guided surgery with 5-ALA on the EOR in newly diagnosed HGG. Search strategy was in adherence to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses methodology.
RESULTS
Out of 741 unique articles, eight fulfilled our strict inclusion criteria. Fluorescence-guided resection led to greater EOR in all studies, with six demonstrating statistical significance (p < 0.05). Two studies additionally demonstrated statistically significant increase in progression-free survival in the 5-ALA groups.
CONCLUSIONS
5-ALA has an unambiguously positive impact on improving EOR for newly diagnosed HGG. Since the nature of modern glioma surgery includes a complex arsenal of surgical adjuncts, 5-ALA is seldom examined in isolation and can be complemented by intraoperative MRI.
Topics: Aminolevulinic Acid; Brain Neoplasms; Fluorescent Dyes; Glioma; Humans; Optical Imaging; Surgery, Computer-Assisted
PubMed: 30506501
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-018-03061-3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2013Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the cornerstone of asthma maintenance treatment in children. Particularly among parents, there is concern about the safety of ICS as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the cornerstone of asthma maintenance treatment in children. Particularly among parents, there is concern about the safety of ICS as studies in children have shown reduced growth. Small-particle-size ICS targeting the smaller airways have improved lung deposition and effective asthma control might be achieved at lower daily doses.Ciclesonide is a relatively new ICS. This small-particle ICS is a pro-drug that is converted in the airways to an active metabolite and therefore with potentially less local (throat infection) and systemic (reduced growth) side effects. It can be inhaled once daily, thereby possibly improving adherence.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of ciclesonide compared to other ICS in the management of chronic asthma in children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials with pre-defined terms. Additional searches of MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE and Clinical study results.org were undertaken. Searches are up to date to 7 November 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled parallel or cross-over studies were eligible for the review. We included studies comparing ciclesonide with other corticosteroids both at nominally equivalent doses or lower doses of ciclesonide.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse effects information was collected from the trials.
MAIN RESULTS
Six studies were included in this review (3256 children, 4 to 17 years of age). Two studies were published as conference abstracts only. Ciclesonide was compared to budesonide and fluticasone.Ciclesonide compared to budesonide (dose ratio 1:2): asthma symptoms and adverse effect were similar in both groups. Pooled results showed no significant difference in children who experience an exacerbation (risk ratio (RR) 2.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 6.43). Both studies reported that 24-hour urine cortisol levels showed a statistically significant decrease in the budesonide group compared to the ciclesonide group.Ciclesonide compared to fluticasone (dose ratio 1:1): no significant differences were found for the outcome asthma symptoms. Pooled results showed no significant differences in number of patients with exacerbations (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.21) and data from a study that could not be pooled in the meta-analysis reported similar numbers of patients with exacerbations in both groups. None of the studies found a difference in adverse effects. No significant difference was found for 24-hour urine cortisol levels between the groups (mean difference 0.54 nmol/mmol, 95% CI -5.92 to 7.00).Ciclesonide versus fluticasone (dose ratio 1:2) was assessed in one study and showed similar results between the two corticosteroids for asthma symptoms. The number of children with exacerbations was significantly higher in the ciclesonide group (RR 3.57, 95% CI 1.35 to 9.47). No significant differences were found in adverse effects (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.14) and 24-hour urine cortisol levels (mean difference 1.15 nmol/mmol, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.23).The quality of evidence was judged 'low' for the outcomes asthma symptoms and adverse events and 'very low' for the outcome exacerbations for ciclesonide versus budesonide (dose ratio 1:1). The quality of evidence was graded 'moderate' for the outcome asthma symptoms, 'very low' for the outcome exacerbations and 'low' for the outcome adverse events for ciclesonide versus fluticasone (dose ratio 1:1). For ciclesonide versus fluticasone (dose ratio 1:2) the quality was rated 'low' for the outcome asthma symptoms and 'very low' for exacerbations and adverse events (dose ratio 1:2).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
An improvement in asthma symptoms, exacerbations and side effects of ciclesonide versus budesonide and fluticasone could be neither demonstrated nor refuted and the trade-off between benefits and harms of using ciclesonide instead of budesonide or fluticasone is unclear. The resource use or costs of different ICS should therefore also be considered in final decision making. Longer-term superiority trials are needed to identify the usefulness and safety of ciclesonide compared to other ICS. Additionally these studies should be powered for patient relevant outcomes (exacerbations, asthma symptoms, quality of life and side effects). There is a need for studies comparing ciclesonide once daily with other ICS twice daily to assess the advantages of ciclesonide being a pro-drug that can be administered once daily with possibly increased adherence leading to increased control of asthma and fewer side effects.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Androstadienes; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Budesonide; Child; Child, Preschool; Fluticasone; Humans; Pregnenediones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23450613
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010352 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015The therapeutic role of 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) and azathioprine (AZA) remains controversial due to their perceived relatively slow-acting effect and adverse effects. An... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The therapeutic role of 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) and azathioprine (AZA) remains controversial due to their perceived relatively slow-acting effect and adverse effects. An updated meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of these agents for the maintenance of remission in quiescent Crohn's disease.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of AZA and 6-MP for maintenance of remission in quiescent Crohn's disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to June 30, 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials of oral azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine compared to placebo or active therapy involving adult patients (> 18 years) with quiescent Crohn's disease were considered for inclusion. Patients with surgically-induced remission were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary outcomes was maintenance of remission. Secondary outcomes included steroid sparing, adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events. All data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary outcome and selected secondary outcomes was assessed using the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
Eleven studies (881 participants) were included. Comparisons included AZA versus placebo (7 studies, 532 participants), AZA or 6-MP versus mesalazine or sulfasalazine (2 studies, 166 participants), AZA versus budesonide (1 study, 77 participants), AZA and infliximab versus infliximab (1 study, 36 patients), 6-MP versus methotrexate (1 study, 31 patients), and early AZA versus conventional management (1 study, 147 participants). Two studies were rated as low risk of bias. Three studies were rated as high risk of bias for being non-blinded. Six studies were rated as unclear risk of bias. A pooled analysis of six studies (489 participants) showed that AZA (1.0 to 2.5 mg/kg/day) was significantly superior to placebo for maintenance of remission over a 6 to 18 month period. Seventy-three per cent of patients in the AZA group maintained remission compared to 62% of placebo patients (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.34). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome was nine. A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to sparse data (327 events) and unclear risk of bias. A pooled analysis of two studies (166 participants) showed no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who maintained remission between AZA (1.0 to 2.5 mg/kg/day) or 6-MP (1.0 mg/day) and mesalazine (3 g/day) sulphasalazine (0.5 g/15 kg) therapy. Sixty-nine per cent of patients in the AZA/6-MP group maintained remission compared to 67% of mesalazine/sulphasalazine patients (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.34). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to sparse data (113 events) and high or unclear risk of bias. One small study found AZA (2.0 to 2.5 mg/kg/day) to be superior to budesonide (6 to 9 mg/day) for maintenance of remission at one year. Seventy-six per cent (29/38) of AZA patients maintained remission compared to 46% (18/39) of budesonide patients (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.42). GRADE indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to sparse data (47 events) and high risk of bias. One small study found no difference in maintenance of remission rates at one year between combination therapy with AZA (2.5 mg/kg) and infliximab (5 mg/kg every 8 weeks) compared to infliximab monotherapy. Eighty-one per cent (13/16) of patients in the combination therapy group maintained remission compared to 80% (16/20) of patients in the infliximab group (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.40). GRADE indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to very sparse data (29 events) and unclear risk of bias. One small study found no difference in maintenance of remission rates at one year between 6-MP (1 mg/day) and methotrexate (10 mg/week). Fifty per cent (8/16) of 6-MP patients maintained remission at one year compared to 53% (8/15) of methotrexate patients (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.85). GRADE indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was very low due to very sparse data (16 events) and high risk of bias. One study (147 participants) failed to show any significant benefit for early azathioprine treatment over a conventional management strategy. In the early azathioprine treatment group 67% (11-85%) of the trimesters were spent in remission compared to 56% (29-73%) in the conventional management group. AZA when compared to placebo had significantly increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.64), withdrawal due to adverse events (3.12, 95% CI 1.59 to 6.09) and serious adverse events (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 4.90). AZA/6-MP also demonstrated a significantly higher risk of serious adverse events when compared to mesalazine or sulphasalazine (RR 9.37, 95% CI 1.84 to 47.7). AZA/6-MP did not differ significantly from other active therapies with respect to adverse event data. Common adverse events included pancreatitis, leukopenia, nausea, allergic reaction and infection.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low quality evidence suggests that AZA is more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. Although AZA may be effective for maintenance of remission its use is limited by adverse effects. Low quality evidence suggests that AZA may be superior to budesonide for maintenance of remission but because of small study size and high risk of bias, this result should be interpreted with caution. No conclusions can be drawn from the other active comparator studies because of low and very low quality evidence. Adequately powered trials are needed to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of AZA and 6-MP compared to other active maintenance therapies. Further research is needed to assess the efficacy and safety of the use of AZA with infliximab and other biologics and to determine the optimal management strategy for patients quiescent Crohn's disease.
Topics: Azathioprine; Crohn Disease; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Mercaptopurine; Prodrugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26517527
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000067.pub3 -
Drug Metabolism and Disposition: the... Jan 2017As a follow up to previous reviews, the aim of the present analysis was to systematically examine all drug metabolism, transport, pharmacokinetics (PK), and drug-drug... (Review)
Review
As a follow up to previous reviews, the aim of the present analysis was to systematically examine all drug metabolism, transport, pharmacokinetics (PK), and drug-drug interaction (DDI) data available in the 33 new drug applications (NDAs) approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2015, using the University of Washington Drug Interaction Database, and to highlight the significant findings. In vitro, a majority of the new molecular entities (NMEs) were found to be substrates or inhibitors/inducers of at least one drug metabolizing enzyme or transporter. In vivo, 95 clinical DDI studies displayed positive PK interactions, with an area under the curve (AUC) ratio ≥ 1.25 for inhibition or ≤ 0.8 for induction. When NMEs were considered as victim drugs, 21 NMEs had at least one positive clinical DDI, with three NMEs shown to be sensitive substrates of CYP3A (AUC ratio ≥ 5 when coadministered with strong inhibitors): cobimetinib, isavuconazole (the active metabolite of prodrug isavuconazonium sulfate), and ivabradine. As perpetrators, nine NMEs showed positive inhibition and three NMEs showed positive induction, with some of these interactions involving both enzymes and transporters. The most significant changes for inhibition and induction were observed with rolapitant, a moderate inhibitor of CYP2D6 and lumacaftor, a strong inducer of CYP3A. Physiologically based pharmacokinetics simulations and pharmacogenetics studies were used for six and eight NMEs, respectively, to inform dosing recommendations. The effects of hepatic or renal impairment on the drugs' PK were also evaluated to support drug administration in these specific populations.
Topics: Cytochrome P-450 Enzyme System; Databases, Factual; Drug Approval; Drug Interactions; Drugs, Investigational; Humans; Models, Biological; Pharmacogenetics; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 27821435
DOI: 10.1124/dmd.116.073411 -
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... Jul 2021Ketoprofen (K) was synthesized in 1968. K belongs to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and has analgesic, anti-inflammatory and antipyretic properties. K is...
INTRODUCTION
Ketoprofen (K) was synthesized in 1968. K belongs to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and has analgesic, anti-inflammatory and antipyretic properties. K is commonly used due to rapid absorption, simple metabolism, high antinociceptive activity and fast blood brain barrier crossing. However, this substance causes various side effects which are the major factors affecting its' popularity. Many researchers have modified this drug to discover an improved and safe NSAID.
AIM
The aim of the review was to find in recent publications data bout future prospects of K of improved safety for the gastric mucosa after oral administration.
METHOD
Systematic literature review was conducted in March 2021 (2015 onwards). We selected 22 articles from PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline Complete databases.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Many studies aimed at obtaining K with lower ulcerogenic properties. This article describes K with lysine, new K delivery systems, K in form of hydrogels, prodrugs and codrugs of K, K as ATB-352, K with zinc, K encapsulated as proliposomal powders and several substances that reduce the gastric side effects of K described after 2015.
CONCLUSION
Our review confirms that modifications of K maintain its' desirable actions and decrease ulcer producing side effect. Some new forms of K were also found to have better activity profile compared to the parent drug.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Gastric Mucosa; Humans; Ketoprofen; Stomach Ulcer
PubMed: 33932737
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2021.111608 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2012During epidemics, influenza attack rates in children may exceed 40%. Options for prevention and treatment currently include the neuraminidase inhibitors zanamivir and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
During epidemics, influenza attack rates in children may exceed 40%. Options for prevention and treatment currently include the neuraminidase inhibitors zanamivir and oseltamivir. Laninamivir octanoate, the prodrug of laninamivir, is currently being developed.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of neuraminidase inhibitors in the treatment and prevention of influenza in children.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1) which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to January week 2, 2011) and EMBASE (January 2010 to January 2011).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Double-blind, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing neuraminidase inhibitors with placebo or other antiviral drugs in children aged up to and including 12 years. We also included safety and tolerability data from other types of studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Four review authors selected studies, assessed study quality and extracted data for the current and previous versions of this review. We analysed data separately for oseltamivir versus placebo, zanamivir versus placebo and laninamivir octanoate versus oseltamivir.
MAIN RESULTS
Six treatment trials involving 1906 children with clinical influenza and 450 children with influenza diagnosed on rapid near-patient influenza testing were included. Of these 2356 children, 1255 had laboratory-confirmed influenza. Three prophylaxis trials involving 863 children exposed to influenza were also included. In children with laboratory-confirmed influenza oseltamivir reduced median duration of illness by 36 hours (26%, P < 0.001). One trial of oseltamivir in children with asthma who had laboratory-confirmed influenza showed only a small reduction in illness duration (10.4 hours, 8%), which was not statistically significant (P = 0.542). Laninamivir octanoate 20 mg reduced symptom duration by 2.8 days (60%, P < 0.001) in children with oseltamivir-resistant influenza A/H1N1. Zanamivir reduced median duration of illness by 1.3 days (24%, P < 0.001). Oseltamivir significantly reduced acute otitis media in children aged one to five years with laboratory-confirmed influenza (risk difference (RD) -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.24 to -0.04). Prophylaxis with either zanamivir or oseltamivir was associated with an 8% absolute reduction in developing influenza after the introduction of a case into a household (RD -0.08, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.05, P < 0.001). The adverse event profile of zanamivir was no worse than placebo but vomiting was more commonly associated with oseltamivir (number needed to harm = 17, 95% CI 10 to 34). The adverse event profiles of laninamivir octanoate and oseltamivir were similar.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Oseltamivir and zanamivir appear to have modest benefit in reducing duration of illness in children with influenza. However, our analysis was limited by small sample sizes and an inability to pool data from different studies. Oseltamivir reduces the incidence of acute otitis media in children aged one to five years but is associated with a significantly increased risk of vomiting. One study demonstrated that laninamivir octanoate was more effective than oseltamivir in shortening duration of illness in children with oseltamivir-resistant influenza A/H1N1. The benefit of oseltamivir and zanamivir in preventing the transmission of influenza in households is modest and based on weak evidence. However, the clinical efficacy of neuraminidase inhibitors in 'at risk' children is still uncertain. Larger high-quality trials are needed with sufficient power to determine the efficacy of neuraminidase inhibitors in preventing serious complications of influenza (such as pneumonia or hospital admission), particularly in 'at risk' groups.
Topics: Acetamides; Antiviral Agents; Child; Enzyme Inhibitors; Guanidines; Humans; Influenza, Human; Neuraminidase; Oseltamivir; Pyrans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sialic Acids; Zanamivir
PubMed: 22258949
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002744.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Early intervention for those with high cardiovascular risk is crucial in improving... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Early intervention for those with high cardiovascular risk is crucial in improving patient outcomes. Traditional prevention strategies for CVD have focused on conventional risk factors, such as overweight, dyslipidaemia, diabetes, and hypertension, which may reflect the potential for cardiovascular insult. Natriuretic peptides (NPs), including B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), are well-established biomarkers for the detection and diagnostic evaluation of heart failure. They are of interest for CVD prevention because they are secreted by the heart as a protective response to cardiovascular stress, strain, and damage. Therefore, measuring NP levels in patients without heart failure may be valuable for risk stratification, to identify those at highest risk of CVD who would benefit most from intensive risk reduction measures.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of natriuretic peptide (NP)-guided treatment for people with cardiovascular risk factors and without heart failure.
SEARCH METHODS
Searches of the following bibliographic databases were conducted up to 9 July 2019: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. Three clinical trial registries were also searched in July 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials enrolling adults with one or more cardiovascular risk factors and without heart failure, which compared NP-based screening and subsequent NP-guided treatment versus standard care in all settings (i.e. community, hospital).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous data. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing data and to verify crucial study characteristics. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, two review authors independently assessed the quality of the evidence and GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager to create a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two randomised controlled trials (three reports) with 1674 participants, with mean age between 64.1 and 67.8 years. Follow-up ranged from 2 years to mean 4.3 years.For primary outcome measures, effect estimates from a single study showed uncertainty for the effect of NP-guided treatment on cardiovascular mortality in patients with cardiovascular risk factors and without heart failure (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.17; 1 study; 300 participants; low-quality evidence). Pooled analysis demonstrated that in comparison to standard care, NP-guided treatment probably reduces the risk of cardiovascular hospitalisation (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.68; 2 studies; 1674 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This corresponds to a risk of 163 per 1000 in the control group and 85 (95% CI 65 to 111) per 1000 in the NP-guided treatment group.When secondary outcome measures were evaluated, evidence from a pooled analysis showed uncertainty for the effect of NP-guided treatment on all-cause mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.35; 2 studies; 1354 participants; low-quality evidence). Pooled analysis indicates that NP-guided treatment probably reduces the risk of all-cause hospitalisation (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.92; 2 studies; 1354 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This corresponds to a risk of 601 per 1000 in the control group and 499 (95% CI 457 to 553) per 1000 in the NP-guided treatment group. The effect estimate from a single study indicates that NP-guided treatment reduced the risk of ventricular dysfunction (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.91; 1374 participants; high-quality evidence). The risk in this study's control group was 87 per 1000, compared with 53 (95% CI 36 to 79) per 1000 with NP-guided treatment. Results from the same study show that NP-guided treatment does not affect change in NP level at the end of follow-up, relative to standard care (MD -4.06 pg/mL, 95% CI -15.07 to 6.95; 1 study; 1374 participants; moderate-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review shows that NP-guided treatment is likely to reduce ventricular dysfunction and cardiovascular and all-cause hospitalisation for patients who have cardiovascular risk factors and who do not have heart failure. Effects on mortality and natriuretic peptide levels are less certain. Neither of the included studies were powered to evaluate mortality. Available evidence shows uncertainty regarding the effects of NP-guided treatment on both cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality; very low event numbers resulted in a high degree of imprecision in these effect estimates. Evidence also shows that NP-guided treatment may not affect NP level at the end of follow-up.As both trials included in our review were pragmatic studies, non-blinding of patients and practices may have biased results towards a finding of equivalence. Further studies with more adequately powered sample sizes and longer duration of follow-up are required to evaluate the effect of NP-guided treatment on mortality. As two trials are ongoing, one of which is a large multi-centre trial, it is hoped that future iterations of this review will benefit from larger sample sizes across a wider geographical area.
PubMed: 31613983
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013015.pub2